Initial commit

author: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-06 18:28:54 -0800
committer: nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> 2025-02-06 18:28:54 -0800
commit: dbd2c9030fe8e6a2e7a9fd01ed2680f192434132 (patch)
tree: 00d70ebddcc4f34a82bce40292173fbc8142ce3d
5 files changed, 35264 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/53679-8.txt b/53679-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..303d5f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/53679-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,15539 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Philosophical Letters: or, modest
+Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy, by Margaret Cavendish
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
+other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
+whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
+the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
+www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
+to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
+
+Title: Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy
+
+Author: Margaret Cavendish
+
+Release Date: December 6, 2016 [EBook #53679]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHICAL LETTERS: OR ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Clare Graham and Marc D'Hooghe at Free
+Literature (online soon in an extended version, also linking
+to free sources for education worldwide ... MOOC's,
+educational materials,...) Images generously made available
+by the Internet Archive.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Philosophical Letters:
+
+OR,
+
+MODEST REFLECTIONS
+Upon some Opinions in
+_NATURAL PHILOSOPHY_,
+MAINTAINED
+By several Famous and Learned Authors of this Age,
+Expressed by way of LETTERS:
+
+By the Thrice Noble, Illustrious, and Excellent Princess,
+The Lady MARCHIONESS of _NEWCASTLE_.
+
+_LONDON_, Printed in the Year, 1664.
+
+
+
+
+TO HER EXCELLENCY
+The Lady Marchioness of NEWCASTLE
+On her Book of Philosophical Letters.
+
+
+  _'Tis Supernatural, nay 'tis Divine,
+  To write whole Volumes ere I can a line.
+  I 'mplor'd the Lady Muses, those fine things,
+  But they have broken all their Fidle-strings
+  And cannot help me; Nay, then I did try
+  Their_ Helicon, _but that is grown all dry:_
+  _Then on_ Parnassus _I did make a sallie,
+  But that's laid level, like a Bowling-alley;
+  Invok'd my Muse, found it a Pond, a Dream,
+  To your eternal Spring, and running Stream;
+  So clear and fresh, with Wit and Phansie store,
+  As then despair did bid me write no more._
+
+                              W. Newcastle.
+
+
+
+
+TO HIS EXCELLENCY
+The Lord Marquis of NEWCASTLE.
+
+
+My Noble Lord,
+
+Although you have, always encouraged me in my harmless pastime of
+Writing, yet was I afraid that your Lordship would be angry with
+me for Writing and Publishing this Book, by reason it is a Book
+of Controversies, of which I have heard your Lordship say, That
+Controversies and Disputations make Enemies of Friends, and that such
+Disputations and Controversies as these, are a pedantical kind of
+quarrelling, not becoming Noble Persons. But your Lordship will be
+pleased to consider in my behalf, that it is impossible for one Person
+to be of every one's Opinion, if their opinions be different, and that
+my Opinions in Philosophy, being new, and never thought of, at least
+not divulged by any, but my self, are quite different from others: For
+the Ground of my Opinions is, that there is not onely a Sensitive, but
+also a Rational Life and Knowledge, and so a double Perception in all
+Creatures: And thus my opinions being new, are not so easily understood
+as those, that take up several pieces of old opinions, of which
+they patch up a new Philosophy, (if new may be made of old things,)
+like a Suit made up of old Stuff bought at the Brokers: Wherefore to
+find out a Truth, at least a Probability in Natural Philosophy by a
+new and different way from other Writers, and to make this way more
+known, easie and intelligible, I was in a manner forced to write this
+Book; for I have not contradicted those Authors in any thing, but
+what concerns and is opposite to my opinions; neither do I anything,
+but what they have done themselves, as being common amongst them to
+contradict each other: which may as well be allowable, as for Lawyers
+to plead at the Barr in opposite Causes. For as Lawyers are not Enemies
+to each other, but great Friends, all agreeing from the Barr, although
+not at the Barr: so it is with Philosophers, who make their Opinions
+as their Clients, not for Wealth, but for Fame, and therefore have no
+reason to become Enemies to each other, by being Industrious in their
+Profession. All which considered, was the cause of Publishing this
+Book; wherein although I dissent from their opinions, yet doth not this
+take off the least of the respect and esteem I have of their Merits
+and Works. But if your Lordship do but pardon me, I care not if I be
+condemned by others; for your Favour is more then the World to me, for
+which all the actions of my Life shall be devoted and ready to serve
+you, as becomes,
+
+My Lord,
+
+_Your Lordships_
+
+_honest Wife, and humble Servant_,
+
+M. N.
+
+
+
+
+TO THE MOST FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
+
+
+Most Noble, Ingenious, Learned, and Industrious Students.
+
+_Be not offended, that I dedicate to you this weak and infirm work of
+mine; for though it be not an offering worthy your acceptance, yet it
+is as much as I can present for this time; and I wish from my Soul, I
+might be so happy as to have some means or ways to express my Gratitude
+for your Magnificent favours to me, having done me more honour then
+ever I could expect, or give sufficient thanks for: But your Generosity
+is above all Gratitude, and your Favours above all Merit, like as your
+Learning is above Contradiction: And I pray God your University may
+flourish to the end of the World, for the Service of the Church, the
+Truth of Religion, the Salvation of Souls, the instruction of Youth,
+the preservation of Health, and prolonging of Life, and for the
+increase of profitable Arts and Sciences: so as your several studies
+may be, like several Magistrates, united for the good and benefit of
+the whole Common-wealth, nay, the whole World. May Heaven prosper you,
+the World magnifie you, and Eternity record your same; Which are the
+hearty wishes and prayers of,_
+
+Your most obliged Servant
+
+_M. NEWCASTLE._
+
+
+
+
+A PREFACE TO THE READER.
+
+
+_Worthy Readers_,
+
+I did not write this Book out of delight, love or humour to
+contradiction; for I would rather praise, then contradict any Person
+or Persons that are ingenious; but by reason Opinion is free, and may
+pass without a pass-port, I took the liberty to declare my own opinions
+as other Philosophers do, and to that purpose I have here set down
+several famous and learned Authors opinions, and my answers to them in
+the form of Letters, which was the easiest way for me to write; and by
+so doing, I have done that, which I would have done unto me; for I am
+as willing to have my opinions contradicted, as I do contradict others:
+for I love Reason so well, that whosoever can bring most rational
+and probable arguments, shall have my vote, although against my own
+opinion. But you may say, If contradictions were frequent, there would
+be no agreement amongst Mankind. I answer; it is very true: Wherefore
+Contradictions are better in general Books, then in particular
+Families, and in Schools better then in Publick States, and better in
+Philosophy then in Divinity. All which considered, I shun, as much as I
+can, not to discourse or write of either Church or State. But I desire
+so much favour, or rather Justice of you, _Worthy Readers_, as not to
+interpret my objections or answers any other ways then against several
+opinions in Philosophy; for I am confident there is not any body, that
+doth esteem, respect and honour learned and ingenious Persons more then
+I do: Wherefore judg me neither to be of a contradicting humor, nor of
+a vain-glorious mind for differing from other mens opinions, but rather
+that it is done out of love to Truth, and to make my own opinions the
+more intelligible, which cannot better be done then by arguing and
+comparing other mens opinions with them. The Authors whose opinions I
+mention, I have read, as I found them printed, in my native Language,
+except _Des Cartes_, who being in Latine, I had some few places
+translated to me out of his works; and I must confess, that since
+I have read the works of these learned men, I understand the names
+and terms of Art a little better then I did before; but it is not so
+much as to make me a Scholar, nor yet so little, but that, had I read
+more before I did begin to write my other Book called _Philosophical
+Opinions_, they would have been more intelligible; for my error was,
+I began to write so early, that I had not liv'd so long as to be
+able to read many Authors; I cannot say, I divulged my opinions as
+soon as I had conceiv'd them, but yet I divulged them too soon to
+have them artificial and methodical. But since what is past, cannot
+be recalled, I must desire you to excuse those faults, which were
+committed for want of experience and learning. As for School-learning,
+had I applied my self to it, yet I am confident I should never have
+arrived to any; for I am so uncapable of Learning, that I could never
+attain to the knowledge of any other Language but my native, especially
+by the Rules of Art: wherefore I do not repent that I spent not my
+time in Learning, for I consider, it is better to write wittily then
+learnedly; nevertheless, I love and esteem Learning, although I am
+not capable of it. But you may say, I have expressed neither Wit nor
+Learning in my Writings: Truly, if not, I am the more sorry for it; but
+self-conceit, which is natural to mankind, especially to our Sex, did
+flatter and secretly perswade me that my Writings had Sense and Reason,
+Wit and Variety; but Judgment being not called to Counsel, I yielded
+to Self-conceits flattery, and so put out my Writings to be Printed as
+fast as I could, without being reviewed or Corrected: Neither did I
+fear any censure, for Self-conceit had perswaded me, I should be highly
+applauded; wherefore I made such haste, that I had three or four Books
+printed presently after each other.
+
+But to return to this present Work, I must desire you, _worthy
+Readers_, to read first my Book called _Philosophical and Physical
+Opinions_, before you censure this, for this Book is but an explanation
+of the former, wherein is contained the Ground of my Opinions, and
+those that will judge well of a Building, must first consider
+the Foundation; to which purpose I will repeat some few Heads and
+Principles of my Opinions, which are these following: First, That
+Nature is Infinite, and the Eternal Servant of God: Next, That she is
+Corporeal, and partly self-moving, dividable and composable; that all
+and every particular Creature, as also all perception and variety in
+Nature, is made by corporeal self-motion, which I name sensitive and
+rational matter, which is life and knowledg, sense and reason. Again,
+That these sensitive and rational parts of matter are the purest
+and subtilest parts of Nature, as the active parts, the knowing,
+understanding and prudent parts, the designing, architectonical and
+working parts, nay, the Life and Soul of Nature, and that there is
+not any Creature or part of nature without this Life and Soul; and
+that not onely Animals, but also Vegetables, Minerals and Elements,
+and what more is in Nature, are endued with this Life and Soul, Sense
+and Reason: and because this Life and Soul is a corporeal Substance,
+it is both dividable and composable; for it divides and removes parts
+from parts, as also composes and joyns parts to parts, and works in a
+perpetual motion without rest; by which actions not any Creature can
+challenge a particular Life and Soul to it self, but every Creature may
+have by the dividing and composing nature of this self-moving matter
+more or fewer natural souls and lives.
+
+These and the like actions of corporeal Nature or natural Matter
+you may find more at large described in my afore-mentioned Book of
+_Philosophical Opinions_, and more clearly repeated and explained in
+this present. 'Tis true, the way of arguing I use, is common, but the
+Principles, Heads and Grounds of my Opinions are my own, not borrowed
+or stolen in the least from any; and the first time I divulged them,
+was in the year 1653: since which time I have reviewed, reformed and
+reprinted them twice; for at first, as my Conceptions were new and my
+own, so my Judgment was young, and my Experience little, so that I had
+not so much knowledge as to declare them artificially and methodically;
+for as I mentioned before, I was always unapt to learn by the Rules of
+Art. But although they may be defective for want of Terms of Art, and
+artificial expressions, yet I am sure they are not defective for want
+of Sense and Reason: And if any one can bring more Sense and Reason to
+disprove these my opinions, I shall not repine or grieve, but either
+acknowledge my error, if I find my self in any, or defend them as
+rationally as I can, if it be but done justly and honestly, without
+deceit, spight, or malice; for I cannot chuse but acquaint you, _Noble
+Readers_, I have been informed, that if I should be answered in my
+Writings, it would be done rather under the name and cover of a Woman,
+then of a Man, the reason is, because no man dare or will set his name
+to the contradiction of a Lady; and to confirm you the better herein,
+there has one Chapter of my Book called _The Worlds Olio_, treating of
+a Monastical Life, been answer'd already in a little Pamphlet, under
+the name of a woman, although she did little towards it; wherefore it
+being a Hermaphroditical Book, I judged it not worthy taking notice of.
+The like shall I do to any other that will answer this present work of
+mine, or contradict my opinions indirectly with fraud and deceit. But
+I cannot conceive why it should be a disgrace to any man to maintain
+his own or others opinions against a woman, so it be done with respect
+and civility; but to become a cheat by dissembling, and quit the
+Breeches for a Petticoat, meerly out of spight and malice, is base, and
+not fit for the honour of a man, or the masculine sex. Besides, it will
+easily be known; for a Philosopher or Philosopheress is not produced on
+a sudden. Wherefore, although I do not care, nor fear contradiction,
+yet I desire it may be done without fraud or deceit, spight and malice;
+and then I shall be ready to defend my opinions the best I can, whilest
+I live, and after I am dead, I hope those that are just and honorable
+will also defend me from all sophistry, malice, spight and envy, for
+which Heaven will bless them. In the mean time, _Worthy Readers_, I
+should rejoyce to see that my Works are acceptable to you, for if you
+be not partial, you will easily pardon those faults you find, when you
+do consider both my sex and breeding; for which favour and justice, I
+shall always remain,
+
+_Your most obliged Servant,_
+
+M. N.
+
+
+
+
+Philosophical Letters.
+
+Sect. I.
+
+I.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You have been pleased to send me the Works of four Famous and Learned
+Authors, to wit, of two most Famous Philosophers of our Age, _Des
+Cartes_, and _Hobbs_, and of that Learned Philosopher and Divine Dr.
+_More_, as also of that Famous Physician and Chymist _Van Helmont_.
+Which Works you have sent me not onely to peruse, but also to give
+my judgment of them, and to send you word by the usual way of our
+Correspondence, which is by Letters, how far, and wherein I do dissent
+from these Famous Authors, their Opinions in _Natural Philosophy_. To
+tell you truly, _Madam_, your Commands did at first much affright me,
+for it did appear, as if you had commanded me to get upon a high Rock,
+and fling my self into the Sea, where neither a Ship, nor a Plank, nor
+any kind of help was near to rescue me, and save my life; but that I
+was forced to sink, by reason I cannot swim: So I having no Learning
+nor Art to assist me in this dangerous undertaking, thought, I must
+of necessity perish under the rough censures of my Readers, and be
+not onely accounted a fool for my labour, but a vain and presumptuous
+person, to undertake things surpassing the ability of my performance;
+but on the other side I considered first, that those Worthy Authors,
+were they my censurers, would not deny me the same liberty they take
+themselves; which is, that I may dissent from their Opinions, as well
+as they dissent from others, and from amongst themselves: And if I
+should express more Vanity then Wit, more Ignorance then Knowledg, more
+Folly then Discretion, it being according to the Nature of our Sex, I
+hoped that my Masculine Readers would civilly excuse me, and my Female
+Readers could not justly condemn me. Next I considered with my self,
+that it would be a great advantage for my Book called _Philosophical
+Opinions_, as to make it more perspicuous and intelligible by the
+opposition of other Opinions, since two opposite things placed near
+each other, are the better discerned; for I must confess, that when
+I did put forth my Philosophical Work at first, I was not so well
+skilled in the Terms or Expressions usual in _Natural Philosophy_; and
+therefore for want of their knowledg, I could not declare my meaning so
+plainly and clearly as I ought to have done, which may be a sufficient
+argument to my Readers, that I have not read heretofore any _Natural
+Philosophers_, and taken some Light from them; but that my Opinions
+did meerly issue from the Fountain of my own Brain, without any other
+help or assistance. Wherefore since for want of proper Expressions,
+my named Book of _Philosophy_ was accused of obscurity and intricacy,
+I thought your Commands would be a means to explain and clear it the
+better, although not by an Artificial way, as by Logical Arguments or
+Mathematical Demonstrations, yet by expressing my Sense and Meaning
+more properly and clearly then I have done heretofore: But the chief
+reason of all was, the Authority of your Command, which did work so
+powerfully with me, that I could not resist, although it were to the
+disgrace of my own judgment and wit; and therefore I am fully resolved
+now to go on as far, and as well as the Natural strength of my Reason
+will reach: But since neither the strength of my Body, nor of my
+understanding, or wit, is able to mark every line, or every word of
+their works, and to argue upon them, I shall onely pick out the ground
+Opinions of the aforementioned Authors, and those which do directly
+dissent from mine, upon which I intend to make some few Reflections,
+according to the ability of my Reason; and I shall meerly go upon the
+bare Ground of _Natural Philosophy_, and not mix Divinity with it,
+as many Philosophers use to do, except it be in those places, where
+I am forced by the Authors Arguments to reflect upon it, which yet
+shall be rather with an expression of my ignorance, then a positive
+declaration of my opinion or judgment thereof; for I think it not onely
+an absurdity, but an injury to the holy Profession of Divinity to draw
+her to the Proofs in _Natural Philosophy_; wherefore I shall strictly
+follow the Guidance of _Natural Reason_, and keep to my own ground and
+Principles as much as I can; which that I may perform the better, I
+humbly desire the help and assistance of your Favour, that according to
+that real and intire Affection you bear to me, you would be pleased to
+tell me unfeignedly, if I should chance to err or contradict but the
+least probability of truth in any thing; for I honor Truth so much, as
+I bow down to its shadow with the greatest respect and reverence; and I
+esteem those persons most, that love and honor Truth with the same zeal
+and fervor, whether they be Ancient or Modern Writers.
+
+Thus, _Madam_, although I am destitute of the help of Arts, yet being
+supported by your Favour and wise Directions, I shall not fear any
+smiles of scorn, or words of reproach; for I am confident you will
+defend me against all the mischievous and poisonous Teeth of malicious
+detractors. I shall besides, implore the assistance of the Sacred
+Church, and the Learned Schools, to take me into their Protection, and
+shelter my weak endeavours: For though I am but an ignorant and simple
+Woman, yet I am their devoted and honest Servant, who shall never quit
+the respect and honor due to them, but live and die theirs, as also,
+
+MADAM,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble and faithful Servant._
+
+M. N.
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Before I begin my Reflections upon the Opinions of those Authors you
+sent me, I will answer first your Objection concerning the Ground of my
+Philosophy, which is Infinite Matter: For you were pleased to mention,
+That you could not well apprehend, how it was possible, that many
+Infinites could be contained in one Infinite, since one Infinite takes
+up all Place Imaginary, leaving no room for any other; Also, if one
+Infinite should be contained in an other Infinite, that which contains,
+must of necessity be bigger then that which is contained, whereby the
+Nater of Infinite would be lost; as having no bigger nor less, but
+being of an Infinite quantity.
+
+First of all, _Madam_, there is no such thing as All in Infinite, nor
+any such thing as All the Place, for Infinite is not circumscribed
+nor limited: Next, as for that one Infinite cannot be in an other
+Infinite, I answer, as well as one Finite can be in another Finite;
+for one Creature is not onely composed of Parts, but one Part lies
+within another, and one Figure within another, and one Motion within
+another. As for example, Animal Kind, have they not Internal and
+External Parts, and so Internal and External Motions? And are not
+Animals, Vegetables and Minerals inclosed in the Elements? But as for
+Infinites, you must know, _Madam_, that there are several kindes of
+Infinites. For there is first Infinite in quantity or bulk, that is
+such a big and great Corporeal substance, which exceeds all bounds
+and limits of measure, and may be called Infinite in Magnitude. Next
+there is Infinite in Number, which exceeds all numeration and account,
+and may be termed Infinite in Multitude; Again there is Infinite in
+Quality; as for example, Infinite degrees of softness, hardness,
+thickness, thinness, heat and cold, &c. also Infinite degrees of
+Motion, and so Infinite Creations, Infinite Compositions, Dissolutions,
+Contractions, Dilations, Digestions, Expulsions; also Infinite degrees
+of Strength, Knowledg, Power, &c. Besides there is Infinite in Time,
+which is properly named Eternal. Now, when I say, that there is but
+one Infinite, and that Infinite is the Onely Matter, I mean infinite
+in bulk and quantity. And this Onely matter, because it is Infinite
+in bulk, must of necessity be divisible into infinite Parts, that is,
+infinite in number, not in bulk or quantity; for though Infinite Parts
+in number make up one infinite in quantity, yet they considered in
+themselves, cannot be said Infinite, because every Part is of a certain
+linked and circumscribed Figure, Quantity and Proportion, whereas
+Infinite hath no limits nor bounds: besides it is against the nature
+of a single Part to be Infinite, or else there would be no difference
+between the Part and the whole, the nature of a Part requiring that it
+must be less then its whole, but all what is less hath a determined
+quantity, and so becomes finite. Therefore it is no absurdity to say,
+that an Infinite may have both Finite and Infinite Parts, Finite in
+Quantity, Infinite in Number. But those that say, if there were an
+Infinite Body, that each of its Parts must of necessity be Infinite
+too, are much mistaken; for it is a contradiction in the same Terms
+to say One Infinite Part, for the very Name of a Part includes a
+Finiteness, but take all parts of an Infinite Body together, then you
+may rightly say they are infinite. Nay Reason will inform you plainly,
+for example: Imagine an Infinite number of grains of Corn in one heap,
+surely if the number of Grains be Infinite, you must grant of necessity
+the bulk or body, which contains this infinite number of grains, to
+be Infinite too; to wit, Infinite in quantity, and yet you will find
+each Grain in it self to be Finite. But you will say, an Infinite
+Body cannot have parts, for if it be Infinite, it must be Infinite in
+Quantity, and therefore of one bulk, and one continued quantity, but
+Infinite parts in number make a discrete quantity. I answer it is all
+one; for a Body of a continued quantity may be divided and severed
+into so many Parts either actually, or mentally in our Conceptions or
+thoughts; besides nature is one continued Body, for there is no such
+_Vacuum_ in Nature, as if her Parts did hang together like a linked
+Chain; nor can any of her Parts subsist single and by it self, but all
+the Parts of Infinite Nature, although they are in one continued Piece,
+yet are they several and discerned from each other by their several
+Figures. And by this, I hope, you will understand my meaning, when I
+say, that several Infinites may be included or comprehended in one
+Infinite; for by the one Infinite, I understand Infinite in Quantity,
+which includes Infinite in Number, that is Infinite Parts; then
+Infinite in Quality, as Infinite degrees of Rarity, Density, Swiftness,
+Slowness, Hardness, Softness, &c. Infinite degrees of Motions, Infinite
+Creations, Dissolutions, Contractions, Dilations, Alterations, &c.
+Infinite degrees of Wisdom, Strength, Power, &c., and lastly Infinite
+in Time or Duration, which is Eternity, for Infinite and Eternal are
+inseparable; All which Infinites are contained in the Onely Matter
+as many Letters are contained in one Word, many Words in one Line,
+many Lines in one Book. But you will say perhaps, if I attribute an
+Infinite Wisdom, Strength, Power, Knowledg, &c. to Nature; then Nature
+is in all coequal with God, for God has the same Attributes: I answer,
+Not at all; for I desire you to understand me rightly, when I speak
+of Infinite Nature, and when I speak of the Infinite Deity, for there
+is great difference between them, for it is one thing a Deitical or
+Divine Infinite, and another a Natural Infinite; You know, that God
+is a Spirit, and not a bodily substance, again that Nature is a Body,
+and not a Spirit, and therefore none of these Infinites can obstruct
+or hinder each other, as being different in their kinds, for a Spirit
+being no Body, requires no place, Place being an attribute which onely
+belongs to a Body, and therefore when I call Nature Infinite, I mean
+an Infinite extension of Body, containing an Infinite number of Parts;
+but what doth an Infinite extension of Body hinder the Infiniteness of
+God, as an Immaterial Spiritual being? Next, when I do attribute an
+Infinite Power, Wisdom, Knowledg, &c. to Nature, I do not understand
+a Divine, but a Natural Infinite Wisdom and Power, that is, such as
+properly belongs to Nature, and not a supernatural, as is in God;
+For Nature having Infinite parts of Infinite degrees, must also have
+an Infinite natural wisdom to order her natural Infinite parts and
+actions, and consequently an Infinite natural power to put her wisdom
+into act; and so of the rest of her attributes, which are all natural:
+But Gods Attributes being supernatural, transcend much these natural
+infinite attributes; for God, being the God of Nature, has not onely
+Natures Infinite Wisdom and Power, but besides, a Supernatural and
+Incomprehensible Infinite Wisdom and Power; which in no wayes do hinder
+each other, but may very well subsist together. Neither doth Gods
+Infinite Justice and his Infinite Mercy hinder each other; for Gods
+Attributes, though they be all several Infinites, yet they make but one
+Infinite.
+
+But you will say, If Nature's Wisdom and Power extends no further then
+to natural things, it is not Infinite, but limited and restrained.
+I answer, That doth not take away the Infiniteness of Nature; for
+there may be several kinds of Infinites, as I related before, and one
+may be as perfect an Infinite as the other in its kind. For example:
+Suppose a Line to be extended infinitely in length, you will call
+this Line Infinite, although it have not an Infinite breadth; Also,
+if an infinite length and breadth joyn together, you will call it, an
+infinite Superficies, although it wants an infinite depth; and yet
+every Infinite, in its kinde, is a Perfect Infinite, if I may call it
+so: Why then shall not Nature also be said to have an Infinite Natural
+Wisdom and Power, although she has not a Divine Wisdom and Power? Can
+we say, Man hath not a free Will, because he hath not an absolute free
+Will, as God hath? Wherefore, a Natural Infinite, and the Infinite
+God, may well stand together, without any opposition or hinderance, or
+without any detracting or derogating from the Omnipotency and Glory
+of God; for God remains still the God of Nature, and is an Infinite
+Immaterial Purity, when as Nature is an Infinite Corporeal Substance;
+and Immaterial and Material cannot obstruct each other. And though an
+Infinite Corporeal cannot make an Infinite Immaterial, yet an Infinite
+Immaterial can make an Infinite Corporeal, by reason there is as much
+difference in the Power as in the Purity: And the disparity between the
+Natural and Divine Infinite is such, as they cannot joyn, mix, and work
+together, unless you do believe that Divine Actions can have allay.
+
+But you may say, Purity belongs onely to natural things, and none but
+natural bodies can be said purified, but God exceeds all Purity. 'Tis
+true: But if there were infinite degrees of Purity in Matter, Matter
+might at last become Immaterial, and so from an Infinite Material turn
+to an Infinite Immaterial, and from Nature to be God: A great, but an
+impossible Change. For I do verily believe, that there can be but one
+Omnipotent God, and he cannot admit of addition, or diminution; and
+that which is Material cannot be Immaterial, and what is Immaterial
+cannot become Material, I mean, so, as to change their natures; for
+Nature is what God was pleased she should be; and will be what she
+was, until God be pleased to make her otherwise. Wherefore there can
+be no new Creation of matter, motion, or figure; nor any annihilation
+of any matter, motion, or figure in Nature, unless God do create
+a new Nature: For the changing of Matter into several particular
+Figures, doth not prove an annihilation of particular Figures; nor
+the cessation of particular Motions an annihilation of them: Neither
+doth the variation of the Onely Matter produce an annihilation of any
+part of Matter, nor the variation of figures and motions of Matter
+cause an alteration in the nature of Onely Matter: Wherefore there
+cannot be new Lives, Souls or Bodies in Nature; for, could there be
+any thing new in Nature, or any thing annihilated, there would not
+be any stability in Nature, as a continuance of every kind and sort
+of Creatures, but there would be a confusion between the new and
+old matter, motions, and figures, as between old and new Nature; In
+truth, it would be like new Wine in old Vessels, by which all would
+break into disorder. Neither can supernatural and natural effects be
+mixt together, no more then material and immaterial things or beings:
+Therefore it is probable, God has ordained Nature to work in her self
+by his Leave, Will, and Free Gift. But there have been, and are still
+strange and erroneous Opinions, and great differences amongst Natural
+Philosophers, concerning the Principles of Natural things; some will
+have them _Atoms_, others will have the first Principles to be _Salt,
+Sulphur_ and _Mercury_; some will have them to be the four Elements,
+as _Fire, Air, Water,_ and _Earth_; and others will have but one of
+these Elements also some will have _Gas_ and _Blas, Ferments, Ideas_
+and the like; but what they believe to be Principles and Causes of
+natural things, are onely Effects; for in all Probability it appears to
+humane sense and reason, that the cause of every particular material
+Creature is the onely and Infinite Matter, which has Motions and
+Figures inseparably united; for Matter, Motion and Figure, are but
+one thing, individable in its Nature. And as for Immaterial Spirits,
+there is surely no such thing in Infinite Nature, to wit, so as to be
+Parts of Nature; for Nature is altogether Material, but this opinion
+proceeds from the separation or abstraction of Motion from Matter,
+_viz._ that man thinks matter and motion to be dividable from each
+other, and believes motion to be a thing by its self, naming it an
+Immaterial thing, which has a being, but not a bodily substance: But
+various and different effects do not prove a different Matter or Cause,
+neither do they prove an unsetled Cause, onely the variety of Effects
+hath obscured the Cause from the several parts, which makes Particular
+Creatures partly Ignorant, and partly knowing. But in my opinion,
+Nature is material, and not any thing in Nature, what belongs to her,
+is immaterial; but whatsoever is Immaterial, is Supernatural, Therefore
+Motions, Forms, Thoughts, Ideas, Conceptions, Sympathies, Antipathies,
+Accidents, Qualities, as also Natural Life, and Soul, are all Material:
+And as for Colours, Sents, Light, Sound, Heat, Cold, and the like,
+those that believe them not to be substances or material things, surely
+their brain or heart (take what place you will for the forming of
+Conceptions) moves very Irregularly, and they might as well say, Our
+sensitive Organs are not material; for what Objects soever, that are
+subject to our senses, cannot in sense be denied to be Corporeal, when
+as those things that are not subject to our senses, can be conceived
+in reason to be Immaterial? But some Philosophers striving to express
+their wit, obstruct reason; and drawing Divinity to prove Sense and
+Reason, weaken Faith so, as their mixed Divine Philosophy becomes meer
+Poetical Fictions, and Romancical expressions, making material Bodies
+immaterial Spirits, and immaterial Spirits material Bodies; and some
+have conceived some things neither to be Material nor Immaterial but
+between both. Truly, _Madam_, I wish their Wits had been less, and
+their Judgments more, as not to jumble Natural and Supernatural things
+together, but to distinguish either clearly, for such Mixtures are
+neither Natural nor Divine; But as I said, the Confusion comes from
+their too nice abstractions, and from the separation of Figure and
+Motion from Matter, as not conceiving them individable; but if God, and
+his servant Nature were as Intricate and Confuse in their Works, as Men
+in their Understandings and Words, the Universe and Production of all
+Creatures would soon be without Order and Government, so as there would
+be a horrid and Eternal War both in Heaven, and in the World, and so
+pittying their troubled Brains, and wishing them the Light of Reason,
+that they may clearly perceive the Truth, I rest
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your real Friend_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+It seems you are offended at my Opinion, that _Nature_ is Eternal
+without beginning, which, you say, is to make her God, or at least
+coequal with God; But, if you apprehend my meaning rightly, you will
+say, I do not: For first, God is an Immaterial and Spiritual Infinite
+Being, which Propriety God cannot give away to any Creature, nor
+make another God in Essence like to him, for Gods Attributes are not
+communicable to any Creature; Yet this doth not hinder, that God
+should not make Infinite and Eternal Matter, for that is as easie to
+him, as to make a Finite Creature, Infinite Matter being quite of
+another Nature then God is, to wit, Corporeal, when God is Incorporeal,
+the difference whereof I have declared in my former Letter. But as for
+_Nature_, that it cannot be Eternal without beginning, because God is
+the Creator and Cause of it, and that the Creator must be before the
+Creature, as the Cause before the Effect, so, that it is impossible
+for _Nature_ to be without a beginning; if you will speak naturally,
+as human reason guides you, and bring an Argument concluding from the
+Priority of the _Cause_ before the _Effect_, give me leave to tell you,
+that God is not tied to Natural Rules, but that he can do beyond our
+Understanding, and therefore he is neither bound up to time, as to be
+before, for if we will do this, we must not allow, that the Eternal Son
+of God is Coeternal with the Father, because nature requires a Father
+to exist before the Son, but in God is no time, but all Eternity;
+and if you allow, that God hath made some Creatures, as Supernatural
+Spirits, to live Eternally, why should he not as well have made a
+Creature from all Eternity? for Gods making is not our making, he needs
+no Priority of Time. But you may say, the Comparison of the Eternal
+Generation of the Son of God is Mystical and Divine, and not to be
+applied to natural things: I answer, The action by which God created
+the World or made Nature, was it natural or supernatural? surely you
+will say it was a Supernatural and God-like action, why then will
+you apply Natural Rules to a God-like and Supernatural Action? for
+what Man knows, how and when God created Nature? You will say, the
+Scripture doth teach us that, for it is not Six thousand years, when
+God created this World, I answer, the holy Scripture informs us onely
+of the Creation of this Visible World, but not of Nature and natural
+Matter; for I firmly believe according to the Word of God, that this
+World has been Created, as is described by _Moses_, but what is that
+to natural Matter? There may have been worlds before, as many are of
+the opinion that there have been men before _Adam_, and many amongst
+Divines do believe, that after the destruction of this World God will
+Create a new World again, as a new Heaven, and a new Earth; and if
+this be probable, or at least may be believed without any prejudice
+to the holy Scripture, why may it not be probably believed that
+there have been other worlds before this visible World? for nothing
+is impossible with God; and all this doth derogate nothing from the
+Honour and Glory of God, but rather increases his Divine Power. But
+as for the Creation of this present World, it is related, that there
+was first a rude and indigested Heap, or Chaos, without form, void
+and dark; and God said, _Let it be light; Let there be a Firmament
+in the midst of the Waters, and let the Waters under the Heaven be
+gathered together, and let the dry Land appear; Let the Earth bring
+forth Grass, the Herb yielding seed, and the Fruit-tree yielding Fruit
+after its own kind; and let there be Lights in the Firmament, the one
+to rule the Day, and the other the Night; and let the Waters bring
+forth abundantly the moving Creature that hath life; and let the Earth
+bring forth living Creatures after its kinde; and at last God said,
+Let us make Man, and all what was made, God saw it was good._ Thus
+all was made by Gods Command, and who executed his Command but the
+Material servant of God, Nature? which ordered her self-moving matter
+into such several Figures as God commanded, and God approved of them.
+And thus, _Madam_, I verily believe the Creation of the World, and that
+God is the Sole and omnipotent Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all
+Creatures therein; nay, although I believe Nature to have been from
+Eternity, yet I believe also that God is the God and Author of Nature,
+and has made Nature and natural Matter in a way and manner proper to
+his Omnipotency and Incomprehensible by us: I will pass by natural
+Arguments and Proofs, as not belonging to such an Omnipotent Action; as
+for example, how the nature of relative terms requires, that they must
+both exist at one point of Time, _viz._ a Master and his Servant, and
+a King and his Subjects; for one bearing relation to the other, can in
+no ways be considered as different from one another in formiliness or
+laterness of Time; but as I said, these being meerly natural things, I
+will nor cannot apply them to Supernatural and Divine Actions; But if
+you ask me, how it is possible that _Nature_, the Effect and Creature
+of God, can be Eternal without beginning? I will desire you to answer
+me first, how a Creature can be Eternal without end, as, for example.
+Supernatural Spirits are, and then I will answer you, how a Creature
+can be Eternal without beginning; For Eternity consists herein, that
+it has neither beginning nor end; and if it be easie for God to make a
+Being without end, it is not difficult for Him to make a Being without
+beginning. One thing more I will add, which is, That if _Nature_ has
+not been made by God from all Eternity, then the Title of God, as
+being a Creator, which is a Title and action, upon which our Faith is
+grounded, (for it is the first Article in our Creed) has been accessory
+to God, as I said, not full Six thousand years ago; but there is not
+any thing accessory to God; he being the Perfection himself. But,
+_Madam_, all what I speak, is under the liberty of Natural Philosophy,
+and by the Light of Reason onely, not of Revelation; and my Reason
+being not infallible; I will not declare my Opinions for an infallible
+Truth: Neither do I think, that they are offensive either to Church or
+State, for I submit to the Laws of One, and believe the Doctrine of the
+Other, so much, that if it were for the advantage of either, I should
+be willing to sacrifice my Life, especially for the Church; yea, had I
+millions of Lives, and every Life was either to suffer torment or to
+live in ease, I would prefer torment for the benefit of the Church;
+and therefore, if I knew that my Opinions should give any offence to
+the Church, I should be ready every minute to alter them: And as much
+as I am bound in all duty to the obedience of the Church, as much am I
+particularly bound to your Ladiship, for your entire love and sincere
+affection towards me, for which I shall live and die,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your most faithful Friend,_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have chosen, in the first place, the Work of that famous Philosopher
+_Hobbs_ called _Leviathan_, wherein I find he sayes,[1] _That the
+cause of sense or sensitive perception is the external body or Object,
+which presses the Organ proper to each Sense_. To which I answer,
+according to the ground of my own _Philosophical Opinions_, That all
+things, and therefore outward objects as well as sensitive organs, have
+both Sense and Reason, yet neither the objects nor the organs are the
+cause of them; for Perception is but the effect of the Sensitive and
+rational Motions, and not the Motions of the Perception; neither doth
+the pressure of parts upon parts make Perception; for although Matter
+by the power of self-motion is as much composeable as divideable,
+and parts do joyn to parts, yet that doth not make perception; nay,
+the several parts, betwixt which the Perception is made, may be at
+such a distance, as not capable to press: As for example, Two men
+may see or hear each other at a distance, and yet there may be other
+bodies between them, that do not move to those perceptions, so that
+no pressure can be made, for all pressures are by some constraint
+and force; wherefore, according to my Opinion, the Sensitive and
+Rational free Motions, do pattern out each others object, as Figure
+and Voice in each others Eye and Ear; for Life and Knowledge, which
+I name Rational and Sensitive Matter, are in every Creature, and in
+all parts of every Creature, and make all perceptions in Nature,
+because they are the self-moving parts of Nature, and according as
+those Corporeal, Rational, and Sensitive Motions move, such or such
+perceptions are made: But these self-moving parts being of different
+degrees (for the Rational matter is purer then the Sensitive) it
+causes a double perception in all Creatures, whereof one is made by
+the Rational corporeal motions, and the other by the Sensitive; and
+though both perceptions are in all the body, and in every part of
+the body of a Creature, yet the sensitive corporeal motions having
+their proper organs, as Work-houses, in which they work some sorts
+of perceptions, those perceptions are most commonly made in those
+organs, and are double again; for the sensitive motions work either
+on the inside or on the out-side of those organs, on the inside in
+Dreams, on the out-side awake; and although both the Rational and the
+Sensitive matter are inseparably joyned and mixed together, yet do they
+not always work together, for oftentimes the Rational works without
+any sensitive paterns, and the sensitive again without any rational
+paterns. But mistake me not, _Madam_, for I do not absolutely confine
+the sensitive perception to the Organs, nor the rational to the Brain,
+but as they are both in the whole body, so they may work in the whole
+body according to their own motions. Neither do I say, that there is
+no other perception in the Eye but sight, in the Ear but hearing, and
+so forth, but the sensitive organs have other perceptions besides
+these; and if the sensitive and rational motions be irregular in those
+parts, between which the perception is made, as for example, in the
+two fore-mentioned men, that see and hear each other, then they both
+neither see nor hear each other perfectly; and if one's motions be
+perfect, but the other's irregular and erroneous, then one sees and
+hears better then the other; or if the Sensitive and Rational motions
+move more regularly and make perfecter paterns in the Eye then in the
+Ear, then they see better then they hear; and if more regularly and
+perfectly in the Ear then in the Eye, they hear better then they see:
+And so it may be said of each man singly, for one man may see the
+other better and more perfectly, then the other may see him; and this
+man may hear the other better and more perfectly, then the other may
+hear him; whereas, if perception were made by pressure, there would
+not be any such mistakes; besides the hard pressure of objects, in my
+opinion, would rather annoy and obscure, then inform. But as soon as
+the object is removed, the Perception of it, made by the sensitive
+motions in the Organs, ceaseth, by reason the sensitive Motions cease
+from paterning, but yet the Rational Motions do not always cease
+so suddenly, because the sensitive corporeal Motions work with the
+Inanimate Matter, and therefore cannot retain particular figures long,
+whereas the Rational Matter doth onely move in its own substance and
+parts of matter, and upon none other, as my Book of Philosophical
+Opinions will inform you better. And thus Perception, in my opinion, is
+not made by Pressure, nor by Species, nor by matter going either from
+the Organ to the Object, or from the Object into the Organ. By this it
+is also manifest, that Understanding comes not from Exterior Objects,
+or from the Exterior sensitive Organs; for as Exterior Objects do not
+make Perception, so they do neither make Understanding, but it is the
+rational matter that doth it, for Understanding may be without exterior
+objects and sensitive organs; And this in short is the opinion of
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Part._ 1. _ch._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+
+_Madam_,
+
+Your Authours opinion is,[1] that _when a thing lies still, unless
+somewhat else stir it, it will lie still for ever; but when a thing is
+in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat else stay
+it; the reason is,_ saith he, _because nothing can change it self_;
+To tell you truly, _Madam_, I am not of his opinion, for if Matter
+moveth it self, as certainly it doth, then the least part of Matter,
+were it so small as to seem Individable, will move it self; 'Tis true,
+it could not desist from motion, as being its nature to move, and no
+thing can change its Nature; for God himself, who hath more power then
+self-moving Matter, cannot change himself from being God; but that
+Motion should proceed from another exterior Body, joyning with, or
+touching that body which it moves, is in my opinion not probable; for
+though Nature is all Corporeal, and her actions are Corporeal Motions,
+yet that doth not prove, that the Motion of particular Creatures or
+Parts is caused by the joining, touching or pressing of parts upon
+parts; for it is not the several parts that make motion, but motion
+makes them; and yet Motion is not the cause of Matter, but Matter is
+the cause of Motion, for Matter might subsist without Motion, but not
+Motion without Matter, onely there could be no perception without
+Motion, nor no Variety, if Matter were not self-moving; but Matter, if
+it were all Inanimate and void of Motion, would lie as a dull, dead
+and senseless heap; But that all Motion comes by joining or pressing
+of other parts, I deny, for if sensitive and rational perceptions,
+which are sensitive and rational motions, in the body, and in the mind,
+were made by the pressure of outward objects, pressing the sensitive
+organs, and so the brain or interior parts of the Body, they would
+cause such dents and holes therein, as to make them sore and patched
+in a short time; Besides, what was represented in this manner, would
+always remain, or at least not so soon be dissolved, and then those
+pressures would make a strange and horrid confusion of Figures, for
+not any figure would be distinct; Wherefore my opinion is, that the
+sensitive and rational Matter doth make or pattern out the figures
+of several Objects, and doth dissolve them in a moment of time; as
+for example, when the eye seeth the object first of a Man, then of a
+Horse, then of another Creature, the sensitive motions in the eye move
+first into the figure of the Man, then straight into the figure of
+the Horse, so that the Mans figure is dissolved and altered into the
+figure of the Horse, and so forth; but if the eye sees many figures at
+once, then so many several figures are made by the sensitive Corporeal
+Motions, and as many by the Rational Motions, which are Sight and
+Memory, at once: But in sleep both the sensitive and rational Motions
+make the figures without patterns, that is, exterior objects, which
+is the cause that they are often erroneous, whereas, if it were the
+former Impression of the Objects, there could not possibly be imperfect
+Dreams or Remembrances, for fading of Figures requires as much motion,
+as impression, and impression and fading are very different and
+opposite motions; nay, if Perception was made by Impression, there
+could not possibly be a fading or decay of the figures printed either
+in the Mind or Body, whereas yet, as there is alteration of Motions in
+self-moving Matter, so there is also an alteration of figures made by
+these motions. But you will say, it doth not follow, if Perception be
+made by Impression, that it must needs continue and not decay; for if
+you touch and move a string, the motion doth not continue for ever, but
+ceaseth by degrees; I answer, There is great difference between Prime
+self-motion, and forced or Artificial Motions; for Artificial Motions
+are onely an Imitation of Natural Motions, and not the same, but caused
+by Natural Motions; for although there is no Art that is not made by
+Nature, yet Nature is not made by Art; Wherefore we cannot rationally
+judg of Perception by comparing it to the motion of a string, and its
+alteration to the ceasing of that motion, for Nature moveth not by
+force, but freely. 'Tis true, 'tis the freedom in Nature for one man
+to give another a box on the Ear, or to trip up his heels, or for one
+or more men to fight with each other; yet these actions are not like
+the actions of loving Imbraces and Kissing each other; neither are
+the actions one and the same, when a man strikes himself, and when
+he strikes another; and so is likewise the action of impression, and
+the action of self-figuring not one and the same, but different; for
+the action of impression is forced, and the action of self-figuring
+is free; Wherefore the comparison of the forced motions of a string,
+rope, watch, or the like, can have no place here; for though the rope,
+made of flax or hemp, may have the perception of a Vegetable, yet not
+of the hand, or the like, that touched or struck it; and although the
+hand doth occasion the rope to move in such a manner, yet it is not
+the motion of the hand, by which it moveth, and when it ceases, its
+natural and inherent power to move is not lessened; like as a man,
+that hath left off carving or painting, hath no less skill then he
+had before, neither is that skill lost when he plays upon the Lute or
+Virginals, or plows, plants, and the like, but he hath onely altered
+his action, as from carving to painting, or from painting to playing,
+and so to plowing and planting, which is not through disability but
+choice. But you will say, it is nevertheless a cessation of such a
+motion. I grant it: but the ceasing of such a motion is not the ceasing
+of self-moving matter from all motions, neither is cessation as much as
+annihilation, for the motion lies in the power of the matter to repeat
+it, as oft it will, if it be not overpowred, for more parts, or more
+strength, or more motions may over-power the less; Wherefore forced,
+or artificial and free Natural motions are different in their effects,
+although they have but one Cause, which is the self-moving matter, and
+though Matter is but active and passive, yet there is great Variety,
+and so great difference in force and liberty, objects and perceptions,
+sense and reason, and the like. But to conclude, perception is not
+made by the pressure of objects, no more then hemp is made by the
+Rope-maker, or metal by the Bell-founder or Ringer, and yet neither
+the rope nor the metal is without sense and reason, but the natural
+motions of the metal, and the artificial motions of the Ringer are
+different; wherefore a natural effect in truth cannot be produced from
+an artificial cause, neither can the ceasing of particular forced or
+artificial motions be a proof for the ceasing of general, natural, free
+motions, as that matter it self should cease to move; for there is no
+such thing as rest in Nature, but there is an alteration of motions and
+figures in self-moving matter, which alteration causeth variety as well
+in opinions, as in every thing else; Wherefore in my opinion, though
+sense alters, yet it doth not decay, for the rational and sensitive
+part of matter is as lasting as matter it self, but that which is
+named decay of sense, is onely the alteration of motions, and not an
+obscurity of motions, like, as the motions of memory and forgetfulness,
+and the repetition of the same motions is called remembrance. And thus
+much of this subject for the present, to which I add no more but rest
+
+Madam,
+
+_your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, Part._ 1. _c._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your Authour discoursing of Imagination, saith,[1] _That as soon as any
+object is removed from our Eyes, though the Impression that is made
+in us remain, yet other objects more present succeeding and working
+on us, the Imagination of the past is obscured and made weak_. To
+which I answer, first, that he conceives Sense and Imagination to be
+all one, for he says, _Imagination is nothing else, but a fading or
+decaying sense_; whereas in my opinion they are different, not onely
+their matter, but their motions also being distinct and different; for
+Imagination is a rational perception, and Sense a sensitive perception;
+wherefore as much as the rational matter differs from the sensitive, as
+much doth Imagination differ from Sense. Next I say, that Impressions
+do not remain in the body of sensitive matter, but it is in its power
+to make or repeat the like figures; Neither is Imagination less, when
+the object is absent, then when present, but the figure patterned out
+in the sensitive organs, being altered, and remaining onely in the
+Rational part of matter, is not so perspicuous and clear, as when it
+was both in the Sense and in the Mind: And to prove that Imagination of
+things past doth not grow weaker by distance of time, as your Authour
+says, many a man in his old age, will have as perfect an Imagination
+of what is past in his younger years, as if he saw it present. And as
+for your Authours opinion, that _Imagination and Memory are one and the
+same_, I grant, that they are made of one kind of Matter; but although
+the Matter is one and the same, yet several motions in the several
+parts make Imagination and Memory several things: As for Example, a
+Man may Imagine that which never came into his Senses, wherefore
+Imagination is not one and the same thing with Memory. But your Authour
+seems to make all Sense, as it were, one Motion, but not all Motion
+Sense, whereas surely there is no Motion, but is either Sensitive or
+Rational; for Reason is but a pure and refined Sense, and Sense a
+grosser Reason. Yet all sensitive and rational Motions are not one and
+the same; for forced or Artificial Motions, though they proceed from
+sensitive matter, yet are they so different from the free and Prime
+Natural Motions, that they seem, as it were, quite of another nature:
+And this distinction neglected is the Cause, that many make Appetites
+and Passions, Perceptions and Objects, and the like, as one, without
+any or but little difference. But having discoursed of the difference
+of these Motions in my former Letter, I will not be tedious to you with
+repeating it again, but remain,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, part._ 1. _c._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your Authours opinion, concerning Dreams,[1] seemeth to me in some part
+very rational and probable, in some part not; For when he sayes, that
+_Dreams are onely Imaginations of them that sleep, which imaginations
+have been before either totally or by parcels in the Sense; and that
+the organs of Sense, as the Brain and the Nerves, being benumb'd
+in sleep, as not easily to be moved by external objects, those
+Imaginations proceed onely from the agitation of the inward parts of
+mans body, which for the connexion they have with the Brain, and other
+organs, when they be distemper'd, do keep the same in motion, whereby
+the Imaginations there formerly made, appear as if a man were waking_;
+This seems to my Reason not very probable: For, first, Dreams are not
+absolutely Imaginations, except we do call all Motions and Actions
+of the Sensitive and Rational Matter, Imaginations. Neither is it
+necessary, that all Imaginations must have been before either totally
+or by parcels in the Sense; neither is there any benumbing of the
+organs of Sense in sleep. But Dreams, according to my opinion, are made
+by the Sensitive and Rational Corporeal Motions, by figuring several
+objects, as awake; onely the difference is, that the Sensitive motions
+in Dreams work by rote and on the inside of the Sensitive organs, when
+as awake they work according to the patterns of outward objects, and
+exteriously or on the outside of the sensitive Organs, so that sleep
+or dreams are nothing else but an alteration of motions, from moving
+exteriously to move interiously, and from working after a Pattern to
+work by rote: I do not say that the body is without all exterior
+motions, when asleep, as breathing and beating of the Pulse (although
+these motions are rather interior then exterior,) but that onely the
+sensitive organs are outwardly shut, so as not to receive the patterns
+of outward Objects, nevertheless the sensitive Motions do not cease
+from moving inwardly; or on the inside of the sensitive Organs; But the
+rational matter doth often, as awake, so asleep or in dreams, make such
+figures, as the sensitive did never make either from outward objects,
+or of its own accord; for the sensitive hath sometimes liberty to work
+without Objects, but the Rational much more, which is not bound either
+to the patterns of Exterior objects, or of the sensitive voluntary
+Figures. Wherefore it is not divers distempers, as your Authour sayes,
+that cause different Dreams, or Gold, or Heat; neither are Dreams the
+reverse of our waking Imaginations, nor all the Figures in Dreams are
+not made with their heels up, and their heads downwards, though some
+are; but this error or irregularity proceeds from want of exterior
+Objects or Patterns, and by reason the sensitive Motions work by rote;
+neither are the Motions reverse, because they work inwardly asleep, and
+outwardly awake, for Mad-men awake see several Figures without Objects.
+In short, sleeping and waking, is somewhat after that manner, when men
+are called either out of their doors, or stay within their houses; or
+like a Ship, where the Mariners work all under hatches, whereof you
+will find more in my Philosophical Opinions; and so taking my leave, I
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, Part._ 1. _c._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your Authour going on in his discourse of Imagination, says,[1] _That,
+as we have no Imagination, whereof we have not formerly had sense, in
+whole or in parts; so we have not Transition from one Imagination to
+another, whereof we never had the like before in our senses_. To which
+my answer is in short, that the Rational part of Matter in One composed
+figure, as in Man, or the like Creature, may make such figures, as
+the senses did never make in that composed Figure or Creature; And
+though your Authour reproves those that say,[2] _Imaginations rise
+of themselves_; yet, if the self-moving part of Matter, which I call
+Rational, makes Imaginations, they must needs rise of themselves; for
+the Rational part of matter being free and self-moving, depends upon
+nothing, neither Sense nor Object, I mean, so, as not to be able to
+work without them. Next, when your Author, defining _Understanding_,
+says that it is nothing else, but[3] _an Imagination raised by words or
+other voluntary signs_, My Answer is, that Understanding, and so Words
+and Signs are made by self-moving Matter, that is, Sense and Reason,
+and not Sense and Reason by Words and Signs; wherefore Thoughts are
+not like[4] _Water upon a plain Table, which is drawn and guided by
+the finger this or that way_, for every Part of self-moving matter is
+not alwayes forced, perswaded or directed, for if all the Parts of
+Sense and Reason were ruled by force or perswasion, not any wounded
+Creature would fail to be healed, or any disease to be cured by outward
+Applications, for outward Applications to Wounds and Diseases might
+have more force, then any Object to the Eye: But though there is great
+affinity and sympathy between parts, yet there is also great difference
+and antipathy betwixt them, which is the cause that many objects
+cannot with all their endeavours work such effects upon the Interiour
+parts, although they are closely press'd, for Impressions of objects
+do not always affect those parts they press. Wherefore, I am not of
+your Author's opinion, that all Parts of Matter press one another; It
+is true, _Madam_, there cannot be any part single, but yet this doth
+not prove, that parts must needs press each other: And as for his
+_Train of Thoughts_, I must confess, that Thoughts for the most part
+are made orderly, but yet they do not follow each other like Geese,
+for surely, man has sometimes very different thoughts; as for Example,
+a man sometime is very sad for the death of his Friend, and thinks
+of his own death, and immediately thinks of a wanton Mistress, which
+later thought, surely, the thought of Death did not draw in; wherefore,
+though some thought may be the Ring-leader of others, yet many are made
+without leaders. Again, your Author in his description of the Mind
+sayes, that _the discourse of the mind, when it is govern'd by design,
+is nothing but seeking, or the Faculty of Invention; a hunting out of
+the Causes of some Effects, present or past; or of the Effects of some
+present or past Cause. Sometimes a man seeks what he has lost, and from
+that Place and Time wherein he misses it, his mind runs back from place
+to place, and time to time, to find where and when he had it, that is
+to say, to find some certain and limited Time and Place, in which to
+begin a method of Seeking. And from thence his thoughts run over the
+same places and times to find what action or other occasion might make
+him lose it. This we call Remembrance or calling to mind. Sometimes
+a man knows a place determinate, within the compass whereof he is to
+seek, and then his thoughts run over all the Parts thereof in the same
+manner as one would sweep a room to find a Jewel, or as a Spaniel
+ranges the field till he find a sent; or as a Man should run over the
+Alphabet to start a Rime._ Thus far your Author: In which discourse I
+do not perceive that he defineth what the Mind is, but I say, that if,
+according to his opinion, nothing moves it self, but one thing moves
+another, then the Mind must do nothing, but move backward and forward,
+nay, onely forward, and if all actions were thrusting or pressing of
+parts, it would be like a crowd of People, and there would be but
+little or no motion, for the crowd would make a stoppage, like water in
+a glass, the mouth of the Glass being turned downwards, no water can
+pass out, by reason the numerous drops are so closely press'd, as they
+cannot move exteriously. Next, I cannot conceive how the Mind can run
+back either to Time or Place, for as for Place, the mind is inclosed
+in the body, and the running about in the parts of the body or brain
+will not inform it of an Exterior place or object; besides, objects
+being the cause of the minds motion, it must return to its Cause, and
+so move until it come to the object, that moved it first, so that the
+mind must run out of the body to that object, which moved it to such
+a Thought, although that object were removed out of the World (as the
+phrase is:) But for the mind to move backward, to Time past, is more
+then it can do; Wherefore in my opinion, Remembrance, or the like, is
+onely a repetition of such Figures as were like to the Objects; and for
+Thoughts in Particular, they are several figures, made by the mind,
+which is the Rational Part of matter, in its own substance, either
+voluntarily, or by imitation, whereof you may see more in my Book of
+Philosophical Opinions. Hence I conclude, that Prudence is nothing
+else, but a comparing of Figures to Figures, and of the several actions
+of those Figures; as repeating former Figures, and comparing them to
+others of the like nature, qualities, proprieties, as also chances,
+fortunes, &c. Which figuring and repeating is done actually, in and
+by the Rational Matter, so that all the observation of the mind on
+outward Objects is onely an actual repetition of the mind, as moving
+in such or such figures and actions; and when the mind makes voluntary
+Figures with those repeated Figures, and compares them together, this
+comparing is Examination; and when several Figures agree and joyn,
+it is Conclusion or Judgment: likewise doth Experience proceed from
+repeating and comparing of several Figures in the Mind, and the more
+several Figures are repeated and compared, the greater the experience
+is. One thing more there is in the same Chapter, which I cannot let
+pass without examination; Your Authour says, That _things Present
+onely have a being in Nature, things Past onely a being in the Memory,
+but things to come have no being at all_; Which how it possibly can
+be, I am not able to conceive; for certainly, if nothing in nature is
+lost or annihilated, what is past, and what is to come, hath as well
+a being, as what is present; and, if that which is now, had its being
+before, why may it not also have its being hereafter? It might as well
+be said, that what is once forgot, cannot be remembred; for whatsoever
+is in Nature, has as much a being as the Mind, and there is not any
+action, or motion, or figure, in Nature, but may be repeated, that is,
+may return to its former Figure, When it is altered and dissolved;
+But by reason Nature delights in variety, repetitions are not so
+frequently made, especially of those things or creatures, which are
+composed by the sensitive corporeal motions in the inanimate part of
+Matter, because they are not so easily wrought, as the Rational matter
+can work upon its own parts, being more pliant in its self, then the
+Inanimate matter is; And this is the reason, that there are so many
+repetitions of one and the same Figure in the Rational matter, which
+is the Mind, but seldom any in the Gross and inanimate part of Matter,
+for Nature loves ease and freedom: But to conclude, _Madam_, I perceive
+your Author confines Sense onely to Animal-kind, and Reason onely to
+Man-kind: Truly, it is out of self-love, when one Creature prefers his
+own Excellency before another, for nature being endued with self-love,
+all Creatures have self-love too, because they are all Parts of Nature;
+and when Parts agree or disagree, it is out of Interest and Self-love;
+but Man herein exceeds all the rest, as having a supernatural Soul,
+whose actions also are supernatural; To which I leave him, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, part._ 1. _c._ 3.
+
+[2] _part._ 1. _c._ 2.
+
+[3] _ibid. c._ 3.
+
+[4] _ibid._
+
+
+
+
+IX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+When your Author discourseth of the use of _Speech or Words and Names_,
+he is pleas'd to say,[1] _That their use is to serve for marks and
+notes of Remembrance_; Whereof to give you my opinion, I say, That
+Speech is natural to the shape of Man; and though sometimes it serves
+for marks or notes of remembrance, yet it doth not always, for all
+other Animals have Memory without the help of Speech, and so have deaf
+and dumb men, nay more then those that hear and speak: Wherefore,
+though Words are useful to the mind, and so to the memory, yet both
+can be without them, whereas Words cannot be without Memory; for take
+a Bird, and teach him to speak, if he had not Memory, before he heard
+the words, he could never learn them. You will ask me, _Madam_, What
+then, is Memory the Cause of Speech? I answer, Life and Knowledg, which
+is Sense and Reason, as it creates and makes all sorts of Creatures,
+so also amongst the rest it makes Words: And as I said before, that
+Memory may be without the help of Speech or Words, so I say also, that
+there is a possibility of reckoning of numbers, as also of magnitudes,
+of swiftness, of force, and other things without words, although your
+Author denies it: But some men are so much for Art, as they endeavour
+to make Art, which is onely a Drudgery-maid of Nature, the chief
+Mistress, and Nature her Servant, which is as much as to prefer Effects
+before the Cause, Nature before God, Discord before Unity and Concord.
+
+Again, your _Author_, in his Chapter of Reason,[2] defines _Reason_ to
+be nothing else but _Reckoning_: I answer, That in my opinion Reckoning
+is not Reason it self, but onely an effect or action of Reason; for
+Reason, as it is the chiefest and purest degree of animate matter,
+works variously and in divers motions, by which it produces various
+and divers effects, which are several Perceptions, as Conception,
+Imagination, Fancy, Memory, Remembrance, Understanding, Judgment,
+Knowledg, and all the Passions, with many more: Wherefore this Reason
+is not in one undivided part, nor bound to one motion, for it is in
+every Creature more or less, and moves in its own parts variously; and
+in some Creatures, as for example, in some men, it moves more variously
+then in others, which is the cause that some men are more dull and
+stupid, then others; neither doth Reason always move in one Creature
+regularly, which is the cause, that some men are mad or foolish: And
+though all men are made by the direction of Reason, and endued with
+Reason, from the first time of their birth, yet all have not the like
+Capacities, Understandings, Imaginations, Wits, Fancies, Passions,
+&c. but some more, some less, and some regular, some irregular,
+according to the motions of Reason or Rational part of animate matter;
+and though some rational parts may make use of other rational Parts,
+as one man of another mans Conceptions, yet all these parts cannot
+associate together; as for example, all the Material parts of several
+objects, no not their species, cannot enter or touch the eye without
+danger of hurting or loosing it, nevertheless the eye makes use of the
+objects by patterning them out, and so doth the rational matter, by
+taking patterns from the sensitive; And thus knowledg or perception of
+objects, both sensitive and rational, is taken without the pressure of
+any other parts; for though parts joyn to parts, (for no part can be
+single) yet this joining doth not necessarily infer the pressure of
+objects upon the sensitive organs; Whereof I have already discoursed
+sufficiently heretofore, to which I refer you, and rest
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, part._ 1. _c._ 4.
+
+[2] _Ch._ 5.
+
+
+
+
+X.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+_Understanding_ says your Author,[1] _is nothing else but Conception
+caused by speech, and therefore, if speech be peculiar to man, (as, for
+ought I know, it is) then is understanding peculiar to him also._ Where
+he confineth Understanding onely to speech and to Mankind; But, by his
+leave, _Madam_, I surely believe, that there is more understanding in
+Nature, then that, which is in speech, for if there were not, I cannot
+conceive, how all the exact forms in Generations could be produced,
+or how there could be such distinct degrees of several sorts and
+kinds of Creatures, or distinctions of times and seasons, and so many
+exact motions and figures in Nature: Considering all this, my reason
+perswadeth me, that all Understanding, which is a part of Knowledg, is
+not caused by speech, for all the motions of the Celestial Orbs are not
+made by speech, neither is the knowledg or understanding which a man
+hath, when sick, as to know or understand he is sick, made by speech,
+nor by outward objects, especially in a disease he never heard, nor
+saw, nor smelt, nor tasted, nor touched; Wherefore all Perception,
+Sensation, Memory, Imagination, Appetite, Understanding, and the like,
+are not made nor caused by outward objects, nor by speech. And as for
+names of things, they are but different postures of the figures in
+our mind or thoughts, made by the Rational matter; But Reasoning is
+a comparing of the several figures with their several postures and
+actions in the Mind, which joyned with the several words, made by the
+sensitive motions, inform another distinct and separate part, as an
+other man, of their minds conceptions, understanding, opinions, and the
+like.
+
+Concerning Addition and Subtraction, wherein your _Author_ sayes
+Reasoning consists, I grant, that it is an act of Reasoning, yet it
+doth not make Sense or Reason, which is Life and Knowledge, but Sense
+and Reason which is self-motion, makes addition and subtraction of
+several Parts of matter; for had matter not self-motion, it could not
+divide nor compose, nor make such varieties, without great and lingring
+retardments, if not confusion. Wherefore all, what is made in Nature,
+is made by self-moving matter, which self-moving matter doth not at all
+times move regularly, but often irregularly, which causes false Logick,
+false Arithmetick, and the like; and if there be not a certainty in
+these self-motions or actions of Nature, much less in Art, which is
+but a secundary action; and therefore, neither speech, words, nor
+exterior objects cause Understanding or Reason. And although many parts
+of the Rational and Sensitive Matter joyned into one, may be stronger
+by their association, and over-power other parts that are not so well
+knit and united, yet these are not the less pure; onely these Parts and
+Motions being not equal in several Creatures, make their Knowledge and
+Reason more or less: For, when a man hath more Rational Matter well
+regulated, and so more Wisdom then an other, that same man may chance
+to over-power the other, whose Rational Matter is more irregular, but
+yet not so much by strength of the united Parts, as by their subtilty;
+for the Rational Matter moving regularly, is more strong with subtilty,
+then the sensitive with force; so that Wisdom is stronger then
+Life, being more pure, and so more active; for in my opinion, there
+is a degree of difference between Life and Knowledge, as my Book of
+_Philosophical Opinions_ will inform you.
+
+Again, your _Author_ sayes, _That Man doth excel all other Animals in
+this faculty, that when he conceives any thing whatsoever, he is apt
+to enquire the Consequences of it, and what effects he can do with
+it: Besides this_ (sayes he) _Man hath an other degree of Excellence,
+that he can by Words reduce the Consequences he finds to General Rules
+called Theoremes or Aphorisms, that is, he can reason or reckon not
+onely in Number, but in all other things, whereof one may be added
+unto, or substracted from an other._ To which I answer, That according
+to my Reason I cannot perceive, but that all Creatures may do as much;
+but by reason they do it not after the same manner or way as Man, Man
+denies, they can do it at all; which is very hard; for what man knows,
+whether Fish do not Know more of the nature of Water, and ebbing and
+flowing, and the saltness of the Sea? or whether Birds do not know
+more of the nature and degrees of Air, or the cause of Tempests? or
+whether Worms do not know more of the nature of Earth, and how Plants
+are produced? or Bees of the several sorts of juices of Flowers, then
+Men? And whether they do not make there Aphorismes and Theoremes by
+their manner of Intelligence? For, though they have not the speech of
+Man, yet thence doth not follow, that they have no Intelligence at
+all. But the Ignorance of Men concerning other Creatures is the cause
+of despising other Creatures, imagining themselves as petty Gods in
+Nature, when as _Nature_ is not capable to make one God, much less so
+many as Mankind; and were it not for Mans supernatural Soul, Man would
+not be more Supreme, then other Creatures in Nature, _But_ (says your
+_Author_) _this Priviledge in Man is allay'd by another, which is, No
+living Creature is subject to absurdity, but onely Man._ Certainly,
+_Madam_, I believe the contrary, to wit, that all other Creatures do
+as often commit mistakes and absurdities as Man, and if it were not to
+avoid tediousness, I could present sufficient proofs to you: Wherefore
+I think, not onely Man but also other Creatures may be Philosophers and
+subject to absurdities as aptly as Men; for Man doth, nor cannot truly
+know the Faculties, and Abilities or Actions of all other Creatures,
+no not of his own Kind as Man-Kind, for if he do measure all men by
+himself he will be very much mistaken, for what he conceives to be
+true or wise, an other may conceive to be false and foolish. But Man
+may have one way of Knowledge in Philosophy and other Arts, and other
+Creatures another way, and yet other Creatures manner or way may be
+as Intelligible and Instructive to each other as Man's, I mean, in
+those things which are Natural. Wherefore I cannot consent to what
+your _Author_ says, _That Children are not endued with Reason at all,
+till they have attained to the use of Speech_; for Reason is in those
+Creatures which have not Speech, witness Horses, especially those which
+are taught in the manage, and many other Animals. And as for the weak
+understanding in Children, I have discoursed thereof in my Book of
+Philosophy; The rest of this discourse, lest I tire you too much at
+once, I shall reserve for the next, resting in the mean time,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, part._ 1. _c._ 4.
+
+
+
+
+XI.
+
+
+_Madam,_
+
+I sent you word in my last, that your _Author's_ opinion is, _That
+Children are not endued with Reason at all, until they have attained
+to the use of Speech,_ in the same Chapter[1] he speaks to the same
+purpose thus: _Reason is not as Sense and Memory born with us, nor
+gotten by experience onely, as Prudence is, but attained by industry._
+To which I reply onely this, That it might as well be said, a
+Child when new born hath not flesh and blood, because by taking in
+nourishment or food, the Child grows to have more flesh and blood; or,
+that a Child is not born with two legs, because he cannot go, or with
+two arms and hands, because he cannot help himself; or that he is not
+born with a tongue, because he cannot speak: For although Reason doth
+not move in a Child as in a Man, in Infancy as in Youth, in Youth as in
+Age, yet that doth not prove that Children are without Reason, because
+they cannot run and prate: I grant, some other Creatures appear to
+have more Knowledg when new born then others; as for example, a young
+Foal has more knowledg than a young Child, because a Child cannot run
+and play; besides a Foal knows his own Dam, and can tell where to
+take his food, as to run and suck his Dam, when as an Infant cannot
+do so, nor all beasts, though most of them can, but yet this doth not
+prove, that a Child hath no reason at all; Neither can I perceive
+that man is a Monopoler of all Reason, or Animals of all Sense, but
+that Sense and Reason are in other Creatures as well as in Man and
+Animals; for example, Drugs, as Vegetables and Minerals, although they
+cannot slice, pound or infuse, as man can, yet they can work upon man
+more subtilly, wisely, and as sensibly either by purging, vomiting,
+spitting, or any other way, as man by mincing, pounding and infusing
+them, and Vegetables will as wisely nourish Men, as Men can nourish
+Vegetables; Also some Vegetables are as malicious and mischievous to
+Man, as Man is to one another, witness Hemlock, Nightshade, and many
+more; and a little Poppy will as soon, nay sooner cause a Man to sleep,
+though silently, then a Nurse a Child with singing and rocking; But
+because they do not act in such manner or way as Man, Man judgeth them
+to be without sense and reason; and because they do not prate and
+talk as Man, Man believes they have not so much wit as he hath; and
+because they cannot run and go, Man thinks they are not industrious;
+the like for Infants concerning Reason. But certainly, it is not local
+motion or speech that makes sense and reason, but sense and reason
+makes them; neither is sense and reason bound onely to the actions of
+Man, but it is free to the actions, forms, figures and proprieties of
+all Creatures; for if none but Man had reason, and none but Animals
+sense, the World could not be so exact, and so well in order as it
+is: but Nature is wiser then Man with all his Arts, for these are
+onely produced through the variety of Natures actions, and disputes
+through the superfluous varieties of Mans follies or ignorances, not
+knowing Natures powerful life and knowledg: But I wonder, _Madam_, your
+_Author_ says in this place, _That Reason is not born with Man_, when
+as in another place,[2] he says, _That every man brought Philosophy,
+that is Natural reason with him into the World_; Which how it agree, I
+will leave to others to judg, and to him to reconcile it, remaining in
+the meantime,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Constant Friend_
+
+_and Faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 4.
+
+[2] In his _Elements of Philosophy, part._ 1. _c._ 1. _art._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XII.
+
+
+_Madam,_
+
+Two sorts of motions, I find your _Author_[1] doth attribute to
+Animals, _viz. Vital and Animal, the Vital motions_, says he, _are
+begun in Generation, and continued without Interruption through their
+whole life, and those are the Course of the Blood, the Pulse, the
+Breathing, Conviction, Nutrition, Excretion, &c. to which motions
+there needs no help of Imaginations; But the animal Motions, otherwise
+called voluntary Motions, are to go, to speak, to move any of our
+limbs, in such manner as is first fancied in our minds: And because
+going, speaking, and the like voluntary motions, depend always upon
+a precedent thought of whither, which way, and what, it is evident,
+that the Imagination is the first Internal beginning of all voluntary
+Motion_. Thus far your _Author_. Whereof in short I give you my
+opinion, first concerning Vital Motions, that it appears improbable if
+not impossible to me, that Generation should be the cause and beginning
+of Life, because Life must of necessity be the cause of Generation,
+life being the Generator of all things, for without life motion could
+not be, and without motion not any thing could be begun, increased,
+perfected, or dissolved. Next, that Imagination is not necessary to
+Vital Motions, it is probable it may not, but yet there is required
+Knowledg, which I name Reason; for if there were not Knowledg in all
+Generations or Productions, there could not any distinct Creature be
+made or produced, for then all Generations would be confusedly mixt,
+neither would there be any distinct kinds or sorts of Creatures, nor
+no different Faculties, Proprieties, and the like. Thirdly, concerning
+_Animal Motions_, which your _Author_ names _Voluntary Motions, as to
+go, to speak, to move any of our limbs, in such manner as is first
+fancied in our minds, and that they depend upon a precedent thought
+of whither, which way, and what, and that Imagination is the first
+Internal beginning of them_; I think, by your _Authors_ leave, it doth
+imply a contradiction, to call them Voluntary Motions, and yet to say
+they are caused and depend upon our Imagination; for if the Imagination
+draws them this way, or that way, how can they be voluntary motions,
+being in a manner forced and necessitated to move according to Fancy
+or Imagination? But when he goes on in the same place and treats of
+Endeavour, Appetite, Desire, Hunger, Thirst, Aversion, Love, Hate, and
+the like, he derives one from the other, and treats well as a Moral
+Philosopher; but whether it be according to the truth or probability of
+Natural Philosophy, I will leave to others to judge, for in my opinion
+Passions and Appetites are very different, Appetites being made by
+the motions of the sensitive Life, and Passions, as also Imagination,
+Memory, &c. by the motions of the rational Life, which is the cause
+that Appetites belong more to the actions of the Body then the Mind:
+'Tis true, the Sensitive and Rational self-moving matter doth so much
+resemble each other in their actions, as it is difficult to distinguish
+them. But having treated hereof at large in my other Philosophical
+Work, to cut off repetitions, I will refer you to that, and desire
+you to compare our opinions together: But certainly there is so much
+variety in one and the same sort of Passions, and so of Appetites, as
+it cannot be easily express'd. To conclude, I do not perceive that your
+_Author_ tells or expresses what the cause is of such or such actions,
+onely he mentions their dependance, which is, as if a man should
+converse with a Nobleman's Friend or Servant, and not know the Lord
+himself. But leaving him for this time, it is sufficient to me, that I
+know your Ladyship, and your Ladyship knows me, that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend, and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Leviathan, part._ 1. _c._ 6.
+
+
+
+
+XIII.
+
+
+_Madam,_
+
+Having obey'd your Commands in giving you my opinion of the First Part
+of the Book of that famous and learned _Author_ you sent me, I would
+go on; but seeing he treats in his following Parts of the Politicks, I
+was forced to stay my Pen, because of these following Reasons. First,
+That a Woman is not imployed in State Affairs, unless an absolute
+Queen. Next, That to study the Politicks, is but loss of Time, unless
+a man were sure to be a Favourite to an absolute Prince. Thirdly, That
+it is but a deceiving Profession, and requires more Craft then Wisdom.
+All which considered, I did not read that part of your _Author_: But
+as for his _Natural Philosophy_, I will send you my opinion so far as
+I understand it: For what belongs to Art, as to Geometry, being no
+Scholar, I shall not trouble my self withal. And so I'l take my leave
+of you, when I have in two or three words answered the Question you
+sent me last, which was, Whether Nature be the Art of God, Man the Art
+of Nature, and a Politick Government the Art of Man? To which I answer,
+'Tis probable it may be so; onely I add this, That Nature doth not
+rule God, nor Man Nature, nor Politick Government Man; for the Effect
+cannot rule the Cause, but the Cause doth rule the Effect: Wherefore
+if men do not naturally agree, Art cannot make unity amongst them, or
+associate them into one Politick Body and so rule them; But man thinks
+he governs, when as it is Nature that doth it, for as nature doth unite
+or divide parts regularly or irregularly, and moves the several minds
+of men and the several parts of mens bodies, so war is made or peace
+kept: Thus it is not the artificial form that governs men in a Politick
+Government, but a natural power, for though natural motion can make
+artificial things, yet artificial things cannot make natural power;
+and we might as well say, nature is governed by the art of nature, as
+to say man is ruled by the art and invention of men. The truth is, Man
+rules an artificial Government, and not the Government Man, just like
+as a Watch-maker rules his Watch, and not the Watch the Watch-maker.
+And thus I conclude and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning the other Book of that learned Author _Hobbs_ you sent me,
+called _Elements of Philosophy_, I shall likewise according to your
+desire, give you my judgment and opinion of it as I have done of the
+former, not that I intend to prejudice him any ways thereby, but onely
+to mark those places wherein I seem to dissent from his opinions,
+which liberty, I hope, he will not deny me; And in order to this,
+I have read over the first Chapter of the mentioned Book, treating
+of Philosophy in General, wherein amongst the rest, discoursing of
+the Utility of Natural Philosophy, and relating the commodities and
+benefits which proceed from so many arts and sciences, he is pleased to
+say,[1] that they are _injoyed almost by all people of_ Europe, Asia,
+_and some of_ Africa, _onely the Americans, and those that live neer
+the Poles do want them: But why_, says he, _have they sharper wits
+then these? Have not all men one kind of soul, and the same faculties
+of mind?_ To which, give me leave, _Madam_, to add, That my opinion
+is, that there is a difference between the Divine and the Natural
+soul of man, and though the natural mind or soul is of one kind, yet
+being made of rational matter, it is divideable and composeable, by
+which division and composition, men may have more or less wit, or
+quicker and slower wit; the like for Judgments, Imaginations, Fancies,
+Opinions, &c. For were the natural rational mind individeable, all
+men would have the like degree of wit or understanding, all men would
+be Philosophers or fools, which by reason they are not, it proves the
+natural rational mind is divideable and composeable, making variations
+of its own several parts by self-motion; for it is not the several
+outward objects, or forreign instructions, that make the variety of
+the mind; neither is wit or ingenuity alike in all men; for some are
+natural Poets, Philosophers, and the like, without learning, and some
+are far more ingenious then others, although their breeding is obscure
+and mean, Neither will learning make all men Scholars, for some will
+continue Dunces all their life time; Neither doth much experience
+make all men wise, for some are not any ways advanced in their wisdom
+by much and long experiences; And as for Poetry, it is according to
+the common Proverb; a _Poet is born, not made_; Indeed learning doth
+rather hurt Fancy, for great Scholars are not always good Poets, nor
+all States-men Natural Philosophers, nor all Experienced Men Wise
+Men, nor all Judges Just, nor all Divines Pious, nor all Pleaders
+or Preachers Eloquent, nor all Moral Philosophers Vertuous; But all
+this is occasioned by the various Motions of the rational self-moving
+matter, which is the Natural Mind. And thus much for the present of the
+difference of wits and faculties of the mind; I add no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Art._ 7.
+
+
+
+
+XV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+My Discourse for the present shall be of _Infinite_, and the question
+shall be first _Whether several Finite parts, how many soever there be,
+can make an Infinite._ Your Author says,[1] _that several Finite parts
+when they are all put together make a whole Finite_; which, if his
+meaning be of a certain determinate number, how big soever, of finite
+parts, I do willingly grant, for all what is determinate and limited,
+is not Infinite but Finite; neither is there any such thing, as Whole
+or All in Infinite; but if his meaning be, that no Infinite can be made
+of finite parts, though infinite in number, I deny it; Next he says
+_there can be no such thing as One in Infinite, because No thing can
+be said One, except there be another to compare it withal_; which in
+my opinion doth not follow, for there is but One God, who is Infinite,
+and hath none other to be compared withal, and so there may be but one
+Onely Infinite in Nature, which is Matter. But when he says, _there
+cannot be an Infinite and Eternal Division_, is very true, _viz._, in
+this sense, that one single part cannot be actually infinitely divided,
+for the Compositions hinder the Divisions in Nature, and the Divisions
+the Compositions, so that Nature, being Matter, cannot be composed
+so, as not to have parts, nor divided so, as that her parts should
+not be composed, but there are nevertheless infinite divided parts
+in Nature, and in this sense there may also be infinite divisions,
+as I have declared in my Book of Philosophy[2]. And thus there are
+Infinite divisions of Infinite parts in Nature, but not Infinite actual
+divisions of one single part; But though Infinite is without end, yet
+my discourse of it shall be but short and end here, though not my
+affection, which shall last and continue with the life of
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Elem. of Philos. c._ 7. _a._ 1 2.
+
+[2] _P._ 1. _c._ 8.
+
+
+
+
+XVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+An _Accident_, says your _Author_,[1] _is nothing else, but the manner
+of our Conception of body, or that Faculty of any body, by which it
+works in us a Conception of it self_; To which I willingly consent;
+but yet I say, that these qualities cannot be separated from the body,
+for as impossible it is that the essence of Nature should be separable
+from Nature, as impossible is it that the various modes or alterations,
+either of Figures or Motions, should be separable from matter or body;
+Wherefore when he goes on, and says,[2] _An accident is not a body,
+but in a body, yet not so, as if any thing were contained therein, as
+if for example, redness were in blood in the same manner as blood is
+in a bloody cloth; but as magnitude is in that which is great, rest in
+that which resteth, motion in that which is moved_; I answer, that in
+my opinion, not any thing in Nature can be without a body, and that
+redness is as well in blood, as blood is in a bloody cloth, or any
+other colour in any thing else; for there is no colour without a body,
+but every colour hath as well a body as any thing else, and if Colour
+be a separable accident, I would fain know, how it can be separated
+from a subject, being bodiless, for that which is no body is nothing,
+and nothing cannot be taken away from any thing; Wherefore as for
+natural Colour it cannot be taken away from any creature, without the
+parts of its substance or body; and as for artificial Colours, when
+they are taken away, it is a separation of two bodies, which joyned
+together; and if Colour, or Hardness, or Softness do change, it is
+nothing else but an alteration of motions and not an annihilation, for
+all changes and alterations remain in the power of Corporeal motions,
+as I have said in other places; for we might as well say, life doth
+not remain in nature, when a body turns from an animal to some other
+figure, as believe that those, they name accidents, do not remain in
+Corporeal Motions; Wherefore I am not of your _Authors_ mind, when
+he says,[3] that _when a White thing is made black, the whiteness
+perishes_; for it cannot perish, although it is altered from white to
+black, being in the power of the same matter, to turn it again from
+black to white, so as it may make infinite Repetitions of the same
+thing; but by reason nature takes delight in variety, she seldom uses
+such repetitions; nevertheless that doth not take away the Power of
+self-moving matter, for it doth not, and it cannot, are two several
+things, and the latter doth not necessarily follow upon the former;
+Wherefore not any, the least thing, can perish in Nature, for if this
+were possible, the whole body of nature might perish also, for if so
+many Figures and Creatures should be annihilated and perish without
+any supply or new Creation, Nature would grow less, and at last become
+nothing; besides it is as difficult for Nature to turn something into
+nothing, as to Create something out of nothing; Wherefore as there is
+no annihilation or perishing in Nature, so there is neither any new
+Creation in Nature. But your _Author_ makes a difference between bodies
+and accidents, saying, _that bodies are things and not generated,
+but accidents are Generated and not things._ Truly, _Madam_, these
+accidents seem to me to be like _Van Helmont's_ Lights, Gases, Blazes
+and Ideas; and Dr _More's_ Immaterial Substances or D�mons, onely in
+this Dr _More_ hath the better, that his Immaterial Substances, are
+beings, which subsist of themselves, whereas accidents do not, but
+their existence is in other bodies; But what they call Accidents,
+are in my opinion nothing else but Corporeal Motions, and if these
+accidents be generated, they must needs be bodies, for how nothing
+can be Generated in nature, is not conceivable, and yet your _Author_
+denies,[4] that _Accidents are something, namely some part of a natural
+thing_; But as for Generations, they are onely various actions of
+self-moving matter, or a variety of Corporeal Motions, and so are all
+Accidents whatsoever, so that there is not any thing in nature, that
+can be made new, or destroyed, for whatsoever was and shall be, is
+in nature, though not always in act, yet in power, as in the nature
+and power of Corporeal motions, which is self-moving matter, And as
+there is no new Generation of Accidents, so there is neither a new
+Generation of Motions; wherefore when your _Author_ says,[5] _That,
+when the hand, being moved, moveth the pen, the motion doth not go out
+of the hand into the pen, for so the writing might be continued, though
+the hand stood still, but a new motion is generated in the pen, and
+is the pens motion_: I am of his opinion, that the motion doth not
+go out of the hand into the pen, and that the motion of the pen, is
+the pens own motion; but I deny, that after holding the hand a little
+while still, and beginning to write again, a new motion of the pen is
+generated; for it is onely a repetition, and not a new generation,
+for the Hand, Pen and Ink, repeat but the same motion or action of
+writing: Besides, Generation is made by Connexion or Conjunction of
+parts, moving by consent to such or such Figures, but the motion of
+the Hand or the Pen is always one and the same; wherefore it is but
+the variation and repetition in and of the same motion of the Hand,
+or Pen, which may be continued in that manner infinitely, just as the
+same Corporeal Motions can make infinite variations and repetitions
+of one and the same Figure, repeating it as oft as they please, as
+also making Copy of Copy; And although I do not deny, but there are
+Generations in Nature, yet not annihilations or perishings, for if any
+one motion or figure should perish, the matter must perish also; and if
+any one part of matter can perish, all the matter in nature may perish
+also; and if there can any new thing be made or created in nature,
+which hath not been before, there may also be a new Nature, and so by
+perishings and new Creations, this World would not have continued an
+age; But surely whatsoever is in Nature, hath been existent always.
+Wherefore to conclude, it is not the generation and perishing of an
+Accident that makes its subject to be changed, but the production and
+alteration of the Form, makes it said to be generated or destroyed,
+for matter will change its motions and figures without perishing or
+annihilating; and whether there were words or not, there would be such
+causes and effects; But having not the art of Logick to dispute with
+artificial words, nor the art of Geometry to demonstrate my opinions
+by Mathematical Figures, I fear they will not be so well received by
+the Learned; However, I leave them to any mans unprejudiced Reason and
+Judgment, and devote my self to your service, as becomes,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Elem. of Philos. c._ 8. _art._ 2.
+
+[2] _Art._ 3.
+
+[3] _Art._ 20.
+
+[4] _Art._ 2.
+
+[5] _Art._ 21.
+
+
+
+
+XVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ concerning Place and Magnitude says,[1], that _Place
+is nothing out of the mind, nor Magnitude any thing within it; for
+Place is a meer Phantasme of a body of such quantity and figure, and
+Magnitude a peculiar accident of the body_; but this doth not well
+agree with my reason, for I believe that Place, Magnitude and Body are
+but one thing, and that Place is as true an extension as Magnitude,
+and not a feigned one; Neither am I of his opinion, _that Place is
+Immoveable_, but that place moves, according as the body moveth, for
+not any body wants place, because place and body is but one thing, and
+wheresoever is body, there is also place, and wheresoever is place,
+there is body, as being one and the same; Wherefore _Motion cannot be a
+relinquishing of one place and acquiring another_,[2] for there is no
+such thing as place different from body, but what is called change of
+place, is nothing but change of corporeal motions; for, say an house
+stands in such a place, if the house be gone, the place is gone also,
+as being impossible that the place of the house should remain, when the
+house is taken away; like as a man when he is gone out of his chamber,
+his place is gone too; 'Tis true, if the ground or foundation do yet
+remain, one may say, there stood such an house heretofore, but yet the
+place of the house is not there really at that present, unless the same
+house be built up again as it was before, and then it hath its place
+as before; Nevertheless the house being not there, it cannot be said
+that either place or house are annihilated, _viz._, when the materials
+are dissolved, no not when transformed into millions of several other
+figures, for the house remains still in the power of all those several
+parts of matter; and as for _space_, it is onely a distance betwixt
+some parts or bodies; But an _Empty place_ signifies to my opinion
+Nothing, for if place and body are one and the same, and empty is
+as much as nothing; then certainly these two words cannot consist
+together, but are destructive to one another. Concerning, that your
+_Author_ says,[3] _Two bodies cannot be together in the same place, nor
+one body in two places at the same time_, is very true, for there are
+no more places then bodies, nor more bodies then places, and this is to
+be understood as well of the grosser, as the purest parts of nature, of
+the mind as well as of the body, of the rational and sensitive animate
+matter as well as of the inanimate, for there is no matter, how pure
+and subtil soever, but is imbodied, and all that hath body hath place.
+Likewise I am of his opinion,[4] _That one body hath always one and
+the same magnitude_; for, in my opinion, magnitude, place and body do
+not differ, and as place, so magnitude can never be separated from
+body. But when he speaks of _Rest_, I cannot believe there is any such
+thing truly in Nature, for it is impossible to prove, that any thing
+is without Motion, either consistent, or composing, or dissolving, or
+transforming motions, or the like, although not altogether perceptible
+by our senses, for all the Matter is either moving or moved, and
+although the moved parts are not capable to receive the nature of
+self-motion from the self-moving parts, yet these self-moving parts,
+being joyned and mixt with all other parts of the moved matter, do
+always move the same; for the Moved or Inanimate part of Matter,
+although it is a Part of it self, yet it is so intermixt with the
+self-moving Animate Matter, as they make but one Body; and though some
+parts of the Inanimate may be as pure as the Sensitive Animate Matter,
+yet they are never so subtil as to be self-moving; Wherefore the
+Sensitive moves in the Inanimate, and the Rational in the Sensitive,
+but often the Rational moves in it self. And, although there is no rest
+in nature, nevertheless Matter could have been without Motion, when as
+it is impossible that Matter could be without place or magnitude, no
+more then Variety can be without motion; And thus much at this present:
+I conclude, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Part._ 2. _c._ 8. _a._ 5.
+
+[2] _Art._ 10.
+
+[3] _Art._ 8.
+
+[4] _Art._ 5.
+
+
+
+
+XVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Passing by those Chapters of your _Authors_, that treat of _Power and
+Act, Identy and Difference, Analogisme, Angle and Figure, Figures
+deficient, dimension of Circles_, and several others, most of which
+belong to art, as to Geometry, and the like; I am come to that wherein
+he discourses of _Sense_ and _Animal Motion_, saying,[1] _That some
+Natural bodies have in themselves the patterns almost of all things,
+and others of none at all_; Whereof my opinion is, that the sensitive
+and rational parts of Matter are the living and knowing parts of
+Nature, and no part of nature can challenge them onely to it self, nor
+no creature can be sure, that sense is onely in Animal-kind, and reason
+in Man-kind; for can any one think or believe that Nature is ignorant
+and dead in all her other parts besides Animals? Truly this is a very
+unreasonable opinion; for no man, as wise as he thinks himself, nay
+were all Man-kind joyned into one body, yet they are not able to know
+it, unless there were no variety of parts in nature, but onely one
+whole and individeable body, for other Creatures may know and perceive
+as much as Animals, although they have not the same Sensitive Organs,
+nor the same manner or way of Perception. Next your _Author_ says,[2]
+_The cause of Sense or Perception consists herein, that the first organ
+of sense is touched and pressed; For when the uttermost part of the
+organ is pressed, it no sooner yields, but the part next within it is
+pressed also, and in this manner the pressure or motion is propagated
+through all the parts of the organ to the innermost. And thus also the
+pressure of the uttermost part proceeds from the pressure of some more
+remote body, and so continually, till we come to that, from which, as
+from its fountain, we derive the Phantasme or Idea, that is made in
+us by our sense: And this, whatsoever it be, is that we commonly call
+the object; Sense therefore is some Internal motion in the Sentient,
+generated by some Internal motion of the Parts of the object, and
+propagated through all the media to the innermost part of the organ.
+Moreover there being a resistance or reaction in the organ, by reason
+of its internal motion against the motion propagated from the object,
+there is also an endeavour in the organ opposite to the endeavour
+proceeding from the object, and when that endeavour inwards is the last
+action in the act of sense, then from the reaction a Phantasme or Idea
+has its being._ This is your _Authors_ opinion, which if it were so,
+perception could not be effected so suddenly, nay I think the sentient
+by so many pressures in so many perceptions, would at last be pressed
+to death, besides the organs would take a great deal of hurt, nay
+totally be removed out of their places, so as the eye would in time be
+prest into the centre of the brain; And if there were any Resistance,
+Reaction or Indeavour in the organ, opposite to the Endeavour of the
+object, there would, in my opinion, be always a war between the animal
+senses and the objects, the endeavour of the objects pressing one way,
+and the senses pressing the other way, and if equal in their strengths,
+they would make a stop, and the sensitive organs would be very much
+pained. Truly, _Madam_, in my opinion, it would be like that Custom
+which formerly hath been used at _Newcastle_, when a man was married,
+the guests divided themselves, behind and before the Bridegroom, the
+one party driving him back, the other forwards, so that one time a
+Bridegroom was killed in this fashion; But certainly Nature hath a
+more quick and easie way of giving intelligence and knowledg to her
+Creatures, and doth not use such constraint and force in her actions;
+Neither is sense or sensitive perception a meer Phantasme or Idea, but
+a Corporeal action of the sensitive and rational matter, and according
+to the variation of the objects or patterns, and the sensitive and
+rational motions, the perception also is various, produced not by
+external pressure, but by internal self-motion, as I have declared
+heretofore; and to prove, that the sensitive and rational corporeal
+motions are the onely cause of perception; I say, if those motions
+in an animal move in another way, and not to such perceptions, then
+that animal can neither hear, see, taste, smell nor touch, although
+all his sensitive organs be perfect, as is evident in a man falling
+into a swoon, where all the time he is in a swoon, the pressure of the
+objects is made without any effect; Wherefore, as the sensitive and
+rational corporeal motions make all that is in nature; so likewise
+they make perception, as being perception it self, for all self-motion
+is perception, but all perception is not animal perception; or after
+an animal way; and therefore sense cannot decay nor die, but what is
+called a decay or death, is nothing else but a change or alteration of
+those Motions. But you will say, _Madam_, it may be, that one body,
+as an object, leaves the print of its figure, in the next adjoyning
+body, until it comes to the organ of sense, I answer that then soft
+bodies onely must be pressed, and the object must be so hard as to
+make a print, and as for rare parts of matter, they are not able to
+retain a print without self-motion; Wherefore it is not probable that
+the parts of air should receive a print, and print the same again
+upon the adjoyning part, until the last part of the air print it
+upon the eye; and that the exterior parts of the organ should print
+upon the interior, till it come to the centre of the Brain, without
+self-motion. Wherefore in my opinion, Perception is not caused either
+by the printing of objects, nor by pressures, for pressures would
+make a general stop of all natural motions, especially if there were
+any reaction or resistence of sense; but according to my reason, the
+sensitive and rational corporeal motions in one body, pattern out the
+Figure of another body, as of an exterior object, which may be done
+easily without any pressure or reaction; I will not say, that there
+is no pressure or reaction in Nature, but pressure and reaction doth
+not make perception, for the sensitive and rational parts of matter
+make all perception and variety of motion, being the most subtil parts
+of Nature, as self-moving, as also divideable, and composeable, and
+alterable in their figurative motions, for this Perceptive matter can
+change its substance into any figure whatsoever in nature, as being not
+bound to one constant figure. But having treated hereof before, and
+being to say more of it hereafter, this shall suffice for the present,
+remaining always,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _C._ 25. _a._ 1.
+
+[2] _Art._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+XIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+To discourse of the World and Stars, is more then I am able to do,
+wanting the art of Astronomy and Geometry; wherefore passing by that
+Chapter of your Author, I am come to that[1] wherein he treats of
+Light, Heat and Colours; and to give you my opinion of Light, I say,
+it is not the light of the Sun, that makes an Animal see, for we can
+see inwardly in Dreams without the Suns light, but it is the sensitive
+and rational Motions in the Eye and Brain that make such a figure as
+Light; For if Light did press upon the Eye, according to your _Authors_
+opinion, it might put the Eye into as much pain as Fire doth, when
+it sticks its points into our skin or flesh. The same may be said of
+Colours, for the sensitive motions make such a figure, which is such
+a Colour, and such a Figure, which is such a Colour; Wherefore Light,
+Heat and Colour, are not bare and bodiless qualities, but such figures
+made by corporeal self-motions, and are as well real and corporeal
+objects as other figures are; and when these figures change or alter,
+it is onely that their motions alter, which may alter and change heat
+into cold, and light into darkness, and black colour into white. But
+by reason the motions of the Sun are so constant, as the motions of
+any other kind of Creatures, it is no more subject to be altered then
+all the World, unless Nature did it by the command of God; for though
+the Parts of self-moving Matter be alterable, yet all are not altered;
+and this is the reason, that the figure of Light in our eye and brain
+is altered, as well as it is alterable, but not the real figure of the
+Sun, neither doth the Sun enter our eyes; and as the Light of the Sun
+is made or patterned in the eye, so is the light of Glow-worms-tails,
+and Cats-eyes, that shine in the dark, made not by the Sun's, but their
+own motions in their own parts; The like when we dream of Light, the
+sensitive corporeal motions working inwardly, make the figure of light
+on the inside of the eye, as they did pattern out the figure of light
+on the outside of the eye when awake, and the objects before them; for
+the sensitive motions of the eye pattern out the figure of the object
+in the eye, and the rational motions make the same figure in their own
+substance. But there is some difference between those figures that
+perceive light, and those that are light themselves; for when we sleep,
+there is made the figure of light, but not from a copy; but when the
+eye seeth light, that figure is made from a copy of the real figure of
+the Sun; but those lights which are inherent, as in Glow-worms-tails,
+are original lights, in which is as much difference as between a Man
+and his Picture; and as for the swiftness of the Motions of light, and
+the violence of the Motions of fire, it is very probable they are so,
+but they are a certain particular kind or sort of swift and violent
+motions; neither will all sorts of swift and violent motions make fire
+or light, as for example the swift and violent Circular motion of a
+Whirlewind neither makes light nor fire; Neither is all fire light,
+nor all light fire, for there is a sort of dead fire, as in Spices,
+Spirits, Oyles, and the like; and several sorts of lights, which are
+not hot, as the light which is made in Dreams, as also the inherent
+lights in Glow-worms, Cats-eyes, Fish-bones, and the like; all which
+several fires and lights are made by the self-moving matter and motions
+distinguishable by their figures, for those Motions make such a figure
+for the Suns light, such a figure for Glow-worms light, such a figure
+for Cats-eyes light, and so some alteration in every sort of light;
+The same for Fire, onely Fire-light is a mixt figure, as partly of the
+figure of Fire, and partly of the figure of Light: Also Colours are
+made after the like manner, _viz._ so many several Colours, so many
+several Figures; and as these Figures are less or more different, so
+are the Colours.
+
+Thus, _Madam_, whosoever will study Nature, must consider the Figures
+of every Creature, as well as their Motions, and must not make
+abstractions of Motion and Figure from Matter, nor of Matter from
+Motion and Figure, for they are inseparable, as being but one thing,
+_viz._ Corporeal Figurative Motions; and whosoever conceives any of
+them as abstract, will, in my opinion, very much erre; but men are apt
+to make more difficulties and enforcements in nature then nature ever
+knew. But to return to Light: There is no better argument to prove
+that all objects of sight are figured in the Eye, by the sensitive,
+voluntary or self-motions, without the pressure of objects, but that
+not onely the pressure of light would hurt the tender Eye, but that
+the eye doth not see all objects according to their Magnitude, but
+sometimes bigger, sometimes less: as for example, when the eye looks
+through a small passage, as a Perspective-glass, by reason of the
+difficulty of seeing a body through a small hole, and the double
+figure of the glass being convex and concave, the corporeal motions
+use more force, by which the object is enlarged, like as a spark of
+fire by force is dilated into a great fire, and a drop of water by
+blowing into a bubble; so the corporeal motions do double and treble
+their strength, making the Image of the object exceeding large in the
+eye; for though the eye be contracted, yet the Image in the eye is
+enlarged to a great extension; for the sensitive and rational matter is
+extremely subtil, by reason it is extreamly pure, by which it hath more
+means and ways of magnifying then the Perspective-glass. But I intend
+to write more of this subject in my next, and so I break off here,
+resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 27.
+
+
+
+
+XX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Some perhaps will question the truth or probability of my saying, that
+Light is a Body, objecting that if light were a body, when the Sun is
+absent or retires under our Horizon, its light would leave an empty
+place, or if there were no empty place but all full, the light of the
+Sun at its return would not have room to display it self, especially in
+so great a compass as it doth, for two bodies cannot be in one place at
+one time. I _answer_, all bodies carry their places along with them,
+for body and place go together and are inseparable, and when the light
+of the Sun is gone, darkness succeeds, and when darkness is gone, light
+succeeds, so that it is with light and darkness as with all Creatures
+else; For you cannot believe, that if the whole World were removed,
+there would be a place of the world left, for there cannot be an empty
+nothing, no more then there can be an empty something; but if the world
+were annihilated, the place would be annihilated too, place and body
+being one and the same thing; and therefore in my opinion, there be no
+more places then there are bodies, nor no more bodies then there are
+places.
+
+Secondly, They will think it absurd that I say, the eye can see without
+light; but in my opinion it seems not absurd, but very rational,
+for we may see in dreams, and some do see in the dark, not in their
+fancy or imagination, but really; and as for dreams, the sensitive
+corporeal motions make a light on the inside of the organ of sight
+really, as I have declared in my former Letter. But that we do not see
+ordinarily without exterior Light, the reason is, that the sensitive
+Motions cannot find the outward objects to pattern out without exterior
+light, but all perception doth not proceed from light, for all other
+perception besides animal sight requires not light. Neither in my
+opinion, doth the Perception of sight in all Creatures but Animals, but
+yet Animals do often see in the dark, and in sleep: I will not say but
+that the animate matter which by self-motion doth make the Perception
+of light with other perceptive Figures, and so animal perceptive light
+may be the presenter or ground perceptive figure of sight; yet the
+sensitive corporeal motions can make other figures without the help of
+light, and such as light did never present: But when the eye patterns
+out an exterior object presented by light, it patterns also out the
+object of light; for the sensitive motions can make many figures
+by one act, not onely in several organs, but in one organ; as for
+example, there is presented to sight a piece of Imbroydery, wherein
+is silk, silver and gold upon Sattin in several forms or figures, as
+several flowers, the sensitive motions streight by one and the same
+act, pattern out all those several figures of flowers, as also the
+figures of Silk, Silver, Gold and Sattin, without any pressure of these
+objects, or motions in the medium, for if they all should press, the
+eye would no more see the exterior objects, then the nose, being stopt,
+could smell a presented perfume.
+
+_Thirdly_, They may ask me, if sight be made in the eye, and proceeds
+not from the outward object, what is the reason that we do not see
+inwardly, but outwardly as from us? I answer, when we see objects
+outwardly, as from us, then the sensitive motions work on the outside
+of the organ, which organ being outwardly convex, causes us to see
+outwardly, as from us, but in dreams we see inwardly; also the
+sensitive motions do pattern out the distance together with the object:
+But you will say, the body of the distance, as the air, cannot be
+perceived, and yet we can perceive the distance; I answer, you could
+not perceive the distance, but by such or such an object as is subject
+to your sight; for you do not see the distance more then the air, or
+the like rare body, that is between grosser objects; for if there were
+no stars, nor planets, nor clouds, nor earth, nor water, but onely air,
+you would not see any space or distance; but light being a more visible
+body then air, you might figure the body of air by light, but so, as in
+an extensive or dilating way; for when the mind or the rational matter
+conceives any thing that hath not such an exact figure, or is not
+so perceptible by our senses; then the mind uses art, and makes such
+figures, which stand like to that; as for example, to express infinite
+to it self, it dilates it parts without alteration, and without
+limitation or circumference; Likewise, when it will conceive a constant
+succession of Time, it draws out its parts into the figure of a line;
+and if eternity, it figures a line without beginning, and end. But as
+for Immaterial, no mind can conceive that, for it cannot put it self
+into nothing, although it can dilate and rarifie it self to an higher
+degree, but must stay within the circle of natural bodies, as I within
+the circle of your Commands, to express my self
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and obedient Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Heat and Cold, according to your _Authors_ opinion, are made by
+Dilation and Contraction: for says he,[1] _When the Motion of the
+ambient �thereal substance makes the spirits and fluid parts of our
+bodies tend outwards, we acknowledg heat, but by the indeavour inwards
+of the same spirits and humors we feel cold: so that to cool is to
+make the exterior parts of the body endeavour inwards, by a motion
+contrary to that of calefaction, by which the internal parts are
+called outwards. He therefore that would know the cause of Cold, must
+find by what motion the exterior parts of any body endeavour to retire
+inwards._ But I desire you to consider, _Madam_, that there be moist
+Colds, and dry Heats, as well as dry Colds, and moist Heats; wherefore
+all sorts of Cold are not made by the retyring of parts inwards, which
+is contraction or attraction; neither are all sorts of Heat made by
+parts tending outwards, which is dilation or rarefaction; for a moist
+cold is made by dilation, and a dry heat by contraction, as well as a
+moist heat is made by dilation, and a dry cold by contraction: But your
+_Author_ makes not this difference, but onely a difference between a
+dilated heat, and a contracted cold; but because a cold wind is made
+by breath blown thorow pinched or contracted lips, and an hot wind by
+breath through opened and extended lips, should we judg that all heat
+and cold must be made after one manner or way? The contracted mouth
+makes Wind as well as the dilated, but yet Wind is not made that way,
+as heat and cold; for it may be, that onely the air pressed together
+makes wind, or it may be that the corporeal motions in the air may
+change air into wind, as they change water into vapour, and vapour
+into air; or it may be something else that is invisible and rare, as
+air; and there may be several sorts of wind, air, heat, cold, as of
+all other Creatures, more then man is capable to know. As for your
+_Authors_ opinion concerning the congealing of Water, and how Ice is
+made, I will not contradict it, onely I think nature hath an easier
+way to effect it, then he describes; Wherefore my opinion is, that it
+is done by altering motions; as for example, the corporeal motions
+making the figure of water by dilation in a Circle figure, onely alter
+from such a dilating circular figure into a contracted square, which
+is Ice, or into such a contracted triangle, as is snow: And thus water
+and vapour may be changed with ease, without any forcing, pressing,
+raking, or the like. The same may be said of hard and bent bodies; and
+of restitution, as also of air, thunder and lightning, which are all
+done by an easie change of motion, and changing into such or such a
+figure is not the motion of Generation, which is to build a new house
+with old materials, but onely a Transformation; I say a new house with
+old materials; not that I mean there is any new Creation in nature, of
+any thing that was not before in nature; for nature is not God, to make
+new beings out of nothing, but any thing may be called new, when it is
+altered from one figure into another. I add no more at this time, but
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _C._ 28. _a._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+The Generation of sound, according to your worthy _Authors_ opinion, is
+as follows: _As Vision,_ says he,[1] _so hearing is Generated by the
+medium, but not in the same manner; for sight is from pressure, that
+is, from an endeavour, in which there is no perceptible progression
+of any of the parts of the medium, but one part urging or thrusting
+on another, propagateth that action successively to any distance
+whatsoever; whereas the motion of the medium, by which sound is made,
+is a stroke; for when we hear, the drum of the Ear, which is the first
+organ of hearing, is strucken, and the drum being stricken, the_ Pia
+Mater _is also shaken, and with it the arteries inserted into it, by
+which the action propagated to the heart it self, by the reaction of
+the heart a Phantasme is made which we call Sound._ Thus far your
+_Author_: To which give me leave to reply, that I fear, if the Ear was
+bound to hear any loud Musick, or another sound a good while, it would
+soundly be beaten, and grow sore and bruised with so many strokes; but
+since a pleasant sound would be rendred very unpleasant in this manner,
+my opinion is, that like as in the Eye, so in the Ear the corporeal
+sensitive motions do pattern out as many several figures, as sounds are
+presented to them; but if these motions be irregular, then the figure
+of the sound in the ear is not perfect according to the original; for
+if it be, that the motions are tyred with figuring, or the object of
+sound be too far distant from the sensitive organ, then they move
+slowly and weakly, not that they are tyred or weak in strength, but
+with working and repeating one and the same object, and so through
+love to variety, change from working regularly to move irregularly,
+so as not to pattern outward objects as they ought, and then there are
+no such patterns made at all, which we call to be deaf; and sometimes
+the sensitive motions do not so readily perceive a soft sound near,
+as a stronger farther off. But to prove it is not the outward object
+of sound with its striking or pressing motion, nor the medium, that
+causes this perception of sense, if there be a great solid body, as
+a wall, or any other partition betwixt two rooms, parting the object
+and the sensitive organ, so, as the sound is not able to press it,
+nevertheless the perception will be made; And as for pipes to convey
+sounds, the perception is more fixt and perfecter in united then in
+dilated or extended bodies, and then the sensitive motions can make
+perfecter patterns; for the stronger the objects are, the more perfect
+are the figures and patterns of the objects, and the more perfect is
+the perception. But when the sound is quite out of the ear, then the
+sensitive motions have altered the patterning of such figures to some
+other action; and when the sound fadeth by degrees, then the figure
+or pattern alters by degrees; but for the most part the sensitive
+corporeal motions alter according as the objects are presented, or
+the perception patterns out. Neither do they usually make figures
+of outward objects, if not perceived by the senses, unless through
+Irregularities as in Mad men, which see such and such things, when
+as these things are not neer, and then the sensitive motions work by
+rote, or after their own voluntary invention. As for Reflexion, it is
+a double perception, and so a double figure of one object; like as
+many pictures of one man, where some are more perfect then others, for
+a copy of a copy is not so perfect as a copy of an original. But the
+recoyling of sound is, that the sensitive motions in the ear begin
+a new pattern, before they dissolved the former, so as there is no
+perfect alteration or change, from making to dissolving, but pattern
+is made upon pattern, which causes a confusion of figures, the one
+being neither perfectly finished, nor the other perfectly made. But
+it is to be observed, that not always the sensitive motions in the
+organs take their pattern from the original, but from copies; as for
+example, the sensitive motions in the eye, pattern out the figure of
+an eye in a glass, and so do not take a pattern from the original it
+self, but by an other pattern, representing the figure of the eye in
+a Looking-glass; The same doth the Ear, by patterning out Ecchoes,
+which is but a pattern of a pattern; But when as a man hears himself
+speak or make a sound, then the corporeal sensitive motions in the Ear,
+pattern out the object or figure made by the motions of the tongue
+and the throat, which is voice; By which we may observe, that there
+may be many figures made by several motions from one original; as
+for example, the figure of a word is made in a mans mouth, then the
+copy of that figure is made in the ear, then in the brain, and then
+in the memory, and all this in one Man: Also a word being made in a
+mans mouth, the air takes a copy or many copies thereof; but the Ear
+patterns them both out, first the original coming from the mouth, and
+then the copy made in the air, which is called an Eccho, and yet not
+any strikes or touches each others parts, onely perceives and patterns
+out each others figure. Neither are their substances the same, although
+the figures be alike; for the figure of a man may be carved in wood,
+then cut in brass, then in stone, and so forth, where the figure may
+be always the same, although the substances which do pattern out the
+figure are several, _viz._ Wood, Brass, Stone, &c. and so likewise
+may the figure of a stone be figured in the fleshy substance of the
+Eye, or the figure of light or colour, and yet the substance of the
+Eye remains full the same; neither doth the substantial figure of a
+stone, or tree, patterned out by the sensitive corporeal motions, in
+the flesh of an animal eye, change from being a vegetable or mineral,
+to an animal, and if this cannot be done by nature, much less by art;
+for if the figure of an animal be carved in wood or stone, it doth not
+give the wood or stone any animal knowledg, nor an animal substance,
+as flesh, bones, blood, &c. no more doth the patterning or figuring
+of a Tree give a vegetable knowledg, or the substance of wood to the
+eye, for the figure of an outward object doth not alter the substance
+that patterns it out or figures it, but the patterning substance doth
+pattern out the figure, in it self, or in its own substance, so as the
+figure which is pattern'd, hath the same life and knowledg with the
+substance by and in which it is figured or pattern'd, and the inherent
+motions of the same substance; and according as the sensitive and
+rational self-moving matter moves, so figures are made; and thus we
+see, that lives, knowledges, motions and figures are all material, and
+all Creatures are indued with life, knowledg, motion and figure, but
+not all alike or after the same manner. But to conclude this discourse
+of perception of Sound, the Ear may take the object of sound afar off,
+as well as at a near distance; not onely if many figures of the same
+sound be made from that great distance, but if the interposing parts
+be not so thick, close, or many as to hinder or obscure the object from
+the animal Perception in the sensitive organ; for if a man lays his
+Ear near to the Ground, the Ear may hear at a far distance, as well
+as the Eye can see, for it may hear the noise of a troop afar off,
+perception being very subtil and active; Also there may several Copies
+be made from the Original, and from the last Copy nearest to the Ear,
+the Ear may take a pattern, and so pattern out the noise in the organ,
+without any strokes to the Ear, for the subtil matter in all Creatures
+doth inform and perceive. But this is well to be observed, that the
+figures of objects are as soon made, as perceived by the sensitive
+motions in their work of patterning. And this is my Opinion concerning
+the Perception of Sound, which together with the rest I leave to your
+Ladyships and others wiser Judgment, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 29. _a._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I perceive by your last, that you cannot well apprehend my meaning,
+when I say that the print or figure of a Body Printed or Carved, is
+not made by the motions of the body Printing or Carving it, but by the
+motions of the body or substance Printed or Carved; for say you, Doth
+a piece of Wood carve it self, or a black Patch of a Lady cut its own
+figure by its own motions? Before I answer you, _Madam_, give me leave
+to ask you this question, whether it be the motion of the hand, or the
+Instrument, or both, that print or carve such or such a body? Perchance
+you will say, that the motion of the hand moves the Instrument, and the
+Instrument moves the Wood which is to be carved: Then I ask, whether
+the motion that moves the Instrument, be the Instruments, or the Hands?
+Perchance you will say the Hands; but I answer, how can it be the Hands
+motion, if it be in the Instrument? You will say, perhaps, the motion
+of the hand is transferred out of the hand into the instrument, and so
+from the instrument into the carved figure; but give me leave to ask
+you, was this motion of the hand, that was transferred, Corporeal or
+Incorporeal? If you say, Corporeal, then the hand must become less and
+weak, but if Incorporeal, I ask you, how a bodiless motion can have
+force and strength to carve and cut? But put an Impossible proposition,
+as that there is an Immaterial motion, and that this Incorporeal motion
+could be transferred out of one body into another; then I ask you, when
+the hand and instrument cease to move, what is become of the motion?
+Perhaps you will say, the motion perishes or is annihilated, and when
+the hand and the instrument do move again, to the carving or cutting of
+the figure, then a new Incorporeal Motion is created; Truly then there
+will be a perpetual creation and annihilation of Incorporeal motions,
+that is, of that which naturally is nothing; for an Incorporeal being
+is as much as a natural No-thing, for Natural reason cannot know nor
+have naturally any perception or Idea of an Incorporeal being: besides,
+if the motion be Incorporeal, then it must needs be a supernatural
+Spirit, for there is not any thing else Immaterial but they, and then
+it will be either an Angel or a Devil, or the Immortal Soul of man; but
+if you say it is the supernatural Soul, truly I cannot be perswaded
+that the supernatural Soul should not have any other imployment then
+to carve or cut prints, or figures, or move in the hands, or heels,
+or legs, or arms of a Man; for other animals have the same kind of
+Motions, and then they might have a Supernatural Soul as well as Man,
+which moves in them. But if you say, that these transferrable motions
+are material, then every action whereby the hand moves to the making
+or moving of some other body, would lessen the number of the motions
+in the hand, and weaken it, so that in the writing of one letter,
+the hand would not be able to write a second letter, at least not
+a third. But I pray, _Madam_, consider rationally, that though the
+Artificer or Workman be the occasion of the motions of the carved
+body, yet the motions of the body that is carved, are they which put
+themselves into such or such a figure, or give themselves such or such
+a print as the Artificer intended; for a Watch, although the Artist
+or Watch-maker be the occasional cause that the Watch moves in such
+or such an artificial figure, as the figure of a Watch, yet it is the
+Watches own motion by which it moves; for when you carry the Watch
+about you, certainly the Watch-makers hand is not then with it as to
+move it; or if the motion of the Watch-makers hand be transferred into
+the Watch, then certainly the Watch-maker cannot make another Watch,
+unless there be a new creation of new motions made in his hands; so
+that God and Nature would be as much troubled and concerned in the
+making of Watches, as in the making of a new World; for God created
+this World in six days, and rested the seventh day, but this would be a
+perpetual Creation; Wherefore I say that some things may be Occasional
+causes of other things, but not the Prime or Principal causes; and this
+distinction is very well to be considered, for there are no frequenter
+mistakes then to confound these two different causes, which make so
+many confusions in natural Philosophy; and this is the Opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In answer to your question, What makes Eccho, I say, it is that which
+makes all the effects of Nature, _viz._ self-moving matter; I know, the
+common opinion is, that Eccho is made like as the figure of a Face, or
+the like, in a Looking-glass, and that the Reverberation of sound is
+like the Reflection of sight in a Looking-glass; But I am not of that
+opinion, for both Eccho, and that which is called the Reflection in a
+Looking-glass, are made by the self-moving matter, by way of patterning
+and copying out. But then you will ask me, whether the glass takes the
+copy of the face, or the face prints its copy on the glass, or whether
+it be the _medium_ of light and air that makes it? I answer, although
+many Learned men say, that as all perception, so also the seeing of
+ones face in a Looking-glass, and Eccho, are made by impression and
+reaction; yet I cannot in my simplicity conceive it, how bodies that
+come not near, or touch each other, can make a figure by impression
+and reaction: They say it proceeds from the motions of the _Medium_ of
+light, or air, or both, _viz._ that the _Medium_ is like a long stick
+with two ends, whereof one touches the object, the other the organ of
+sense, and that one end of it moving, the other moves also at the same
+point of Time, by which motions it may make many several figures; But
+I cannot conceive, how this motion of pressing forward and backward
+should make so many figures, wherein there is so much variety and
+curiosity. But, say light and air are as one figure, and like as a
+seal do print another body; I answer, if any thing could print, yet it
+is not probable, that so soft and rare bodies as light and air, could
+print such solid bodies as glass, nor could air by reverberation make
+such a sound as Eccho. But mistake me not, for, _I do not say_, that
+the Corporeal motions of light or air, cannot, or do not pencil, copie,
+or pattern out any figure, for both light and air are very active in
+such sorts of Motions, but I say, they cannot do it on any other bodies
+but their own. But to cut off tedious and unnecessary disputes, I
+return to the expressing of my own opinion, and believe, that the glass
+in its own substance doth figure out the copy of the face, or the like,
+and from that copy the sensitive motions in the eyes take another copy,
+and so the rational from the sensitive; and in this manner is made both
+rational and sensitive perception, sight and knowledg. The same with
+Ecchoes; for the air patterns out the copy of the sound, and then the
+sensitive corporeal motions in the ear pattern again this copy from
+the air, and so do make the perception and sense of hearing. You may
+ask me, _Madam_, if it be so, that the glass and the air copy out the
+figure of the face and of sound, whether the Glass may be said to see
+and the Air to speak? I answer, I cannot tell that; for though I say,
+that the air repeats the words, and the glass represents the face, yet
+I cannot guess what their perceptions are, onely this I may say, that
+the air hath an elemental, and the glass a mineral, but not an animal
+perception. But if these figures were made by the pressures of several
+objects or parts, and by reaction, there could not be such variety as
+there is, for they could but act by one sort of motion: Likewise is
+it improbable, that sounds, words or voices, should like a company of
+Wild-Geese fly in the air, and so enter into the ears of the hearers,
+as they into their nests: Neither can I conceive, how in this manner
+a word can enter so many ears, that is, be divided into every ear, and
+yet strike every ear with an undivided vocal sound; You will say, as
+a small fire doth heat and warm all those that stand by; for the heat
+issues from the fire, as the light from the Sun. I answer, all what
+issues and hath motion, hath a Body, and yet most learned men deny that
+sound, light and heat have bodies: But if they grant of light that it
+has a body, they say it moves and presses the air, and the air the eye,
+and so of heat; which if so, then the air must not move to any other
+motion but light, and onely to one sort of light, as the Suns light;
+for if it did move in any other motion, it would disturb the light; for
+if a Bird did but fly in the air, it would give all the region of air
+another motion, and so put out, or alter the light, or at least disturb
+it; and wind would make a great disturbance in it. Besides, if one body
+did give another body motion, it must needs give it also substance, for
+motion is either something or nothing, body or no body, substance or no
+substance; if nothing, it cannot enter into another body; if something,
+it must lessen the bulk of the body it quits, and increase the bulk
+of the body it enters, and so the Sun and Fire with giving light and
+heat, would become less, for they cannot both give and keep at once,
+for this is as impossible, as for a man to give to another creature
+his human Nature, and yet to keep it still. Wherefore my opinion is
+for heat, that when many men stand round about a fire, and are heated
+and warmed by it, the fire doth not give them any thing, nor do they
+receive something from the fire, but the sensitive motions in their
+bodies pattern out the object of the fires heat, and so they become
+more or less hot according as their patterns are numerous or perfect;
+And as for air, it patterns out the light of the Sun, and the sensitive
+motions in the eyes of animals pattern out the light in the air. The
+like for Ecchoes, or any other sound, and for the figures which are
+presented in a Looking-glass. And thus millions of parts or creatures
+may make patterns of one or more objects, and the objects neither
+give nor loose any thing. And this I repeat here, that my meaning of
+Perception may be the better understood, which is the desire of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXV.
+
+
+_MADAM_
+
+I perceive you are not fully satisfied with my former Letter concerning
+Eccho, and a figure presented in a Looking-glass; for you say, how is
+it possible, if Eccho consists in the ears patterning out of a voice
+or sound, but that it will make a confusion in all the parts of the
+air? My answer is, that I doe not say that Eccho is onely made by the
+patterning out of the voice or sound, but by repeating the same voice
+or sound, which repetition is named an Eccho, for millions of ears in
+animals may pattern out a voice or words, and yet never repeat them,
+and so may millions of parts of the air; wherefore Eccho doth not
+consist in the bare patterning out, but in the repetition of the same
+sound or words, which are pattern'd out; and so some parts of the air
+may at one and the same time pattern out a sound and not repeat it,
+and some may both pattern out, and repeat it, but some may neither
+pattern out, nor repeat it, and therefore the Repetition, not the
+bare Patterning out is called Eccho: Just as when two or more men do
+answer or mock each other, and repeat each others words, it is not
+necessary, if there were a thousand standers by, that they should all
+do the same. And as for the figure presented in a Looking-glass, I
+cannot conceive it to be made by pressure and reaction; for although
+there is both pressure and reaction in nature, and those very frequent
+amongst natures Parts, yet they do neither make perception nor
+production, although both pressure and reaction are made by corporeal
+self-motions; Wherefore the figure presented in a Looking-glass, or
+any other smooth glassie body, is, in my opinion, onely made by the
+motions of the Looking-glass, which do both pattern out, and present
+the figure of an external object in the Glass: But you will say, why do
+not the motions of other bodies pattern out, and present the figures
+of external objects, as well as smooth glassie bodies do? I answer,
+they may pattern out external objects, for any thing I know; but the
+reason that their figures are not presented to our eyes, lies partly
+in the presenting subject it self, partly in our sight; for it is
+observed, that two things are chiefly required in a subject that will
+present the figure of an external object; first it must be smooth, even
+and glassie, next it must not be transparent: the first is manifest
+by experience; for the subject being rough and uneven, will never be
+able to present such a figure; as for example, A piece of steel rough
+and unpolished, although it may perhaps pattern out the figure of an
+external object, yet it will never present its figure, but as soon as
+it is polished, and made smooth and glassie, the figure is presently
+perceived. But this is to be observed, that smooth and glassie bodies
+do not always pattern out exterior objects exactly, but some better,
+some worse; like as Painters have not all the same ingenuity; neither
+do all eyes pattern out all objects exactly; which proves that the
+perception of sight is not made by pressure and reaction, otherwise
+there would be no difference, but all eyes would see alike. Next I
+say, it is observed, that the subject which will present the figure
+of an external object, must not be transparent; the reason is, that
+the figure of Light being a substance of a piercing and penetrating
+quality, hath more force on transparent, then on other solid dark
+bodies, and so disturbs the figure of an external object pattern'd out
+in a transparent body, and quite over-masters it. But you will say, you
+have found by experience, that if you hold a burning Candle before a
+Transparent-glass, although it be in an open Sun-light, yet the figure
+of light and flame of the Candle will clearly be seen in the Glass. I
+answer, that it is an other thing with the figure of Candle-light, then
+of a duskish or dark body; for a Candle-light, though it is not of the
+same sort as the Suns light, yet it is of the same nature and quality,
+and therefore the Candle-light doth resist and oppose the light of the
+Sun, so that it cannot have so much power over it, as over the figures
+of other bodies patterned out and presented in Transparent-glass.
+Lastly, I say, that the fault oftentimes lies in the perceptive
+motions of our sight, which is evident by a plain and Concave-glass;
+for in a plain Looking-glass, the further you go from it, the more
+your figure presented in the glass seems to draw backward; and in a
+Concave-glass, the nearer you go to it, the more seems your figure
+to come forth: which effects are like as an house or tree appears to
+a Traveller; for, as the man moves from the house or tree, so the
+house or tree seems to move from the man; or like one that sails upon
+a Ship, who imagines that the Ship stands still, and the Land moves;
+when as yet it is the Man and the Ship that moves, and not the House,
+or Tree, or the Land; so when a Man turns round in a quick motion,
+or when his head is dizzie, he imagines the room or place, where he
+is, turns round. Wherefore it is the Inherent Perceptive motions in
+the Eye, and not the motions in the Looking-glass, which cause these
+effects. And as for several figures that are presented in one glass,
+it is absurd to imagine that so many several figures made by so many
+several motions should touch the eye; certainly this would make such
+a disturbance, if all figures were to enter or but to touch the eye,
+as the eye would not perceive any of them, at lead not distinctly;
+Wherefore it is most probable that the glass patterns out those
+figures, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the eye take again a
+pattern from those figures patterned out by the glass, and so make
+copies of copies; but the reason why several figures are presented in
+one glass in several places, is, that two perfect figures cannot be in
+one point, nor made by one motion, but by several corporeal motions.
+Concerning a Looking-glass, made in the form or shape of a Cylinder,
+why it represents the figure of an external object in an other shape
+and posture then the object is, the cause is the shape and form of the
+Glass, and not the patterning motions in the Glass. But this discourse
+belongs properly to the Opticks, wherefore I will leave it to those
+that are versed in that Art, to enquire and search more after the
+rational truth thereof. In the mean time, my opinion is, that though
+the object is the occasion of the figure presented in a Looking-glass,
+yet the figure is made by the motions of the glass or body that
+presents it, and that the figure of the glass perhaps may be patterned
+out as much by the motions of the object in its own substance, as the
+figure of the object is patterned out and presented by the motions of
+the glass in its own body or substance. And thus I conclude and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since I mentioned in my last that Light did disturb the figures of
+External objects presented in Transparent bodies; you were pleased
+to ask, Whether light doth penetrate transparent bodies? I answer,
+for anything I know, it may; for when I consider the subtil, piercing
+and penetrating nature of light, I believe it doth; but again, when I
+consider that light is presented to our sight by transparent bodies
+onely, and not by duskish and dark bodies, and yet that those duskish
+bodies are more porous then the transparent bodies, so that the light
+hath more passage to pass through them, then through transparent
+bodies; but that on the contrary, those dark bodies, as Wood, and the
+like, do quite obscure the light, when as transparent bodies, as Glass,
+&c. transmit it, I am half perswaded that the transparent bodies, as
+Glass, rather present the Light by patterning it out, then by giving it
+passage: Also I am of a mind, that the air in a room may pattern out
+the Light from the Glass, for the Light in a room doth not appear so
+clear as in the Glass; also if the Glass be any way defective, it doth
+not present the Light so perfectly, whereas, if it were the penetration
+of light through the glass, the light would pass through all sorts of
+glass alike, which it doth not, but is more clearly seen through some,
+and more obscurely through others, according to the goodness or purity
+of the glass. But you may say, that the light divulges the imperfection
+or goodness of the glass; I answer, so it doth of any other objects
+perceived by our sight; for light is the presenter of objects to the
+sense and perception of sight, and for any thing I know, the corporeal
+optick motions make the figure of light, the ground figure of all other
+figures patterned out by the corporeal optick motions, as in dreams, or
+when as some do see in the dark, that is, without the help of exterior
+light. But you may say, That if the glass and the air in a room did
+pattern out the figure of light, those patterns of light would remain
+when light is absent: I answer, That is not usual in nature; for when
+the object removes, the Pattern alters; I will not say but that the
+corporeal optick motions may work by rote without objects, but that is
+irregular, as in some distempers. And thus, _Madam_, I have given you
+my opinion also to this your question; if you have any more scruples,
+I pray let me know of them, and assure your self that I shall be ready
+upon all occasions to express my self,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your desire is to know, why sound is louder in a Vault, and in a large
+Room then in a less? I answer, A Vault or arched Figure is the freest
+from obstruction, as being without corners and points, so as the
+sensitive and rational corporeal motions of the Ear can have a better
+perception; like as the Eye can see farthest from a hill then being
+upon a level ground, because the prospect is freer from the hill, as
+without obstruction, unless it be so cloudy that the clouds do hinder
+the perception; And as the eye can have a better prospect upon a hill,
+so the ear a stronger perception in a Vault; And as for sound, that it
+is better perceived in a large, then in a little close room or place,
+it is somewhat like the perception of sent, for the more the odorous
+parts are bruised, the stronger is that perception of sent, as being
+repeated double or treble, which makes the perception stronger, like as
+a thick body is stronger then a thin one; So likewise the perception
+of sound in the air; for though not all the parts of the air make
+repetitions, yet some or many make patterns of the sound; the truth
+is, Air is as industrious to divulge or present a sound, by patterns
+to the Ear, as light doth objects to the Eye. But then you may ask me,
+Why a long hollow pipe doth convey a voice to the ear more readily,
+then any large and open place? My answer is, That the Parts of the
+air in a long pipe are more Composed and not at liberty to wander, so
+that upon necessity they must move onely to the patterning out of the
+sound, having no choice, which makes the sound much stronger, and the
+perception of the Ear perfecter; But as for Pipes, Vaults, Prospects,
+as also figures presented in a room through a little hole, inverted,
+and many the like, belongs more to Artists then to my study, for though
+Natural Philosophy gives or points out the Ground, and shews the
+reason, yet it is the Artist that Works; Besides it is more proper for
+Mathematicians to discourse of, which study I am not versed in; and so
+leaving it to them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+From Sound I am come to Sent, in the discourse whereof, your
+_Author_[1] is pleased to set down these following propositions: 1.
+_That smelling is hindred by cold and helped by heat_: 2. _That when
+the Wind bloweth from the object, the smell is the stronger, and when
+it blows from the sentient towards the object, the weaker, which by
+experience is found in dogs, that follow the track of beasts by the
+Sent_: 3. _That such bodies as are last pervious to the fluid medium,
+yield less smell then such as are more pervious_: 4. _That such bodies
+as are of their own nature odorous, become yet more odorous, when
+they are bruised_: 5. _That when the breath is stopped (at least in
+man) nothing can be smelt_: 6. _That the Sense of smelling is also
+taken away by the stopping of the nostrils, though the mouth be left
+open._ To begin from the last, I say, that the nose is like the other
+sensitive organs, which if they be stopt, the corporeal sensitive
+motions cannot take copies of the exterior objects, and therefore must
+alter their action of patterning to some other, for when the eye is
+shut and cannot perceive outward objects then it works to the Sense
+of Touch, or on the inside of the organ to some phantasmes; and so do
+the rest of the Senses. As for the stopping of breath, why it hinders
+the Sent, the cause is, that the nostrils and the mouth are the chief
+organs, to receive air and to let out breath: but though they be common
+passages for air and breath, yet taste is onely made in the mouth
+and tongue, and sent in the nose; not by the pressure of meat, and
+the odoriferous object, but by patterning out the several figures or
+objects of sent and taste, for the nose and the mouth will smell and
+taste one, nay several things at the same time, like as the eye will
+see light, colour, and other objects at once, which I think can hardly
+be done by pressures; and the reason is, that the sensitive motions
+in the sensitive organs make patterns of several objects at one time,
+which is the cause, that when flowers, and such like odoriferous bodies
+are bruised, there are as many figures made as there are parts bruised
+or divided, and by reason of so many figures the sensitive knowledg is
+stronger; but that stones, minerals, and the like, seem not so strong
+to our smell, the reason is, that their parts being close and united,
+the sensitive motions in the organ cannot so readily perceive and
+pattern them out, as those bodies which are more porous and divided.
+But as for the wind blowing the sent either to or from the sentient, it
+is like a window or door that by the motion of opening and shutting,
+hinders or disturbeth the sight; for bodies coming between the object
+and the organ, make a stop of that perception. And as for the Dogs
+smelling out the track of Beasts, the cause is, that the earth or
+ground hath taken a copy of that sent, which copy the sensitive motions
+in the nose of the Dog do pattern out, and so long as that figure or
+copy lasts, the Dog perceives the sent, but if he doth not follow or
+hunt readily, then there is either no perfect copy made by the ground,
+or otherwise he cannot find it, which causes him to seek and smell
+about until he hath it; and thus smell is not made by the motion of the
+air, but by the figuring motions in the nose: Where it is also to be
+observed, that not onely the motions in one, but in millions of noses,
+may pattern out one little object at one time, and therefore it is not,
+that the object of sent fills a room by sending out the sent from its
+substance, but that so many figures are made of that object of sent
+by so many several sensitive motions, which pattern the same out; and
+so the air, or ground, or any other creature, whose sensitive motions
+pattern out the object of sent, may perceive the same, although their
+sensitive organs are not like to those of animal Creatures; for if
+there be but such sensitive motions and perceptions, it is no matter
+for such organs. Lastly, it is to be observed, That all Creatures
+have not the same strength of smelling, but some smell stronger, some
+weaker, according to the disposition of their sensitive motions: Also
+there be other parts in the body, which pattern out the object of
+sent, besides the nose, but those are interior parts, and take their
+patterns from the nose as the organ properly designed for it; neither
+is their resentment the same, because their motions are not alike, for
+the stomack may perceive and pattern out a sent with aversion, when the
+nose may pattern it out with pleasure. And thus much also of Sent; I
+conclude and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 29. _art._ 12.
+
+
+
+
+XXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning your Learned Authors discourse of Density and Rarity, he
+defines[1] _Thick to be that, which takes up more parts of a space
+given; and thin, which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude: not
+that there is more matter in one place then in an other equal place,
+but a greater quantity of some named body; wherefore the multitude and
+paucity of the parts contained within the same space do constitute
+density and rarity._ Whereof my opinion is, That there is no more nor
+less space or place then body according to its dilation or contraction,
+and that space and place are dilated and contracted with the body,
+according to the magnitude of the body, for body, place and magnitude
+are the same thing, only place is in regard of the several parts of the
+body, and there is as well space betwixt things distant a hairs breadth
+from one another, as betwixt things distant a million of miles, but yet
+this space is nothing from the body; but it makes, that that body has
+not the same place with this body, that is, that this body is not that
+body, and that this bodies place is not that bodies place. Next your
+_Author_ sayes,[2] _He hath already clearly enough demonstrated, that
+there can be no beginning of motion, but from an external and moved
+body, and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards cannot be cast
+down again, but by external motion._ Truly, _Madam_, I will not speak
+of your _Authors_ demonstrations, for it is done most by art, which I
+have no knowledg in, but I think I have probably declared, that all
+the actions of nature are not forced by one part, driving, pressing,
+or shoving another, as a man doth a wheel-barrow, or a whip a horse;
+nor by reactions, as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs, or as men with
+carts meeting each other in a narrow lane. But to prove there is no
+self-motion in nature, he goes on and says; _To attribute to created
+bodies the power to move themselves, what is it else, then to say that
+there be creatures which have no dependance upon the Creator?_ To which
+I answer, That if man (who is but a single part of nature) hath given
+him by God the power and a free will of moving himself, why should
+not God give it to Nature? Neither can I see, how it can take off the
+dependance upon God, more then Eternity; for, if there be an Eternal
+Creator, there is also an Eternal Creature, and if an Eternal Master,
+an Eternal Servant, which is Nature; and yet Nature is subject to Gods
+Command, and depends upon him; and if all Gods Attributes be Infinite,
+then his Bounty is Infinite also, which cannot be exercised but by an
+Infinite Gift, but a Gift doth not cause a less dependance. I do not
+say, That man hath an absolute Free-will, or power to move, according
+to his desire; for it is not conceived, that a part can have an
+absolute power: nevertheless his motion both of body and mind is a free
+and self-motion, and such a self-motion hath every thing in Nature
+according to its figure or shape; for motion and figure, being inherent
+in matter, matter moves figuratively. Yet do I not say, That there is
+no hindrance, obstruction and opposition in nature; but as there is
+no particular Creature, that hath an absolute power of self-moving;
+so that Creature which hath the advantage of strength, subtilty, or
+policy, shape, or figure, and the like, may oppose and over-power
+another which is inferior to it, in all this; yet this hinderance and
+opposition doth not take away self-motion. But I perceive your _Author_
+is much for necessitation, and against free-will, which I leave to
+Moral Philosophers and Divines. And as for the ascending of light,
+and descending of heavy bodies, there may be many causes, but these
+four are perceiveable by our senses, as bulk, or quantity of body,
+grossness of substance, density, and shape or figure, which make heavy
+bodies descend: But little quantity, purity of substance, rarity, and
+figure or shape make light bodies ascend. Wherefore I cannot believe,
+that there are[3] _certain little bodies as atoms, and by reason of
+their smallness, invisible, differing from one another in consistence,
+figure, motion and magnitude, intermingled with the air_, which should
+be the cause of the descending of heavy bodies. And concerning air,[4]
+_whether it be subject to our senses or not_, I say, that if air be
+neither hot, nor cold, it is not subject; but if it be, the sensitive
+motions will soon pattern it out, and declare it. I'le conclude with
+your _Authors_ question,[5] _What the cause is, that a man doth not
+feel the weight of Water in Water?_ and answer, it is the dilating
+nature of Water. But of this question and of Water I shall treat more
+fully hereafter, and so I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _C._ 30. _a._ 1.
+
+[2] _Art._ 2.
+
+[3] _Art._ 3.
+
+[4] _Art._ 14.
+
+[5] _Art._ 6.
+
+
+
+
+XXX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am reading now the works of that Famous and most Renowned _Author,
+Des Cartes,_ out of which I intend to pick out onely those discourses
+which I like best, and not to examine his opinions, as they go along
+from the beginning to the end of his books; And in order to this, I
+have chosen in the first place, his discourse of motion, and do not
+assent to his opinion,[1] when he defines _Motion to be onely a Mode
+of a thing, and not the thing or body it selfe_; for, in my opinion,
+there can be no abstraction made of motion from body, neither really,
+nor in the manner of our conception, for how can I conceive that
+which is not, nor cannot be in nature, that is, to conceive motion
+without body? Wherefore Motion is but one thing with body, without
+any separation or abstraction soever. Neither doth it agree with my
+reason, that[2] _one body can give or transferr motion into another
+body; and as much motion it gives or transfers into that body, as
+much loses it: As for example, in two hard bodies thrown against one
+another, where one, that is thrown with greater force, takes the other
+along with it, and loses as much motion as it gives it._ For how
+can motion, being no substance, but onely a mode, quit one body, and
+pass into another? One body may either occasion, or imitate anothers
+motion, but it can neither give nor take away what belongs to its own
+or another bodies substance, no more then matter can quit its nature
+from being matter; and therefore my opinion is, that if motion doth
+go out of one body into another, then substance goes too; for motion,
+and substance or body, as afore-mentioned, are all one thing, and
+then all bodies that receive motion from other bodies, must needs
+increase in their substance and quantity, and those bodies which impart
+or transferr motion, must decrease as much as they increase: Truly,
+_Madam_, that neither Motion nor Figure should subsist by themselves,
+and yet be transferable into other bodies, is very strange, and as much
+as to prove them to be nothing, and yet to say they are something. The
+like may be said of all others, which they call accidents, as skill,
+learning, knowledge, &c. saying, they are no bodies, because they
+have no extension, but inherent in bodies or substances as in their
+subjects; for although the body may subsist without them, yet they
+being always with the body, body and they are all one thing: And so is
+power and body, for body cannot quit power, nor power the body, being
+all one thing. But to return to Motion, my opinion is, That all matter
+is partly animate, and partly inanimate, and all matter is moving and
+moved, and that there is no part of Nature that hath not life and
+knowledg, for there is no Part that has not a comixture of animate and
+inanimate matter; and though the inanimate matter has no motion, nor
+life and knowledg of it self, as the animate has, nevertheless being
+both so closely joyned and commixed as in one body, the inanimate
+moves as well as the animate, although not in the same manner; for the
+animate moves of it self, and the inanimate moves by the help of the
+animate, and thus the animate is moving and the inanimate moved; not
+that the animate matter transfers, infuses, or communicates its own
+motion to the inanimate; for this is impossible, by reason it cannot
+part with its own nature, nor alter the nature of inanimate matter,
+but each retains its own nature; for the inanimate matter remains
+inanimate, that is, without self-motion, and the animate loses nothing
+of its self-motion, which otherwise it would, if it should impart or
+transferr its motion into the inanimate matter; but onely as I said
+heretofore, the inanimate works or moves with the animate, because of
+their close union and commixture; for the animate forces or causes
+the inanimate matter to work with her; and thus one is moving, the
+other moved, and consequently there is life and knowledg in all parts
+of nature, by reason in all parts of nature there is a commixture of
+animate and inanimate matter: and this Life and Knowledg is sense and
+reason, or sensitive and rational corporeal motions, which are all one
+thing with animate matter without any distinction or abstraction, and
+can no more quit matter, then matter can quit motion. Wherefore every
+creature being composed of this commixture of animate and inanimate
+matter, has also selfe-motion, that is life and knowledg, sense and
+reason, so that no part hath need to give or receive motion to or from
+another part; although it may be an occasion of such a manner of motion
+to another part, and cause it to move thus or thus: as for example,
+A Watch-maker doth not give the watch its motion, but he is onely the
+occasion, that the watch moves after that manner, for the motion of the
+watch is the watches own motion, inherent in those parts ever since
+that matter was, and if the watch ceases to move after such a manner or
+way, that manner or way of motion is never the less in those parts of
+matter, the watch is made of, and if several other figures should be
+made of that matter, the power of moving in the said manner or mode,
+would yet still remain in all those parts of matter as long as they are
+body, and have motion in them. Wherefore one body may occasion another
+body to move so or so, but not give it any motion, but every body
+(though occasioned by another, to move in such a way) moves by its own
+natural motion; for self-motion is the very nature of animate matter,
+and is as much in hard, as in fluid bodies, although your _Author_
+denies it, saying,[3] _The nature of fluid bodies consists in the
+motion of those little insensible parts into which they are divided,
+and the nature of hard bodies, when those little particles joyned
+closely together, do rest_; for there is no rest in nature; wherefore
+if there were a World of Gold, and a World of Air, I do verily believe,
+that the World of Gold would be as much interiously active, as the
+World of Air exteriously; for Natures motions are not all external or
+perceptible by our senses, neither are they all circular, or onely of
+one sort, but there is an infinite change and variety of motions; for
+though I say in my Philosophical opinions,[4] _As there is but one
+onely Matter, so there is but one onely Motion_; yet I do not mean,
+there is but one particular sort of motions, as either circular, or
+straight, or the like, but that the nature of motion is one and the
+same, simple and intire in it self, that is, it is meer motion, or
+nothing else but corporeal motion; and that as there are infinite
+divisions or parts of matter, so there are infinite changes and
+varieties of motions, which is the reason that I call motion as well
+infinite as matter; first that matter and motion are but one thing, and
+if matter be infinite, motion must be so too; and secondly, that motion
+is infinite in its changes and variations, as matter is in its parts.
+And thus much of motion for this time; I add no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Philos. p._ 2. _Art._ 25.
+
+[2] _Art._ 40.
+
+[3] _Philos. part._ 2. _a._ 54.
+
+[4] _Part._ 1. _c._ 5.
+
+
+
+
+XXXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I observe your _Author_ in his discourse of Place makes a difference[1]
+betwixt an _Interior and Exterior place_, and that according to this
+distinction, _one body may be said to change, and not to change its
+place at the same time, and that one body may succeed into anothers
+place_. But I am not of this opinion, for I believe not that there
+is any more place then body; as for example, Water being mix'd with
+Earth, the water doth not take the Earths place, but as their parts
+intermix, so do their places, and as their parts change, so do their
+places, so that there is no more place, then there is water and earth;
+the same may be said of Air and Water, or Air and Earth, or did they
+all mix together; for as their bodies join, so do their places, and
+as they are separated from each other, so are their places. Say a man
+travels a hundred miles, and so a hundred thousand paces; but yet this
+man has not been in a hundred thousand places, for he never had any
+other place but his own, he hath joined and separated himselfe from
+a hundred thousand, nay millions of parts, but he has left no places
+behind him. You will say, if he travel the same way back again, then
+he is said to travel thorow the same places. I answer, It may be the
+vulgar way of expression, or the common phrase; but to speak properly,
+after a Philosophical way, and according to the truth in nature, he
+cannot be said to go back again thorow the same places he went, because
+he left none behind him, or els all his way would be nothing but place
+after place, all the hundred miles along; besides if place should be
+taken so, as to express the joyning to the neerest bodies which compass
+him about, certainly he would never find his places again; for the
+air being fluid, changes or moves continually, and perchance the same
+parts of the air, which compassed him once, will never come near him
+again. But you may say, If a man be hurt, or hath some mischance in his
+body, so as to have a piece of flesh cut out, and new flesh growing
+there; then we say, because the adjoyning parts do not change, that a
+new piece of flesh is grown in the same place where the former flesh
+was, and that the place of the former flesh cut or fallen out, is the
+same of this new grown flesh. I answer, In my opinion, it is not,
+for the parts being not the same, the places are not, but every one
+hath its own place. But if the wound be not filled or closed up with
+other new flesh, you will say, that according to my opinion there is
+no place then at all. I say, Yes, for the air or any thing else may be
+there, as new parts joyning to the other parts; nevertheless, the air,
+or that same body which is there, hath not taken the fleshes place,
+which was there before, but hath its own; but, by reason the adjoyning
+parts remain, man thinks the place remains there also which is no
+consequence. 'Tis true, a man may return to the same adjoining bodies,
+where he was before, but then he brings his place with him again, and
+as his body, so his place returnes also, and if a mans arm be cut off,
+you may say, there was an arm heretofore, but you cannot say properly,
+this is the place where the arm was. But to return to my first example
+of the mixture of Water, and Earth or Air; Suppose water is not porous,
+but onely dividable, and hath no other place but what is its own
+bodies, and that other parts of water intermix with it by dividing and
+composing; I say, there is no more place required, then what belongs
+to their own parts, for if some contract, others dilate, some divide,
+others joyn, the places are the same according to the magnitude of each
+part or body. The same may be said of all kinds or sorts of mixtures,
+for one body hath but one place; and so if many parts of the same
+nature joyn into one body and increase the bulk of the body, the place
+of that same body is accordingly; and if they be bodies of different
+natures which intermix and joyne, each several keeps its place; And so
+each body and each particular part of a body hath its place, for you
+cannot name body or part of a body, but you must also understand place
+to be with them, and if a point should dilate to a world, or a world
+contract to a point, the place would always be the same with the body.
+And thus I have declared my opinion of this subject, which I submit to
+the correction of your better judgment, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_faithful Friend and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Philos. p._ 2. _a._ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
+
+
+
+
+XXXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In my last, I hope, I have sufficiently declared my opinion, That to
+one body belongs but one place, and that no body can leave a place
+behind it, but wheresoever is body, there is place also. Now give me
+leave to examine this question: when a bodies figure is printed on
+snow, or any other fluid or soft matter, as air, water, and the like;
+whether it be the body, that prints its own figure upon the snow, or
+whether it be the snow, that patterns the figure of the body? My answer
+is, That it is not the body, which prints its figure upon the snow,
+but the snow that patterns out the figure of the body; for if a seal
+be printed upon wax, 'tis true, it is the figure of the seal, which is
+printed on the wax, but yet the seal doth not give the wax the print
+of its own figure, but it is the wax that takes the print or pattern
+from the seal, and patterns or copies it out in its own substance,
+just as the sensitive motions in the eye do pattern out the figure of
+an object, as I have declared heretofore. But you will say, perhaps, A
+body being printed upon snow, as it leaves its print, so it leaves also
+its place with the print in the snow. I answer, That doth not follow;
+For the place remains still the bodies place, and when the body removes
+out of the snow, it takes its place along with it: Just like a man,
+whose picture is drawn by a Painter, when he goes away, he leaves not
+his place with his picture, but his place goes with his body; and as
+the place of the picture is the place of the colour or paint, and the
+place of the copie of an exterior object patterned out by the sensitive
+corporeal motions is the place of the sensitive organ, so the place
+of the print in snow, is the snows place; or else, if the print were
+the bodies place that is printed, and not the snow's, it might as well
+be said, that the motion and shape of a watch were not the motion and
+shape of the watch, but of the hand of him that made it. And as it is
+with snow, so it is with air, for a mans figure is patterned out by the
+parts and motions of the air, wheresoever he moveth; the difference is
+onely, that air being a fluid body doth not retain the print so long,
+as snow or a harder body doth, but when the body removes, the print
+is presently dissolved. But I wonder much, your _Author_ denies, that
+there can be two bodies in one place, and yet makes two places for one
+body, when all is but the motions of one body: Wherefore a man sailing
+in a Ship, cannot be said to keep place, and to change his place; for
+it is not place he changes, but onely the adjoyning parts, as leaving
+some, and joyning to others; and it is very improper, to attribute
+that to place which belongs to parts, and to make a change of place
+out of change of parts. I conclude, repeating once again, that figure
+and place are still remaining the same with body; For example; let
+a stone be beat to dust, and this dust be severally dispersed, nay,
+changed into numerous figures; I say, as long as the substance of the
+stone remains in the power of those dispersed and changed parts, and
+their corporeal motions, the place of it continues also; and as the
+corporeal motions change and vary, so doth place, magnitude and figure,
+together with their parts or bodies, for they are but one thing. And so
+I conclude, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am absolutely of your _Authors_ opinion, when he sayes,[1] _That all
+bodies of this Universe are of one and the same matter, really divided
+into many parts, and that these parts are diversly moved_: But that
+these motions should be circular more then of any other sort, I cannot
+believe, although he thinks that this is the most probable way, to find
+out the causes of natural effects: for nature is not bound to one sort
+of motions more then to another, and it is but in vain to indeavour to
+know how, and by what motions God did make the World, since Creation
+is an action of God, and Gods actions are incomprehensible; Wherefore
+his �thereal Whirlpools, and little particles of matter, which he
+reduceth to three sorts and calls them the three elements of the
+Universe, their circular motions, several figures, shavings, and many
+the like, which you may better read, then I rehearse to you, are to
+my thinking, rather Fancies, then rational or probable conceptions;
+for how can we imagine that the Universe was set a moving as a Top by
+a Whip, or a Wheele by the hand of a Spinster, and that the vacuities
+were fill'd up with shavings? for these violent motions would rather
+have disturbed and disordered Nature; and though Nature uses variety
+in her motions or actions, yet these are not extravagant, nor by force
+or violence, but orderly, temperate, free, and easie, which causes
+me to believe, the Earth turns about rather then the Sun; and though
+corporeal motions for variety make Whirl-winds, yet Whirl-winds are
+not constant, Neither can I believe that the swiftness of motion could
+make the matter more subtil and pure then it was by nature, for it is
+the purity and subtilty of the matter, that causes motion, and makes it
+swifter or slower, and not motion the subtilty and purity of matter;
+motion being onely the action of matter; and the self-moving part of
+matter is the working part of nature, which is wise, and knows how to
+move and form every creature without instruction; and this self-motion
+is as much her own as the other parts of her body, matter and figure,
+and is one and the same with her self, as a corporeal, living, knowing,
+and inseparable being, and a part of her self. As for the several
+parts of matter, I do believe, that they are not all of one and the
+same bigness, nor of one and the same figure, neither do I hold their
+figures to be unalterable; for if all parts in nature be corporeal,
+they are dividable, composable, and intermixable, and then they cannot
+be always of one and the same sort of figure; besides nature would not
+have so much work if there were no change of figures: and since her
+onely action is change of motion, change of motion must needs make
+change of figures: and thus natural parts of matter may change from
+lines to points, and from points to lines, from squares to circles,
+and so forth, infinite ways, according to the change of motions; but
+though they change their figures, yet they cannot change their matter;
+for matter as it has been, so it remaines constantly in each degree, as
+the Rational, Sensitive and Inanimate, none becomes purer, none grosser
+then ever it was, notwithstanding the infinite changes of motions,
+which their figures undergo; for Motion changes onely the figure, not
+the matter it self, which continues still the same in its nature, and
+cannot be altered without a confusion or destruction of Nature. And
+this is the constant opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Philos. part._ 3. _a._ 40.
+
+
+
+
+XXXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+That _Rarefaction_ is onely a _change of figure_, according to your
+_Authors_ opinion,[1] is in my reason very probable; but when he sayes,
+that _in rarified bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with
+some other subtil matter_, if he means that all rarified bodies are
+porous, I dissent from him; for it is not necessary that all rarified
+bodies should be porous, and all hard bodies without pores: but if
+there were a probability of pores, I am of opinion, it would be more
+in dense and hard, than in rare and soft bodies; as for example,
+rarifying and dilating motions are plaining, smoothing, spreading and
+making all parts even, which could not well be, if there were holes
+or pores; Earth is dense and hard, and yet is porous, and flame is
+rare and dilating, and yet is not porous; and certainly Water is not
+so porous as Earth. Wherefore pores, in my opinion, are according to
+the nature or form of the figure, and not according to the rarity or
+thinness, and density or thickness of the substance. As for his thin
+and subtil matter filling up the pores of porous bodies, I assent to
+your _Author_ so far, that I meane, thin and thick, or rare and dense
+substances are joyned and mixed together. As for plaining, smoothing
+and spreading, I do not mean so much artificial plaining and spreading;
+as for example, when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate, and
+a board is made plain and smooth by a Joyners tool, or a napkin folded
+up is spread plain and even, although, when you observe these arts, you
+may judge somewhat of the nature of natural dilations; for a folded
+cloth is fuller of creases then when plain, and the beating of a thin
+plate is like to the motion of dilation, which is to spread out, and
+the forme of rarifying is thinning and extending. I add onely this,
+that I am not of your _Authors_ opinion, that Rest is the Cause or
+Glue which keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together, but it is
+retentive motions. And so I conclude, resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Philos. part._ 2. _a._ 6, 7.
+
+
+
+
+XXXV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+_That the Mind_, according to your _Authors_ opinion, _is a substance
+really distinct from the body, and may be actually separated from
+it and subsist without it_: If he mean the natural mind and soul of
+Man, not the supernatural or divine, I am far from his opinion; for
+though the mind moveth onely in its own parts, and not upon, or with
+the parts of inanimate matter, yet it cannot be separated from these
+parts of matter, and subsist by its self as being a part of one and
+the same matter the inanimate is of, (for there is but one onely
+matter, and one kind of matter, although of several degrees,) onely
+it is the self-moving part; but yet this cannot impower it, to quit
+the same natural body, whose part it is. Neither can I apprehend,
+that the Mind's or Soul's seat should be in the _Glandula_ or kernel
+of the Brain, and there sit like a Spider in a Cobweb, to whom the
+least motion of the Cobweb gives intelligence of a Flye, which he is
+ready to assault, and that the Brain should get intelligence by the
+animal spirits as his servants, which run to and fro like Ants to
+inform it; or that the Mind should, according to others opinions, be
+a light, and imbroidered all with Ideas, like a Heraulds Coat; and
+that the sensitive organs should have no knowledg in themselves, but
+serve onely like peeping-holes for the mind, or barn-dores to receive
+bundles of pressures, like sheaves of Corn; For there being a thorow
+mixture of animate, rational and sensitive, and inanimate matter, we
+cannot assign a certain seat or place to the rational, another to the
+sensitive, and another to the inanimate, but they are diffused and
+intermixt throughout all the body; And this is the reason, that sense
+and knowledg cannot be bound onely to the head or brain; But although
+they are mixt together, nevertheless they do not lose their interior
+nature, by this mixture, nor their purity and subtilty, nor their
+proper motions or actions, but each moves according to its nature and
+substance, without confusion; The actions of the rational part in
+Man, which is the Mind or Soul, are called Thoughts, or thoughtful
+perceptions, which are numerous, and so are the sensitive perceptions;
+for though Man, or any other animal hath but five exterior sensitive
+organs, yet there be numerous perceptions made in these sensitive
+organs, and in all the body; nay, every several Pore of the flesh is
+a sensitive organ, as well as the Eye, or the Ear. But both sorts, as
+well the rational as the sensitive, are different from each other,
+although both do resemble another, as being both parts of animate
+matter, as I have mentioned before: Wherefore I'le add no more, onely
+let you know, that I constantly remain,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+That all other animals, besides man, want reason, your _Author_
+endeavours to prove in his _discourse of method_, where his chief
+argument is, That other animals cannot express their mind, thoughts or
+conceptions, either by speech or any other signs, as man can do: For,
+sayes he, _it is not for want of the organs belonging to the framing
+of words, as we may observe in Parrats and Pies, which are apt enough
+to express words they are taught, but understand nothing of them._ My
+answer is, That one man expressing his mind by speech or words to an
+other, doth not declare by it his excellency and supremacy above all
+other Creatures, but for the most part more folly, for a talking man
+is not so wise as a contemplating man. But by reason other Creatures
+cannot speak or discourse with each other as men, or make certain
+signs, whereby to express themselves as dumb and deaf men do, should we
+conclude, they have neither knowledge, sense, reason, or intelligence?
+Certainly, this is a very weak argument; for one part of a mans body,
+as one hand, is not less sensible then the other, nor the heel less
+sensible then the heart, nor the legg less sensible then the head,
+but each part hath its sense and reason, and so consequently its
+sensitive and rational knowledg; and although they cannot talk or give
+intelligence to each other by speech, nevertheless each hath its own
+peculiar and particular knowledge, just as each particular man has his
+own particular knowledge, for one man's knowledge is not another man's
+knowledge; and if there be such a peculiar and particular knowledg in
+every several part of one animal creature, as man, well may there be
+such in Creatures of different kinds and sorts: But this particular
+knowledg belonging to each creature, doth not prove that there is no
+intelligence at all betwixt them, no more then the want of humane
+Knowledg doth prove the want of Reason; for Reason is the rational
+part of matter, and makes perception, observation, and intelligence
+different in every creature, and every sort of creatures, according
+to their proper natures, but perception, observation and intelligence
+do not make reason, Reason being the cause, and they the effects.
+Wherefore though other Creatures have not the speech, nor Mathematical
+rules and demonstrations, with other Arts and Sciences, as Men; yet may
+their perceptions and observations be as wise as Men's, and they may
+have as much intelligence and commerce betwixt each other, after their
+own manner and way, as men have after theirs: To which I leave them,
+and Man to his conceited prerogative and excellence, resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning _Sense_ and _Perception_, your _Authors_ opinion is,[1]
+That it is made by a _motion or impression from the object upon the
+sensitive organ, which impression, by means of the nerves, is brought
+to the brain, and so to the mind or soul, which onely perceives in
+the brain_: Explaining it by the example[2] of a Man being blind, or
+walking in dark, who by the help of his stick can perceive when he
+touches a Stone, a Tree, Water, Sand, and the like; which example he
+brings to make a comparison with the perception of Light; _For_, says
+he, _Light in a shining body, is nothing else but a quick and lively
+motion or action, which through the air and other transparent bodies
+tends towards the eye, in the same manner as the motion or resistance
+of the bodies, the blind man meets withal, tends thorow the stick
+towards the hand; wherefore it is no wonder that the Sun can display
+its rays so far in an instant, seeing that the same action, whereby
+one end of the stick is moved, goes instantly also to the other end,
+and would do the same if the stick were as long as Heaven is distant
+from Earth._ To which I answer first, That it is not onely the Mind
+that perceives in the kernel of the Brain, but that there is a double
+perception, rational and sensitive, and that the mind perceives by
+the rational, but the body and the sensitive organs by the sensitive
+perception; and as there is a double perception, so there is also a
+double knowledg, rational and sensitive, one belonging to the mind, the
+other to the body; for I believe that the Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, and
+all the Body, have knowledg as well as the Mind, onely the rational
+matter, being subtil and pure, is not incumbred with the grosser part
+of matter, to work upon, or with it, but leaves that to the sensitive,
+and works or moves onely in its own substance, which makes a difference
+between thoughts, and exterior senses. Next I say, That it is not the
+Motion or Reaction of the bodies, the blind man meets withal, which
+makes the sensitive perception of these objects, but the sensitive
+corporeal motions in the hand do pattern out the figure of the Stick,
+Stone, Tree, Sand, and the like. And as for comparing the perception
+of the hand, when by the help of the stick it perceives the objects,
+with the perception of light, I confess that the sensitive perceptions
+do all resemble each other, because all sensitive parts of matter are
+of one degree, as being sensible parts, onely there is a difference
+according to the figures of the objects presented to the senses; and
+there is no better proof for perception being made by the sensitive
+motions in the body, or sensitive organs, but that all these sensitive
+perceptions are alike, and resemble one another; for if they were not
+made in the body of the sentient, but by the impression of exterior
+objects, there would be so much difference betwixt them, by reason of
+the diversity of objects, as they would have no resemblance at all.
+But for a further proof of my own opinion, did the perception proceed
+meerly from the motion, impression and resistance of the objects, the
+hand could not perceive those objects, unless they touched the hand it
+self, as the stick doth; for it is not probable, that the motions of
+the stone, water, sand, &c. should leave their bodies and enter into
+the stick, and so into the hand; for motion must be either something
+or nothing; if something, the stick and the hand would grow bigger,
+and the objects touched less, or else the touching and the touched must
+exchange their motions, which cannot be done so suddenly, especially
+between solid bodies; But if motion has no body, it is nothing, and
+how nothing can pass or enter or move some body, I cannot conceive.
+'Tis true there is no part that can subsist singly by it self, without
+dependance upon each other, and so parts do always joyn and touch
+each other, which I am not against; but onely I say perception is not
+made by the exterior motions of exterior parts of objects, but by
+the interior motions of the parts of the body sentient. But I have
+discoursed hereof before, and so I take my leave, resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Philos. part._ 4. _a._ 189.
+
+[2] _Diopt. c._ 1. _a._ 2, 3. & _c._ 4. _a._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XXXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I cannot conceive why your _Author_ is so much for little and
+insensible parts, out of which the Elements and all other bodies are
+made; for though Nature is divideable, yet she is also composeable; and
+I think there is no need to dissect every creature into such little
+parts, to know their nature, but we can do it by another way as well;
+for we may dissect or divide them into never so little parts, and yet
+gain never the more knowledg by it. But according to these principles
+he describing amongst the rest the nature of Water, says,[1] _That
+those little parts, out of which Water consists, are in figure somewhat
+long, light and slippery like little Eeles, which are never so closely
+joyned and entangled, but may easily be separated._ To which I answer,
+That I observe the nature and figure of water to be flowing, dilating,
+divideable and circular; for we may see, in Tides, overflowings, and
+breaking into parts, as in rain, it will always move in a round and
+circular figure; And I think, if its parts were long and entangled
+like a knot of Eeles, it could never be so easily contracted and
+denced into snow or ice. Neither do I think, That _Salt-water hath a
+mixture of somewhat grosser parts, not so apt to bend_;[2] for to my
+observation and reason, the nature of salt-water consists herein, that
+its circle-lines are pointed, which sharp and pointed figure makes it
+so penetrating; yet may those points be separated from the circle lines
+of water, as it is seen in the making of Salt. But I am not of your
+_Authors_ opinion, That those little points do stick so fast in flesh,
+as little nails, to keep it from putrefaction; for points do not always
+fasten; or else fire, which certainly is composed of sharp-pointed
+parts, would harden, and keep other bodies from dissolving, whereas on
+the contrary, it separates and divides them, although after several
+manners. But Putrefaction is onely a dissolving and separating of
+parts, after the manner of dilation; and the motion of salt is
+contracting as well as penetrating, for we may observe, what flesh
+soever is dry-salted, doth shrink and contract close together; I will
+not say, but the pointed parts of salt may fasten like nayls in some
+sorts of bodies, but not in all they work on. And this is the reason
+also, that Sea-water is of more weight then fresh-water, for being
+composed of points, those points stick within each other, and so become
+more strong; But yet do they not hinder the circular dilating motion
+of water, for the circle-lines are within, and the points without, but
+onely they make it more strong from being divided by other exterior
+bodies that swim upon it. And this is the cause that Salt-water is not
+so easily forced or turned to vapour, as Fresh, for the points piercing
+into each other, hold it more strongly together; but this is to be
+considered, that the points of salt are on the outside of the watery
+Circle, not on the inside, which causes it to be divideable from the
+watery Circles. I will conclude, when I have given the reason why water
+is so soon suckt up by sand, lime, and the like bodies, and say that it
+is the nature of all spongy, dry and porous bodies, meeting with liquid
+and pliable bodies as water, do draw and suck them up, like as animal
+Creatures being thirsty, do drink: And so I take my leave, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of Meteor. c._ 1. _a._ 3.
+
+[2] _C._ 3. _a._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XXXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning Vapour, Clouds, Wind and Rain, I am of your _Authors_
+opinion,[1] That _Water is changed into Vapour, and Vapour into Air,
+and that dilated Vapours make Wind, and condensed Vapours, Clouds and
+Mists_; But I am not for his little particles, _whereof_, he says,
+_Vapours are made, by the motion of a rare and subtil matter in the
+pores of terrestrial bodies_; which certainly I should conceive to be
+loose atoms, did he not make them of several figures and magnitude:
+for, in my opinion, there are no such things in nature, which like
+little Flyes or Bees do fly up into the air; and although I grant, that
+in Nature are several parts, whereof some are more rare, others more
+dense, according to the several degrees of matter, yet they are not
+single, but all mixt together in one body, and the change of motions in
+those joyned parts, is the cause of all changes of figures whatever,
+without the assistance of any forreign parts: And thus Water of it self
+is changed to Snow, Ice, or Hail, by its inherent figurative Motions;
+that is, the circular dilation of Water by contraction, changes into
+the figure of Snow, Ice, or Hail or by rarifying motions it turns into
+the figure of Vapour, and this Vapour again by contracting motions into
+the figure of hoar frost; and when all these motions change again into
+the former, then the figure of Ice, Snow, Hail, Vapour and Frost, turns
+again into the figure of Water: And this in all sense and reason is
+the most facil and probable way of making Ice, Snow, Hail, &c. As for
+rarefaction and condensation, I will not say that they may be forced by
+forreign parts, but yet they are made by change and alteration of the
+inherent motions of their own parts, for though the motions of forreign
+parts, may be the occasion of them, yet they are not the immediate
+cause or actors thereof. And as for _Thunder_, that clouds of Ice and
+Snow, the uppermost being condensed by heat, and so made heavy, should
+fall upon another and produce the noise of thunder, is very improbable;
+for the breaking of a little small string, will make a greater noise
+then a huge shower of snow with falling, and as for Ice being hard, it
+may make a great noise, one part falling upon another, but then their
+weight would be as much as their noise, so that the clouds or roves of
+Ice would be as soon upon our heads, if not sooner, as the noise in our
+Eares; like as a bullet shot out of a Canon, we may feel the bullet
+as soon as we hear the noise. But to conclude, all densations are not
+made by heat, nor all noises by pressures, for sound is oftener made by
+division then pressure, and densation by cold then by heat: And this is
+all for the present, from,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of Meteor., c._ 2, 4, 5, 6.
+
+
+
+
+XL.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I cannot perceive the Rational Truth of your _Authors_ opinion,
+concerning _Colours_, made _by the agitation of little spherical bodies
+of an �thereal matter, transmitting the action of Light_; for if
+colours were made after this manner, there would, in my opinion, not
+be any fixed or lasting colour, but one colour would be so various,
+and change faster then every minute; the truth is, there would be
+no certain or perfect colour at all: wherefore it seems altogether
+improbable, that such liquid, rare and disunited bodies should either
+keep or make inherent and fixed colours; for liquid and rare bodies,
+whose several parts are united into one considerable bulk of body,
+their colours are more apt to change then the colours of those bodies
+that are dry, solid and dense; the reason is, that rare and liquid
+bodies are more loose, slack, and agil, then solid and dry bodies, in
+so much, as in every alteration of motion their colours are apt to
+change: And if united rare and liquid bodies be so apt to alter and
+change, how is it probable, that those bodies, which are small and
+not united, should either keep or make inherent fixed colours? I will
+not say, but that such little bodies may range into such lines and
+figures, as make colours, but then they cannot last, being not united
+into a lasting body, that is, into a solid, substantial body, proper
+to make such figures as colours. But I desire you not to mistake me,
+_Madam_, for I do not mean, that the substance of colours is a gross
+thick substance, for the substance may be as thin and rare as flame or
+light, or in the next degree to it; for certainly the substance of
+light, and the substance of colours come in their degrees very neer
+each other; But according to the contraction of the figures, colours
+are paler or deeper, or more or less lasting. And as for the reason,
+why colours will change and rechange, it is according as the figures
+alter or recover their forms; for colours will be as animal Creatures,
+which sometimes are faint, pale, and sick, and yet recover; but when
+as a particular colour is, as I may say, quite dead, then there is no
+recovering of it. But colours may seem altered sometimes in our eyes,
+and yet not be altered in themselves; for our eyes, if perfect, see
+things as they are presented; and for proof, if any animal should be
+presented in an unusual posture or shape, we could not judg of it;
+also if a Picture, which must be viewed side-wards, should be looked
+upon forwards, we could not know what to make of it; so the figures
+of colours, if they be not placed rightly to the sight, but turned
+topsie-turvie as the Phrase is, or upside-down, or be moved too quick,
+and this quick motion do make a confusion with the lines of Light, we
+cannot possibly see the colour perfectly. Also several lights or shades
+may make colours appear otherwise then in themselves they are, for
+some sorts of lights and shades may fall upon the substantial figures
+of colours in solid bodies, in such lines and figures, as they may
+over-power the natural or artificial inherent colours in solid bodies,
+and for a time make other colours, and many times the lines of light
+or of shadows will meet and sympathize so with inherent colours, and
+place their lines so exactly, as they will make those inherent colours
+more splendorous then in their own nature they are, so that light and
+shadows will add or diminish or alter colours very much. Likewise some
+sorts of colours will be altered to our sight, not by all, but onely by
+some sorts of light, as for example, blew will seem green, and green
+blew by candle light, when as other colours will never appear changed,
+but shew constantly as they are; the reason is, because the lines of
+candle light fall in such figures upon the inherent colours, and so
+make them appear according to their own figures; Wherefore it is onely
+the alteration of the exterior figures of light and shadows, that make
+colours appear otherwise, and not a change of their own natures; And
+hence we may rationally conclude, that several lights and shadows by
+their spreading and dilating lines may alter the face or out-side of
+colours, but not suddenly change them, unless the power of heat, and
+continuance of time, or any other cause, do help and assist them in
+that work of metamorphosing or transforming of colours; but if the
+lines of light be onely, as the phrase is, Skin-deep; that is, but
+lightly spreading and not deeply penetrating, they may soon wear out or
+be rubbed off; for though they hurt, yet they do not kill the natural
+colour, but the colour may recover and reassume its former vigour and
+lustre: but time and other accidental causes will not onely alter, but
+destroy particular colours as well as other creatures, although not all
+after the same manner, for some will last longer then others. And thus,
+_Madam_, there are three sorts of Colours, Natural, Artificial, and
+Accidental; but I have discoursed of this subject more at large in my
+Philosophical Opinions, to which I refer you, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XLI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+My answer to your _Authors_ question, _Why flame ascends in a pointed
+figure?_[1] is, That the figure of fire consists in points, and being
+dilated into a flame, it ascends in lines of points slope-wayes from
+the fired fuel; like as if you should make two or more sticks stand
+upright and put the upper ends close together, but let the lower ends
+be asunder, in which posture they will support each other, which, if
+both their ends were close together, they could not do. The second
+question is, _Why fire doth not alwayes flame?_[2] I answer, Because
+all fuel is not flameable, some being so moist, as it doth oppose
+the fires dryness, and some so hard and retentive, as fire cannot so
+soon dissolve it; and in this contest, where one dissipates, and the
+other retains, a third figure is produced, _viz._ smoak, between the
+heat of one, and the moisture of the other; and this smoak is forced
+by the fire out of the fuel, and is nothing else but certain parts of
+fuel, raised to such a degree of rarefaction; and if fire come near,
+it forces the smoak into flame, the smoak changing it self by its
+figurative motions into flame; but when smoak is above the flame, the
+flame cannot force the smoak to fire or enkindle it self, for the flame
+cannot so well encounter it; which shews, as if smoak had a swifter
+motion then flame, although flame is more rarified then smoak; and if
+moisture predominate, there is onely smoak, if fire, then there is
+flame: But there are many figures, that do not flame, until they are
+quite dissolved, as Leather, and many other things. Neither can fire
+work upon all bodies alike, but according to their several natures,
+like as men cannot encounter several sorts of creatures after one and
+the same manner; for not any part in nature hath an absolute power,
+although it hath self-motion; and this is the reason, that wax by fire
+is melted, and clay hardened. The third question is, _Why some few
+drops of water sprinkled upon fire, do encrease its flame?_ I answer,
+by reason of their little quantity, which being over-powred by the
+greater quantity and force of fire, is by its self-motions converted
+into fire; for water being of a rare nature, and fire, for the most
+part, of a rarifying quality, it cannot suddenly convert it self into a
+more solid body then its nature is, but following its nature by force
+it turns into flame. The fourth question is, _Why the flame of spirit
+of Wine doth consume the Wine, and yet cannot burn or hurt a linnen
+cloth?_ I answer, The Wine is the fuel that feeds the flame, and upon
+what it feeds, it devoureth, and with the food, the feeder; but by
+reason Wine is a rarer body then Oyle, or Wood, or any other fuel, its
+flame is also weaker. And thus much of these questions, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _P._ 4. _art._ 97.
+
+[2] _Art._ 107.
+
+
+
+
+XLII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+To conclude my discourse upon the Opinions of these two famous and
+learned Authors, which I have hitherto sent you in several Letters,
+I could not chuse but repeat the ground of my own opinions in this
+present; which I desire you to observe well, lest you mistake any
+thing, whereof I have formerly discoursed. First I am for self-moving
+matter, which I call the sensitive and rational matter, and the
+perceptive and architectonical part of nature, which is the life and
+knowledg of nature. Next I am of an opinion, That all Perception is
+made by corporeal, figuring self-motions, and that the perception of
+forreign objects is made by patterning them out: as for example, The
+sensitive perception of forreign objects is by making or taking copies
+from these objects, so as the sensitive corporeal motions in the eyes
+copy out the objects of sight, and the sensitive corporeal motions in
+the ears copy out the objects of sound; the sensitive corporeal motions
+in the nostrils, copy out the objects of sent; the sensitive corporeal
+motions in the tongue and mouth, copy out the objects of taste, and
+the sensitive corporeal motions in the flesh and skin of the body copy
+out the forreign objects of touch; for when you stand by the fire, it
+is not that the fire, or the heat of the fire enters your flesh, but
+that the sensitive motions copy out the objects of fire and heat. As
+for my Book of Philosophy, I must tell you, that it treats more of the
+production and architecture of Creatures then of their perceptions, and
+more of the causes then the effects, more in a general then peculiar
+way, which I thought necessary to inform you of, and so I remain,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XLIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I received your questions in your last: the first was, _Whether there
+be more body compact together in a heavy then in a light thing?_ I
+answer, That purity, rarity, little quantity, exteriour shape, as also
+motion cause lightnesse; and grossness of bulk, density, much quantity,
+exterior figure and motion cause heaviness, as it may be confirmed by
+many examples: but lightness and heaviness are onely conceptions of
+man, as also ascent and descent; and it may be questioned, whether
+there be such things really in nature; for change of motions of one
+and the same body will make lightness, and heaviness, as also rarity
+and density: besides, the several figures and compositions of bodies
+will cause them to ascend or descend, for Snow is a light body and yet
+descends from the clouds, and Water is a heavie body, and yet ascends
+in springs out of the Earth; Dust is a dense body and yet is apt to
+ascend, Rain or Dew is a rare body and yet is apt to descend; Also
+a Bird ascends by his shape, and a small worm although of less body
+and lighter will fall down; and there can be no other proof of light
+and heavy bodies but by their ascent and descent; But as really there
+is no such thing as heavie or light in nature more then words, and
+comparisons of different corporeal motions, so there is no such thing,
+as high or low, place or time, but onely words to make comparisons and
+to distinguish different corporeal motions. The second question was;
+_When a Bason with water is wasted into smoak, which fills up a whole
+Room, Whether the air in the room doth, as the sensitive motions of the
+eye, pattern out the figure of the smoak; or whether all the room is
+really fill'd with the vapour or smoak?_ I answer, If it be onely the
+pattern or figure of smoak or vapour, the extension and dilation is not
+so much as man imagines; but why may not the air, which in my opinion
+hath self-motion, pattern out the figure of smoak as well as the eye;
+for that the eye surely doth it, may be proved; because smoak, if it
+enter the eye, makes it not onely smart and water much, but blinds it
+quite for the present; wherefore smoak doth not enter the eye, when the
+eye seeth it, but the eye patterns out the figure of smoak, and this is
+perception; In the same manner may the air pattern out the figure of
+smoak. The third question was, _Whether all that they name qualities
+of bodies, as thickness, thinness, hardness, softness, gravity,
+levity, transparentness and the like, be substances?_ I answer, That
+all those, they call qualities, are nothing else but change of motion
+and figure of the same body, and several changes of motions are not
+several bodies, but several actions of one body; for change of motion
+doth not create new matter or multiply its quantity: for though
+corporeal motions may divide and compose, contract and dilate, yet they
+cannot create new matter, or make matter any otherwise then it is by
+nature, neither can they add or substract any thing from its nature.
+And therefore my opinion is, not that they are things subsisting by
+themselves without matter, but that there can no abstraction be made
+of motion and figure from matter, and that matter and motion being but
+one thing and inseparable, make but one substance. Wherefore density
+and rarity, gravity and levity, &c. being nothing else but change of
+motions, cannot be without matter, but a dense or rare, heavie or
+light matter is but one substance or body; And thus having obeyed your
+commands, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XLIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am very ready to give you my opinion of those two questions you sent
+me, whereof the first was, _Whether that, which is rare and subtil,
+be not withal pure?_ To which I answer, That all rare bodies are not
+subtil, nor pure, and that all which is dense is not gross and dull:
+As for example, Puddle-water, or also clear water, is rarer then
+Quicksilver, and yet not so subtil and pure as Quicksilver; the like of
+Gold; for Quicksilver and Gold may be rarified to a transparentness,
+and yet be so dense, as not to be easily dissolved; and Quicksilver is
+very subtil and searching, so as to be able to force other bodies to
+divide as well as it can divide and compose its own parts. Wherefore my
+opinion is, that the purest and subtilest degree of matter in nature,
+is that degree of matter which can dilate and contract, compose and
+divide into any figure by corporeal self-motion. Your second question
+was, _Why a man's hand cannot break a little hard body, as a little
+nail, whereas yet it is bigger then the nail?_ I answer, It is not
+because the hand is softer then the nail, for one hard body will not
+break suddenly another hard body, and a man may easily break an iron
+nail with his hand, as I have bin informed; but it is some kind of
+motion which can easier do it, then another: for I have seen a strong
+cord wound about both a man's hands, who pulled his hands as hard and
+strongly asunder as he could, and yet was not able to break it; when
+as a Youth taking the same cord, and winding it about his hands as the
+former did, immediately broke it; the cause was, that he did it with
+another kind of motion or pulling, then the other did, which though he
+used as much force and strength, as he was able, yet could not break
+it, when the boy did break it with the greatest ease, and turning onely
+his hands a little, which shews, that many things may be done by a
+slight of motion, which otherwise a great strength and force cannot do.
+This is my answer and opinion concerning your proposed questions; if
+you have any more, I shall be ready to obey you, as,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XLV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I understand by your last, that you are very desirous to know, _Whether
+there be not in nature such animal creatures both for purity and size,
+as we are not capable to perceive by our sight._ Truly, _Madam_, in
+my opinion it is very probable there may be animal creatures of such
+rare bodies as are not subject to our exterior senses, as well, as
+there are elements which are not subject to all our exterior senses:
+as for example, fire is onely subject to our sight and feeling, and
+not to any other sense, water is subject to our sight, taste, touch
+and hearing, but not to smelling; and earth is subject to our sight,
+taste, touch and smelling, but not to our hearing; and vapour is onely
+subject to our sight, and wind onely to our hearing; but pure air
+is not subject to any of our senses, but onely known by its effects:
+and so there may likewise be animal creatures which are not subject
+to any of our senses both for their purity and life; as for example,
+I have seen pumpt out of a water pump small worms which could hardly
+be discerned but by a bright Sun-light, for they were smaller then
+the smallest hair, some of a pure scarlet colour and some white, but
+though they were the smallest creatures that ever I did see, yet they
+were more agil and fuller of life, then many a creature of a bigger
+size, and so small they were, as I am confident, they were neither
+subject to tast, smell, touch nor hearing, but onely to sight, and
+that neither without difficulty, requiring both a sharp sight and a
+clear light to perceive them; and I do verily believe that these small
+animal creatures may be great in comparison to others which may be
+in nature. But if it be probable that there may be such small animal
+creatures in nature, as are not subject to our exterior senses, by
+reason of their littleness; it is also probable, that there may be
+such great and big animal creatures in nature as are beyond the reach
+and knowledg of our exterior senses; for bigness and smallness are not
+to be judged by our exterior senses, onely; but as sense and reason
+inform us, that there are different degrees in Purity and Rarity, so
+also in shapes, figures and sizes in all natural creatures. Next you
+desired to know, _Whether there can be an artificial Life, or a Life
+made by Art?_ My answer is, Not; for although there is Life in all
+natures parts, yet not all the parts are life, for there is one part of
+natural matter which in its nature is inanimate or without life, and
+though natural Life doth produce Art, yet Art cannot produce natural
+Life, for though Art is the action of Life, yet it is not Life it self:
+not but that there is Life in Art, but not art in life, for Life is
+natural, and not artificial; and thus the several parts of a watch
+may have sense and reason according to the nature of their natural
+figure, which is steel, but not as they have an artificial shape, for
+Art cannot put Life into the watch, Life being onely natural, not
+artificial. Lastly your desire was to know, _Whether a part of matter
+may be so small, as it cannot be made less?_ I answer, there is no such
+thing in nature as biggest or least, nature being Infinite as well in
+her actions as in her substance; and I have mentioned in my book of
+Philosophy, and in a letter, I sent you heretofore concerning Infinite,
+that there are several sorts of Infinites, as Infinite in quantity or
+bulk, Infinite in number, Infinite in quality, as Infinite degrees
+of hardness, softness, thickness, thinness, swiftness, slowness, &c.
+as also Infinite compositions, divisions, creations, dissolutions,
+&c. in nature; and my meaning is, that all these Infinite actions
+do belong to the Infinite body of nature, which being infinite in
+substance must also of necessity be infinite in its actions; but
+although these Infinite actions are inherent in the power of the
+Infinite substance of nature, yet they are never put in act in her
+parts, by reason there being contraries in nature, and every one of
+the aforementioned actions having its opposite, they do hinder and
+obstruct each other so, that none can actually run into infinite; for
+the Infinite degrees of compositions hinder the infinite degrees of
+divisions; and the infinite degrees of rarity, softness, swiftness,
+&c. hinder the infinite degrees of density, hardness, slowness, &c.
+all which nature has ordered with great wisdom and Prudence to make an
+amiable combination between her parts; for if but one of these actions
+should run into infinite, it would cause a horrid confusion between
+natures parts, nay an utter destruction of the whole body of nature, if
+I may call it whole: as for example, if one part should have infinite
+compositions, without the hinderance or obstruction of division, it
+would at last mount and become equal to the Infinite body of nature,
+and so from a part change to a whole, from being finite to infinite,
+which is impossible; Wherefore, though nature hath an Infinite natural
+power, yet she doth not put this power in act in her particulars;
+and although she has an infinite force or strength, yet she doth not
+use this force or strength in her parts. Moreover when I speak of
+Infinite divisions and compositions, creations and dissolutions, &c.
+in nature, I do not mean so much the infinite degrees of compositions
+and divisions, as the actions themselves to be infinite in number;
+for there being infinite parts in nature, and every one having its
+compositions and divisions, creations and dissolutions, these actions
+must of necessity be infinite too, to wit, in number, according to the
+Infinite number of parts, for as there is an Infinite number of parts
+in nature, so there is also an infinite number and variety of motions
+which are natural actions. However let there be also infinite degrees
+of these natural actions, in the body or substance of infinite nature;
+yet, as I said, they are never put in act, by reason every action
+hath its contrary or opposite, which doth hinder and obstruct it from
+running actually into infinite. And thus I hope, you conceive cleerly
+now, what my opinion is, and that I do not contradict my self in my
+works, as some have falsly accused me, for they by misapprehending my
+meaning, judge not according to the truth of my sense, but according
+to their own false interpretation, which shews not onely a weakness in
+their understandings and passions, but a great injustice and injury
+to me, which I desire you to vindicate when ever you chance to hear
+such accusations and blemishes laid upon my works, by which you will
+Infinitely oblige,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+Sect. II.
+
+I.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Being come now to the Perusal of the Works of that learned _Author_ Dr.
+_Moor_, I find that the onely design of his Book called _Antidote_, is
+_to prove the Existence_ of a God, and to refute, or rather convert
+Atheists; which I wonder very much at, considering, he says himself,[1]
+That _there is no man under the cope of Heaven but believes a God_;
+which if so, what needs there to make so many arguments to no purpose?
+unless it be to shew Learning and wit; In my opinion, it were better
+to convert Pagans to be Christians, or to reform irregular Christians
+to a more pious life, then to prove that, which all men believe, which
+is the way to bring it into question. For certainly, according to the
+natural Light of Reason, there is a God, and no man, I believe, doth
+doubt it; for though there may be many vain words, yet I think there
+is no such atheistical belief amongst man-kind, nay, not onely amongst
+men, but also, amongst all other creatures, for if nature believes
+a God, all her parts, especially the sensitive and rational, which
+are the living and knowing parts, and are in all natural creatures,
+do the like, and therefore all parts and creatures in nature do adore
+and worship God, for any thing man can know to the contrary; for no
+question, but natures soule adores and worships God as well as man's
+soule; and why may not God be worshipped by all sorts and kinds of
+creatures as well, as by one kind or sort? I will not say the same way,
+but I believe there is a general worship and adoration of God; for as
+God is an Infinite Deity, so certainly he has an Infinite Worship and
+Adoration, and there is not any part of nature, but adores and worships
+the only omnipotent God, to whom belongs Praise and Glory from and to
+all eternity: For it is very improbable, that God should be worshipped
+onely in part, and not in whole, and that all creatures were made to
+obey man, and not to worship God, onely for man's sake, and not for
+God's worship, for man's use, and not God's adoration, for mans spoil
+and not God's blessing. But this Presumption, Pride, Vain-glory and
+Ambition of man, proceeds from the irregularity of nature, who being a
+servant, is apt to commit errors; and cannot be so absolute and exact
+in her devotion, adoration and worship, as she ought, nor so well
+observant of God as God is observing her: Nevertheless, there is not
+any of her parts or creatures, that God is not acknowledged by, though
+not so perfectly as he ought, which is caused by the irregularities of
+nature, as I said before. And so God of his mercy have mercy upon all
+Creatures; To whose protection I commend your Ladiship, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antidote, Book_ I. _c._ 10. _a._ 5.
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since I spake in my last of the adoration and worship of God, you
+would faine know, whether we can have an Idea of God? I answer, That
+naturally we may, and really have a knowledge of the existence of
+God, as I proved in my former letter, to wit, that there is a God,
+and, that he is the _Author_ of all things, who rules and governs all
+things, and is also the God of Nature: but I dare not think, that
+naturally we can have an Idea of the essence of God, so as to know what
+God is in his very nature and essence; for how can there be a finite
+Idea of an Infinite God? You may say, As well as of Infinite space. I
+answer, Space is relative, or has respect to body, but there is not
+any thing that can be compared to God; for the Idea of Infinite nature
+is material, as being a material creature of Infinite material Nature.
+You will say, How can a finite part have an Idea of infinite nature? I
+answer, Very well, by reason the Idea is part of Infinite Nature, and
+so of the same kind, as material; but God being an Eternal, Infinite,
+Immaterial, Individable Being, no natural creature can have an Idea of
+him. You will say, That the Idea of God in the mind is immaterial; I
+answer, I cannot conceive, that there can be any immaterial Idea in
+nature; but be it granted, yet that Immaterial is not a part of God,
+for God is individable, and hath no parts; wherefore the Mind cannot
+have an Idea of God, as it hath of Infinite nature, being a part of
+nature; for the Idea of God cannot be of the essence of God, as the
+Idea of nature is a corporeal part of nature: and though nature may be
+known in some parts, yet God being Incomprehensible, his Essence can by
+no wayes or means be naturally known; and this is constantly believed,
+by
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Although I mentioned in my last, that it is impossible to have an Idea
+of God, yet your _Author_ is pleased to say,[1] That _he will not stick
+to affirm, that the Idea or notion of God is as easie, as any notion
+else whatsoever, and that we may know as much of him as of any thing
+else in the world_. To which I answer, That in my opinion, God is not
+so easily to be known by any creature, as man may know himself; nor
+his attributes so well, as man can know his own natural proprieties:
+for Gods Infinite attributes are not conceivable, and cannot be
+comprehended by a finite knowledg and understanding, as a finite part
+of nature; for though nature's parts may be Infinite in number, and as
+they have a relation to the Infinite whole, if I may call it so, which
+is Infinite nature, yet no part is infinite in it self, and therefore
+it cannot know so much as whole nature: and God being an Infinite
+Deity, there is required an Infinite capacity to conceive him; nay,
+Nature her self although Infinite, yet cannot possibly have an exact
+notion of God, by reason of the disparity between God and her self; and
+therefore it is not probable, if the Infinite servant of God is not
+able to conceive him, that a finite part or creature of nature, of what
+kind or sort soever, whether Spiritual, as your _Author_ is pleased to
+name it, or Corporeal, should comprehend God. Concerning my belief of
+God, I submit wholly to the Church, and believe as I have bin informed
+out of the _Athanasian_ Creed, that the Father is Incomprehensible,
+the Sonne Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible; and
+that there are not three, but one Incomprehensible God; Wherefore if
+any man can prove (as I do verily believe he cannot) that God is not
+Incomprehensible, he must of necessity be more knowing then the whole
+Church, however he must needs dissent from the Church. But perchance
+your _Author_ may say, I raise new and prejudicial opinions, in saying
+that matter is eternal. I answer, The Holy Writ doth not mention Matter
+to be created, but onely Particular Creatures, as this Visible World,
+with all its Parts, as the history or description of the Creation of
+the World in _Genesis_ plainly shews; For _God said, Let it be Light,
+and there was Light; Let there be a Firmament in the midst of the
+Waters, and let it divide the Waters from the Waters; and Let the
+Waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let
+the dry Land appear; and let the Earth bring forth Grass, the Herb
+yielding Seed, and the Fruit-tree yielding Fruit after his kind; and
+let there be Lights in the Firmament of the Heaven, to divide the Day
+from the Night,_ &c. Which proves, that all creatures and figures
+were made and produced out of that rude and desolate heap or chaos
+which the Scripture mentions, which is nothing else but matter, by the
+powerful Word and Command of God, executed by his Eternal Servant,
+Nature; as I have heretofore declared it in a Letter I sent you in the
+beginning concerning Infinite Nature. But least I seem to encroach
+too much upon Divinity, I submit this Interpretation to the Church;
+However, I think it not against the ground of our Faith; for I am so
+far from maintaining any thing either against Church or State, as I am
+submitting to both in all duty, and shall do so as long as I live, and
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, pt._ 1., _c._ 4.
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since your _Worthy_ and _Learned Author_ is pleased to mention,[1]
+That an _ample experience both of Men and Things doth enlarge our
+Understanding_, I have taken occasion hence to enquire, how a mans
+Understanding may be encreased or inlarged. The Understanding must
+either be in Parts, or it must be Individable as one; if in Parts, then
+there must be so many Understandings as there are things understood;
+but if Individable, and but one Understanding, then it must dilate it
+self upon so many several objects. I for my part, assent to the first,
+That Understanding increases by Parts, and not by Dilation, which
+Dilation must needs follow, if the Mind or Understanding of man be
+indivisible and without parts; but if the Mind or Soul be Individable,
+then I would fain know, how Understanding, Imagination, Conception,
+Memory, Remembrance, and the like, can be in the mind? You will say,
+perhaps, they are so many faculties or properties of the Incorporeal
+Mind, but, I hope, you do not intend to make the Mind or Soul a Deity,
+with so many attributes, Wherefore, in my opinion, it is safer to say,
+That the Mind is composed of several active Parts: but of these Parts
+I have treated in my Philosophy, where you will find, that all the
+several Parts of Nature are Living and Knowing, and that there is no
+part that has not Life and Knowledg, being all composed of rational
+and sensitive matter, which is the life and soul of Nature; and that
+Nature being Material, is composable and dividable, which is the cause
+of so many several Creatures, where every Creature is a part of
+Nature, and these Infinite parts or creatures are Nature her self; for
+though Nature is a self-moving substance, and by self-motion divides
+and composes her self several manners or ways into several forms and
+figures, yet being a knowing, as well as a living substance, she knows
+how to order her parts and actions wisely; for as she hath an Infinite
+body or substance, so she has an Infinite life and knowledg; and as she
+hath an Infinite life and knowledg, so she hath an infinite wisdom:
+But mistake me not, _Madam_; I do not mean an Infinite Divine Wisdom,
+but an Infinite Natural Wisdom, given her by the Infinite bounty of
+the Omnipotent God; but yet this Infinite Wisdom, Life and Knowledg in
+Nature make but one Infinite. And as Nature hath degrees of matter, so
+she has also degrees and variety of corporeal motions; for some parts
+of matter are self-moving, and some are moved by these self-moving
+parts of matter; and all these parts, both the moving and moved, are
+so intermixed, that none is without the other, no not in any the least
+Creature or part of Nature we can conceive; for there is no Creature or
+part of Nature, but has a comixture of those mentioned parts of animate
+and inanimate matter, and all the motions are so ordered by Natures
+wisdom, as not any thing in Nature can be otherwise, unless by a
+Supernatural Command and Power of God; for no part of corporeal matter
+and motion can either perish, or but rest; one part may cause another
+part to alter its motions, but not to quit motion, no more then one
+part of matter can annihilate or destroy another; and therefore matter
+is not meerly Passive, but always Active, by reason of the thorow
+mixture of animate and inanimate matter; for although the animate
+matter is onely active in its nature, and the inanimate passive, yet
+because they are so closely united and mixed together that they make
+but one body, the parts of the animate or self-moving matter do bear
+up and cause the inanimate parts to move and work with them; and thus
+there is an activity in all parts of matter moving and working as one
+body, without any fixation or rest, for all is moveable, moving and
+moved. All which, _Madam_, if it were well observed, there would not
+be so many strange opinions concerning nature and her actions, making
+the purest and subtillest part of matter immaterial or incorporeal,
+which is as much, as to extend her beyond nature, and to rack her
+quite to nothing. But I fear the opinion of Immaterial substances in
+Nature will at last bring in again the Heathen Religion, and make us
+believe a god _Pan, Bacchus, Ceres, Venus,_ and the like, so as we
+may become worshippers of Groves and shadows, Beans and Onions, as
+our Forefathers. I say not this, as if I would ascribe any worship to
+Nature, or make her a Deity, for she is onely a servant to God, and so
+are all her parts or creatures, which parts or creatures, although they
+are transformed, yet cannot be annihilated, except Nature her self be
+annihilated, which may be, whensoever the Great God pleases; for her
+existence and resolution, or total destruction, depends upon Gods Will
+and Decree, whom she fears, adores, admires, praises and prayes unto,
+as being her God and Master; and as she adores God, so do all her parts
+and creatures, and amongst the rest Man, so that there is no Atheist in
+Infinite Nature, at least not in the opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. Book._ 2. _Ch._ 2. _a._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I cannot well conceive what your _Author_ means by the _Common Laws of
+Nature_;[1] But if you desire my opinion how many Laws Nature hath,
+and what they are; I say Nature hath but One Law, which is a wise Law,
+to keep Infinite matter in order, and to keep so much Peace, as not to
+disturb the Foundation of her Government: for though Natures actions
+are various, and so many times opposite, which would seem to make
+wars between several Parts, yet those active Parts, being united into
+one Infinite body, cannot break Natures general Peace; for that which
+Man names War, Sickness, Sleep, Death, and the like, are but various
+particular actions of the onely matter; not, as your _Author_ imagines,
+in a confusion, like Bullets, or such like things juggled together in a
+mans Hat, but very orderly and methodical; And the Playing motions of
+nature are the actions of Art, but her serious actions are the actions
+of Production, Generation and Transformation in several kinds, sorts
+and particulars of her Creatures, as also the action of ruling and
+governing these her several active Parts. Concerning the Pre-eminence
+and Prerogative of _Man_, whom your _Author_ calls[2] _The flower and
+chief of all the products of nature upon this Globe of the earth_; I
+answer, That Man cannot well be judged of himself, because he is a
+Party, and so may be Partial; But if we observe well, we shall find
+that the Elemental Creatures are as excellent as Man, and as able to
+be a friend or foe to Man, as Man to them, and so the rest of all
+Creatures; so that I cannot perceive more abilities in Man then in the
+rest of natural Creatures; for though he can build a stately House, yet
+he cannot make a Honey-comb; and though he can plant a Slip, yet he
+cannot make a Tree; though he can make a Sword, or Knife, yet he cannot
+make the Mettal. And as Man makes use of other Creatures, so other
+Creatures make use of Man, as far as he is good for any thing: But Man
+is not so useful to his neighbour or fellow-creatures, as his neighbour
+or fellow-creatures to him, being not so profitable for use, as apt to
+make spoil. And so leaving him, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. Book._ 2. _c._ 2.
+
+[2] _C._ 3.
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ demands,[1] _Whether there was ever any man, that was
+not mortal, and whether there be any mortal that had not a beginning?_
+Truly, if nature be eternal, all the material figures which ever were,
+are, and can be, must be also eternal in nature; for the figures cannot
+be annihilated, unless nature be destroyed; and although a Creature
+is dissolved and transformed into numerous different figures, yet all
+these several figures remain still in those parts of matter, whereof
+that creature was made, for matter never changes, but is always one
+and the same, and figure is nothing else but matter transposed or
+transformed by motion several modes or ways. But if you conceive
+Matter to be one thing, Figure another, and Motion a third, several,
+distinct and dividable from each other, it will produce gross errors,
+for, matter, motion, and figure, are but one thing. And as for that
+common question, whether the Egg was before the Chick, or the Chick
+before the Egg, it is but a thred-bare argument, which proves nothing,
+for there is no such thing as First in Eternity, neither doth Time
+make productions or generations, but Matter; and whatsoever matter can
+produce or generate, was in matter before it was produced; wherefore
+the question is, whether Matter, which is Nature, had a beginning, or
+not? I say not: for put the case, the figures of Earth, Air, Water,
+and Fire, Light and Colours, Heat and Cold, Animals, Vegetables and
+Minerals, &c. were not produced from all Eternity, yet those figures
+have nevertheless been in Matter, which is Nature, from all eternity,
+for these mentioned Creatures are onely made by the corporeal motions
+of Matter, transforming Matter into such several figures; Neither can
+there be any perishing or dying in Nature, for that which Man calls so,
+is onely an alteration of Figure. And as all other productions are but
+a change of Matters sensitive motions, so all irregular and extravagant
+opinions are nothing but a change of Matters rational motions; onely
+productions by rational motions are interior, and those by sensitive
+motions exterior. For the Natural Mind is not less material then the
+body, onely the Matter of the Mind is much purer and subtiller then the
+Matter of the Body. And thus there is nothing in Nature but what is
+material; but he that thinks it absurd to say, the World is composed
+of meer self-moving Matter, may consider, that it is more absurd to
+believe Immaterial substances or spirits in Nature, as also a spirit of
+Nature, which is the Vicarious power of God upon Matter; For why should
+it not be as probable, that God did give Matter a self-moving power to
+her self, as to have made another Creature to govern her? For Nature
+is not a Babe, or Child, to need such a Spiritual Nurse, to teach her
+to go, or to move; neither is she so young a Lady as to have need of a
+Governess, for surely she can govern her self; she needs not a Guardian
+for fear she should run away with a younger Brother, or one that cannot
+make her a Jointure. But leaving those strange opinions to the fancies
+of their Authors, I'le add no more, but that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. l._ 3. _c._ 15. _a._ 3.
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ being very earnest in arguing against those that maintain
+the opinion of Matter being self-moving, amongst the rest of his
+arguments brings in this:[1] _Suppose_, says he, _Matter could move it
+self, would meer Matter with self-motion amount to that admirable wise
+contrivance of things which we see in the World?--All the evasion I can
+imagine, our adversaries may use here, will be this: That Matter is
+capable of sense, and the finest and most subtil of the most refined
+sense; and consequently of Imagination too, yea happily of Reason and
+Understanding._ I answer, it is very probable, that not onely all the
+Matter in the World or Universe hath Sense, but also Reason; and that
+the sensitive part of matter is the builder, and the rational the
+designer; whereof I have spoken of before, and you may find more of it
+in my Book of Philosophy. _But,_ says your Author, _Let us see, if all
+their heads laid together can contrive the anatomical Fabrick of any
+Creature that liveth?_ I answer, all parts of Nature are not bound to
+have heads or tayls; but if they have, surely they are wiser then many
+a man's. _I demand_, says he, _Has every one of these Particles, that
+must have a hand in the framing of the body of an animal, the whole
+design of the work by the Impress of some Phantasme upon it? or as
+they have several offices, so have they several parts of the design?_
+I answer, All the actions of self-moving Matter are not Impresses, nor
+is every part a hand-labourer, but every part unites by degrees into
+such or such a Figure. Again, says he, _How is it conceiveable that
+any one Particle of Matter, or many together, (there not existing, yet
+in Nature an animal) can have the Idea Impressed of that Creature they
+are to frame?_ I answer, all figures whatsoever have been, are, or can
+be in Nature, are existent in nature. _How_, says he, _can they in
+framing several parts confer notes? by what language or speech can they
+communicate their Counsels one to another?_ I answer, Knowledg doth
+not always require speech, for speech is an effect and not a cause,
+but knowledg is a cause and not an effect; and nature hath infinite
+more ways to express knowledg then man can imagine, _Wherefore_, he
+concludes, _that they should mutually serve one another in such a
+design, is more impossible, then that so many men, blind and dumb from
+their nativity, should joyn their forces and wits together to build a
+Castle, or carve a statue of such a Creature, as none of them knew any
+more in several, then some one of the smallest parts thereof, but not
+the relation it bore to the whole._ I answer, Nature is neither blind
+nor dumb, nor any ways defective, but infinitely wise and knowing;
+for blindness and dumbness are but effects of some of her particular
+actions, but there is no defect in self-moving matter, nor in her
+actions in general; and it is absurd to conceive the Generality of
+wisdom according to an Irregular effect or defect of a particular
+Creature; for the General actions of Nature are both life and knowledg,
+which are the architects of all Creatures, and know better how to frame
+all kinds and sorts of Creatures then man can conceive; and the several
+parts of Matter have a more easie way of communication, then Mans head
+hath with his hand, or his hand with pen, ink, and paper, when he is
+going to write; which later example will make you understand my opinion
+the better, if you do but compare the rational part of Matter to the
+head, the sensitive to the hand, the inanimate to pen, ink and paper,
+their action to writing, and their framed figures to those figures or
+letters which are written; in all which is a mutual agreement without
+noise or trouble. But give me leave, _Madam_, to tell you, That
+self-moving Matter may sometimes erre and move irregularly, and in some
+parts not move so strong, curious, or subtil at sometimes, as in other
+parts, for Nature delights in variety; Nevertheless she is more wise
+then any Particular Creature or part can conceive, which is the cause
+that Man thinks Nature's wise, subtil and lively actions, are as his
+own gross actions, conceiving them to be constrained and turbulent, not
+free and easie, as well as wise and knowing; Whereas Nature's Creating,
+Generating and Producing actions are by an easie connexion of parts to
+parts, without Counterbuffs, Joggs and Jolts, producing a particular
+figure by degrees, and in order and method, as humane sense and reason
+may well perceive: And why may not the sensitive and rational part of
+Matter know better how to make a Bee, then a Bee doth how to make Honey
+and Wax? or have a better communication betwixt them, then Bees that
+fly several ways, meeting and joyning to make their Combes in their
+Hives? But pardon, _Madam_, for I think it a Crime to compare the
+Creating, Generating and producing Corporeal Life and Wisdom of Nature
+unto any particular Creature, although every particular Creature hath
+their share, being a part of Nature. Wherefore those, in my opinion, do
+grossly err, that bind up the sensitive matter onely to taste, touch,
+hearing, seeing, and smelling; as if the sensitive parts of Nature had
+not more variety of actions, then to make five senses; for we may well
+observe, in every Creature there is difference of sense and reason
+according to the several modes of self-motion; For the Sun, Stars,
+Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Plants, Animals, Minerals; although they have
+all sense and knowledg, yet they have not all sense and knowledg alike,
+because sense and knowledg moves not alike in every kind or sort of
+Creatures, nay many times very different in one and the same Creature;
+but yet this doth not cause a general Ignorance, as to be altogether
+Insensible or Irrational, neither do the erroneous and irregular
+actions of sense and reason prove an annihilation of sense and reason;
+as for example, a man may become Mad or a Fool through the irregular
+motions of sense and reason, and yet have still the Perception of sense
+and reason, onely the alteration is caused through the alteration of
+the sensitive and rational corporeal motions or actions, from regular
+to irregular; nevertheless he has Perceptions, Thoughts, Ideas,
+Passions, and whatsoever is made by sensitive and rational Matter,
+neither can Perception be divided from Motion, nor Motion from Matter;
+for all sensation is Corporeal, and so is Perception. I can add no
+more, but take my leave, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 1. _c._ 12.
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is pleased to say,[1] that _Matter is a Principle purely
+passive, and no otherwise moved or modified, then as some other thing
+moves and modifies it, but cannot move it self at all; which is most
+demonstrable to them that contend for sense and perception in it: For
+if it had any such perception, it would, by vertue of its self-motion
+withdraw its self from under the knocks of hammers, or fury of the
+fire; or of its own accord approach to such things as are most
+agreeable to it, and pleasing, and that without the help of muscles, it
+being thus immediately endowed with a self-moving power._ By his leave,
+_Madam_, I must tell you, that I see no consequence in this argument;
+Because some parts of matter cannot withdraw themselves from the force
+and power of other parts, therefore they have neither sense, reason,
+nor perception: For put the case, a man should be over-powr'd by some
+other men, truely he would be forced to suffer, and no Immaterial
+Spirits, I think, would assist him. The very same may be said of other
+Creatures or parts of Nature; for some may over-power others, as the
+fire, hammer and hand doth over-power a Horse-shooe, which cannot
+prevail over so much odds of power and strength; And so likewise it is
+with sickness and health, life and death; for example, some corporeal
+motions in the body turning Rebels, by moving contrary to the health
+of an animal Creature, it must become sick; for not every particular
+creature hath an absolute power, the power being in the Infinite whole,
+and not in single divided parts: Indeed, to speak properly, there is
+no such thing as an absolute power in Nature; for though Nature hath
+power to move it self, yet not beyond it self. But mistake me not, for
+I mean by an absolute Power; not a circumscribed and limited, but an
+unlimited power, no ways bound or confined, but absolutely or every way
+Infinite, and there is not anything that has such an absolute power
+but God alone: neither can Nature be undividable, being Corporeal or
+Material; nor rest from motion being naturally self-moving, and in a
+perpetual motion. Wherefore though Matter is self-moving, and very
+wise, (although your _Author_ denies it, calling those Fools that
+maintain this opinion)[2] yet it cannot go beyond the rules of its
+Nature, no more then any Art can go beyond its Rules and Principles:
+And as for what your _Author_ says, That every thing would approach to
+that, which is agreeable and pleasant; I think I need no demonstration
+to prove it; for we may plainly see it in all effects of Nature, that
+there is Sympathy and Antipathy, and what is this else, but approaching
+to things agreeable and pleasant, and withdrawing it self from things
+disagreeable, and hurtful or offensive? But of this subject I shall
+discourse more hereafter, wherefore I finish here, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2., _c._ 1. _a._ 3.
+
+[2] _In the Append. to the Antid. c._ 3. _a._ 10.
+
+
+
+
+IX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Authors_ opinion is,[1] That _Matter being once actually divided
+as far as possibly it can, it is a perfect contradiction it should
+be divided any further._ I answer, Though Nature is Infinite, yet
+her actions are not all dilative nor separative, but some divide and
+some compose, some dilate and some contract, which causes a mean
+betwixt Natures actions or motions. Next your _Author_ says, That
+_as Infinite Greatness has no Figure, so Infinite Littleness hath
+none also._ I answer, Whatsoever hath a body, has a figure; for it
+is impossible that _substance_, or _body_, and _figure_, should be
+separated from each other, but wheresoever is body or substance,
+there is also figure, and if there be an infinite substance, there
+must also be an infinite figure, although not a certain determined
+or circumscribed figure, for such a figure belongs onely to finite
+particulars; and therefore I am of your _Authors_ mind, That it is a
+contradiction to say an Infinite Cube or Triangle, for a Cube and a
+Triangle is a perfect circumscribed figure, having its certain compass
+and circumference, be it never so great or little; wherefore to say
+an Infinite Cube, would be as much as to say a Finite Infinite. But
+as for your _Authors_ example of _Infinite matter, space or duration,
+divided into three equal parts, all which he says must needs be
+Infinite, or else the whole will not be so, and then the middle part
+of them will seem both Finite and Infinite._ I answer, That Matter is
+not dividable into three equal parts, for three is a finite number
+and so are three equal parts; but I say that Matter being an Infinite
+body, is dividable into Infinite parts, and it doth not follow, as
+your _Author_ says, That one of those infinite parts must be infinite
+also, for else there would be no difference betwixt the whole and its
+parts; I say whole for distinctions and better expressions sake, and
+do not mean such a whole which hath a certain number of parts, and
+is of a certain and limited figure, although never so great; but an
+Infinite whole, which expression I must needs use, by reason I speak
+of Infinite parts; and that each one of these Infinite parts in number
+may be finite in substance or figure, is no contradiction, but very
+probable and rational; nay, I think it rather absurd to say that each
+part is infinite; for then there would be no difference betwixt parts
+and whole, as I said before. Onely this is to be observed, that the
+Infinite whole is Infinite in substance or bulk, but the parts are
+Infinite in number, and not in bulk, for each part is circumscribed,
+and finite in its exterior figure and substance. But mistake me not,
+when I speak of circumscribed and finite single parts; for I do not
+mean, that each part doth subsist single and by it self, there being no
+such thing as an absolute single part in Nature, but Infinite Matter
+being by self-motion divided into an infinite number of parts, all
+these parts have so near a relation to each other, and to the infinite
+whole, that one cannot subsist without the other; for the Infinite
+parts in number do make the Infinite whole, and the Infinite whole
+consists in the Infinite number of parts; wherefore it is onely their
+figures which make a difference betwixt them; for each part having its
+proper figure different from the other, which is circumscribed and
+limited, it is called a finite single part; and such a part cannot
+be said Infinitely dividable, for infinite composition and division
+belong onely to the Infinite body of Nature, which being infinite in
+substance may also be infinitely divided, but not a finite and single
+part: Besides, Infinite composition doth hinder the Infinite division,
+and Infinite division hinders the Infinite composition; so that one
+part cannot be either infinitely composed, or infinitely divided;
+and it is one thing to be dividable, and another to be divided. And
+thus, when your _Author_ mentions in another place,[2] That _if a
+body be divisible into Infinite Parts, it hath an Infinite number of
+extended parts:_ If by extension he mean corporeal dimension, I am of
+his opinion; for there is no part, be it never so little in Nature,
+but is material; and if material, it has a body; and if a body, it
+must needs have a bodily dimension; and so every part will be an
+extended part: but since there is no part but is finite in its self,
+it cannot be divisible into infinite parts; neither can any part be
+infinitely dilated or contracted; for as composition and division do
+hinder and obstruct each other from running into Infinite, so doth
+dilation hinder the Infinite contraction, and contraction the Infinite
+dilation, which, as I said before, causes a mean betwixt Nature's
+actions; nevertheless, there are Infinite dilations and contractions in
+Nature, because there are Infinite contracted and dilated parts, and so
+are infinite divisions because there are infinite divided parts; but
+contraction, dilation, extension, composition, division, and the like,
+are onely Nature's several actions; and as there can be no single part
+in Nature that is Infinite, so there can neither be any single Infinite
+action. But as for Matter, Motion and Figure, those are Individable
+and inseparable, and make but one body or substance; for it is as
+impossible to divide them, as impossible it is to your _Author_ to
+separate the essential proprieties, which he gives, from an Immortal
+Spirit; And as Matter, Motion and Figure are inseparable; so is
+likewise Matter, Space, Place and Duration; For Parts, Motion, Figure,
+Place and Duration, are but one Infinite body; onely the Infinite parts
+are the Infinite divisions of the Infinite body, and the Infinite
+body is a composition of the Infinite parts; but figure, place and
+body are all one, and so is time, and duration, except you will call
+time the division of duration, and duration the composition of time;
+but infinite time, and infinite duration is all one in Nature: and
+thus Nature's Principal motions and actions are dividing, composing,
+and disposing or ordering, according to her Natural wisdom, by the
+Omnipotent God's leave and permission. Concerning the _Sun_, which your
+_Author_ speaks of in the same place, and denies him to be a _Spectator
+of our particular affairs upon Earth_; saying, there is no such divine
+Principle in him, whereby he can do it. I will speak nothing again
+it, nor for it; but I may say, that the Sun hath such a Principle as
+other Creatures have, which is, that he has sensitive and rational
+corporeal motions, as well as animals or other Creatures, although not
+in the same manner, nor the same organs; and if he have sensitive and
+rational motions, he may also have sensitive and rational knowledg or
+perception, as well as man, or other animals and parts of Nature have,
+for ought any body knows; for it is plain to humane sense and reason,
+that all Creatures must needs have rational and sensitive knowledg,
+because they have all sensitive and rational matter and motions. But
+leaving the Sun for Astronomers to contemplate upon, I take my leave,
+and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In the Preface before the Imm. of the Soul._
+
+[2] _Antid. Book._ 2. _c._ 4.
+
+
+
+
+X.
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+
+Your _Author_ in his arguments against _Motion_, being a _Principle of
+Nature_,[1] endeavours to prove, that Beauty, Colour, Symmetry, and
+the like, in Plants, as well as in other Creatures, are no result from
+the meer motion of the matter; and forming this objection, _It may be
+said_, says he, _That the regular motion of the matter made the first
+plant of every kind; but we demand, What regulated the motion of it,
+so as to guide it, to form it self into such a state?_ I answer, The
+Wisdom of Nature or infinite Matter did order its own actions so, as
+to form those her Parts into such an exact and beautiful figure, as
+such a Tree, or such a Flower, or such a Fruit, and the like; and some
+of her Parts are pleased and delighted with other parts, but some of
+her parts are afraid or have an aversion to other parts; and hence is
+like and dislike, or sympathy and antipathy, hate and love, according
+as nature, which is infinite self-moving matter, pleases to move; for
+though Natural Wisdom is dividable into parts, yet these parts are
+united in one infinite Body, and make but one Being in it self, like
+as the several parts of a man make up but one perfect man; for though
+a man may be wise in several causes or actions, yet it is but one
+wisdom; and though a Judg may shew Justice in several causes, yet it
+is but one Justice; for Wisdom and Justice, though they be practised
+in several causes, yet it is but one Wisdom, and one Justice; and so,
+all the parts of a mans body, although they move differently, yet are
+they but one man's bodily actions; Just as a man, if he carve or cut
+out by art several statues, or draw several Pictures, those statues or
+pictures are but that one man's work. The like may be said of Natures
+Motions and Figures; all which are but one self-active or self-moving
+Material Nature. But Wise Nature's Ground or Fundamental actions
+are very Regular, as you may observe in the several and distinct
+kinds, sorts and particulars of her Creatures, and in their distinct
+Proprieties, Qualities, and Faculties, belonging not onely to each kind
+and sort, but to each particular Creature; and since man is not able
+to know perfectly all those proprieties which belong to animals, much
+less will he be able to know and judg of those that are in Vegetables,
+Minerals and Elements; and yet these Creatures, for any thing Man
+knows, may be as knowing, understanding, and wise as he; and each as
+knowing of its kind or sort, as man is of his; But the mixture of
+ignorance and knowledg in all Creatures proceeds from thence, that they
+are but Parts; and there is no better proof, that the mind of man is
+dividable, then that it is not perfectly knowing; nor no better proof
+that it is composeable, then that it knows so much: but all minds are
+not alike, but some are more composed then others, which is the cause,
+some know more then others; for if the mind in all men were alike, all
+men would have the same Imaginations, Fancies, Conceptions, Memories,
+Remembrances, Passions, Affections, Understanding, and so forth: The
+same may be said of their bodies; for if all mens sensitive parts
+were as one, and not dividable and composeable, all their Faculties,
+Proprieties, Constitutions, Complexions, Appetites, would be the same
+in every man without any difference; but humane sense and reason doth
+well perceive, that neither the mind, life nor body are as one piece,
+without division and composition. Concerning the divine Soul, I do not
+treat of it; onely this I may say, That all are not devout alike, nor
+those which are, are not at all times alike devout. But to conclude:
+some of our modern Philosophers think they do God good service, when
+they endeavour to prove Nature, as Gods good Servant, to be stupid,
+ignorant, foolish and mad, or any thing rather then wise, and yet they
+believe themselves wise, as if they were no part of Nature; but I
+cannot imagine any reason why they should rail on her, except Nature
+had not given them as great a share or portion, as she hath given to
+others; for children in this case do often rail at their Parents, for
+leaving their Brothers and Sisters more then themselves. However,
+Nature can do more then any of her Creatures: and if Man can Paint,
+Imbroider, Carve, Ingrave curiously; why may not Nature have more
+Ingenuity, Wit and Wisdom then any of her particular Creatures? The
+same may be said of her Government. And so leaving Wise Nature, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Append. to the Antid. c._ 11.
+
+
+
+
+XI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+To your _Authors_ argument,[1] That _if Motion belong naturally to
+Matter, Matter being Uniform, it must be alike moved in every part or
+particle imaginable of it, by reason this Motion being natural and
+essential to Matter, is alike every way._ I answer, That this is no
+more necessary, then that the several actions of one body, or of one
+part of a body should be alike; for though Matter is one and the same
+in its Nature, and never changes, yet the motions are various, which
+motions are the several actions of one and the same Natural Matter; and
+this is the cause of so many several Creatures; for self-moving matter
+by its self-moving power can act several ways, modes or manners; and
+had not natural matter a self-acting power, there could not be any
+variety in Nature; for Nature knows of no rest, there being no such
+thing as rest in Nature; but she is in a perpetual motion, I mean
+self-motion, given her from God: Neither do I think it Atheistical
+(as your _Author_ deems) to maintain this opinion of self-motion, as
+long as I do not deny the Omnipotency of God; but I should rather
+think it Irreligious to make so many several Creatures as Immaterial
+Spirits, like so many severall Deities, to rule and govern Nature and
+all material substances in Nature; for what Atheism doth there lie
+in saying, that natural matter is naturally moving, and wise in her
+self? Doth this oppose the omnipotency and Infinite wisdom of God? It
+rather proves and confirms it; for all Natures free power of moving and
+wisdom is a gift of God, and proceeds from him; but I must confess,
+it destroys the power of Immaterial substances, for Nature will not
+be ruled nor governed by them, and to be against Natural Immaterial
+substances, I think, is no Atheisme, except we make them Deities;
+neither is Atheisme to contradict the opinion of those, that believe
+such natural incorporeal Spirits, unless man make himself a God. But
+although Nature is wise, as I said before, and acts methodically,
+yet the variety of motions is the cause of so many Irregularities in
+Nature, as also the cause of Irregular opinions; for all opinions are
+made by self-moving matters motions, or (which is all one) by corporeal
+self-motion, and some in their opinions do conceive Nature according
+to the measure of themselves, as that Nature can, nor could not do
+more, then they think, nay, some believe they can do as much as Nature
+doth; which opinions, whether they be probable or regular, I'le let
+any man judg; adding onely this, that to humane sense and reason it
+appears plainly, that as God has given Nature a power to act freely, so
+he doth approve of her actions, being wise and methodical in all her
+several Productions, Generations, Transformations and Designs: And so I
+conclude for the present, onely subscribe my self, as really I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. l._ 2. _c._ 1.
+
+
+
+
+XII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am of your _Authors_ opinion, concerning self-activity or
+self-motion,[1] _That what is Active of it self, can no more cease to
+be active then to be_: And I have been always of this opinion, even
+from the first beginning of my conceptions in natural Philosophy, as
+you may see in my first Treatise of Natural Philosophy, which I put
+forth eleven years since; where I say, That self-moving Matter is in a
+Perpetual motion; But your _Author_ endeavors from thence to conclude,
+That _Matter is not self active, because it is reducible to rest._ To
+which I answer, That there is no such thing as Rest in Nature: Not do
+I say, that all sorts of motions are subject to our senses, for those
+that are subject to our sensitive Perceptions, are but gross Motions,
+in comparison to those that are not subject to our exterior senses:
+as for example; We see some bodies dilate, others consume, others
+corrupt; yet we do not see how they dilate, nor how they consume, nor
+how they corrupt: Also we see some bodies contract, some attract,
+some condense, some consist, &c. yet we do not see their contracting,
+attracting, condensing, consisting or retenting motions; and yet we
+cannot say, they are not corporeal motions, because not subject to
+our exterior senses; for if there were not contracting, attracting,
+retenting or consistent corporeal self-motions, it had been impossible
+that any creature could have been composed into one united figure,
+much less stayed and continued in the same figure without a general
+alteration. But your _Author_ says, _If Matter, as Matter, had Motion,
+nothing would hold together, but Flints, Adamants, Brass, Iron, yea,
+this whole Earth, would suddenly melt into a thinner substance then
+the subtil Air, or rather it never had been condensated together to
+this consistency we find it._ But I would ask him, what reason he can
+give, that corporeal self-motion should make all matter rare and fluid,
+unless he believe there is but one kind of motion in Nature, but this,
+human sense and reason will contradict; for we may observe there are
+Infinite changes of Motion, and there is more variety and curiosity in
+corporeal motions, then any one single Creature can imagine, much less
+know; but I suppose he conceives all corporeal matter to be gross, and
+that not any corporeal motion can be subtil, penetrating, contracting
+and dilating; and that whatsoever is penetrating, contracting and
+dilating, is Individable: But by his leave, _Madam_, this doth not
+follow; for though there be gross degrees of Matter, and strong degrees
+of Corporeal Motions, yet there are also pure and subtil degrees
+of Matter and Motions; to wit, that degree of Matter, which I name
+sensitive and rational Matter, which is natural Life and Knowledg, as
+sensitive Life and rational Knowledg. Again, your _Author_ askes, _What
+glue or cement holds the parts of hard matter in Stones and Metals
+together?_ I answer, Consistent or retentive corporeal motions, by an
+agreeable union and conjunction in the several parts of Metal or Stone;
+and these retentive or consistent motions, are as strong and active,
+if not more, then some dilative or contractive motions; for I have
+mentioned heretofore, that, as sensitive and rational corporeal motions
+are in all Creatures, so also in Stone, Metal, and any other dense body
+whatsoever; so that not any one Creature or part of Matter is without
+Motion, and therefore not any thing is at rest. But, _Madam_, I dare
+say, I could bring more reason and sense to prove, that sensitive and
+rational Matter is fuller of activity, and has more variety of motion,
+and can change its own parts of self-moving Matter more suddenly, and
+into more exterior figures, then Immaterial Spirits can do upon natural
+Matter. But your _Author_ says, That Immaterial Spirits are endued with
+Sense and Reason; I say, My sensitive and rational corporeal Matter
+is Sense and Reason it self, and is the Architect or Creator of all
+figures of Natural matter, for though all the parts of Matter are not
+self-moving, yet there is not any part that is not moving or moved, by
+and with the mover, which is animate matter. And thus I conclude, and
+rest constantly,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 1. _c._ 7.
+
+
+
+
+XIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+That Matter is uncapable of Sense, your _Author_ proves by the example
+of dead Carcasses;[1] _For,_ says he, _Motion and Sense being really
+one and the same thing, it must needs follow, that where there is
+motion, there is also sense and perception; but on the contrary, there
+is Reaction in dead Carcasses, and yet no Sense._ I answer shortly,
+That it is no consequence, because there is no animal sense nor
+exterior perceptible local motion in a dead Carcass, therefore there
+is no sense at all in it; for though it has not animal sense, yet it
+may nevertheless have sense according to the nature of that figure,
+into which it did change from being an animal. Also he says, _If any
+Matter have sense, it will follow, that upon reaction all shall have
+the like; and that a Bell while it is ringing, and a Bow while it is
+bent, and every Jack-in-a-box, that School-boys play with, shall be
+living animals._ I answer, It is true, if reaction made sense; but
+reaction doth not make sense, but sense makes reaction; and though the
+Bell hath not an animal knowledg, yet it may have a mineral life and
+knowledg, and the Bow, and the Jack-in-a-box a vegetable knowledg; for
+the shape and form of the Bell, Bow, and Jack-in-a-box, is artificial;
+nevertheless each in its own kind may have as much knowledg as an
+animal in his kind; onely they are different according to the different
+proprieties of their Figures: And who can prove the contrary that they
+have not? For certainly Man cannot prove what he cannot know; but Mans
+nature is so, that knowing but little of other Creatures, he presently
+judges there is no more knowledg in Nature, then what Man, at least
+Animals, have; and confines all sense onely to Animal sense, and all
+knowledg to Animal knowledg. Again says your Author, _That Matter is
+utterly uncapable of such operations as we find in our selves, and
+that therefore there is something in us Immaterial or Incorporeal;
+for we find in our selves that one and the same thing, both hears,
+and sees, and tastes, and perceives all the variety of objects that
+Nature manifests unto us._ I answer, That is the reason there is but
+one matter, and that all natural perception is made by the animate
+part of matter; but although there is but one matter in Nature, yet
+there are several parts or degrees, and consequently several actions
+of that onely matter, which causes such a variety of perceptions,
+both sensitive and rational: the sensitive perception is made by the
+sensitive corporeal motions, copying out the figures of forreign
+objects in the sensitive organs of the sentient; and if those sensitive
+motions do pattern out forreign objects in each sensitive organ alike
+at one and the same time, then we hear, see, taste, touch and smell,
+at one and the same time: But Thoughts and Passions, as Imagination,
+Conception, Fancy, Memory, Love, Hate, Fear, Joy, and the like, are
+made by the rational corporeal motions in their own degree of matter,
+to wit, the rational. And thus all perception is made by one and the
+same matter, through the variety of its actions or motions, making
+various and several figures, both sensitive and rational. But all this
+variety in sense and reason, or of sensitive and rational perceptions,
+is not made by parts pressing upon parts, but by changing their own
+parts of matter into several figures by the power of self-motion: For
+example, I see a Man or Beast; that Man or Beast doth not touch my
+eye, in the least, neither in it self, nor by pressing the adjoyning
+parts: but the sensitive corporeal motions streight upon the sight of
+the Man or Beast make the like figure in the sensitive organ, the Eye,
+and in the eyes own substance or matter, as being in the eye as well
+as the other degrees of matter, to wit, the rational and inanimate,
+for they are all mixt together. But this is to be observed, That the
+rational matter can and doth move in its own substance, as being the
+purest and subtillest degree of matter; but the sensitive being not so
+pure and subtil, moves always with the inanimate Matter, and so the
+perceptive figures which the rational Matter, or rational corporeal
+Motions make, are made in their own degree of Matter; but those figures
+which the sensitive patterns out, are made in the organs or parts of
+the sentient body proper to such or such a sense or perception: as in
+an animal Creature, the perception of sight is made by the sensitive
+corporeal motions in the Eye; the perception of hearing, in the Ear,
+and so forth. As for what your _Author_ says, _That we cannot conceive
+any portion of Matter, but is either hard or soft_; I answer, That
+these are but effects of Matters actions, and so is rare, and dense,
+and the like; but there are some Creatures which seem neither perfectly
+rare, nor dense, nor hard, nor soft, but of mixt qualities; as for
+example, Quicksilver seems rare, and yet is dense; soft, and yet is
+hard; for though liquid Quicksilver is soft to our touch, and rare to
+our sight, yet it is so dense and hard, as not to be readily dissolved
+from its nature; and if there be such contraries and mixtures in
+one particular creature made of self-moving Matter, what will there
+not be in Matter it self, according to the old saying: _If the Man
+such praise shall have; What the Master that keeps the knave?_ So if
+a particular Creature hath such opposite qualities and mixtures of
+corporeal motions, what will the Creator have which is self-moving
+Matter? Wherefore it is impossible to affirm, that self-moving Matter
+is either all rare, or all dense, or all hard, or all soft; because by
+its self-moving power it can be either, or both, and so by the change
+and variety of motion, there may be soft and rare Points, and hard and
+sharp Points, hard and contracted Globes, and soft and rare Globes;
+also there may be pressures of Parts without printing, and printing
+without pressures. Concerning that part of Matter which is the _Common
+Sensorium_, your _Author_ demands, _Whether some point of it receive
+the whole Image of the object, or whether it be wholly received into
+every point of it?_ I answer, first, That all sensitive Matter is not
+in Points; Next, That not any single part can subsist of it self; and
+then that one Part doth not receive all parts or any part into it self;
+but that Parts by the power of self-motion can and do make several
+figures of all sizes and sorts, and can Epitomize a great object into
+a very little figure; for outward objects do not move the body, but
+the sensitive and rational matter moves according to the figures of
+outward objects: I do not say always, but most commonly; _But_, says
+your Author, _How can so smal a Point receive the Images of so vast
+or so various objects at once, without obliteration or confusion._
+First, I answer, That, as I said before, sensitive Matter is not bound
+up to a Point, nor to be a single self-subsisting Part. Next, as for
+confusion, I say, that the sensitive matter makes no more confusion,
+then an Engraver, when he engraves several figures in a small stone,
+and a Painter draws several figures in a small compass; for a Carver
+will cut out several figures in a Cherry-stone, and a Lady in a little
+black Patch; and if gross and rude Art is able to do this, what may
+not Ingenious and Wise Nature do? And as Nature is ingenious and
+knowing in her self, so in her Parts, and her Parts in her; for neither
+whole nor Parts are ignorant, but have a knowledg, each according to
+the motion of its own Parts; for knowledg is in Motion, and Motion
+in Matter; and the diversity and variety of motion is the diversity
+and variety of knowledg, so that every particular figure and motion
+hath its particular knowledg, as well as its proper and peculiar
+parts; and as the parts join or divide, so doth knowledg, which many
+times causes Arts to be lost and found, and memory and remembrance in
+Particular Creatures: I do not say, they are utterly lost in nature,
+but onely in respect to particular Creatures, by the dissolving and
+dividing of their particular figures. For the rational matter, by
+reason it moves onely in its own parts, it can change and rechange
+into several figures without division of parts, which makes memory
+and remembrance: But men not considering or believing there might
+be such a degree of onely matter, namely rational, it has made them
+erre in their judgments. Nevertheless there is a difference between
+sensitive and rational parts and motions, and yet they are agreeable
+most commonly in their actions, though not always. Also the rational
+can make such figures as the sensitive cannot, by reason the rational
+has a greater power and subtiler faculty in making variety, then the
+sensitive; for the sensitive is bound to move with the inanimate, but
+the rational moves onely in its own parts; for though the sensitive
+and rational oftentimes cause each other to move, yet they are not of
+one and the same degree of matter, nor have they the same motions.
+And this rational Matter is the cause of all Notions, Conceptions,
+Imaginations, Deliberation, Determination, Memory, and any thing else
+that belongs to the Mind; for this matter is the mind of Nature, and
+so being dividable, the mind of all Creatures, as the sensitive is the
+life; and it can move, as I said, more subtilly, and more variously
+then the sensitive, and make such figures as the sensitive cannot,
+without outward examples and objects. But all diversity comes by
+change of motion, and motions are as sympathetical and agreeing, as
+antipathetical and disagreeing; And though Nature's artificial motions,
+which are her Playing motions, are sometimes extravagant, yet in her
+fundamental actions there is no extravagancy, as we may observe by her
+exact rules in the various generations, the distinct kinds and sorts,
+the several exact measures, times, proportions and motions of all her
+Creatures, in all which her wisdom is well exprest, and in the variety
+her wise pleasure: To which I leave her, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2. _c._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+XIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+_If there be any sense and perception in Matter_, says your Author,[1]
+_it must needs be Motion or Reaction of one part of matter against
+another; and that all diversity of sense and perception doth
+necessarily arise from the diversity of the Magnitude, Figure,
+Posture, Vigour and Direction of Motion in Parts of the Matter; In
+which variety of perceptions, Matter hath none, but such, as are
+impressed by corporeal motions, that is to say, that are perceptions
+of some actions, or modificated Impressions of parts of matter
+bearing one against another._ I have declared, _Madam_, my opinion
+concerning Perception in my former Letters, that all Perception is
+not Impression and Reaction, like as a Seal is printed on Wax: For
+example, the corporeal rational motions in the mind do not print,
+but move figuratively; but the sensitive motions do carve, print,
+engrave, and, as it were, pencil out, as also move figuratively in
+productions, and do often take patterns from the rational figures, as
+the rational motions make figures according to the sensitive patterns;
+But the rational can move without patterns, and so the sensitive: For
+surely, were a man born blind, deaf, dumb, and had a numb palsie in his
+exterior parts, the sensitive and rational motions would nevertheless
+move both in body and mind according to the nature of his figure; for
+though no copies were taken from outward objects, yet he would have
+thoughts, passions, appetites, and the like; and though he could not
+see exterior objects, nor hear exterior sounds, yet no question but
+he would see and hear interiously after the manner of dreams, onely
+they might not be any thing like to what is perceiveable by man in the
+World; but if he sees not the Sun-light, yet he would see something
+equivalent to it; and if he hears not such a thing as Words, yet he
+would hear something equivalent to words; for it is impossible, that
+his sensitive and rational faculties should be lost for want of an Ear,
+or an Eye; so that Perception may be without exterior object, or marks,
+or patterns: for although the sensitive Motions do usually pattern out
+the figures of exterior objects, yet that doth not prove, but they can
+make interior figures without such objects. Wherefore Perception is not
+always Reaction, neither is Perception and Reaction really one thing;
+for though Perception and Action is one and the same, yet not always
+Reaction; but did Perception proceed from the reaction of outward
+objects, a blind and deaf man would not so much as dream; for he would
+have no interior motion in the head, having no other exterior sense but
+touch, which, if the body was troubled with a painful disease, he would
+neither be sensible of, but to feel pain, and interiously feel nothing
+but hunger and fulness; and his Mind would be as Irrational as some
+imagine Vegetables and Minerals are. To which opinion I leave them,
+and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2. _c._ 1. _a._ 1, 6, 7.
+
+
+
+
+XV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is pleased, in Mirth, and to disgrace the opinion of
+those which hold, that Perception is made by figuring, to bring in
+this following example:[1] _Suppose_, says he, _one Particle should
+shape it self into a_ George on Horse-back _with a Lance in his hand,
+and another into an Inchanted Castle; this_ George on Horse-back
+_must run against the Castle, to make the Castle receive his impress
+and similitude: But what then? Truly the Encounter will be very
+Unfortunate, for S._ George _indeed may easily break his Lance, but
+it is impossible that he should by justling against the Particle in
+the form of a Castle, conveigh the intire shape of himself and his
+Horse thereby, such as we find our selves able to imagine of a man
+on Horse-back; which is a Truth as demonstrable as any Theorem in
+Mathematicks._ I answer, first, That there is no Particle single and
+alone by it self; Next, I say, It is more easie for the rational
+matter to put it self into such figures, and to make such encounters,
+then for an Immaterial mind or substance to imagine it; for no
+imagination can be without figure, and how should an Immaterial created
+substance present such Figures, but by making them either in it self
+or upon matter? For S. _George_ and the _Castle_ are figures, and
+their encounters are real fighting actions, and how such figures and
+actions can be in the mind or memory, and yet not be, is impossible
+to conceive; for, as I said, those figures and actions must be either
+in the incorporeal mind, or in the corporeal parts of matter; and if
+the figures and motions may be in an incorporeal substance, much more
+is it probable for them to be in a corporeal; nay if the figures and
+their actions can be in gross corporeal matter, why should they not be
+in the purest part of matter, which is the rational matter? And as for
+being made known to the whole body, and every part thereof, it is not
+necessary, no more then it is necessary, that the private actions of
+every Man or Family should be made known to the whole Kingdom, or Town,
+or Parish: But my opinion of self-corporeal motion and perception, may
+be as demonstrable as that of Immaterial Natural Spirits, which, in
+my mind, is not demonstrable at all, by reason it is not corporeal or
+material; For how can that be naturally demonstrable, which naturally
+is nothing? But your _Author_ believes the Mind or rational Soul
+to be individable, and therefore concludes, that the Parts of the
+same Matter, although at great distance, must of necessity know each
+Particular act of each several Part; but that is not necessary; for
+if there were not ignorance through the division of Parts, every man
+and other creatures would know alike; and there is no better proof,
+that matter, or any particular creature in nature is not governed by
+a created Immaterial Spirit, then that knowledg is in parts; for the
+hand doth not know what pain the head feels, which certainly it would
+do, if the mind were not dividable into parts, but an individable
+substance. But this is well to be observed, that some parts in some
+actions agree generally in one body, and some not; as for example,
+temperance and appetite do not agree; for the corporeal actions of
+appetite desire to join with the corporeal actions of such or such
+other parts, but the corporeal actions of temperance do hinder and
+forbid it; whereupon there is a faction amongst the several parts: for
+example, a Man desires to be drunk with Wine; this desire is made by
+such corporeal actions as make appetite; the rational corporeal motions
+or actions which make temperance, oppose those that make appetite,
+and that sort of actions which hath the better, carryes it, the hand
+and other parts of the body obeying the strongest side; and if there
+be no wine to satisfie the appetite, yet many times the appetite
+continues; that is, the parts continue in the same motions that make
+such an appetite; but if the appetite doth not continue, then those
+parts have changed their motions; or when by drinking, the appetite is
+satisfied, and ceases, then those parts that made the appetite, have
+altered their former motions. But oftentimes the rational corporeal
+motions may so agree with the sensitive, as there may be no opposition
+or crossing at all, but a sympathetical mutual agreement betwixt
+them, at least an approvement; so that the rational may approve what
+the sensitive covet or desire: Also some motions of the rational, as
+also of the sensitive matter, may disagree amongst themselves, as we
+see, that a man will often have a divided mind; for he will love and
+hate the same thing, desire and not desire one and the same thing, as
+to be in Heaven, and yet to be in the World: Moreover, this is to be
+observed, That all rational perceptions or cogitations, are not so
+perspicuous and clear as if they were Mathematical Demonstrations, but
+there is some obscurity, more or less in them, at least they are not
+so well perceivable without comparing several figures together, which
+proves, they are not made by an individable, immaterial Spirit, but
+by dividable corporeal parts: As for example, Man writes oftentimes
+false, and seldom so exact, but he is forced to mend his hand, and
+correct his opinions, and sometimes quite to alter them, according as
+the figures continue or are dissolved and altered by change of motion,
+and according as the actions are quick or slow in these alterations,
+the humane mind is setled or wavering; and as figures are made, or
+dissolved and transformed, Opinions, Conceptions, Imaginations,
+Understanding, and the like, are more or less; And according as these
+figures last, so is constancy or inconstancy, memory or forgetfulness,
+and as those figures are repeated, so is remembrance; but sometimes
+they are so constant and permanent, as they last as long as the figure
+of the body, and sometimes it happens not once in an age, that the
+like figures are repeated, and sometimes they are repeated every
+moment: As for example; a man remembers or calls to mind the figure of
+another man, his friend, with all his qualities, dispositions, actions,
+proprieties, and the like, several times in an hour, and sometimes not
+once in a year, and so as often as he remembers him, as often is the
+figure of that man repeated; and as oft as he forgets him, so often is
+his figure dissolved. But some imagine the rational motions to be so
+gross as the Trotting of a Horse, and that all the motions of Animate
+matter are as rude and course as renting or tearing asunder, or that
+all impressions must needs make dents or creases. But as Nature hath
+degrees of corporeal matter, so she hath also degrees of corporeal
+motions, Matter and Motion being but one substance; and it is absurd to
+judg of the interior motions of self-moving matter, by artificial or
+exterior gross motions, as that all motions must be like the tearing
+of a sheet of Paper, or that the printing and patterning of several
+figures of rational and sensitive matter must be like the printing of
+Books; nay, all artificial Printings are not so hard, as to make dents
+and impresses; witness Writing, Painting, and the like; for they do
+not disturb the ground whereon the letters are written, or the picture
+drawn, and so the curious actions of the purest rational matter are
+neither rude nor rough; but although this matter is so subtil and pure,
+as not subject to exterior human senses and organs, yet certainly it
+is dividable, not onely in several Creatures, but in the several parts
+of one and the same Creature, as well as the sensitive, which is the
+Life of Nature, as the other is the Soul; not the Divine, but natural
+Soul; neither is this Soul Immaterial, but Corporeal; not composed of
+raggs and shreds, but it is the purest, simplest and subtillest matter
+in Nature. But to conclude, I desire you to remember, _Madam_, that
+this rational and sensitive Matter in one united and finite Figure or
+particular Creature, has both common and particular actions, for as
+there are several kinds and sorts of Creatures, and particulars in
+every kind and sort: so the like for the actions of the rational and
+sensitive matter in one particular Creature. Also it is to be noted,
+That the Parts of rational matter, can more suddenly give and take
+Intelligence to and from each other, then the sensitive; nevertheless,
+all Parts in Nature, at least adjoyning parts, have Intelligence
+between each other, more or less, because all parts make but one body;
+for it is not with the parts of Matter, as with several Constables in
+several Hundreds, or several Parishes, which are a great way distant
+from each other, but they may be as close as the combs of Bees, and yet
+as partable and as active as Bees. But concerning the Intelligence of
+Natures Parts, I have sufficiently spoken in other places; and so I'le
+add no more, but that I unfeignedly remain;
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In the second Book of the Immortality of the Soul, ch._ 6.
+
+
+
+
+XVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+_Sensation in corporeal motion is first, and Perception follows_, sayes
+your _Author_:[1] to which opinion I give no assent, but do believe
+that Perception and Sensation are done both at one and the same time,
+as being one and the same thing without division, either in reason
+or sense, and are performed without any knocks, or jolts, or hitting
+against. But let me tell you, _Madam_, there arises a great mistake
+by many, from not distinguishing well, sensitive Motion, and rational
+Motion; for though all motions are in one onely matter, yet that matter
+doth not move always in the same manner, for then there could be no
+variety in Nature; and truly, if man, who is but a part of Nature, may
+move diversly, and put himself into numerous postures; Why may not
+Nature? But concerning Motions, and their variety, to avoid tedious
+repetitions, I must still referr you to my Book of _Philosophical
+Opinions_; I'le add onely this, that it is well to be observed, That
+all Motions are not Impressions, neither do all Impressions make
+such dents, as to disturb the adjoyning Parts: Wherefore those, in
+my opinion, understand _Nature_ best, which say, that Sensation and
+Perception are really one and the same; but they are out, that say,
+there can be no communication at a distance, unless by pressing and
+crowding; for the patterning of an outward object, may be done without
+any inforcement or disturbance, jogging or crowding, as I have declared
+heretofore; for the sensitive and rational motions in the sensitive
+and rational parts of matter in one creature, observing the exterior
+motions in outward objects, move accordingly, either regularly or
+irregularly in patterns; and if they have no exterior objects, as in
+dreams, they work by rote. And so to conclude, I am absolutely of their
+opinion, who believe, that there is nothing existent in Nature, but
+what is purely Corporeal, for this seems most probable in sense and
+reason to me,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In the Pref. of the Imm. of the Soul._
+
+
+
+
+XVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Outward Objects, as I have told you before, do not make Sense and
+Reason, but Sense and Reason do perceive and judg of outward objects;
+For the Sun doth not make sight, nor doth sight make light; but sense
+and reason in a Man, or any other creature, do perceive and know there
+are such objects as Sun, and Light, or whatsoever objects are presented
+to them. Neither doth Dumbness, Deafness, Blindness, &c. cause an
+Insensibility, but Sense through irregular actions causes them; I
+say, through Irregular actions, because those effects do not properly
+belong to the nature of that kind of Creatures; for every Creature,
+if regularly made, hath particular motions proper to its figure; for
+natural Matters wisdom makes distinctions by her distinct corporeal
+motions, giving every particular Creature their due Portion and
+Proportion according to the nature of their figures, and to the rules
+of her actions, but not to the rules of Arts, Mathematical Compasses,
+Lines, Figures, and the like. And thus the Sun, Stars, Meteors, Air,
+Fire, Water, Earth, Minerals, Vegetables and Animals, may all have
+Sense and Reason, although it doth not move in one kind or sort of
+Creatures, or in one particular, as in another: For the corporeal
+motions differ not onely in kinds and sorts, but also in Particulars,
+as is perceivable by human sense and reason; Which is the cause, that
+Elements have elemental sense and knowledg, and Animals animal sense
+and knowledg, and so of Vegetables, Minerals, and the like. Wherefore
+the Sun and Stars may have as much sensitive and rational life and
+knowledg as other Creatures, but such as is according to the nature
+of their figures, and not animal, or vegetable, or mineral sense and
+knowledg. And so leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ denying that Fancy, Reason and Animadversion are
+seated in the Brain, and that the Brain is figured into this or that
+Conception:[1] _I demand_, says he, _in what knot, loop or interval
+thereof doth this faculty of free Fancy and active Reason reside?_ My
+answer is, that in my opinion, Fancy and Reason are not made in the
+Brain, as there is a Brain, but as there is sensitive and rational
+matter, which makes not onely the Brain, but all Thoughts, Conceptions,
+Imaginations, Fancy, Understanding, Memory, Remembrance, and whatsoever
+motions are in the Head, or Brain: neither doth this sensitive and
+rational matter remain or act in one place of the Brain, but in every
+part thereof; and not onely in every part of the Brain, but in every
+part of the Body; nay, not onely in every part of a Mans Body, but in
+every part of Nature. But, _Madam_, I would ask those, that say the
+Brain has neither sense, reason, nor self-motion, and therefore no
+Perception; but that all proceeds from an Immaterial Principle, as an
+Incorporeal Spirit, distinct from the body, which moveth and actuates
+corporeal matter; I would fain ask them, I say, where their Immaterial
+Ideas reside, in what part or place of the Body? and whether they be
+little or great? Also I would ask them, whether there can be many, or
+but one Idea of God? If they say many, then there must be several,
+distinct Deitical Ideas; if but one, Where doth this Idea reside? If
+they say in the head, then the heart is ignorant of God; if in the
+heart, then the head is ignorant thereof, and so for all parts of the
+body; but if they say, in every part, then that Idea may be disfigured
+by a lost member; if they say, it may dilate and contract, then I say
+it is not the Idea of God, for God can neither contract nor extend;
+nor can the Idea it self dilate and contract, being immaterial; for
+contraction and dilation belong onely to bodies, or material beings:
+Wherefore the comparisons betwixt Nature and a particular Creature, and
+between God and Nature, are improper; much more betwixt God and Natures
+particular motions and figures, which are various and changeable,
+although methodical. The same I may ask of the Mind of Man, as I do of
+the Idea in the Mind. Also I might ask them, what they conceive the
+natural mind of man to be, whether material or immaterial? If material,
+their opinion is rational, and so the mind is dividable and composable;
+if immaterial, then it is a Spirit; and if a Spirit, it cannot possibly
+dilate nor contract, having no dimension nor divisibility of parts,
+(although your _Author_ proves it by the example of Light; but I have
+exprest my meaning heretofore, that _light_ is divisible) and if it
+have no dimension, how can it be confined in a material body? Wherefore
+when your _Author_ says, the mind is a substance, it is to my reason
+very probable; but not when he says, it is an immaterial substance,
+which will never agree with my sense and reason; for it must be either
+something, or nothing, there being no _medium_ between, in Nature. But
+pray mistake me not, _Madam_, when I say Immaterial is nothing; for I
+mean nothing Natural, or so as to be a part of Nature; for God forbid,
+I should deny, that God is a Spiritual Immaterial substance, or Being;
+neither do I deny that we can have an Idea, notion, conception, or
+thought of the existence of God; for I am of your _Authors_ opinion,
+That there is no Man under the cope of Heaven, that doth not by the
+light of Nature, know, and believe there is a God; but that we should
+have such a perfect Idea of God, as of any thing else in the World,
+or as of our selves, as your _Author_ says, I cannot in sense and
+reason conceive to be true or possible. Neither am I against those
+Spirits, which the holy Scripture mentions, as Angels and Devils,
+and the divine Soul of Man; but I say onely, that no Immaterial
+Spirit belongs to Nature, so as to be a part thereof; for Nature is
+Material, or Corporeal; and whatsoever is not composed of matter or
+body, belongs not to Nature; nevertheless, Immaterial Spirits may be
+in Nature, although not parts of Nature. But there can neither be an
+Immaterial Nature, nor a Natural Immaterial; Nay, our very thoughts and
+conceptions of Immaterial are Material, as made of self-moving Matter.
+Wherefore to conclude, these opinions in Men proceed from a Vain-glory,
+as to have found out something that is not in Nature; to which I leave
+them, and their natural Immaterial Substances, like so many Hobgoblins
+to fright Children withal, resting in the mean time,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. lib._ 1. _c._ 11.
+
+
+
+
+XIX.
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+There are various opinions concerning the seat of Common Sense, as
+your _Author_ rehearseth them in his Treatise of the Immortality of
+the Soul;[1] But my opinion is, That common sense hath also a common
+place; for as there is not any part of the body that hath not sense
+and reason, so sense and reason is in all parts of the body, as it is
+observable by this, that every part is subject to pain and pleasure,
+and all parts are moveable, moving and moved; also appetites are in
+every part of the body: As for example, if any part itches, it hath
+an appetite to be scratched, and every part can pattern out several
+objects, and so several touches; and though the rational part of matter
+is mixt in all parts of the body, yet it hath more liberty to make
+variety of Motions in the head, heart, liver, spleen, stomack, bowels,
+and the like, then in the other parts of the body; nevertheless, it is
+in every part, together with the sensitive: but they do not move in
+every part alike, but differ in each part more or less, as it may be
+observed; and although every part hath some difference of knowledg, yet
+all have life and knowledg, sense and reason, some more, some less, and
+the whole body moves according to each part, and so do all the bodily
+Faculties and Proprieties, and not according to one single part; the
+rational Soul being in all parts of the body: for if one part of the
+body should have a dead Palsie, it is not, that the Soul is gone from
+that part, but that the sensitive and rational matter has altered its
+motion and figure from animal to some other kind; for certainly, the
+rational Soul, and so life, is in every part, as well in the Pores of
+the skin, as in the ventricles of the brain, and as well in the heel
+as in the head; and every part of the body knows its own office, what
+it ought to do, from whence follows an agreement of all the parts: And
+since there is difference of knowledg in every part of one body, well
+may there be difference between several kinds and sorts, and yet there
+is knowledg in all; for difference of knowledg is no argument to prove
+they have no knowledg at all. Wherefore I am not of the opinion, that
+that which moves the whole body, is as a Point, or some such thing in
+a little kernel or _Glandula_ of the Brain, as an Ostrich-egge is hung
+up to the roof of a Chamber; or that it is in the stomack like a single
+penny in a great Purse; neither is it in the midst of the heart, like a
+Lady in a Lobster; nor in the blood, like as a Menow, or Sprat in the
+Sea; nor in the fourth Ventricle of the Brain, as a lousie Souldier
+in a Watch-tower. But you may say, it is like a farthing Candle in a
+great Church: I answer, That Light will not enlighten the by Chappels
+of the Church, nor the Quest-house, nor the Belfrey; neither doth the
+Light move the Church, though it enlightens it: Wherefore the Soul
+after this manner doth not move the corporeal body, no more then the
+Candle moves the Church, or the Lady moves the Lobster, or the Sprat
+the Sea as to make it ebb and flow. But this I desire you to observe,
+_Madam_, that though all the body of man or any other Creature, hath
+sense and reason, which is life and knowledg, in all parts, yet these
+parts being all corporeal, and having their certain proportions, can
+have no more then what is belonging or proportionable to each figure:
+As for example; if a Man should feed, and not evacuate some ways or
+other, he could not live; and if he should evacuate and not feed, he
+could not subsist: wherefore in all Natures parts there is ingress and
+egress, although not always perceived by one creature, as Man; but all
+exterior objects do not enter into Man, or any other Creature, but are
+figured by the rational, and some by the sensitive parts or motions
+in the body; wherefore it is not rational to believe, that exterior
+objects take up any more room, then if there were none presented to
+the sensitive organs: Nor is there any thing which can better prove
+the mind to be corporeal, then that there may be several Figures in
+several parts of the body made at one time, as Sight, Hearing, Tasting,
+Smelling, and Touching, and all these in each several organ, as well at
+one, as at several times, either by patterns, or not; which figuring
+without Pattern, may be done as well by the sensitive motions in the
+organs, as by the rational in the mind, and is called remembrance. As
+for example: a Man may hear or see without an object; which is, that
+the sensitive and rational matter repeat such figurative actions, or
+make others in the sensitive organs, or in the mind: and Thoughts,
+Memory, Imagination, as also Passion, are no less corporeal actions
+then the motion of the hand or heel; neither hath the rational matter,
+being naturally wise, occasion to jumble and knock her parts together,
+by reason every part knows naturally their office what they ought to
+do, or what they may do. But I conclude, repeating onely what I have
+said oft before, that all Perceptions, Thoughts, and the like, are the
+Effects, and Life and Knowledg, the Nature and Essence of self-moving
+Matter. And so I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Lib._ 2. _c._ 4.
+
+
+
+
+XX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am not able to conceive how the Mind of Man can be compared to a
+Table-book, in which nothing is writ;[1] nor how to a Musician, who
+being asleep, doth not so much as dream of any Musick, but being
+jogg'd and awakend by another, who tells him two or three words of
+a Song, and desires him to sing it, presently recovers himself, and
+sings upon so slight an Intimation: For such intimations are nothing
+else but outward objects, which the interior sense consents to, and
+obeys; for interior sense and reason doth often obey outward objects:
+and in my opinion there is no rest in Nature, and so neither in the
+Mind or natural Soul of Man, which is in a perpetual motion, and needs
+therefore no jogging to put it into any actual motion; for it hath
+actual motion and knowledg in it self, because it is a self-moving
+substance, actually knowing, and Material or Corporeal, not Immaterial,
+as your _Author_ thinks: and this material or corporeal Mind is nothing
+else but what I call the rational matter, and the corporeal life is
+the sensitive matter. But this is to be observed, that the motions of
+the corporeal Mind do often imitate the motions of the sensitive Life,
+and these again the motions of the mind: I say oftentimes; for they do
+it not always, but each one can move without taking any pattern from
+the other. And all this I understand of the Natural Soul of Man; not
+of the Divine Soul, and her powers and faculties, for I leave that to
+Divines to inform us of; onely this I say, that men not conceiving the
+distinction between this natural and divine Soul, make such a confusion
+betwixt those two Souls and their actions, which causes so many
+disputes and opinions. But if Nature hath power from God to produce
+all kinds of Vegetables, Minerals, Elements, Animals, and other sorts
+of Creatures, Why not also Man? Truly if all Creatures are natural
+Creatures, Man must be so too; and if Man is a natural Creature, he
+must needs have natural sense and reason, as well as other Creatures,
+being composed of the same matter they are of. Neither is it requisite,
+that all Creatures, being of the same matter, must have the same manner
+of sensitive and rational knowledg; which if so, it is not necessary
+for Corn to have Ears to hear the whistling or chirping of Birds, nor
+for Stones to have such a touch of feeling as animals have, and to
+suffer pain, as they do, when Carts go over them; as your _Author_ is
+pleased to argue out of _�sopes_ Tales; or for the Heliotrope to have
+eyes to see the Sun: for what necessity is there that they should have
+humane sense and reason? which is, that the rational and sensitive
+matter should act and move in them as she doth in man or animals:
+Certainly if there must be any variety in nature, it is requisite she
+should not; wherefore all Vegetables, Minerals, Elements, and Animals,
+have their proper motions different from each others, not onely in
+their kinds and sorts, but also in their particulars. And though Stones
+have no progressive motion to withdraw themselves from the Carts going
+over them, which your _Author_ thinks they would do, if they had
+sense, to avoid pain: nevertheless they have motion, and consequently
+sense and reason, according to the nature and propriety of their
+figure, as well as man has according to his. But this is also to be
+observed, that not any humane Creature, which is accounted to have the
+perfectest sense and reason, is able always to avoid what is hurtful or
+painful, for it is subject to it by Nature: Nay, the Immaterial Soul
+it self, according to your _Author_,[2] cannot by her self-contracting
+faculty withdraw her self from pain. Wherefore there is no manner of
+consequence to conclude from the sense of Animals to the sense of
+Minerals, they being as much different as their Figures are; And saying
+this, I have said enough to express the opinion and mind of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. Book_ 1. _c._ 5.
+
+[2] _Append. to the Antid. ch._ 3.
+
+
+
+
+XXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ endeavours very much to prove the existency of a _Natural
+Immaterial Spirit_, whom he defines to be an _Incorporeal substance,
+Indivisible, that can move it self, can penetrate, contract and dilate
+it self, and can also move and alter the matter._ Whereof, if you will
+have my opinion, I confess freely to you, that in my sense and reason
+I cannot conceive it to be possible, that these is any such thing in
+Nature; for all that is a substance in Nature, is a body, and what has
+a body, is corporeal; for though there be several degrees of matter,
+as in purity, rarity, subtilty, activity; yet there is no degree so
+pure, rare and subtil, that can go beyond its nature, and change from
+corporeal to incorporeal, except it could change from being something
+to nothing, which is impossible in Nature. Next, there is no substance
+in Nature that is not divisible; for all that is a body, or a bodily
+substance, hath extension, and all extension hath parts, and what has
+parts, is divisible. As for self-motion, contraction and dilation,
+these are actions onely of Natural Matter; for Matter by the Power
+of God is self-moving, and all sorts of motions, as contraction,
+dilation, alteration, penetration, &c. do properly belong to Matter;
+so that natural Matter stands in no need to have some Immaterial or
+Incorporeal substance to move, rule, guide and govern her; but she is
+able enough to do it all her self, by the free Gift of the Omnipotent
+God; for why should we trouble our selves to invent or frame other
+unconceivable substances, when there is no need for it, but Matter can
+act, and move as well without them and of it self? Is not God able
+to give such power to Matter, as to an other Incorporeal substance?
+But I suppose this opinion of natural Immaterial Spirits doth proceed
+from Chymistry, where the extracts are vulgarly called Spirits; and
+from that degree of Matter, which by reason of its purity, subtilty
+and activity, is not subject to our grosser senses; However, these are
+not Incorporeal, be they never so pure and subtil. And I wonder much
+that men endeavour to prove Immaterial Spirits by corporeal Arts, when
+as Art is not able to demonstrate Nature and her actions; for Art is
+but the effect of Nature, and expresses rather the variety, then the
+truth of natural motions; and if Art cannot do this, much less will it
+be able to express what is not in Nature, or what is beyond Nature; as
+to _trace the Visible_ (or rather Invisible) _footsteps of the divine
+Councel and Providence_,[1] or to demonstrate things supernatural, and
+which go beyond mans reach and capacity. But to return to Immaterial
+Spirits, that they should rule and govern infinite corporeal matter,
+like so many demy-Gods, by a dilating nod, and a contracting frown,
+and cause so many kinds and sorts of Corporeal Figures to arise, being
+Incorporeal themselves, is Impossible for me to conceive; for how can
+an Immaterial substance cause a Material corporeal substance, which
+has no motion in it self, to form so many several and various figures
+and creatures, and make so many alterations, and continue their kinds
+and sorts by perpetual successions of Particulars? But perchance the
+Immaterial substance gives corporeal matter motion. I answer, My sense
+and reason cannot understand, how it can give motion, unless motion
+be different, distinct and separable from it; nay, if it were, yet
+being no substance or body it self, according to your _Authors_ and
+others opinion, the question is, how it can be transmitted or given
+away to corporeal matter? Your _Author_ may say, That his Immaterial
+and Incorporeal spirit of Nature, having self-motion, doth form Matter
+into several Figures: I answer, Then that Immaterial substance must be
+transformed and metamorphosed into as many several figures as there
+are figures in Matter; or there must be as many spirits, as there are
+figures; but when the figures change, what doth become of the spirits?
+Neither can I imagine, that an Immaterial substance, being without
+body, can have such a great strength, as to grapple with gross, heavy,
+dull, and dead Matter; Certainly, in my opinion, no Angel, nor Devil,
+except God Impower him, would be able to move corporeal Matter, were
+it not self-moving, much less any Natural Spirit. But God is a Spirit,
+and Immovable; and if created natural Immaterial participate of that
+Nature, as they do of the Name, then they must be Immovable also.
+Your _Author, Madam_, may make many several degrees of Spirits; but
+certainly not I, nor I think any natural Creature else, will be able
+naturally to conceive them. He may say, perchance, There is such a
+close conjunction betwixt Body and Spirit, as I make betwixt rational,
+sensitive, and inanimate Matter. I answer, That these degrees are
+all but one Matter, and of one and the same Nature as meer Matter,
+different onely in degrees of purity, subtilty, and activity, whereas
+Spirit and Body are things of contrary Natures. In fine, I cannot
+conceive, how a Spirit should fill up a place or space, having no body,
+nor how it can have the effects of a body, being none it self; for the
+effects flow from the cause; and as the cause is, so are its effects:
+And so confessing my ignorance, I can say no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Antid. lib._ 2. _ch._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+XXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ having assigned Indivisibility to the Soul or Spirit that
+moves and actuates matter, I desire to know, how one Indivisible Spirit
+can be in so many dividable parts? For there being Infinite parts in
+Nature, they must either have one Infinite Spirit to move them, which
+must be dilated infinitely, or this Spirit must move severally in
+every part of Nature: If the first, then I cannot conceive, but all
+motion must be uniform, or after one and the same manner; nay, I cannot
+understand, how there can be any dilation and contraction, or rather
+any motion of the same spirit, by reason if it dilate, then, (being
+equally spread out in all the parts of Matter,) it must dilate beyond
+Matter; and if it contract, it must leave some parts of matter void,
+and without motion. But if the Spirit moves every part severally, then
+he is divisible; neither can I think, that there are so many Spirits
+as there are Parts in Nature; for your _Author_ says, there is but
+one Spirit of Nature; I will give an easie and plain example: When a
+Worm is cut into two or three parts, we see there is sensitive life
+and motion in every part, for every part will strive and endeavour
+to meet and joyn again to make up the whole body; now if there were
+but one indivisible Life, Spirit, and Motion, I would fain know, how
+these severed parts could move all by one Spirit. Wherefore, Matter,
+in my opinion, has self-motion in it self, which is the onely soul
+and life of Nature, and is dividable as well as composable, and full
+of variety of action; for it is as easie for several parts to act
+in separation, as in composition, and as easie in composition as in
+separation; Neither is every part bound to one kind or sort of Motions;
+for we see in exterior local motions, that one man can put his body
+into several shapes and postures, much more can Nature. But is it not
+strange, _Madam_, that a man accounts it absurd, ridiculous, and a
+prejudice to Gods Omnipotency, to attribute self-motion to Matter,
+or a material Creature, when it is not absurd, ridiculous, or any
+prejudice to God, to attribute it to an Immaterial Creature? What
+reason of absurdity lies herein? Surely I can conceive none, except
+it be absurd and ridiculous to make that, which no man can know or
+conceive what it is, _viz._ an immaterial natural Spirit, (which is
+as much as to say, a natural No-thing) to have motion, and not onely
+motion, but self-motion; nay, not onely self-motion, but to move,
+actuate, rule, govern, and guide Matter, or corporeal Nature, and to
+be the cause of all the most curious varieties and effects in nature:
+Was not God able to give self-motion as well to a Material, as to an
+Immaterial Creature, and endow Matter with a self-moving power? I do
+not say, _Madam_, that Matter hath motion of it self, so, that it is
+the prime cause and principle of its own self-motion; for that were
+to make Matter a God, which I am far from believing; but my opinion
+is, That the self-motion of Matter proceeds from God, as well as the
+self-motion of an Immaterial Spirit; and that I am of this opinion, the
+last Chapter of my Book of Philosophy will enform you, where I treat of
+the Deitical Centre, as the Fountain from whence all things do flow,
+and which is the supream Cause, Author, Ruler and Governor of all.
+Perhaps you will say, it is, because I make Matter Eternal. 'Tis true,
+_Madam_, I do so: but I think Eternity doth not take off the dependance
+upon God, for God may nevertheless be above Matter, as I have told you
+before. You may ask me how that can be? I say, As well as any thing
+else that God can do beyond our understanding: For I do but tell you my
+opinion, that I think it most probable to be so, but I can give you no
+Mathematical Demonstrations for it: Onely this I am sure of, That it is
+not impossible for the Omnipotent God; and he that questions the truth
+of it, may question Gods Omnipotency. Truly, _Madam_, I wonder how
+man can say, God is Omnipotent, and can do beyond our Understanding,
+and yet deny all that he is not able to comprehend with his reason.
+However, as I said, it is my opinion, That Matter is self-moving by the
+power of God; Neither can Animadversion, and Perception, as also the
+variety of Figures, prove, that there must be another external Agent or
+Power to work all this in Matter; but it proves rather the contrary;
+for were there no self-motion in Matter, there would be no Perception,
+nor no variety of Creatures in their Figures, Shapes, Natures,
+Qualities, Faculties, Proprieties, as also in their Productions,
+Creations or Generations, Transformations, Compositions, Dissolutions,
+and the like, as Growth, Maturity, Decay, &c. and for Animals, were not
+Corporeal Matter self-moving, dividable and composable; there could not
+be such variety of Passions, Complexions, Humors, Features, Statures,
+Appetites, Diseases, Infirmities, Youth, Age, &c. Neither would they
+have any nourishing Food, healing Salves, soveraign Medicines, reviving
+Cordials, or deadly Poysons. In short, there is so much variety in
+Nature, proceeding from the self-motion of Matter, as not possible to
+be numbred, nor thorowly known by any Creature: Wherefore I should
+labour in vain, if I endeavoured to express any more thereof; and this
+is the cause that I break off here, and onely subscribe my self,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning the comparison, your _Author_ makes between an Immaterial
+Spirit, and Light,[1] That, _as Light is contractive and dilative, and
+yet not divisible, so is also an Immaterial substance._ Give me leave
+to tell you, that in my opinion, all that is contractive and dilative,
+is also dividable, and so is light: As for example; when a Candle is
+snuff'd, the Snuffers do not onely clip the wick, but also the light:
+The like when a dark body is interposed, or crosses the rays of the
+Sun; it cuts those rays asunder, which by reason they cannot joyn
+together again, because of the interposed body, the light cut off,
+suddenly goeth out; that is, the matter of light is altered from the
+figure of light, to some other thing, but not annihilated: And since no
+more light can flow into the room from the Fountain or Spring of Light,
+the Sun, because the passage is stopt close, the room remaineth dark:
+For Light is somewhat of the nature of Water; so long as the Spring
+is open, the Water flows, and whatsoever is taken away, the Spring
+supplies; and if another body onely presses thorow it, it immediately
+joyns and closes its severed parts again, without any difficulty or
+loss; The same doth Light; onely the difference is, that the substance
+of Light is extraordinary rare, and pure; for as Air is so much rarer
+then Water, so Light is so much rarer and purer then Air, and its
+matter may be of so dilating a nature, as to dilate from a point into
+numerous rayes. As for ordinary Fire-light, it doth not last longer,
+then it hath fuel to feed it, and so likewise it is with the light
+of the Sun; for Light is according to the substance that feeds it;
+and though it is a substance it self, yet it increases and decreases,
+according as it hath something that succours or nourishes it. But some
+may object, that if Light were a body, and did contract and dilate, as
+I say, it is impossible that it could display it self in so great and
+vast a compass, and remove so suddenly and instantly as it doth. To
+which objection, I answer, first, That although I say, Light is a real
+corporeal substance, and doth contract and dilate it self from a point
+into numerous rayes, as also in another Letter I sent you before,[2]
+That Light and Darkness do succeed each other; nevertheless, as for the
+perception of Light, I am not so eager in maintaining this opinion,
+as if it was an Infallible Truth, and impossible to be otherwise; but
+I say onely, That, to my sense and reason, it seems very probable,
+that it may be so, that the light of the Sun doth really dilate it
+self into so vast a compass as we see, and that light and darkness do
+really succeed each other, as all other Creatures do: But yet it seems
+also probable to mee, that the parts of the Air may onely pattern
+out the figure of light, and that the light we see in the Air may be
+onely patterns taken from the real figure of the light of the Sun: And
+therefore, if it be according to the former opinion, to wit, That the
+light of the Sun doth really dilate it self into so vast a compass, My
+answer is, That contraction and dilation are natural corporeal actions
+or motions, and that there is no alteration of motion in Nature, but
+is done in Time, that is, successively, not instantly; for Time is
+nothing else but the alteration of motion: Besides, I do not perceive
+any so sudden and swift alteration and succession of light, but that
+it is done by degrees: As for example; in the morning, when it begins
+to dawn and grow light, it appears clearly to our sight how light doth
+come forth, and darkness remove by degrees; and so at night, when it
+grows dark, how light removes, and darkness succeeds; nay, if there
+be any such sudden change of the motions of Light, I desire you to
+consider, _Madam_, that light is a very subtil, rare, piercing and
+active body, and therefore its motions are much quicker then those of
+grosser bodies, and cannot so well be perceived by our gross exterior
+senses. But if it be, that the Air doth pattern out the light of the
+Sun, then the framed objection can prove nothing, because there is not
+then such a real dilation or succession of light, but the corporeal
+figurative motions of the Air do make patterns of the light of the
+Sun, and dissolve those patterns or figures again, more suddenly and
+quickly then man can shut and open his eyes, as being more subtil
+then his gross exterior senses. But it may be said, that if Air did
+pattern out the light of the Sun, the light would increase by these
+numerous patterns. I answer, that cannot appear to our Eyes; for we
+see onely the pattern'd figure of light, and that a great compass is
+enlightned; also that the further the air is from the Sun, the darker
+it is; nevertheless, I do verily believe, that the body of the Sun is
+far brighter then the light we see, and that the substance of light,
+and the patterns taken from light, are not one and the same, but very
+different. And thus much of light. As for Penetration, I conceive it
+to be nothing else but division; as when some parts pierce and enter
+through other parts, as Duellers run each other thorow, or as water
+runs through a sieve. And this is the opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In the Append. to the Antid. c._ 3. and _Of the Immortality of the
+Soul, l._ 1. _c._ 5.
+
+[2] _Sect._ 1. _Let._ 20.
+
+
+
+
+XXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Having given you my opinion, both of the substance and perception
+of Light, in my last Letter, I perceive your desire is to know how
+_Shadows_ are made. Truly, _Madam_, to my sense and reason, it appears
+most probable, that shadows are made by the way of patterning: As for
+example; when a Man's, or Trees, or any other the like Creature's
+shadow is made upon the Ground, or Wall, or the like; those bodies, as
+the Ground, or Wall, do, in my opinion, pattern out the interposing
+body that is between the light and them: And the reason that the
+shadow is longer or shorter, or bigger or less, is according as the
+light is nearer or further off; for when the light is perpendicular,
+the interposing body cannot obscure the light, because the light
+surrounding the interposing body by its brightness, rather obscures
+the body, then the body the light; for the numerous and splendorous
+patterns of light taken from the body of the Sun, do quite involve the
+interposing body. Next, you desire to know, _Whether the light we see
+in the Moon, be the Moons own natural light, or a borrowed light from
+the Sun_: I answer, that in my opinion, it is a borrowed light; to
+wit, that the Moon doth pattern out the light of the Sun: and the proof
+of it is, that when the Sun is in an Eclipse, we do plainly perceive
+that so much of the Sun is darkned as the Moon covers; for though those
+parts of the Moon, that are next the Sun, may, for any thing we know,
+pattern out the light of the Sun, yet the Moon is dark on that side
+which is from the Sun. I will not say, but that part of the Moon which
+is towards the Earth, may pattern out the Earth, or the shadow of the
+Earth, which may make the Moon appear more dark and sullen; But when
+the Moon is in an Eclipse, then it is plainly perceived that the Moon
+patterns out the Earth, or the shadow of the Earth. Besides, those
+parts of the Moon that are farthest from the Sun, are dark, as we may
+observe when as the Moon is in the Wane, and enlightened when the Sun
+is nearer. But I will leave this argument to observing Astrologers, and
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+If according to your _Authors_ opinion,[1] _In every particular world,
+such as Man is especially, his own Soul_ (which is a Spirit) _be the
+peculiar and most perfective architect of the Fabrick of his Body, as
+the Soul of the world is of it_: Then I cannot conceive in my reason,
+how the separation is made in death; for I see, that all animals, and
+so man-kind, have a natural desire to live, and that life and soul are
+unwilling to part; And if the power lies in the Soul, why doth she
+not continue with the Body, and animate, move and actuate it, as she
+did before, or order the matter so, as not to dissolve? But if the
+dissolution lies in the body, then the body has self-motion: Yet it is
+most probable, if the soul be the architect of the body, it must also
+be the dissolver of it; and if there come not another soul into the
+parts of matter, the body must either be annihilated, or lie immoved as
+long as the world lasts, which is improbable; for surely all the bodies
+of men, or other animals, are imployed by Nature to some use or other:
+However, it is requisite, that the soul must stay so long in the body,
+until it be turned into dust and ashes; otherwise, the body having no
+self-motion, would remain as it was when the soul left it, that is,
+entire and undissolved: As for example; when a man dies, if there be
+no motion in his body, and the soul, which was the mover, be gone, it
+cannot possibly corrupt; for certainly, that we call corruption, is
+made by motion, and the body requires as much motion to be dissolved
+or divided, as it doth to be framed or composed; Wherefore a dead
+body would remain in the same state continually, it had no self-motion
+in it: And if another soul should enter into the body, and work it
+to another figure, then certainly there must be many more souls then
+bodies, because bodies are subject to change into several forms; but
+if the animal spirits, which are left in the body after the soul is
+gone, are able to dissolve it without the help of the soul, then it is
+probable they could have fram'd it without the help of the soul; and so
+they being material, it must be granted, that matter is self-moving:
+But if corporeal matter have corporeal self-motion, a self-moving
+Immaterial Spirit, by reason of their different natures, would make
+great obstruction, and so a general confusion; for the corporeal and
+incorporeal motions would hinder and oppose each other, their natures
+being quite different; and though they might subsist together without
+disturbance of each other, yet it is not probable they should act
+together, and that in such a conjunction, as if they were one united
+body; for it is, in my opinion, more probable, that one material should
+act upon another material, or one immaterial upon another immaterial,
+then that an immaterial should act upon a material or corporeal. Thus
+the consideration or contemplation of immaterial natural Spirits puts
+me always into doubts, and raises so many contradictions in my sense
+and reason, as I know not, nor am not able to reconcile them: However,
+though I am doubtful of them, yet I can assure your self that I
+continue,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2. _c._ 10.
+
+
+
+
+XXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+By reason the _Soul_ is a _Spirit_, and therefore _Contractible_ and
+_Dilatable_, your _Authors_ opinion is,[1] That _it begins within less
+compass at first in organising the fitly prepared matter, and so bears
+it self on in the same tenour of work, till the body hath attained its
+full growth; and that the Soul dilates it self in the dilating of the
+Body, and so possesses it through all the members thereof._ Truly,
+_Madam_, as for the contraction and dilation of an immaterial Spirit,
+if I heard never so many arguments, I should hardly be able to conceive
+the possibility of it; For in my opinion, dilating and contracting
+are motions and actions of Nature, which belong to natural material
+Creatures, and to none else; for dilation and contraction cannot be
+without extension, but extension belongs to parts which an immaterial
+Spirit hath not: But suppose it be so, then the Soul must contract
+and dilate, extend and shrink together, and so grow less and bigger,
+according to the extension of the body; and when the body dies, the
+soul, in my opinion, must contract to a very point; and if one part
+of the body die before the other, the soul must by degrees withdraw
+out of those parts: also when a part of the body is cut off, the soul
+must needs contract, and grow less; the like when a man is let blood.
+Which contracting of the soul, by your _Authors_ leave, doth seem, to
+my imagination, just like the contracting of Hodmandod into her shell.
+Besides, if the soul be individable, and equally spread all over the
+body, then, to my opinion, she must necessarily be of a human shape;
+and if the body be deformed, the soul must be deformed also; and if
+the body be casually extended, as by taking Poyson into the body, the
+soul must be so too, as being individable and filling every part; and
+if a man be born with six fingers or toes, the soul must be so too; or
+if a dwarf, the soul must be a dwarf also; and if he be born deaf and
+dumb, the soul must be so too. But if two Twins, as it may fall out,
+should be born united in one body, I would fain know then, whether they
+would have two souls, or but one? As for example, if they should have
+but one body, and one stomack, liver, heart, spleen, lungs, bowels, and
+yet have four legs, four hands, and two heads: It seems, to my opinion,
+that then two Immaterial Souls must be joyned as into one; neither do
+I know yet how this could well be, the monster having but one body,
+nor how that Immaterial Soul can be divided, being inseparably double,
+when the body dies. But, _Madam_, all this I speak of the Natural
+Soul of Man, not of the Divine Soul, which is not subject to natural
+imperfections, and corporeal errors, being not made by Nature, but a
+supernatural and divine gift of the Omnipotent God, who surely will not
+give any thing that is not perfect. Wherefore it is not probable, this
+Divine Soul, being not subject to Nature, should be an architect of the
+body, as having an higher and more divine imployment, _viz._ to fix
+her self on her Creator, and being indued with supernatural faculties,
+and residing in the body in a supernatural manner; all which I leave to
+the Church: for I should be loth to affirm any thing contrary to their
+Doctrine, or the Information of the holy Scripture, as grounding my
+belief onely upon the sacred Word of God, and its true Interpretation
+made by the Orthodox Church; but not upon the opinions of particular
+persons: for particular mens opinions are not authentical, being so
+different and various, as a man would be puzled which to adhere to.
+Thus, _Madam_, I avoid, as much as ever I can, not to mix Divinity
+with Natural Philosophy; for I consider, that such a mixture would
+breed more confusion in the Church, then do any good to either;
+witness the doctrine of the Soul of Man, whereof are so many different
+opinions: The onely cause, in my opinion, is, that men do not conceive
+the difference between the Divine, and Natural material Soul of Man,
+making them both as one, and mixing or confounding their faculties and
+proprieties, which yet are quite different; thus they make a Hodg-podg,
+Bisk or Olio of both; proving Divinity by Nature, and Faith by Reason;
+and bringing Arguments for Articles of Faith, and sacred Mysteries out
+of Natural Arts and Sciences; whereas yet Faith and Reason are two
+contrary things, and cannot consist together; according to the Proverb,
+Where Reason ends, Faith begins. Neither is it possible that Divinity
+can be proved by Mathematical Demonstrations; for if Nature be not
+able to do it, much less is Art: Wherefore it is inconvenient to mix
+supernatural Spirits with Air, Fire, Light, Heat, Cold, &c. and to
+apply corporeal actions and qualities to them; and the Divine Soul,
+with the Brain, Blood, Flesh, Animal Spirits, Muscles, Nerves, Bones,
+&c. of Man; all which makes a confusion betwixt the Mind or Natural
+Soul of Man, and the Supernatural and Divine Soul inspired into him by
+God; for both their faculties and proprieties are different, and so are
+their effects, as proceeding from so different causes. And therefore,
+_Madam_, as for Divinity, I pray devoutly, and believe without
+disputing; but as for Natural Philosophy, I reason freely, and argue
+without believing, or adhering to any ones particular opinion, which I
+think is the best and safest way to choose for,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2. _c._ 10.
+
+
+
+
+XXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ in the continuation of his discourse concerning the
+Immaterial Soul of Man, demonstrating, that her seat is not bound up
+in a certain place of the body, but that she pervades all the body and
+every part thereof, takes, amongst the rest, an argument from Passions
+and Sympathies: _Moreover_, says he,[1] _Passions and Sympathies, in my
+judgment, are more easily to be resolved into this hypothesis of the
+Soul's pervading the whole Body, then in restraining its essential
+presence to one part thereof.--But it is evident that they arise in us
+against both our will and appetite; For who would bear the tortures
+of fears and jelousies, if he could avoid it?_ Concerning Passions,
+_Madam_, I have given my opinion at large in my Book of Philosophy, and
+am of your _Authors_ mind, that Passions are made in the Heart, but not
+by an Immaterial spirit, but by the Rational soul which is material;
+and there is no doubt, but that many Passions, as Fear, Jealousie &c.
+arise against our will and appetite; for so may forreign Nations invade
+any Kingdom without the will or desire of the Inhabitants, and yet
+they are corporeal men: The same may be said of Passions; and several
+parts of matter may invade each other, whereof one may be afraid of
+the other, yet all this is but according as corporeal matter moves,
+either Generally, or Particularly: Generally, that is, when many parts
+of Matter unite or joyn together, having the like appetites, wills,
+designs; as we may observe, that there are general agreements amongst
+several parts, in Plagues, as well as Wars, which Plagues are not
+onely amongst Men, but amongst Beasts; and sometimes but in one sort
+of animals, as a general Rot amongst Sheep, a general Mange amongst
+Dogs, a general Farcy amongst Horses, a general Plague amongst Men;
+all which could not be without a general Infection, one part infecting
+another, or rather one part imitating the motions of the other, that
+is next adjoyning to it; for such infections come by the neer adhesion
+of parts, as is observable, which immaterial and individable natural
+Spirits could not effect; that is, to make such a general infection in
+so many several parts of so many several Creatures, to the Creatures
+dissolution: Also there will be several Invasions at one time, as
+Plague, and War, amongst neighbouring and adjoining Creatures or Parts.
+But this is to be observed, That the sensitive corporeal motions make
+all diseases, and not the Rational, although the Rational are many
+times the occasion, that the sensitive do move into such or such a
+disease; for all those that are sick by conceit, their sicknesses
+are caused by the rational corporeal motions. But being loth to make
+tedious repetitions hereof, having discoursed of diseases, and passions
+in my mentioned Book of _Philosophy_, I will refer you thither, and
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Immort. of the Soul. Book_ 2. _c._ 10
+
+
+
+
+XXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning _Dimness_ of _Sight_, which your _Author_ will have to
+_proceed from the deficiency of the Animal Spirits_,[1] My meaning
+in short is, That when sight is dim, though the sensitive organs
+are perfect, this dimness is caused by the alteration onely of the
+sensitive motions in the organs, not moving to the nature of sight.
+And so is made Deafness, Dumbness, Lameness, and the like, as also
+Weariness; for the Relaxation of strength in several parts, is onely
+an alteration of such sorts of motions which make the nerves strong;
+and if a man be more dull at one time, then at another, it is that
+there are not so many changes of motions, nor so quick motions at
+that time, as at another; for Nature may use more or less force as
+she pleases: Also she can and doth often use opposite actions, and
+often sympathetical and agreeable actions, as she pleases; for Nature
+having a free power to move, may move as she will; but being wise,
+she moves as she thinks best, either in her separating or uniting
+motions, for continuance, as well as for variety. But if, according
+to your _Author_, the Immaterial Soul should determinate matter in
+motion, it would, in my opinion, make a confusion; for the motions of
+the Matter would often oppose and cross the motions of the Immaterial
+Soul, and so they would disagree, as a King and his Subjects, (except
+God had given the Soul an absolute power of command, and restrained
+matter to an irrisistible and necessitated obedience; which, in my
+opinion, is not probable:) By which disagreement, Nature, and all that
+is in Nature, would have been quite ruined at this time; for no kinds,
+sorts, or particulars, would keep any distinction, if Matter did not
+govern it self, and if all the parts did not know their own affairs,
+abilities, offices, and functions: Besides, it would, to my thinking,
+take up a great deal of time, to receive commands in every several
+action, at least so much, that for example, a man could not have so
+many several thoughts in so short a time, as he hath. But concerning
+the Animal Spirits, which your _Author_ calls the Instruments, Organs
+and Engines of the Incorporeal Soul; I would fain know, whether they
+have no motion but what comes from the Soul, or whether they have
+their own motion of themselves? If the first, then the Soul must, in
+my opinion, be like a Deity, and have a divine Power, to give and
+impart Motion; if the second, then the spirits being material, it
+follows that Matter hath motion of it self, or is self-moving; But
+if the Immaterial natural Soul can transfer her gifts upon corporeal
+matter, then it must give numerous sorts of motions, with all their
+degrees; as also the faculty of figuring, or moving figuratively in
+all corporeal Matter: Which power, in my judgment, is too much for a
+Creature to give. If you say, the Immaterial Soul hath this power from
+God; I answer, Matter may have the same; and I cannot imagine why God
+should make an Immaterial Spirit to be the Proxy or Vice-gerent of his
+Power, or the _Quarter-master General of his Divine Providence_, as
+your _Author_ is pleased to style it,[2] when he is able to effect it
+without any Under-Officers, and in a more easie and compendious way, as
+to impart immediately such self-moving power to Natural Matter, which
+man attributes to an Incorporeal Spirit. But to conclude, if the Animal
+Spirits be the Instruments of the Incorporeal Soul, then the Spirits
+of Wine are more powerful then the Animal Spirits, nay, then the
+Immaterial Soul her self; for they can put them and all their actions
+quite out of order: the same may be done by other material things,
+Vegetables, Minerals, and the like. And so leaving this discourse to
+your better consideration, I take my leave for this time, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful and affectionate Friend,_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Immort. of the Soul. Book_ 2. _ch._ 8.
+
+[2] _Immort. of the Soul. Book_ 3. _c._ 13.
+
+
+
+
+XXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Touching the State or Condition of the Supernatural and Divine Soul,
+both in, and after this life, I must crave your excuse that I can give
+no account of it; for I dare affirm nothing; not onely that I am no
+professed Divine, and think it unfit to take any thing upon me that
+belongs not to me, but also that I am unwilling to mingle Divinity and
+Natural Philosophy together, to the great disadvantage and prejudice of
+either; for if each one did contain himself within the circle of his
+own Profession, and no body did pretend to be a Divine Philosopher,
+many absurdities, confusions, contentions, and the like, would be
+avoided, which now disturb both Church and Schools, and will in time
+cause their utter ruine and destruction; For what is Supernatural,
+cannot naturally be known by any natural Creature; neither can any
+supernatural Creature, but the Infinite and Eternal God, know thorowly
+everything that is in Nature, she being the Infinite servant of the
+Infinite God, whom no finite Creature, of what degree soever, whether
+natural or supernatural, can conceive; for if no Angel nor Devil can
+know our thoughts, much less will they know Infinite Nature; nay, one
+finite supernatural Creature cannot, in my opinion, know perfectly
+another supernatural Creature, but God alone, who is all-knowing; And
+therefore all what is said of supernatural Spirits, I believe, so far
+as the Scripture makes mention of them; further I dare not presume to
+go; the like of the supernatural or divine Soul: for all that I have
+writ hitherto to you of the Soul, concerns the natural Soul of Man,
+which is material, and not the supernatural or divine Soul; neither
+do I contradict any thing concerning this divine soul, but I am
+onely against those opinions, which make the natural soul of man an
+immaterial natural spirit, and confound supernatural Creatures with
+natural, believing those spirits to be as well natural Creatures and
+parts of Nature, as material and corporeal beings are; when as there
+is great difference betwixt them, and nothing in Nature to be found,
+but what is corporeal. Upon this account I take all their relations of
+D�mons, of the Genii, and of the Souls after the departure from humane
+Bodies, their Vehicles, Shapes, Habitations, Converses, Conferences,
+Entertainments, Exercises, Pleasures, Pastimes, Governments, Orders,
+Laws, Magistrates, Officers, Executioners, Punishments, and the like,
+rather for Poetical Fictions, then Rational Probabilities; containing
+more Fancy, then Truth and Reason, whether they concern the divine
+or natural Soul: for as for the divine Soul, the Scripture makes no
+other mention of it, but that immediately after her departure out
+of this natural life, she goeth either to Heaven or Hell, either to
+enjoy Reward, or to suffer Punishment, according to man's actions
+in this life. But as for the Natural Soul, she being material, has
+no need of any Vehicles, neither is natural death any thing else
+but an alteration of the rational and sensitive motions, which from
+the dissolution of one figure go to the formation or production of
+another. Thus the natural soul is not like a Traveller, going out of
+one body into another, neither is air her lodging; for certainly, if
+the natural humane soul should travel through the airy regions, she
+would at last grow weary, it being so great a journey, except she did
+meet with the soul of a Horse, and so ease her self with riding on
+Horse-back. Neither can I believe Souls or D�mons in the Air have any
+Common-wealth, Magistrates, Officers and Executioners in their airy
+Kingdom; for wheresoever are Governments, Magistrates and Executioners,
+there are also Offences, and where there is power to offend, as well as
+to obey, there may and will be sometimes Rebellions and Civil Wars; for
+there being different sorts of Spirits, it is impossible they should
+all so well agree, especially the good and evil Genii, which certainly
+will fight more valiantly then _Hector_ and _Achilles_, nay, the
+Spirits of one sort would have more Civil Wars then ever the _Romans_
+had; and if the Soul of _C�sar_ and _Pompey_ should meet, there would
+be a cruel fight between those two Heroical souls; the like between
+_Augustus's_ and _Antonius's_ Soul. But, _Madam_, all these, as I
+said, I take for fancies proceeding from the Religion of the Gentiles,
+not fit for Christians to embrace for any truth; for if we should, we
+might at last, by avoiding to be Atheists, become Pagans, and so leap
+out of the Frying-pan into the Fire, as turning from Divine Faith to
+Poetical Fancy; and if _Ovid_ should revive again, he would, perhaps,
+be the chief head or pillar of the Church. By this you may plainly
+see, _Madam_, that I am no Platonick; for this opinion is dangerous,
+especially for married Women, by reason the conversation of the Souls
+may be a great temptation, and a means to bring Platonick Lovers to a
+neerer acquaintance, not allowable by the Laws of Marriage, although
+by the sympathy of the Souls. But I conclude, and desire you, not to
+interpret amiss this my discourse, as if I had been too invective
+against Poetical Fancies; for that I am a great lover of them, my
+Poetical Works will witness; onely I think it not fit to bring Fancies
+into Religion: Wherefore what I have writ now to you, is rather to
+express my zeal for God and his true Worship, then to prejudice any
+body; and if you be of that same Opinion, as above mentioned, I wish my
+Letter may convert you, and so I should not account my labour lost, but
+judg my self happy, that any good could proceed to the advancement of
+your Soul, from,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I sent you word in my last, I would not meddle with writing any
+thing of the Divine Soul of Man, by reason it belongs to Faith and
+Religion, and not to Natural Philosophy; but since you desire my
+opinion concerning the Immortality of the Divine Soul, I cannot but
+answer you plainly, that first I did wonder much you made question
+of that, whose truth, in my opinion, is so clear, as hardly any
+rational man will make a doubt of it; for I think there is almost no
+Christian in the world, but believes the Immortality of the Soul, no
+not Christians onely, but Mahometans and Jews: But I left to wonder at
+you, when I saw Wise and Learned Men, and great Divines, take so much
+pains as to write whole volumes, and bring so many arguments to prove
+the Immortality of the Soul; for this was a greater Miracle to me,
+then if Nature had shewed me some of her secret and hidden effects,
+or if I had seen an Immaterial Spirit. Certainly, _Madam_, it seems
+as strange to me to prove the Immortality of the Soul, as to convert
+Atheists; for it [is] impossible, almost, that any Atheist should be
+found in the World: For what Man would be so senceless as to deny a
+God? Wherefore to prove either a God, or the Immortality of the Soul,
+is to make a man doubt of either: for as Physicians and Surgeons
+apply strengthening Medicines onely to those parts of the body which
+they suppose the weakest, so it is with proofs and arguments, those
+being for the most part used in such subjects, the truth of which is
+most questionable. But in things Divine, Disputes do rather weaken
+Faith, then prove Truth, and breed several strange opinions; for
+Man being naturally ambitious, and endeavouring to excel each other,
+will not content himself with what God has been pleased to reveal in
+his holy Word; but invents and adds something of his own; and hence
+arise so many monstrous expressions and opinions, that a simple man is
+puzzled, not knowing which to adhere to; which is the cause of so many
+schismes, sects, and divisions in Religion: Hence it comes also, that
+some pretend to know the very nature and essence of God, his divine
+Counsels, all his Actions, Designs, Rules, Decrees, Power, Attributes,
+nay, his Motions, Affections, and Passions, as if the Omnipotent
+Infinite God were of a humane shape; so that there are already more
+divisions then Religions, which disturb the peace and quiet both of
+mind and body; when as the ground of our belief consists but in some
+few and short Articles, which clearly explained, and the moral part
+of Divinity well pressed upon the People, would do more good, then
+unnecessary and tedious disputes, which rather confound Religion, then
+advance it: but if man had a mind to shew Learning, and exercise his
+Wit, certainly there are other subjects, wherein he can do it with
+more profit, and less danger, then by proving Christian Religion by
+Natural Philosophy, which is the way to destroy them both. I could
+wish, _Madam_, that every one would but observe the Command of Christ,
+and give to God what is Gods, and to _C�sar_ what is _C�sars_, and
+so distinguish what belongs to the actions of Nature, and what to
+the actions of Religion; for it appears to my Reason, that God hath
+given Nature, his eternal Servant, a peculiar freedom of working and
+acting, as a self-moving Power from Eternity; but when the Omnipotent
+God acts, he acts supernaturally, as beyond Nature; of which divine
+actions none but the holy Church, as one united body, mind and soul,
+should discourse, and declare the truth of them, according to the
+Revelation made by God in his holy Word, to her Flock the Laity, not
+suffering any one single person, of what profession or degree soever,
+indifferently to comment, interpret, explain, and declare the meaning
+or sense of the Scripture after his own fancy. And as for Nature's
+actions, let those whom Nature hath indued with such a proportion of
+Reason, as is able to search into the hidden causes of natural effects,
+contemplate freely, without any restraint or confinement; for Nature
+acts freely, and so may natural Creatures, and amongst the rest Man, in
+things which are purely natural; but as for things supernatural, man
+cannot act freely, by reason they are beyond his sphere of conception
+and understanding, so as he is forced to set aside Reason, and onely
+to work by Faith. And thus, _Madam_, you see the cause why I cannot
+give you a full description of the Divine Soul of Man, as I mentioned
+already in my last, but that I do onely send you my opinion of the
+natural soul, which I call the rational soul; not that I dare say, the
+supernatural soul is without natural reason, but natural reason is not
+the divine soul; neither can natural reason, without Faith, advance
+the divine soul to Heaven, or beget a pious zeal, without divine and
+supernatural Grace: Wherefore Reason, or the rational Soul is onely
+the Soul of Nature, which being material, is dividable, and so becomes
+numerous in particular natural Creatures; like as the sensitive life
+being also material and dividable, becomes numerous, as being in every
+Creature, and in every part of every Creature; for as there is life in
+every Creature, so there is also a soul in every Creature; nay, not
+onely in every Creature, but in every particle of every Creature, by
+reason every Creature is made of rational and sensitive Matter; and as
+all Creatures or parts of Nature are but one infinite body of Nature,
+so all their particular souls and lives make but one infinite soul
+and life of Nature; and this natural soul hath onely natural actions,
+not supernatural; nor has the supernatural soul natural actions;
+for although they subsist both together in one body, yet each works
+without disturbance to the other; and both are Immortal; for of the
+supernatural soul there is no question, and of the natural soul, I have
+said before, that nothing is perishable or subject to annihilation in
+nature, and so no death, but what is called by the name of death, is
+onely an alteration of the corporeal natural motions of such a figure
+to another figure; and therefore as it is impossible, that one part of
+Matter should perish in Nature, so is it impossible, that the natural
+or rational soul can perish, being material: The natural humane soul
+may alter, so as not to move in an animal way, or not to have animal
+motions, but this doth not prove her destruction or annihilation, but
+onely a change of the animal figure and its motions, all remaining
+still in Nature. Thus my Faith of the Divine, and my opinion of the
+Natural Soul, is, that they are both Immortal; as for the immediate
+actions of the Divine Soul, I leave you to the Church, which are the
+Ministers of God, and the faithful dispensers of the sacred mysteries
+of the Gospel, the true Expounders of the Word of God, Reformers of
+mens lives, and Tutors of the Ignorant, to whom I submit my self in all
+that belongs to the salvation of my Soul, and the regulating of the
+actions of my life, to the honour and glory of God. And I hope they
+will not take any offence at the maintaining and publishing my opinions
+concerning Nature and Natural effects, for they are as harmless, and
+as little prejudicial to them, as my designs; for my onely and chief
+design is, and ever hath been to understand Nature rightly, obey the
+Church exactly, Believe undoubtedly, Pray zealously, Live vertuously,
+and Wish earnestly, that both Church and Schools may increase and
+flourish in the sacred knowledg of the true Word of God, and that each
+one may live peaceable and happily in this world, die quietly, and
+rise blessedly and gloriously to everlasting Life and happiness: Which
+happiness I pray God also to confer upon your Ladiship; Till then, I
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful and constant_
+
+_Friend, to serve you._
+
+
+
+
+XXXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I will leave the Controversie of Free-Will and Necessity, which your
+_Author_ is discoursing of,[1] to Divines to decide it, onely I say
+this, that Nature hath a natural Free-will and power of self-moving,
+and is not necessitated; but yet that this Free-will proceeds from God,
+who hath given her both will and power to act freely. But as for the
+question, whether there be nothing in the Universe, but meer body?[2]
+I answer, My opinion is not, that there is nothing in the world but
+meer Body; but that Nature is purely material or corporeal, and that
+there is no part of Nature, or natural Creature, which is not Matter,
+or Body, or made of Matter; also, that there is not any thing else
+mixt with body, as a copartner in natural actions, which is distinct
+from Body or Matter; nevertheless, there may be supernatural spiritual
+beings or substances in Nature, without any hinderance to Matter or
+corporeal Nature. The same I may say of the natural material, and
+the divine and supernatural Soul; for though the divine Soul is in
+a natural body, and both their powers and actions be different, yet
+they cause no ruine or disturbance to each other, but do in many cases
+agree with each other, without incroachment upon each others powers or
+actions; for God, as he is the God of all things, so the God of Order.
+Wherefore it is not probable, that created Immaterial or Incorporeal
+beings should order Corporeal Nature, no more then Corporeal Nature
+orders Immaterial or Incorporeal Creatures. Neither can, in my opinion,
+Incorporeal Creatures be clearly conceived by Corporeals, although
+they may really exist and subsist in Nature; onely, as I said before,
+it is well to be considered, that there is difference betwixt being
+in Nature, and being a part of Nature; for bodiless things, and so
+spiritual substances, although they may exist in Nature, yet they
+are not natural, nor parts of Nature, but supernatural, Nature being
+meerly corporeal, and Matter the ground of Nature; and all that is
+not built upon this material ground, is nothing in Nature. But you
+will say, The divine Soul is a part of Man, and Man a part of Nature,
+wherefore the divine Soul must needs be a part of Nature. I answer,
+Not: For the divine Soul is not a part of Nature, but supernatural, as
+a supernatural Gift from God onely to Man, and to no other Creature:
+and although in this respect it may be called a part of Man, yet it is
+no natural or material part of Man; neither doth this supernatural Gift
+disturb Nature or natural Matter, or natural Matter this supernatural
+Gift. And so leaving them both, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul. l._ 1. _c._ 3.
+
+[2] _Lib._ 2. _c._ 2.
+
+
+
+
+XXXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+If you desire my opinion concerning Witches, whereof your Learned
+_Author_ hath many Discourses and Stories:[1] I will tell you really,
+that in my sense and reason, I do not believe any, except it be the
+witch of _Endor_, which the Scripture makes mention of; for though I
+believe that there is a Devil, as the Word of God and the Church inform
+me, yet I am not of the opinion, that God should suffer him to have
+such a familiar conjunction, and make such contracts with Man, as to
+impower him to do mischief and hurt to others, or to foretell things
+to come, and the like; for I believe that all things Immaterial, as
+Spirits, Angels, Devils, and the divine Soul of Man, are no parts of
+Nature, but Supernatural, Nature knowing of no Creature that belongs to
+her, but what is material; and since incorporeal Creatures are no parts
+of Nature, they neither have natural actions, nor are they concerned
+as co-partners or co-agents in the actions of Nature and natural
+Creatures; but as their substances, so their actions are supernatural,
+and beyond our conceivement. As for Faires, I will not say, but there
+may be such Creatures in Nature, and have airy bodies, and be of a
+humane shape, and have humane actions, as I have described in my Book
+of Poems; for there are many things, in Nature, whereof Man hath no
+knowledg at all, and it would be a great folly for any one to deny what
+he doth not see, or to ascribe all the unusual effects in Nature to
+Immaterial Spirits; for Nature is so full of variety, that she can and
+doth present sometimes such figures to our exterior senses, as are
+not familiar to us, so as we need not to take our refuge to Immaterial
+Spirits: nay, even those that are so much for Incorporeal Spirits,
+must confess, that they cannot be seen in their own natures, as being
+Invisible, and therefore have need to take vehicles of some grosser
+bodies to manifest themselves to men: and if Spirits cannot appear
+without bodies, the neerest way is to ascribe such unusual effects or
+apparitions, as happen sometimes, rather to matter that is already
+corporeal, and not to go so far as to draw Immaterial Spirits to
+Natural actions, and to make those Spirits take vehicles fit for their
+purposes: for Nature takes sometimes delight in unusual Varieties.
+Concerning those stories which your _Author_ relates[2] of the strange
+effects of Food received into a mans body, how they did work upon the
+Imagination, and change and transform the humors of those that did feed
+upon them, those, I say, seem very probable to me. As for example;
+of a _Wench who being struck into an Epilepsy, upon the seeing of a
+Malefactors Head cut off, was advised to drink Cats-blood; which being
+done, she not long after degenerated into the nature and property of
+that Animal, cried and jump'd like a Cat, and hunted Mice with the
+same silence and watchfulness as they do. Then of a Man, being long
+fed with Swines-blood, which took a special pleasure in wallowing and
+tumbling himself in the mire. Also of a Girle, which being nourished
+up with Goats-milk, would skip like a Goat, and brouze on Trees as
+Goats use to do. And of a Man, who by eating the brains of a Bear,
+became of a Bear-like disposition._ All these stories I believe to be
+true; for naturally the motions of a Man may sometimes Sympathize so
+much with the received food, as to make an alteration in his humour
+or disposition. But although it be natural, yet it is not regular, at
+least not usual, but proceeds from an irregular and unusual change of
+motions, like as the conception and generation of a Monster; For if
+it were ordinary, then those which drink much of the blood of beasts,
+would also degenerate into a beastly nature, the contrary whereof
+is sufficiently known: Likewise those that drink much of Cows-milk,
+would change into their humors and natures. But certainly, some
+kinds of meats do not onely cause sickness, but madness, and strange
+Imaginations; all which unnatural or unusual accidents are caused by
+Matter's irregular motions; Whereof I have declared my opinion in other
+places; and so I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+
+_Your faithful and constant_
+
+_Friend, to serve you._
+
+[1] _Antid. lib._ 3.
+
+[2] _In his discourse of Enthusiasm._
+
+
+
+
+XXXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You will have my opinion of the Book that treats of _the Pre-existence
+of Souls_, and the _Key that unlocks the Divine Providence_; but I
+have told you heretofore, that there are so many different opinions
+concerning the Soul, as I do not know which to embrace, for the
+multiplicity confounds my choice: and the cause of these various
+opinions, in my simple judgment, is, that most men make no difference
+between the Divine, and Natural Soul. As for the Natural Soul, humane
+sense and reason may perceive, that it consists of Matter, as being
+Material; but as for the Divine Soul, being not material, no humane
+sense and reason is able naturally to conceive it; for there cannot
+possibly be so much as an Idea of a natural nothing, or an immaterial
+being, neither can sense and reason naturally conceive the Creation of
+an Immaterial substance; for as the Creation of material Creatures,
+as of this World, belongs to Faith, and not to Reason, so doth also
+the Creation of Immaterial substances, as Spirits; nay, it is more
+difficult to understand a Natural Nothing to be made out of nothing,
+then a Natural Something out of nothing. And as for the _Progress
+of Immaterial Souls_, which the same _Author_ mentions, I cannot
+conceive how No-thing can make a Progress, and therefore I suppose,
+it is an Improper, or Metaphorical expression. The truth is, what is
+Immaterial, belongs not to a Natural knowledg or understanding, but is
+Supernatural, and goes beyond a natural reach or capacity. Concerning
+_the Key of Divine Providence_, I believe God did never give or lend
+it to any man; for surely, God, who is infinitely Wise, would never
+intrust so frail and foolish a Creature as Man, with it, as to let
+him know his secret Counsels, Acts, and Decrees. But setting aside
+Pride and Presumption, Sense and Reason may easily perceive, that Man,
+though counted the best of Creatures, is not made with such infinite
+Excellence, as to pierce into the least secrets of God; Wherefore I am
+in a maze when I hear of such men, which pretend to know so much, as
+if they had plundered the Celestial Cabinet of the Omnipotent God; for
+certainly, had they done it, they could not pretend to more knowledg
+then they do. But I, _Madam_, confess my Ignorance, as having neither
+divine Inspirations, nor extraordinary Visions, nor any divine or
+humane learning, but what Nature has been pleased to bestow upon me;
+Yet in all this Ignorance, I know that I am, and ought to be,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since in my former Letters I have discoursed of Immaterial Spirits,
+and declared my meaning, that I do not believe them to be natural
+Creatures, or parts of Nature; you are of opinion, as if I did
+contradict my self, by reason that in the first Edition of my Book
+called _Philosophical Opinions_, I name the rational and sensitive
+Matter, rational and sensitive Spirits. To which I answer, first,
+That when I did write my first Conceptions in Natural Philosophy, I
+was not so experienced, nor had I those observations which I have had
+since; Neither did I give those first Conceptions time to digest, and
+come to a maturity or perfect growth, but forced them forth as soon
+as conceived, and this made the first publishing of them so full of
+Imperfections, which I am much sorry for; But since that time, I have
+not onely reviewed, but corrected and altered them in several places,
+so that the last Impression of my _Philosophical Opinions_, you will
+find more perfect and exact then the former. Next, I pray you to take
+notice, _Madam_, that in the mentioned first Edition, by the word
+Spirits, I meant Material, not Immaterial Spirits; for observing, that
+Learned Men do discourse much of Animal Spirits, which are Material,
+and that also high extracts in Chymistry are called Spirits; I used
+that word purposely, thinking it most proper and convenient to express
+my sense and meaning of that degree of matter which I call rational and
+sensitive. But considering again, that my opinions, being new, would
+be subject to misapprehensions and mis-interpretations; to prevent
+those, I thought it fitter to leave out the word _Spirits_ in the
+second, as also in the last Edition of my named Book of _Philosophy_,
+lest my Readers should think I meant Immaterial Spirits; for I confess
+really, that I never understood, nor cannot as yet apprehend Immaterial
+Spirits; for though I believe the Scripture, and the Church, that
+there are Spirits, and do not doubt the existency of them, yet I
+cannot conceive the nature of Immaterial Spirits, and what they are;
+Wherefore I do onely treat of natural material substances, and not
+of incorporeal; also my discourse is of the Infinite servant of the
+Infinite God, which servant is corporeal or material Nature: God is
+onely to be admired, adored, and worshipped; but not ungloriously
+to be discoursed of; Which Omnipotent God, I pray of his Infinite
+Mercy to give me Faith to believe in him, and not to let presumption
+prevail with me so, as to liken vain and idle conceptions to that
+Incomprehensible Deity. These, _Madam_, are my humble Prayers to God;
+and my request to you is, that I may continue the same in your love and
+affection, which I have been hitherto; so shall I live content, and
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+SECT. III.
+
+I.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have discharged my duty thus far, that in obedience to your commands,
+I have given you my answers to the opinions of three of those famous
+and learned _Authors_ you sent me, _viz. Hobbes, Des Cartes_, and
+_More_, and explained my own opinions by examining theirs; My onely
+task shall be now to proceed in the same manner with that famous
+Philosopher and Chymist, _Van Helmont_; But him I find more difficult
+to be understood then any of the forementioned, not onely by reason
+of the Art of Chymistry, which I confess myself not versed in, but
+especially, that he has such strange terms and unusual expressions
+as may puzle any body to apprehend the sense and meaning of them:
+Wherefore, if you receive not that full satisfaction you expect
+from me, in examining his opinions and arguments, I beg your pardon
+before-hand, and desire you to remember, that I sent you word in the
+beginning, I did undertake this work more out of desire to clear my
+own opinions, then a quarrelsome humor to contradict others; which
+if I do but obtain, I have my aim. And so to the business: When as
+your _Author_ discourses of the causes and beginnings of Natural
+things, he is pleased to say,[1] That _Souls and Lives, as they know
+no Degrees, so they know no Parts_; which opinion is very different
+from mine: For although I confess, that there is but one kind of Life,
+and one kind of Soul in Nature, which is the sensitive Life, and the
+rational Soul, both consisting not onely of Matter, but of one kind of
+Matter, to wit, Animate; nevertheless they are of different degrees,
+the matter of the rational Soul being more agil, subtil and active,
+then the matter of the sensitive Life; which is the reason that the
+rational can act in its own substance or degree of matter, and make
+figures in it self, and its own parts; when as the sensitive, being
+of somewhat a grosser degree then the rational, and not so subtil
+and active, is confined to work with and upon the Inanimate matter.
+But mistake me not, _Madam_, for I make onely a difference of the
+degrees of Subtilty, Activity, Agility, Purity, betwixt rational and
+sensitive Matter; but as for the rational Matter it self, it has no
+degrees of Purity, Subtilty and Activity in its own Nature or Parts,
+but is always one and the same in its substance in all Creatures, and
+so is the sensitive. You will ask me, How comes then the difference
+of so many Parts and Creatures in Nature, if there be no degrees of
+Purity, Activity, and Subtilty in the substance of the rational, and in
+the substance of the sensitive Matter? As for example: if there were
+no such degrees of the Parts of rational Matter amongst themselves,
+as also of the Parts of the sensitive, there would be no difference
+betwixt Animals, Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, but all Creatures
+would be alike without distinction, and have the same manner of sense
+and reason, life and knowledg. I answer, That although each sort or
+degree of animate Matter, rational as well as sensitive, has in it self
+or its own substance no degrees of purity, rarity, and subtilty, but
+is one and the same in its nature or essence; nevertheless, each has
+degrees of quantity, or parts, which degrees of quantity do make the
+onely difference betwixt the several creatures or parts of Nature, as
+well in their general, as particular kinds; for both the rational and
+sensitive matter being corporeal, and so dividable into parts, some
+creatures do partake more, some less of them, which makes them to have
+more or less, and so different sense and reason, each according to the
+nature of its kind: Nay this difference of the degrees of quantity or
+parts in the substance of the rational and sensitive Matter, makes
+also the difference betwixt particulars in every sort of Creatures, as
+for example, between several particular Men: But as I said, the nature
+or essence of the sensitive and rational Matter is the same in all;
+for the difference consists not in the Nature of Matter, but onely in
+the degrees of quantity, and parts of Matter, and in the various and
+different actions or motions of this same Matter. And thus Matter being
+dividable, there are numerous lives and souls in Nature, according to
+the variousness of her several Parts and Creatures. Next your _Author_,
+mentioning the _Causes and Principles of natural Bodies_, assigns two
+first or chief beginnings and corporeal causes of every Creature,
+to wit, the _Element of Water_, and the _Ferment or Leaven_; which
+Ferment he calls a formal created being; neither a substance, nor an
+accident, but a neutral thing. Truly, _Madam_, my reason is not able
+to conceive this neutral Being; for it must either be something or
+nothing in Nature: and if he makes it any thing betwixt both, it is a
+strange Monster; and will produce monstrous effects: and for Water,
+if he doth make it a Principle of Natural things, I see no reason
+why he excludes the rest of the Elements: But, in my opinion, Water,
+and the rest of the Elements, are but effects of Nature, as other
+Creatures are, and so cannot be prime causes. The like the Ferment,
+which, to my sense and reason, is nothing else, but a natural effect of
+natural matter. Concerning his opinion, That _Causes and Beginnings_
+are all one, or that there is but little difference betwixt them, I
+do readily subscribe unto it; but when he speaks of those _things,
+which are produced without life_, my reason cannot find out, what, or
+where they should be; for certainly, in Nature they are not, Nature
+being Life and Soul her self, and all her parts being enlivened and
+soulified, so that there can be no generation or natural production
+without Life. Neither is my sense and reason capable to understand his
+meaning, when he says, That the _Seeds of things, and the Spirits,
+as the Dispensers thereof, are divided from the Material Cause_: For
+I do see no difference betwixt the Seed, and the material Cause, but
+they are all one thing, it being undeniable, that the seed is the
+matter of that which is produced. But your _Author_ was pleased to say
+heretofore, that there are but two beginnings or causes of natural
+things, and now he makes so many more; for, says he, Of _Efficient
+and Seminal Causes, some are efficiently effecting, and others
+effectively effecting_: which nice distinctions, in my opinion, do
+but make a confusion in natural knowledg, setting a mans brain on the
+rack; for who is able to conceive all those _Chym�ras_ and Fancies of
+the _Archeus, Ferment,_ various _Ideas, Blas, Gas,_ and many more,
+which are neither something nor no-thing in Nature, but betwixt both,
+except a man have the same Fancies, Visions and Dreams, your _Author_
+had? Nature is easie to be understood, and without any difficulty,
+so as we stand in no need to frame so many strange names, able to
+fright any body. Neither do natural bodies know many prime causes and
+beginnings, but there is but one onely chief and prime cause from which
+all effects and varieties proceed, which cause is corporeal Nature,
+or natural self-moving Matter, which forms and produces all natural
+things; and all the variety and difference of natural Creatures arises
+from her various actions, which are the various motions in Nature;
+some whereof are Regular, some Irregular: I mean Irregular, as to
+particular Creatures, not as to Nature her self, for Nature cannot
+be disturbed or discomposed, or else all would run into confusion;
+Wherefore Irregularities do onely concern particular Creatures, not
+Infinite Nature; and the Irregularities of some parts may cause the
+Irregularities of other Parts, as the Regularities of some parts do
+cause the Regularities of others: And thus according as Regularities
+and Irregularities have power, they cause either Peace or War, Sickness
+or Health, Delight and Pleasure, or Grief and Pain, Life or Death, to
+particular Creatures or parts of Nature; but all these various actions
+are but various Effects, and not prime Causes; which is well to be
+observed, lest we confound Causes with Effects. And so leaving this
+discourse for the present, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] Van Helm, _in his Book intituled_, Physick Refined, _ch._ 4. _of
+the Causes and beginning of natural things._
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+It is no wonder, your _Author_ has so many odd and strange opinions
+in Philosophy, since they do not onely proceed from strange Visions,
+Apparitions, and Dreams, but are built upon so strange grounds and
+principles as _Ideas, Archeus, Gas, Blas, Ferment,_ and the like,
+the names of which sound so harsh and terrifying, as they might put
+any body easily into a fright, like so many Hobgoblins or Immaterial
+spirits; but the best is, they can do no great harm, except it be to
+trouble the brains of them, that love to maintain those opinions; for
+though they are thought to be powerful beings, yet being not corporeal
+substances, I cannot imagine wherein their power should consist; for
+Nothing can do nothing. But to mention each apart; first his _Archeus_
+he calls[1] _the Spirit of Life; a vital gas or Light; the Balsam
+preferring from Corruption; the_ Vulcan _or Smith of Generation; the
+stirrer up, and inward director of generation; an Air; a skiey or
+airy Spirit; cloathing himself presently with a bodily cloathing, in
+things soulified, walking through all the dens and retiring places of
+the seed, and transforming the matter according to the perfect act of
+its own Image, remaining the president and overseer or inward ruler of
+his bounds even till death; the Principle of Life: the Inn of Life,
+the onely immediate Witness, Executor, and Instrument of Life; the
+Prince and Center of Life; the Ruler of the Stern; the Keeper of Life,
+and promoter of Transmutations; the Porter of the Soul; a Fountainous
+being; a Flint._[2] These, and many more names your _Author_ attributes
+to his _Archeus_, but what properly it is, and what its Nature and its
+peculiar office, I am not able to conceive. In the next place, _Gas_
+and _Blas_ are to your _Author_ also true Principles of Natural things;
+for[3] _Gas is the Vapour into which Water is dissolved by Cold, but
+yet it is a far more fine and subtil thing then Vapour_; which he
+demonstrates by the Art of Chymistry. This _Gas_ in another place he
+calls[4] a _Wild Spirit, or Breath, unknown hitherto; which can neither
+be constrained by Vessels, nor reduced into a visible body; in some
+things it is nothing but Water, as for example in Salt, in Fruits, and
+the like._ But[5] _Blas proceeds from the local and alterative motion
+of the Stars, and is the general beginning of motion, producing heat
+and cold, and that especially with the changing of the Winds._ There is
+also[6] _Blas in all sublunary things_; witness Amulets or preserving
+Pomanders, whereby they do constrain objects to obey them; _Which
+Incorporeal Blas of Government acts without a Corporeal Efflux, even
+as the Moon makes the Sea to swell; but the fleshly generation_[7]
+_hath a Blas of its own, and it is twofold, one which existeth by a
+natural Motion, the other voluntary, which existeth as a mover to it
+self by an Internal Willing._ There is also a _Blas of the Heart_,
+which is _the fuel of the Vital Spirit, and consequently of its heat._
+The _Ferment_[8] he describes to be _A true Principle or Original
+beginning of things, to wit, a Formal Created beginning, which is
+neither a substance, nor an accident, but a Neutral being, framed from
+the beginning of the World in the places of its own Monarchy, in the
+manner of Light, Fire, the magnal or sheath of the Air, Forms, &c. that
+it may prepare, stir up, and go before the Seeds._ Lastly, his _Ideas_
+are _Certain formal seminal Lights,_[9] _mutually piercing each other
+without the adultery of Union; For_, says he, _although at first, that,
+which is imagined, is nothing, but a meer being of reason, yet it doth
+not remain such; for truely the Fancy is a sealifying vertue, and in
+this respect is called Imaginative, because it forms the Images of
+Likenesses, or Ideas of things conceived, and doth characterize them
+in its own Vital Spirit, and therefore that Idea is made a spiritual
+or seminal powerful being, to perform things of great moment._ And
+those Ideas he makes various and numerous; as _Archeal Ideas, Ideas of
+Diseases, Sealifying Ideas, Piercing Ideas, Forreign and strange Ideas,
+Mad Ideas, Irrational and Incorrigible Ideas, Staggering Ideas,_ and a
+hundred others: the like of _Gas, Blas,_ and the rest. Thus, _Madam_, I
+have made a rehearsal of your _Authors_ strange, and hitherto unknown,
+Principles (as his Confession is) of Natural things, which, to my
+sense and reason, are so obscure, intricate and perplex, as is almost
+impossible exactly to conceive them; when as Principles ought to be
+easie, plain, and without any difficulty to be understood; Wherefore
+what with his Spirits, meer-beings, _non_-beings, and neutral-beings,
+he troubles Nature, and puzles the brains of his Readers so, that, I
+think, if all men were of his opinion, or did follow the way of his
+Philosophy, Nature would desire God she might be annihilated: Onely, of
+all other, she doth not fear his Non-beings, for they are the weakest
+of all, and can do her the least hurt, as not being able to obstruct
+real and corporeal actions of Nature; for Nature is a corporeal
+substance, and without a substance Motion cannot be, and without
+Motion opposition cannot be made, nor any action in Nature, whether
+Prints, Seals, Stamps, Productions, Generations, Thoughts, Conceptions,
+Imaginations, Passions, Appetites, or the like: and if motions cannot
+be without substance; then all Creatures, their properties, faculties,
+natures, &c., being made by corporeal motions, cannot be _Non_-beings,
+no nor anything else that is in Nature; for _non_-beings are not in
+the number of Natural things, Nature containing nothing within her,
+but what is substantially, really, and corporeally existent. But your
+Authors _Ideal Entity_, (whereof he is speaking in another place of
+his Works,)[10] which performs all the Works of Nature, seems to me,
+as if it were the Jack of all Offices, or like the Jack in a Clock,
+that makes every Wheel move; for it hath an admirable power to put off
+and on Corporeality and Incorporeality, and to make it self Something
+and Nothing as often as it has occasion; but if this _Proteus_ have
+such power, it may well be named the Magick of Nature. Your _Author_
+saith, it is not the Devil, nor any effect thereof: but certainly, in
+my opinion, according to its description, and the effects laid to its
+performance, it must be more then the Devil; wherefore, in my Reason, I
+cannot conceive it, neither am I able to understand his _Phantastick
+Activity, Fancy of Forms, the Souls acting by an insensible way,_
+and many more such like expressions. But I conceive that all these
+can be nothing else but the several motions of the sensitive and
+rational matter, which is the Active, Ingenious, Distinguishing,
+Knowing, Wise and Understanding part of Infinite corporeal Nature; and
+though Infinite Matter hath Infinite parts in general, yet there is a
+finiteness in every part considered by it self: not that I think a Part
+can really subsist single and by it self, but it is onely considered
+so in the manner of our Conception, by reason of the difference and
+variousness of natural Creatures: for these being different from each
+other in their figures, and not all alike, so that we can make a
+distinction betwixt them; this difference and distinction causes us
+to conceive every part of a different figure by it self: but properly
+and according to the Truth of Nature, there is no part by it self
+subsisting; for all parts are to be considered, not onely as parts
+of the whole, but as parts of other parts, all parts being joyned in
+Infinite Nature, and tied by an inseparable tie one way or other,
+although we do not altogether perceive it. But to return to _Ideas_:
+I had almost forgot to tell you, _Madam_, of another kind of _Ideas_,
+by your _Author_ named, _Bewitching_ or _Inchanting Ideas_,[11] which
+are for the most part found in Women, against which I cannot but
+take exception in the behalf of our Sex: For, says he, _Women stamp
+Ideas on themselves, whereby they, no otherwise then Witches driven
+about with a malignant spirit of despair, are oftentimes governed or
+snatched away unto those things, which otherwise they would not, and
+do bewail unto us their own and unvoluntary Madness: These Ideas are
+hurtful to themselves, and do, as it were, Inchant, Infatuate, and
+weaken themselves; for so (as_ Plutarch _witnesses) a desire of death
+by hanging took hold of all the young Maids in the Island_ Chios. By
+this it appears, that your _Author_ has never been in Love, or else he
+would have found, that Men have as well bewitching _Ideas_ as Women,
+and that they are as hurtful to Men, as to Women. Neither can I be
+perswaded to believe, that men should not have as well Mad _Ideas_ as
+Women; for to mention no other example, some, (I will not speak of
+your _Author_) their Writings and strange Opinions in Philosophy do
+sufficiently witness it; but whence those Ideas do proceed, whether
+from the Bride-bed of the Soul, or the Splene, your _Author_ doth not
+declare. As for the young Maids in _Chios_, I must confess, it is a
+very strange example; but I think there have been as many Men that
+have killed themselves, as Women, if not more: However, I hope, by the
+Grace of God, the young Maids in this Kingdom are better advised; for
+if they should do the like, it would be a sad fate for all young Men.
+To conclude, _Madam_, all these rehearsed opinions of your _Author_,
+concerning the Grounds or Principles of Natural Philosophy, if you
+desire my Unfeigned Judgment, I can say no more, but that they shew
+more Fancy, then Reason and Truth, and so do many others; and, perhaps,
+my opinions may be as far from Truth as his, although their Ground is
+Sense and Reason; for there is no single Creature in Nature, that is
+able to know the perfectest Truth: but some opinions, to humane sense
+and reason, may have more probability then others, and every one thinks
+his to be most probable, according to his own fancy and imagination,
+and so I think of mine; nevertheless, I leave them to the censure of
+those, that are endued with solid judgment and reason, and know how
+to discern betwixt things of fancy and reason, and amongst the rest,
+I submit them to the censure of your _Ladiship_, whose solid and wise
+Judgment is the rule of all the actions of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In his_ ch. _called_ The Fiction of Elementary Complexions and
+Mixtures.
+
+[2] _In the_ ch. of the Birth and Original of Forms. _In the_ ch. Of
+the Ideas of Diseases. _See his_ ch. _called_ The Seat of Diseases
+in the Soul is confirmed. Ch. of Archeal Diseases. Ch. _called_ The
+Subject of inhering of Diseases is in the point of Life, &c.
+
+[3] _In the_ ch. Of the Gas of the Water.
+
+[4] _In the_ ch. of the Fiction of Elementary Complexions and Mixtures.
+
+[5] _In the_ ch. Of the Blas of Meteors.
+
+[6] _In the_ ch. Of the unknown action of Government.
+
+[7] _In the_ ch. Of the Blas of Man.
+
+[8] Of the Causes and beginnings of Natural things.
+
+[9] Of the Ideas of Diseases.
+
+[10] Of the Magnetick cure of Wounds.
+
+[11] Of things Conceived, or Conceptions.
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ relating how he dissents from the _false Doctrine_, as
+he terms it, _of the Schools_, concerning the Elements, and their
+Mixtures, Qualities, Temperaments, Discords, &c. in order to Diseases,
+is pleased to say as follows:[1] _I have sufficiently demonstrated,
+that there are not four Elements in Nature, and by consequence, if
+there are onely three, that four cannot go together, or encounter; and
+that the fruits which Antiquity hath believed to be mixt bodies, and
+those composed from a concurrence of four elements, are materially of
+one onely Element; also that those three Elements are naturally cold;
+nor that native heat is any where in things, except from Light, Life,
+Motion, and an altering Blas: In like manner, that all actual moisture
+is of Water, but all virtual moisture from the property of the seeds:
+Likewise, that dryness is by it self in the Air and Earth, but in
+Fruits by reason of the Seeds and Coagulations; and that there are not
+Contraries in Nature._ To give you my opinion hereof, first I think it
+too great a presumption in any man, to feign himself so much above the
+rest, as to accuse all others of ignorance, and that none but he alone
+hath the true knowledg of all things as infallible and undeniable,
+and that so many Learned, Wise and Ingenious Men in so many ages have
+been blinded with errors; for certainly, no particular Creature in
+Nature can have any exact or perfect knowledg of Natural things, and
+therefore opinions cannot be infallible truths, although they may seem
+probable; for how is it possible that a single finite Creature should
+know the numberless varieties and hidden actions of Nature? Wherefore
+your _Author_ cannot say, that he hath demonstrated any thing, which
+could not be as much contradicted, and perhaps with more reason, then
+he hath brought proofs and demonstrations: And thus when he speaks of
+Elements, that there are not four in Nature, and that they cannot go
+together, or encounter, it may be his opinion; but others have brought
+as many reasons to the contrary, and I think with more probability; so
+as it is unnecessary to make a tedious discourse thereof, and therefore
+I'le refer you to those that have treated of it more learnedly and
+solidly then I can do. But I perceive your _Author_ is much for Art,
+and since he can make solid bodies liquid, and liquid bodies solid, he
+believes that all bodies are composed out of the Element of Water, and
+that Water therefore is the first Principle of all things; when as
+Water, in my opinion, is but an Effect, as all other natural Creatures,
+and therefore cannot be a cause or principle of them. Concerning the
+_Natural coldness of Water, Air, and Earth,_ it may be, or not be so,
+for any thing your _Author_ can truly know; but to my sense and reason,
+it seems probable that there are things naturally hot and moist, and
+hot and dry, as well as cold and moist, and cold and dry: But all these
+are but several effects produced by the several actions of Natural
+Matter, which Natural Matter is the onely Principle of all Natural
+Effects and Creatures whatever; and this Principle, I am confident
+your _Author_ can no more prove to be Water, then he can prove that
+Heat, Light, Life, Motion, and _Blas_, are not material. Concerning
+what he saith, That _Native Heat is no where in things, except from
+Light, Life, Motion, and an altering Blas_: I believe that motion of
+life makes not onely heat, but all effects whatsoever; but this native
+heat is not produced onely from the motions of Particular lives in
+particular Creatures, but it is made by the motions of Natures life;
+which life, in all probability, is the self-moving Matter, which no
+doubt, can and doth make Light and Blas without Heat, and Heat without
+Light or Blas; Wherefore Light and Blas are not principles of native
+Heat, no more then native Heat is the principle of Light and Blas.
+Neither is Water the Principle of Actual moisture, nor the propriety
+of seeds the Principle of all Virtual moisture; but self-moving Matter
+is the Principle of all, and makes both actual and virtual moisture,
+and there is no question but there are many sorts of moistures. As for
+_Dryness_, which he says, _is by it self in the Air and Earth, and
+in Fruits by reason of the Seeds and Coagulations_: I cannot conceive
+how any thing can be by it self in Nature, by reason there is nothing
+alone and single in Nature, but all are inseparable parts of one body:
+perchance, he means, it is naturally and essentially inherent in Air
+and Earth; but neither can that be in my reason, because all Creatures
+and Effects of Nature are Intermixt, and there is as much dryness in
+other Creatures, as in Air and Earth. Lastly, as for his opinion, That
+_there are no Contraries in Nature_; I believe not in the essence
+or nature of Matter; but sense and reason inform us, that there are
+Contraries in Natures actions, which are Corporeal motions, which cause
+mixtures, qualities, degrees, discords, as also harmonious conjunctions
+and concords, compositions, divisions, and the like effects whatsoever.
+But though your _Author_ seems to be an enemy to the mixtures of
+Elements, yet he makes such a mixture of Divinity, and natural
+Philosophy, that all his Philosophy is nothing but a meer Hotch-potch,
+spoiling one with the other. And so I will leave it to those that
+delight in it, resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _In his Treatise called_, A passive deceiving of the Schools of the
+Humourists.
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+_Water_, according to your _Authors_ opinion,[1] _is frozen into Snow,
+Ice, or Hail, not by Cold, but by its own Gas._ But since I am not able
+to conceive what his Gas is, being a term invented by him self, I will
+briefly declare my own opinion, which is, That Snow, Ice, and Hail, in
+my judgment, are made in the like manner, as Passions or Colours are
+made and raised in Man; for a sad discourse, or a cruel object will
+make a Man pale and cold, and a fearful object, will make him tremble;
+whereas a wanton and obscene discourse will make some red and hot.
+But yet these discourses and objects are onely external, occasional,
+and not immediate efficient causes of such alterations. Also when a
+Man eats or drinks any thing that is actually hot or cold, or enters
+into a cold or hot room, bath, or air, he becomes hot or cold by the
+actions of those external agents that work upon him, or rather whose
+motions the sensitive motions of his body do pattern out. The like
+for diseases; for they may be caused either by hearing ill reports,
+or by taking either hurtful or superfluous food into the Body, or by
+Infections inwardly or outwardly, and many other ways. Likewise may
+Colours be made different ways; And so may Snow, Ice, and Hail; for
+all loose, rare, and porous Bodies are more apt to alter and change
+then close, solid, and dense bodies; and not onely to change from
+what they are, but to rechange to what they were. But, _Madam_, many
+studious persons study Nature more in her own substance, then in her
+various actions, which is the cause they arrive to no knowledg of
+Natures Works; for the same parts of Matter may act or work several
+ways: Like as a Man, or other animal creature, may put one part of his
+body into various and several postures, and move it many different
+ways. Your _Author_ may say, that although several Creatures may be
+changed to our sight or perception, yet they are not really changed in
+Nature. I answer, Their Principle, which is a natural matter, of which
+all Creatures are made, cannot be changed, because it is one, simple,
+and unalterable in its Nature; but the figures of several Creatures
+are changed continually by the various motions of this matter; not
+from being matter, but onely from such or such a figure into another;
+and those figures which do change, in their room are others produced
+to keep up the certain kinds of Creatures by a continual successive
+alteration. And as there are changes of parts, so there are also
+mixtures of several parts, figures and motions in one and the same
+Matter; for there are not different kinds in the nature of Matter:
+But, although Matter is of several degrees, as partly animate and
+partly inanimate, and the animate Matter is partly rational, and partly
+sensitive; Nevertheless, in all those degrees it remains the same onely
+or meer Matter; that is, it is nothing else but Matter, and the onely
+ground in which all changes are made. And therefore I cannot perceive
+it to be impossible in Nature, as to your _Author_ it seems, That
+_Water should not be transchangeable into Air_; for, that he says,
+_The Air would have increased into a huge bulk, and all Water would
+have long since failed_: It is no consequence, because there is a
+Mutual transmutation of all figures and parts of Nature, as I declared
+above; and when one part is transchanged into another, that part is
+supplied again by the change of another, so that there can be no total
+mutation of kinds or sorts of figures, but onely a mutual change of
+the particulars. Neither is it of any consequence, when your _Author_
+says, That _if Water should once be turned into Air, it would always
+remain Air, because a returning agent is wanting, which may turn Air
+again into Water._ For he might as well say, a Man cannot go or turn
+backward, being once gone forward. And although he brings a General
+Rule, That _every thing, as much as in it lies, doth desire to remain
+in it self_; Yet it is impossible to be done, by reason there is no
+rest in Nature, she being in a perpetual motion, either working to
+the consistance of a figure, or to the uniting of several parts, or
+to the dissolving or dividing of several parts, or any other ways. By
+dissolving, I do not mean annihilating, but such a dissolving of parts
+as is proper for the altering of such a figure into one or many other
+figures. But rather then your Author will consent to the transchanging
+of Water into Air, he will feign several grounds, soils or pavements
+in the Air, which he calls _Peroledes_, and so many Flood-gates and
+Folding-dores, and make the Planets their Key-keepers; which are pretty
+Fancies, but not able to prove any thing in Natural Philosophy. And so
+leaving them to their Author, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Gas of Water.
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I cannot in reason give my consent to your _Authors_ opinion,[1] That
+_Fishes do by the force or vertue of an inbred Seed transchange simple
+water into fat, bones, and their own flesh, and that materially they
+are nothing but water transchanged, and that they return into water by
+art._ For though my opinion is, that bodies change and alter from one
+figure into another, yet they do not all change into water, neither
+is water changed into all other figures; and certainly Fishes do not
+live nor subsist meerly by Water, but by several other meats, as other
+animals do; either by feeding upon other Fishes, the stronger devouring
+the weaker, or upon Mud, and Grass, and Weeds, in the bottom of Seas,
+Rivers and Ponds, and the like: As for example, put Fish into a Pool or
+Sluce, wherein there is not any thing but clear, pure water, and in a
+short time they will be starved to death for want of Food; and as they
+cannot live onely by water, so neither can they breed by the power of
+water, but by the power of their food, as a more solid substance: And
+if all Creatures be nourished by those things whereof they consist,
+then Fishes do not consist of water, being not nourished by water;
+for it is not the transchanging of water, by which Fishes live, and by
+which they produce; but it is the transchange of food, proceeding from
+other Creatures, as I mentioned above. 'Tis true, Water is a proper
+element for them to live in, but not to live on; and though I have
+neither learning, nor experience in _Chymistry_, yet I believe, that
+your _Author_, with all the subtilest Art he had, could not turn or
+convert all Creatures into pure and simple water, but there would have
+been dregs and several mixtures left: I will not say, that the Furnace
+may not rarifie bodies extreamly, but not convert them into such a
+substance or form as Nature can. And although he thinks Gold is made of
+Water, yet I do not believe he could convert it into Water by the help
+of Fire; he might make it soluble, fluid and rare, but all things that
+are supple, soluble, flowing and liquid, are not Water; I am confident
+no _Gas_ or _Blas_ will, or can transform it, nor no Art whatsoever;
+what Nature may do, I know not. But since your _Authors_ opinion is,
+that Air is also a Primigenial Element, and in its nature a substance,
+Why doth he not make it a Principle of natural bodies, as well as
+Water? I think it had not been so improper to liken Juices to Water;
+but to make the onely Principle of the composition and dissolution of
+all Creatures to be Water, seems to me very improbable. Neither can
+I admit in reason that the Elements should be called, first, pure,
+and simple beings; we might as well call all other creatures, first,
+pure, and simple beings: for although the word Element sounds as much
+as Principle, yet they are in my reason no more Principles of Nature,
+then other Creatures are, there being but one Principle in Nature, out
+of which all things are composed, _viz._ the onely matter, which is a
+pure and simple corporeal substance; and what Man names impure dregs
+and filths, these are onely irregular and cross motions of that matter,
+in respect to the nature of such or such a figure; or such motions as
+are not agreeable and sympathetical to our Passions, Humors, Appetites,
+and the like. Concerning the Contrarieties, Differences and Wars in
+Nature, which your _Author_ denies, I have spoken thereof already, and
+though he endeavours in a long discourse to prove, that there is no War
+in nature; yet, in my opinion, it is to little purpose, and it makes
+but a war in the thoughts of the Reader; I know not what it did in
+his own. But I observe he appeals often to Divinity to bear him up in
+Natural Philosophy; but how the Church doth approve his Interpretations
+of the Scripture, I know not: Wherefore I will not meddle with them,
+lest I offend the Truth of the Divine Scripture, wherein I desire to
+submit to the Judgment of the Church, which is much wiser then I, or
+any single Person can be. However, for all what your _Author_ says,
+I do nevertheless verily believe, there is a war between Natural
+motions: For example; between the Regular motions of Health, and the
+Irregular motions of Sickness; and that things applied do oftentimes
+give assistance to one side or other, but many times in the conflict,
+the applied remedies are destroyed, and sometimes they are forced to
+be Neutrals: Wherefore though the nature of Infinite Matter is simple,
+and knows of no discord, yet her actions may be cross and opposite: the
+truth is, Nature could never make such variety, did her actions never
+oppose each other, but live in a constant Peace and Unity. And thus
+leaving them to agree, I am confident your _Ladiship_ and I shall never
+disagree; for as long as my life doth last, I shall always prove,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ The Fiction of Elementary Complexions and Mixtures.
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ condemns the _Schools_ for saying,[1] That _Air is
+moist_, or that it may be _converted into Water by pressing it
+together_; bringing an example of an _Iron Pipe, wherein Air has been
+pressed together, which afterwards in its driving out has, like a
+Hand-gun discharged with Gun-powder, sent a bullet thorow a board or
+plank._ Truly, _Madam_, concerning the moisture of Air, I am against
+it, but the transchanging of Air into Water I do verily believe, _viz._
+that some sorts of Air may be contracted or condensed into Water, and
+that Water again may be dilated into Air, but not readily, commonly and
+easily by Art, but onely by Nature. Wherefore your _Authors_ Experiment
+can serve for no proof; for an artificial trial cannot be an infallible
+natural demonstration, the actions of Art, and the actions of Nature
+being for the most part very different, especially in productions and
+transmutations of natural things: Neither can an alteration of parts,
+cause an utter destruction of the whole, because when some parts change
+from their figures, other parts of matter change again into the like
+figures, by which successive change the continuation of the whole is
+kept up. Next your _Author_ reproves the Schools for maintaining the
+opinion, that _Air is hot_; for says he, _Water, Air, and Earth, are
+cold by Creation, because without Light, Heat, and the partaking of
+Life._ He might, in my opinion, conclude, as well, that Man is cold by
+Creation, because a Chameleon, or a Fish is cold, being all of animal
+kind: But why may not some sorts of Air, Water and Earth be hot, and
+some be cold, as well as some sorts of Light are hot, and some cold;
+and so several other Creatures? His Reasons prove nothing: for Light
+doth not make Heat, nor is it the principle of Heat; and it is no
+consequence to say, all that is without Light is without Heat, there
+being many things without Light, which nevertheless are Hot; But to
+say, Water, Air, and Earth are cold, because they are without heat, is
+no proof, but a meer begging of the principle; for it is but the same
+thing, as if I should say, this is no Stone, because it is no Glass.
+And that Water, Air and Earth, do not partake of Life, must be proved
+first, for that is not granted as yet, there being, according to my
+opinion, not one Creature that wants Life in all Nature. Again: your
+_Author_ is of opinion, That _Water is the first and chief Principle of
+all Natural things._ But this I can no more believe, then that _Water
+should never change or degenerate from its essence_: nay, if your
+_Author_ means, there shall always be Water in Nature, it is another
+thing; but if he thinks that not any part of water doth or can change
+or degenerate in its nature, and is the principle and chief producer
+of all other Creatures; then he makes Water rather a Creator then a
+Creature; and it seems, that those Gentiles which did worship Water,
+were of the same opinion, whereas yet he condemns all Pagan opinions
+and all those that follow them. Moreover, I cannot subscribe to his
+opinion, That _Gas and Blas from the Stars do make heat_: For heat is
+made several ways, according to its several sorts; for there is a dry
+heat, and a moist heat, a burning, melting, and evaporating heat, and
+many more. But as for _Meteors_, that _they are made by Gas and Blas_,
+I can say nothing, by reason I am not skilled in Astrology, and the
+science of the Heavens, Stars, and Planets; wherefore if I did offer
+to meddle with them, I should rather express my Ignorance, then give
+your _Ladiship_ any solid reasons; and so I am willing to leave this
+speculation to others, resting content with that knowledg Nature hath
+given me without the help of Learning: Which I wholly dedicate and
+offer to your _Ladiship_, as becomes,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] In the _ch._ of _Air._
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Having made mention in my last of your _Authors_ opinion, _That Air
+is in its nature Cold_, I thought it fit to take a stricter view of
+the temper of Air, and to send you withal my own opinion thereof.
+First of all, I would fain know, what sort of Air your _Author_ means;
+for if he thinks there is but one sort of Air, he might as well say,
+that there is but one sort of Animals, or Vegetables; whereas yet
+there are not onely different sorts of animal and vegetable kind, but
+also different particulars in one and the same sort: As for example;
+what difference is not amongst Horses, as between a Barb, a Turk,
+a Ginnet, a Courser of _Naples_, a Flanders-horse, a Galloway, an
+English-horse, and so forth? not onely in their shapes, but also in
+their natures, tempers and dispositions? The like for Cows, Oxen,
+Sheep, Goats, Dogs, as also for Fowl and Fish, nay, for Men. And as for
+Vegetables, What difference is there not between Barly and Wheat, and
+between _French_-barly, _Pine_-barly, and ordinary Barly; as also our
+_English_-wheat, _Spanish_-wheat, _Turkish_-wheat, _Indian_-wheat, and
+the like? What difference is there not amongst Grapes, as the _Malago,
+Muscadel_, and other Grapes, and so of all the rest of Vegetables?
+The same may be said of the Elements; for there is as much difference
+amongst the Elements as amongst other Creatures. And so of Air: for
+Air in some places, as in the _Indies_, especially about _Brasilia_,
+is very much different from our air, or from the air that is in other
+places: Indeed, in every different Climate, you shall find a difference
+of air, wherefore 'tis impossible to assign a certain temper of heat
+or cold to air in general. But although my sense and reason inform me,
+that air in its own nature or essence is neither hot nor cold, yet
+it may become hot or cold, by hot or cold motions; for the sensitive
+perceptive motions of Air may pattern out heat or cold; and hence it
+is, that in Summer, when as heat predominates, the air is hot; and
+in Winter, when as cold predominates, the air is cold. But, perhaps,
+you will say, air may be cooled by moving it with a Fan, or such like
+thing which can make wind; wherefore it follows, that air must needs be
+naturally cold. I answer, That doth not prove Air to be in its nature
+cold: for this moving or making of wind may contract or condense the
+air into cold motions, which may cause a cold wind, like as Ventiducts,
+where the air running thorow narrow Pipes makes a cold wind. The same
+may be done with a mans breath; for if he contract his lips close, his
+breath will be cold, but if he opens his mouth wide, his breath will
+be warm. Again: you may say, that rain is congealed by the coldness of
+the air into Snow, Hail and Ice. I answer; Frost, Ice, Snow and Hail,
+do not proceed from the coldness of the air, but rather the coldness
+of the air proceeds from them; for Ice, Snow, and Hail, proceed from
+cold contraction and condensation of a vaporous or watery substance;
+and, as Frost and Snow cause air to be cold, so Thunder and Lightning
+cause it to be hot, so long as they last. Thus, _Madam_, though Air may
+be altered either to heat or cold, yet it is neither hot nor Cold in
+it self. And this is all for the present that I can say concerning the
+Temper of Air; I conclude, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Having hitherto considered your _Authors_ Elements or Principles of
+Natural things, you will give me leave to present you now with a short
+view of his Opinions concerning Wind, Vacuum, Rainbows, Thunder,
+Lightning, Earth-quakes, and the like; which I will do as briefly as I
+can, lest I betray my Ignorance; for I confess my self not to be well
+versed in the knowledg of Meteors, nor in those things which properly
+belong to the Mathematicks, as in Astrology, Geography, Opticks, and
+the like. But your _Author_ says, in the first place,[1] That _Natural
+Wind is nothing but a flowing Air, moved by the Blas of the Stars._
+Certainly, _Madam_, if this were so, then, in my judgment, when the
+Stars blaze, we should have constant Winds, and the more they blaze,
+the more violent winds there would be: But I have rather observed
+the contrary, that when the Stars blaze most apparently, we have the
+calmest weather either in Summer or Winter. Perchance your _Author_
+will say, he doth not mean this apparant and visible Blas, but another
+invisible Blas. I answer; I know not, nor cannot conceive any other
+Blas in the Stars, except I had seen it in a Vision; neither do I
+think that Nature her self knows of any other, But your _Author_
+doth refer himself upon the Authority of _Hypocrates_, who says,
+That _not onely the Wind is a blast, but that all Diseases are from
+blasts; and that there is in us a Spirit stirring up all things by
+its Blas; which Spirit, by a Microcosmical Analogy, or the proportion
+of a little World, he compares to the blasts of the world._ As for
+my particular, _Madam_, I dare say, I could never perceive, by my
+sense and reason, any such blazing Spirit in me; but I have found by
+experience, that when my mind and thoughts have been benighted with
+Melancholy, my Imagination hath been more active and subtil, then
+when my mind has been clear from dark Melancholy: Also I find that
+my thoughts and conceptions are as active, if not more, in the night
+then in the day; and though we may sometimes dream of several Lights,
+yet I cannot perceive a constant light in us; however Light, Blazes,
+and all those effects are no more then other effects of Nature are;
+nor can they have more power on other Creatures, then other Creatures
+have on them: Neither are they made otherwise then by the corporeal
+motions of Natural Matter, and are dissolved and transchanged as other
+Creatures, out of one form or figure into another. Next your _Author_
+discoursing[2] whether there be any Vacuum in Nature, doth incline to
+the affirming party, that there is a Vacuum in the Air; to wit, _There
+is in the air something, that is less then a body, which fills up the
+emptinesses or little holes and pores in the air, and which is wholly
+annihilated by fire; It is actually void of all matter, and is a middle
+thing between a body and an Incorporeal Spirit, and almost nothing
+in respect of bodies; for it came from Nothing, and so may easily be
+reduced to nothing._ All this, _Madam_, surpasses my capacity; for
+I can in no ways conceive any thing between something and nothing,
+as to be less then something, and more then nothing; for all that is
+corporeal in Nature, is to my reason something; that is, some really
+existent thing; but what is incorporeal in Nature, is nothing; and if
+there be any absolute vacuum in Nature, as your _Author_ endeavours
+to prove, then certainly this Vacuum cannot be any thing whatsoever;
+for a Vacuum is a pure Nothing. But many ingenious and learned men
+have brought as many arguments and reasons against Vacuum, as others
+bring for it, and so it is a thing which I leave to them to exercise
+their brains withal. The like is the opinion which many maintain
+concerning Place, _viz._ that there is a constant succession of Place
+and Parts, so that when one part removes, another doth succeed in its
+place; the truth and manner whereof I was never able to comprehend:
+for, in my opinion, there can be no place without body, nor no body
+without place, body and place being all but one thing. But as for
+the perpetual Creation and annihilation of your _Authors_ Vacuities,
+give me leave to tell you, _Madam_, that it would be a more laborious
+work, then to make a new World, or then it was to make this present
+World; for God made this World in six days, and rested the seventh
+day; but this is a perpetual making of something out of nothing.
+Again: concerning Rainbows, your _Author_ says,[3] That _a Rainbow
+is not a natural effect of a natural Cause, but a divine Mystery in
+its original; and that it has no matter, but yet is in a place, and
+has its colours immediately in a place, but in the air mediately, and
+that it is of the nature of Light._ This is indeed a great mystery to
+my reason; for I cannot conceive, as I said before, a place without a
+body, nor how Light and Colours can be bodiless: But as for Rainbows,
+I have observed, when as water hath been blown up into the air into
+bubles, that by the reflexion of light on the watery bubles, they have
+had the like colours of the Rainbow; and I have heard, that there
+hath been often seen at the rising and setting of the Sun, Clouds of
+divers colours; Wherefore I cannot be perswaded to believe that a
+Rainbow should not have a natural cause, and consequently be a natural
+effect; For that God has made it a sign of the Covenant between him
+and mortal men, is no proof, that it is not a natural effect; Neither
+can I believe that it has not been before the Flood, and before it was
+made a sign by God, as your _Author_ imagines; for though it was no
+sign before the Flood, yet it may nevertheless have had its being and
+existence before the Flood. Moreover, as for Thunder and Lightning,
+your _Authors_ opinion is; _That although they may have concurring
+natural Causes, yet the mover of them is an Incorporeal Spirit, which
+is the Devil; who having obtained the Principality of this world, that
+he may be a certain executer of the judgments of the chief Monarch, and
+so the Umpire and Commissioner of Lightning and Thunder, stirs up a
+monstrous and sudden Blas in the Air, yet under Covenanted Conditions;
+for unless his power were bridled by divine Goodness, he would shake
+the Earth with one stroke so, as to destroy all mortal men: and thus
+the cracking noise or voice of Thunder is nothing but a spiritual
+Blas of the Evil Spirit._ I will not deny, _Madam_, that Thunder and
+Lightning do argue the Power of the most Glorious God, for so do all
+the rest of the Creatures; but that this is the onely and immediate
+cause, which your _Author_ assigns of Thunder and Lightning, I cannot
+believe; for surely, in my opinion, Thunder and Lightning are as much
+natural effects as other Creatures in Nature; and are not the Devils
+Blas, for I think they may be made without the help of the Devil; nay,
+I believe, he may be as much affraid of Thunder, as those Creatures
+that live on Earth. But what the causes are, and how Thunder and
+Lightning are made, I have elsewhere declared more at large, especially
+in my _Philosophical Opinions._ Again your _Author_ speaking[4] of the
+_Trembling of the Earth, thinks it is nothing else but the Judgment
+of God for the sins of Impenitent men._ For my part, _Madam_, I can
+say little to it, either concerning the divine, or the natural cause
+of Earthquakes: As for the divine and supernatural Cause, which your
+_Author_ gives, if it was so, then I wonder much, why God should
+command Earth-quakes in some parts of the World more frequent then
+in others. As for example; we here in these parts have very seldom
+Earthquakes, and those we have, which is hardly one in many ages, are
+not so furious, as to do much harm; and so in many other places of
+the World, are as few and as gentle Earth-quakes as here; when as in
+others, Earth-quakes are very frequent and dreadful: From whence it
+must needs follow, if Earth-quakes be onely a Judgment from God for
+the sins of Impenitent Men, and not a natural effect, that then those
+places, where the Earth is not so apt to tremble, are the habitations
+of the blessed, and that they, which inhabit those parts that are
+apt to tremble, are the accursed; when as yet, in those places where
+Earthquakes are not usual and frequent, or none at all, People are as
+wicked and impious, if not more, then in those where Earthquakes are
+common. But the question is, Whether those parts which suffer frequent
+and terrible Earthquakes, would not be so shaken or have such trembling
+fits, were they uninhabited by Man, or any other animal Creature?
+Certainly, in my opinion, they would. But as for the Natural Cause
+of Earthquakes, you must pardon me, _Madam_, that I cannot knowingly
+discourse thereof, by reason I am not so well skilled in Geography,
+as to know the several Soils, Climats, Parts, Regions, or Countries,
+nor what disposed matter may be within those parts that are subject
+to frequent Earthquakes: Onely this I may say, that I have observed,
+that the light of a small Fire or Candle, will dilate it self round
+about; or rather that the air round about the Fire or Candle, will
+pattern out both its light and its heat. Also I have observed, That a
+Man in a raging fit of Madness will have such an unusual strength, as
+ten strong men shall hardly be able to encounter or bind him, when as,
+this violent fit being past, a single man, nay a youth, may over-master
+him: Whence I conclude, that the actions, as the motions of Nature, are
+very powerful when they use their force, and that the ordinary actions
+of Nature are not so forcible as necessary; but the extraordinary are
+more forcible then necessary. Lastly, your _Author_ takes great pains
+to prove,[5] That _the Sun with his light rules the Day, and the Moon
+with hers the Night; and that the Moon has her own Native light; and
+that Bats, Mice, Dormice, Owles, and many others, as also Men, which
+rise at night, and walk in their sleep, see by the light and power
+of the Moon; also that Plants are more plentifully nourished by the
+night._ But lest it might be concluded, that all this is said without
+any probability of Truth, by reason the Moon doth not every night
+shine upon the Earth, he makes a difference between the Manner of the
+Sun's and Moon's enlightning the Earth; to wit, that the Sun strikes
+his beams in a right line towards the Earth, but the Moon doth not
+respect the Centre of the World, which is the Earth, in a right line;
+but her Centre is always excentrical, and she respects the Earth onely
+by accident, when she is concentrical with the World; And therefore he
+thinks there is another light under the Earth even at Midnight, whereby
+many Eyes do see, which owes also its rise to the Moon. This opinion
+of your _Author_ I leave to be examined by those that have skill in
+Astronomy, and know both the Light and the Course of the Moon: I will
+onely say thus much, that when the Moon is concentrical, as he calls
+it, with the World, as when it is Full and New Moon, she doth not shine
+onely at night, but also in the day, and therefore she may rule the
+day as well as the night, and then there will be two lights for the
+ruling of the day, or at least there will be a strife betwixt the Sun
+and the Moon, which shall rule. But as for Men walking asleep by the
+light of the Moon, my opinion is, That blind men may walk as well by
+the light of the Sun, as sleeping men by the light of the Moon. Neither
+is it probable, that _the Moon or her Blas doth nourish Plants_; for
+in a cold Moon-shiny night they will often die; but it is rather the
+Regular motions in well tempered matter that cause fruitful productions
+and maturity. And so I repose my Pen, lest it trespass too much upon
+your Patience, resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Blas of Meteors.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Of Vacuum.
+
+[3] _Ch._ Of an Irregular Meteor.
+
+[4] _Ch._ Of the Earthquake.
+
+[5] _Ch._ Of the Birth or Original of Forms.
+
+
+
+
+IX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In my former, when I related your _Authors_ opinion, concerning
+Earthquakes, I forgot to tell you, that he counts the Doctrine of the
+Schools absurd, when they say that Air, or any Exhalation, is the cause
+of them: For, says he, _There is no place in the Pavements or soils of
+the Earth, wherein any airy body may be entertained, whether that body
+be a wind, or an airy exhalation._ But since I promised I would not
+offer to appoint or assign any natural causes of Earthquakes, I have
+only taken occasion hence to enquire, whether it may not be probably
+affirmed, that there is air in the bowels of the Earth: And to my
+reason it seems very probable; I mean not this Exterior air, flowing
+about the circumference of the Earth we inhabite; but such an airy
+matter as is pure, refined, and subtil, there being great difference
+in the Elements, as well as in all other sorts of Creatures; for what
+difference is there not between the natural heat of an animal, and the
+natural heat of the Sun? and what difference is there not between the
+natural moisture of an Animal, and the natural moisture of Water? And
+so for the Purity of Air, Dryness of Earth, and the like: Nay, there
+is great difference also in the production of those Effects: As for
+example; the heat of the Earth is not produced from the Sun, nor the
+natural heat in Animals, nor the natural heat in Vegetables; for if it
+were so, then all Creatures in one Region or place of the Earth would
+be of one temper. As for example: Poppy, Night-shade, Lettuce, Thyme,
+Sage, Parsly, &c. would be all of one temper and degree, growing all
+in one Garden, and upon one patch of Ground, whereon the Sun equally
+casts his beams, when as yet they are all different in their natural
+tempers and degrees. And so certainly there is Air, Fire, and Water,
+in the bowels of the Earth, which were never made by the Sun, the Sea,
+and this Exterior elemental Air. Wherefore those, in my opinion, are
+in gross Errors, who imagine that these Interior Effects in the Earth
+are produced from the mentioned Exterior Elements, or from some other
+forreign and external Causes; for an external cause can onely produce
+an external effect, or be an occasion to the production of such or
+such an effect, but not be the immediate efficient or essential cause
+of an interior natural effect in another Creature, unless the Interior
+natures of different Creatures have such an active power and influence
+upon each other, as to work interiously at a distance, such effects
+as are proper and essential to their Natures, which is improbable;
+for though their natures and dispositions may mutually agree and
+sympathize, yet their powers cannot work upon their Interior Natures
+so, as to produce internal natural effects and proprieties in them. The
+truth is, it cannot be; for as the Cause is, so is the Effect; and if
+the Cause be an exterior Cause, the Effect must prove so too: As for
+example; the heat of the Sun, and the heat of the Earth, although they
+may both agree, yet one is not the cause of the other; for the Suns
+heat cannot pierce into the bowels of the Earth, neither can the heat
+of the Earth ascend so far as to the Center of the Sun: As for the heat
+of the Earth, it is certain enough, and needs no proof; but as for the
+heat of the Sun, our senses will sufficiently inform us, that although
+his beams are shot forth in direct lines upon the face of the Earth,
+yet they have not so much force, as to pierce into a low Celler or
+Vault; Wherefore it is not probable, that the Earth hath its natural
+heat from the Sun, and so neither its dryness from the Air, nor its
+moisture from the Sea, but these interior effects in the Earth proceed
+from some other interior causes. And thus there may be great difference
+between the heat, cold, moisture, and drought which is in the Elements,
+and between those which are in Vegetables, Minerals, and Animals, not
+onely in their General kinds, but also in their Particulars: And not
+onely a difference in the aforesaid qualities of heat, cold, moisture,
+and drought, but also in all other motions, as Dilations, Contractions,
+Rarefactions, Densations, &c. nay, in their Mixtures and Temperaments:
+As for example; the temper of a Mineral is not the temper of an Animal,
+or of a Vegetable, neither is the temper of these the temper of the
+exterior Elements, no more then the temper of the Elements is the
+temper of them; for every Creature has a temper natural and peculiar
+to it self, nay, every particular Creature, has not onely different
+tempers, compositions, or mixtures, but also different productions; or
+else, if there were no difference in their productions, every Creature
+would be alike, when as yet there are seldom two that do exactly
+resemble each other. But I desire you to understand me well, _Madam_,
+when I speak of Particular heats, colds, droughts, and moistures; for
+I do not believe that all Creatures are made out of the four Elements,
+no more, then that the Elements are produced from other Creatures,
+for the Matter of all Creatures is but one and the same; but although
+the Matter is the same, nevertheless, the Tempers, compositions,
+Productions, Motions, &c. of particular Creatures, may be different,
+which is the cause of their different exterior figures, or shapes, as
+also of their different Interiour Natures, Qualities, Properties, and
+the like. And so, to conclude, there is no impossibility or absurdity
+in affirming, that there may be Air, Fire, and Water, in the bowels
+of the Earth proper for those Creatures, which are in her, although
+not such an Elemental Air, Fire and Water, as is subject here to our
+senses; but another kind of Air, Fire and Water, different from those.
+But this being a subject for Learned and Ingenious men to work and
+contemplate upon, better, perhaps, then I can do, I will leave it to
+them, and so remain,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+X.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ mentioning in his Works, several Seeds of several
+Creatures, makes me express my opinion thus in short concerning this
+Subject: Several Seeds seem to me no otherwise then several Humours, or
+several Elements, or several other Creatures made of one and the same
+Matter, that produce one thing out of another, and the barrenness of
+seeds proceeds either from the irregularity of their natural motions,
+or from their unaptness or unactivity of producing. But it is to be
+observed, _Madam_, that not every thing doth produce always its like,
+but one and the same thing, or one and the same Creature, hath many
+various and different productions; for sometimes Vegetables do produce
+Animals, Animals produce Minerals, Minerals produce Elements, and
+Elements again Minerals, and so forth: for proof I will bring but a
+mean and common example. Do not Animals produce Stones, some in one,
+and some in another part of their bodies, as some in the Heart, some in
+the Stomack, some in the Head, some in the Gall, some in the Kidnies,
+and some in the Bladder? I do not say, that this Generation of Stone
+is made the same way as the natural generation of Animals, as, for
+example, Man is born of his Parents; but I speak of the generation or
+production of Creatures in general, for otherwise all Creatures would
+be alike, if all generations were after one and the same manner and
+way. Likewise do not Fruits, Roots, Flowers and Herbs, produce Worms?
+And do not Stones produce Fire? witness the Flint. And doth not Earth
+produce Metal? 'Tis true, some talk of the seed of Metals, but who with
+all his diligent observations could find it out as yet? Wherefore it
+is, in my opinion, not probable, that Minerals are produced by way of
+seeds. Neither can I perceive that any of the Elements is produced by
+seed, unless Fire, which seems, to my sense and reason, to encrease
+numerously by its seed, but not any other of the Elements. And thus
+productions are almost as various as Creatures, or rather parts of
+Creatures, are; for we see how many productions there are in one animal
+body, as the production of flesh, bones, marrow, brains, gristles,
+veines, sinews, blood, and the like, and all this comes from Food,
+and Food from some other Creatures, but all have their original from
+the onely matter, and the various motions of Nature. And thus, in my
+opinion, all things are made easily, and not by such constrained ways
+as your _Author_ describes, by Gas, Blas, Ideas, and the like; for I
+am confident, Nature has more various ways of producing natural things
+then any Creature is able to conceive. I'le give another example of
+Vegetables, I pray you but to consider, _Madam_, how many several ways
+Vegetables are produced, as some by seeds, some by slips, some by
+grafts, &c. The graft infuses and commixes with the whole stock and
+the branches, and these do the like with the graft: As for example;
+an Apple grafted in Colewort produces Apples; but those Apples will
+have a taste and sent of the Colewort, which shews that several parts
+of several Creatures mix, joyn, and act together; and as for seeds,
+they are transchanged wholly, and every part thereof into the produced
+fruit, and every part of the seed makes a several production by the
+help of the co-working parts of the Earth, which is the reason that so
+many seeds are produced from one single seed; But Producers, that waste
+not themselves in productions, do not produce so numerously as those
+that do dissolve; yet all Creatures increase more or less, according
+to their supplies or assistances; for seeds will encrease and multiply
+more in manured and fertile then in barren grounds; nay, if the ground
+be very barren, no production at all will be; which shews, that
+productions come not barely from the seed, but require of necessity
+some assistance, and therefore neither Archeus, nor seminal Ideas, nor
+Gas, nor Blas, would do any good in Vegetables, if the ground did not
+assist them in their generations or productions, no more then a house
+would be built without the assistance of labourers or workmen; for let
+the materials lie never so long, surely they will never joyn together
+of themselves to the artificial structure of an house. Wherefore since
+there is so much variety in the production of one kind of Creatures,
+nay of every particular in every kind, what needs Man to trouble
+his brain for the manner and way to describe circumstantially every
+particular production of every Creature by seminal or printing Ideas,
+or any other far-fetched termes, since it is impossible to be done?
+And as for those Creatures whose producers are of two different sorts,
+as a Mule bred of an Asse and a Horse, and another Creature bred of a
+Cony and a Dormouse; all which your _Author_ thinks[1] do take more
+after their mother then their father, more after the breeder then the
+begetter; I will not eagerly affirm the contrary, although it seems
+to me more probable: But this I can say, that I have observed by
+experience, that Faunes and Foales have taken more after the Male then
+after the Female; for amongst many several colour'd Deer, I have seen
+but one milk white Doe; and she never brought forth a white Faun, when
+as I have seen a white Buck beget white and speckled Faunes of black
+and several coloured Does. Also in Foals I have observed, that they
+have taken more after the Male then after the Female, both in shape and
+colour. And thus I express no more, but what I have observed my self,
+others may find out more examples; these are sufficient for me; so I
+leave them, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] In the _Ch._ the Position is demonstrated; and in the _ch._ called
+the Authority of the _Duumvirate_.
+
+
+
+
+XI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You will cease to wonder, that I am not altogether capable to
+understand your _Authors_ opinions in Natural Philosophy, when you do
+but consider, that his expressions are for the most part so obscure,
+mystical and intricate, as may puzzle any brain that has not the like
+Genius, or the same Conceptions with your _Author_; wherefore I am
+forced oftentimes to express my ignorance rather, then to declare to
+you the true sense of his opinions. In the number of these is his
+discourse of a _Middle Life_,[1] _viz._ That _the qualities of a
+middle life do remain in things that are transchanged:_ For I cannot
+understand what he means by a middle life; whether it be a life that
+is between the strongest and weakest, or whether he means a life
+between the time of production and dissolution, or between the time of
+conception and production; or whether he means a life that is between
+two sorts of substances, as more then an Animal, and not so high and
+excellent as an Angel; or whether he means a middle life for places,
+as neither in Heaven nor in Hell, but in Purgatory, or neither in, nor
+out of the world, or any other kind of life: Wherefore I'le leave this
+Hermaphroditical or neutral life to better understandings then mine.
+Likewise I must confess my disability of conceiving the overshadowing
+of his _Archeus_, and _how it brings this middle life into its first
+life._ For concerning Generation, I know of none that is performed by
+overshadowing, except it be the miraculous conception of the blessed
+Virgin, as Holy Writ informs us; and I hope your _Author_ will not
+compare his _Archeus_ to the Holy Spirit; But how a middle life may
+be brought again into the first life, is altogether unconceivable to
+me: And so is that, when he says, that the _first life of the Fruit
+is the last of the seed_; for I cannot imagine, that the seed dies
+in the fruit; but, in my opinion, it lives rather in the fruit, and
+is numerously increased, as appears by the production of seed from
+the fruit. But the most difficult of all to be understood, are his
+_Ideas_,[2] which he makes _certain seminal Images, Formal Lights,
+and operative means, whereby the soul moves and governs the body_;
+whose number and variety is so great, as it transcends my capacity,
+there being _Ideas_ of Inclination, of Affection, of Consideration or
+Judgment, of Passion, and these either mild, or violent, besides a
+great number of Archeal and forreign Ideas. Truly, _Madam_, I cannot
+admire enough the powerful effects of these Ideas, they themselves
+being no substances or material Creatures; For how that can pierce,
+seal, and print a figure, which hath neither substance nor matter, my
+reason is not able to comprehend, since there can be no figure without
+matter or substance, they being inseparably united together, so, that
+where figure is, there is also substance, and where substance is, there
+is also figure; neither can any figure be made without a substance.
+You may say, Ideas, though they are not material or corporeal beings
+themselves, yet they may put on figures, and take bodies when they
+please: I answer, That then they can do more then Immaterial Spirits;
+for the Learned say, That Immaterial Spirits are Immaterial substances;
+but your _Author_ says, that Ideas are no substances; and I think it
+would be easier for a substance to take a body, then for that which is
+no substance: But your _Author_ might have placed his Ideas as well
+amongst the number of Immaterial Spirits, to wit, amongst Angels and
+Devils, and then we should not have need to seek far for the causes of
+the different natures and dispositions of Mankind, but we might say,
+that Ill-natured men proceeded from Evil, and Good-natured men from
+Good Spirits or Ideas. However, _Madam_, I do not deny Ideas, Images,
+or Conceptions of things, but I deny them onely to be such powerful
+beings and Principal efficient Causes of Natural effects; especially
+they being to your _Author_ neither bodies nor substances themselves.
+And as for the _Figure of a Cherry_, which your _Author_ makes so
+frequent a repetition of, made by a longing Woman on her Child; I dare
+say that there have been millions of Women, which have longed for some
+or other thing, and have not been satisfied with their desires, and
+yet their Children have never had on their bodies the prints or marks
+of those things they longed for: but because some such figures are
+sometimes made by the irregular motions of animate Matter, would this
+be a sufficient proof, that all Conceptions, Ideas and Images have
+the like effects, after the same manner, by piercing or penetrating
+each other, and sealing or printing such or such a figure upon the
+body of the Child? Lastly, I cannot but smile when I read that your
+_Author_ makes a _Disease proceed from a non-being to a substantial
+being_: Which if so, then a disease, according to his opinion, is
+made as the World was, that is, out of Nothing; but surely luxurious
+persons find it otherwise, who eat and drink more then their natural
+digestive motions can dispose; for those that have infirm bodies,
+caused by the irregular motions of animate matter, find that a disease
+proceeds from more then a _non_-being. But, _Madam_, I have neither
+such an _Archeus_, which can produce, in my mind, an Idea of Consent
+or approbation of these your _Authors_ opinions, nor such a light that
+is able to produce a beam of Patience to tarry any longer upon the
+examination of them; Wherefore I beg your leave to cut off my discourse
+here, and onely to subscribe my self, as really I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ called _Magnum oporter_.
+
+[2] Of the Ideas of Diseases.
+
+
+
+
+XII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I cannot well apprehend your _Authors_ meaning, when he says,[1] That
+_Nature doth rise from its fall_; for if he understands Nature in
+general, I cannot imagine how she should fall and rise; for though Man
+did fall, yet Nature never did, nor cannot fall, being Infinite: And
+therefore in another place,[2] when he saith, that _Nature first being
+a beautiful Virgin, was defiled by sin; not by her own, but by Mans
+sin, for whose use she was created_; I think it too great a presumption
+and arrogancy to say that Infinite Nature was not onely defiled by the
+sin of Man, but also to make Man the chief over all Nature, and to
+believe Nature was onely made for his sake; when as he is but a small
+finite part of Infinite Nature, and almost Nothing in comparison to
+it. But I suppose your _Author_ doth not understand Nature in general,
+but onely the nature of some Particulars, when he speaks of the fall
+and rise of Nature; however, this fall and rise of the nature of
+Particulars, is nothing but a change of their natural motions. And so
+likewise, I suppose, he understands the nature of Particulars, when
+he says in another place,[3] That Nature in diseases is standing,
+sitting, and lying; for surely Nature in general has more several
+postures then sitting, standing, or lying: As also when he speaks[4] of
+the _Vertues and Properties that stick fast in the bosom of Nature_,
+which I conceive to be a Metaphorical expression; although I think it
+best to avoid Metaphorical, similizing, and improper expressions in
+Natural Philosophy, as much as one can; for they do rather obscure
+then explain the truth of Nature; nay, your _Author_ himself is of
+this opinion,[5] and yet he doth nothing more frequent then bring in
+Metaphors and similitudes. But to speak properly, there is not any
+thing that sticks fast in the bosom of Nature, for Nature is in a
+perpetual motion: Neither can she be _heightened or diminished by Art_;
+for Nature will be Nature in despite of her Hand-maid. And as for your
+_Authors_ opinion, That _there are no Contraries in Nature_, I am quite
+of a contrary mind, that there is a Perpetual war and discord amongst
+the parts of Nature, although not in the nature and substance of
+Infinite Matter, which is of a simple kind, and knows no contraries in
+it self, but lives in Peace, when as the several actions are opposing
+and crossing each other; and truly, I do not believe, that there is any
+part or Creature of Nature, that hath not met with opposers, let it be
+never so small or great. But as War is made by the division of Natures
+parts, and variety of natural actions, so Peace is caused by the unity
+and simplicity of the nature and essence of onely Matter, which Nature
+is peaceable, being always one and the same, and having nothing in it
+self to be crossed or opposed by; when as the actions of Nature, or
+natural Matter, are continually driving against each other, as being
+various and different. Again your _Author_ says, That _a Specifical
+being cannot be altered but by Fire, and that Fire is the Death of
+other Creatures: also that Alchymy, as it brings many things to a
+degree of greater efficacy, and stirs up a new being, so on the other
+hand again, it by a privy filching doth enfeeble many things._ I, for
+my part, wonder, that Fire, being as your _Author_ says, no substantial
+body, but substanceless in its nature, should work such effects; but
+however, I believe there are many alterations without Fire, and many
+things which cannot be altered by Fire. What your _Authors_ meaning
+is of a _new being_, I know not; for, to my reason, there neither is;
+nor can be made any new being in Nature, except we do call the change
+of motions and figures a new Creation; but then an old suit turned or
+dressed up may be called new too. Neither can I conceive his _Filching
+or Stealing_: For Nature has or keeps nothing within her self, but
+what is her own; and surely she cannot steal from her self; nor can
+Art steal from Nature; she may trouble Nature, or rather make variety
+in Nature, but not take any thing from her, for Art is the insnarled
+motions of Nature: But your _Author_, being a Chymist, is much for
+the Art of Fire, although it is impossible for Art to work as Nature
+doth; for Art makes of natural Creatures artificial Monsters, and doth
+oftner obscure and disturb Natures ordinary actions, then prove any
+Truth in Nature. But Nature loving variety doth rather smile at Arts
+follies, then that she should be angry with her curiosity: like as
+for example, a Poet will smile in expressing the part or action of a
+Fool. Wherefore Pure natural Philosophers, shall by natural sense and
+reason, trace Natures ways, and observe her actions, more readily then
+Chymists can do by Fire and Furnaces; for Fire and Furnaces do often
+delude the Reason, blind the Understanding, and make the Judgment
+stagger. Nevertheless, your _Author_ is so taken with Fire, that from
+thence he imagines a Formal Light, which he believes to be the Tip-top
+of Life; but certainly, he had, in my opinion, not so much light as to
+observe, that all sorts of light are but Creatures, and not Creators;
+for he judges of several Parts of Matter, as if they were several kinds
+of Matter, which causes him often to err, although he conceits himself
+without any Error. In which conceit I leave him, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Nature is ignorant of Contraries.
+
+[2] In the Hist. of _Tartar_.
+
+[3] _Ch._ Disease is an unknown guest.
+
+[4] Nature is ignorant of Contraries.
+
+[5] _Ch._ The Image of the Ferment begets the Mass with Child.
+
+
+
+
+XIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+The Art of Fire, as I perceive, is in greater esteem and respect
+with your _Author_, then Nature her self: For he says,[1] That _some
+things can be done by Art, which Nature cannot do_; nay he calls[2]
+_Art_ The _Mistress of Nature, and subjects whole Nature unto Chymical
+speculation_; For, _nothing_, says he,[3] _doth more fully bring a Man,
+that is greedy of knowing, to the knowledg of all things knowable,
+then the Fire; for the root or radical knowledg of natural things
+consists in the Fire:_[4] _It pierces the secrets of Nature, and
+causes a further searching out in Nature, then all other Sciences,
+being put together; and pierces even into the utmost depths of real
+truth:_[5] _It creates things which never were before._ These, and
+many more the like expressions, he has in the praise of Chymistry. And
+truly, _Madam_, I cannot blame your _Author_, for commending this Art,
+because it was his own profession, and no man will be so unwise as to
+dispraise his own Art which he professes; but whether those praises
+and commendations do not exceed truth, and express more then the Art
+of Fire can perform, I will let those judg, that have more knowledg
+therein then I: But this I may say, That what Art or Science soever
+is in Nature, let it be the chief of all, yet it can never be call'd
+the Mistress of Nature, nor be said to perform more then Nature doth,
+except it be by a divine and supernatural Power; much less to create
+things which never were before, for this is an action which onely
+belongs to God: The truth is, Art is but a Particular effect of Nature,
+and as it were, Nature's Mimick or Fool, in whose playing actions she
+sometimes takes delight; nay, your _Author_ confesses it himself, when
+he calls[6] the _Art_ of _Chymistry, Nature's emulating Ape_, and _her
+Chamber-maid_, and yet he says, _she is now and then the Mistress of
+Nature_; which in my opinion doth not agree: for I cannot conceive how
+it is possible to be a Chambermaid, and yet to be the Mistress too;
+I suppose your _Author_ believes, they justle sometimes each other
+out, or take by turns one anothers place. But whatever his opinion
+be, I am sure, that the Art of Fire cannot create and produce so, as
+Nature doth, nor dissolve substances so, as she doth, nor transform and
+transchange, as she doth, nor do any effect like Nature: And therefore
+I cannot so much admire this Art as others do, for it appears to me,
+rather to be a troubler, then an assistant to Nature, producing more
+Monsters then perfect Creatures; nay, it rather doth shut the Gates
+of Truth, then unlock the Gates of Nature: For how can Art inform us
+of Nature, when as it is but an effect of Nature? You may say, The
+cause cannot be better known then by its effect; for the knowledg of
+the effect, leads us to the knowledg of the cause. I answer, 'Tis
+true: but you will consider, that Nature is an Infinite cause, and has
+Infinite effects; and if you knew all the Infinite effects in nature,
+then perhaps you might come to some knowledg of the cause; but to know
+nature by one single effect, as art is, is impossible; nay, no man
+knows this particular effect as yet perfectly; For who is he, that has
+studied the art of fire so, as to produce all that this art may be able
+to afford? witness the Philosophers-stone. Besides, how is it possible
+to find out the onely cause by so numerous variations of the effects?
+Wherefore it is more easie, in my opinion, to know the various effects
+in Nature by studying the Prime cause, then by the uncertain study of
+the inconstant effects to arrive to the true knowledg of the prime
+cause; truly it is much easier to walk in a Labyrinth without a Guide,
+then to gain a certain knowledg in any one art or natural effect,
+without Nature her self be the guide, for Nature is the onely Mistress
+and cause of all, which, as she has made all other effects, so she
+has also made arts for varieties sake; but most men study Chymistry
+more for imployment, then for profit; not but that I believe, there
+may be some excellent Medicines found out and made by that art, but
+the expence and labour is more then the benefit; neither are all those
+Medicines sure and certain, nor in all diseases safe; neither can
+this art produce so many medicines as there are several diseases in
+Nature, and for the Universal Medicine, and the Philosophers-stone or
+Elixir, which Chymists brag of so much; it consists rather in hope
+and expectation, then in assurance; for could Chymists find it out,
+they would not be so poor, as most commonly they are, but richer then
+_Solomon_ was, or any Prince in the World, and might have done many
+famous acts with the supply of their vast Golden Treasures, to the
+eternal and immortal fame of their Art; nay, Gold being the Idol of
+this world, they would be worshipped as well for the sake of Gold, as
+for their splendorous Art; but how many have endeavored and laboured
+in vain and without any effect? _Gold is easier to be made, then to be
+destroyed_, says your _Author,_[7] but I believe one is as difficult or
+impossible, nay more, then the other; for there is more probability of
+dissolving or destroying a natural effect by Art, then of generating
+or producing one; for Art cannot go beyond her sphere of activity, she
+can but produce an artificial effect, and Gold is a natural Creature;
+neither were it Justice, that a particular creature of Nature should
+have as much power to act or work as Nature her self; but because
+neither Reason, nor Art has found out as yet such a powerful opposite
+to Gold, as can alter its nature; men therefore conclude that it
+cannot be done. Your _Author_ relates[8] to have seen the Gold-making
+stone, which he says, was of colour such, as Saffron is in its powder,
+but weighty and shining like unto powder'd Glass; one fourth part of
+one grain thereof, (a grain he reckons the six hundredth part of one
+ounce) being projected upon eight ounces of Quicksilver made hot in a
+Crucible, and straight way there were found eight ounces, and a little
+less then eleven grains of the purest Gold; therefore one onely grain
+of that powder had transchanged 19186 parts of Quicksilver, equal to
+it self, into the best Gold. Truly, _Madam_, I wish with all my heart,
+the poor Royalists had had some quantity of that powder; and I assure
+you, that if it were so, I my self would turn a Chymist to gain so much
+as to repair my Noble Husbands losses, that his noble family might
+flourish the better. But leaving Gold, since it is but a vain wish,
+I do verily believe, that some of the Chymical medicines do, in some
+desperate cases, many times produce more powerful and sudden effects
+then the medicines of Galenists, and therefore I do not absolutely
+condemn the art of Fire, as if I were an enemy to it; but I am of an
+opinion, that my Opinions in _Philosophy_, if well understood, will
+rather give a light to that art, then obscure its worth; for if
+Chymists did but study well the corporeal motions or actions of Natures
+substantial body; they would, by their observations, understand Nature
+better, then they do by the observation of the actions of their Art;
+and out of this consideration and respect, I should almost have an
+ambition, to become an Artist in Chymistry, were I not too lazie and
+tender for that imployment; but should I quit the one, and venture
+the other, I am so vain as to perswade my self, I might perform
+things worthy my labour upon the ground of my own Philosophy, which
+is substantial Life, Sense, and Reason; for I would not study Salt,
+Sulphur, and Mercury, but the Natural motions of every Creature, and
+observe the variety of Natures actions. But, perchance, you will smile
+at my vain conceit, and, it may be, I my self, should repent of my
+pains unsuccessfully bestowed, my time vainly spent, my health rashly
+endangered, and my Noble Lords Estate unprofitably wasted, in fruitless
+tryals and experiments; Wherefore you may be sure, that I will consider
+well before I act; for I would not lose Health, Wealth, and Fame,
+and do no more then others have done, which truly is not much, their
+effects being of less weight then their words. But in the mean time,
+my study shall be bent to your service, and how to express my self
+worthily,
+
+MADAM,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] Ch. _called_, The Essay of a Meteor.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Heat doth not digest efficiently, but excitingly.
+
+[3] _Ch._ The ignorant natural Philosophy of _Aristotle_ and _Galen_.
+
+[4] _Ch._ A modern Pharmacopoly and dispensatory.
+
+[5] _Ch._ Of the Power of Medicines.
+
+[6] _Ch._ Heat doth not digest efficiently, but excitingly.
+
+[7] _Ch._ The first Principles of the Chymists, not the Essences of the
+same are of the Army of Diseases.
+
+[8] In the _Ch._ Of Life Eternal, and in the _Ch._ Of the Tree of Life.
+
+
+
+
+XIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have read your _Authors_ discourse concerning _Sensation_,[1] but it
+was as difficult to me to understand it, ash was tedious to read it;
+Truly, all the business, might have been easily declared in a short
+Chapter, and with more clearness and perspicuity: For Sensation, is
+nothing else but the action of sense proceeding from the corporeal
+sensitive motions, which are in all Creatures or parts of Nature, and
+so all have sense and sensation, although not alike after one and the
+same manner, but some more, some less, each according to the nature and
+propriety of its figure. But your _Author_ speaks of _Motion without
+Sense, and Sense without Motion_, which is a meer impossibility; for
+there is not, nor cannot be any Motion in Nature without Sense, nor
+any Sense without Motion; there being no Creature without self-motion,
+although not always perceptible by us, or our external senses; for all
+motion is not exteriously local, and visible. Wherefore, not any part
+of Nature, according to my opinion, wants Sense and Reason, Life and
+Knowledg; but not such a substanceless Life as your _Author_ describes,
+but a substantial, that is a corporeal Life. Neither is Light the
+principle of Motion, but Motion, is the principle of Light: Neither is
+Heat the principle of Motion, but its effect as well as Cold is; for
+I cannot perceive that Heat should be more active then Cold. Neither
+is there any such thing as Unsensibleness in Nature, except it be in
+respect of some particular Sensation in some particular Figure: As
+for example, when an Animal dies, or its Figure is dissolved from the
+Figure of an Animal; we may say it hath not animal sense or motion,
+but we cannot say, it hath no sense or motion at all; for as long as
+Matter is in Nature, Sense and Motion will be; so that it is absurd and
+impossible to believe, or at least to think, that Matter, as a body,
+can be totally deprived of Life, Sense, and Motion, or that Life can
+perish and be corrupted, be it the smallest part of Matter conceivable,
+and the same turned or changed into millions of Figures; for the
+Life and Soul of Nature is self-moving Matter, which by Gods Power,
+and leave, is the onely Framer and Maker, as also the Dissolver and
+Transformer of all Creatures in Nature, making as well Light, Heat, and
+Cold, Gas, Blas, and Ferments, as all other natural Creatures beside,
+as also Passions, Appetites, Digestions, Nourishments, Inclination,
+Aversion, Sickness and Health; nay, all Particular Ideas, Thoughts,
+Fancies, Conceptions, Arts, Sciences, &c. In brief, it makes all that
+is to be made in Nature. But many great Philosophers conceive Nature to
+be fuller of Intricacy, Difficulty, and Obscurity, then she is, puzling
+themselves about her ordinary actions, which yet are easie and free,
+and making their arguments hard, constrained, and mystical, many of
+them containing neither sense nor reason; when as, in my opinion, there
+is nothing else to be studied in Nature, but her substance and her
+actions. But I will leave them to their own Fancies and Humors, and say
+no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] Of the Disease of the Stone. _Ch._ 9.
+
+
+
+
+XV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning Sympathy and Antipathy, and attractive or magnetick
+Inclinations, which some do ascribe to the influence of the Stars,
+others to an unknown Spirit as the Mover, others to the Instinct of
+Nature, hidden Proprieties, and certain formal Vertues; but your
+_Author_,[1] doth attribute to _directing Ideas, begotten by their
+Mother Charity, or a desire of Good Will_, and calls it[2] a _Gift
+naturally inherent in the Archeusses of either part_: If you please
+to have my opinion thereof, I think they are nothing else but plain
+ordinary Passions and Appetites. As for example: I take Sympathy, as
+also Magnetisme or attractive Power, to be such agreeable Motions
+in one part or Creature, as do cause a Fancy, love and desire to
+some other part or Creature; and Antipathy, when these Motions are
+disagreeable, and produce contrary effects, as dislike, hate and
+aversion to some part or Creature. And as there are many sorts of such
+motions, so there are many sorts of Sympathyes and Antipathyes, or
+Attractions and Aversions, made several manners or ways; For in some
+subjects, Sympathy requires a certain distance; as for example, in
+Iron and the Loadstone; for if the Iron be too far off, the Loadstone
+cannot exercise its power, when as in other subjects, there is no need
+of any such certain distance, as betwixt the Needle and the North-pole,
+as also the Weapon-salve; for the Needle will turn it self towards
+the North, whether it be near or far off from the North-pole; and
+so, be the Weapon which inflicted the wound, never so far from the
+wounded Person, as they say, yet it will nevertheless do its effect:
+But yet there must withal be some conjunction with the blood; for as
+your _Author_ mentions,[3] the Weapon shall be in vain anointed with
+the Unguent, unless it be made bloody, and the same blood be first
+dried on the same Weapon. Likewise the sounding of two eights when one
+is touched, must be done within a certain distance: the same may be
+said of all Infectious and catching Diseases amongst Animals, where
+the Infection, be it the Infected Air, or a Poysonous Vapour, or any
+thing else, must needs touch the body, and enter either through the
+Mouth, or Nostrils, or Ears, or Pores of the body; for though the
+like Antipathies of Infectious Diseases, as of the Plague, may be in
+several places far distant and remote from each other at one and the
+same time, yet they cannot infect particular Creatures, or Animals,
+without coming near, or without the sense of Touch: For example; the
+Plague may be in the _East Indies_, and in this Kingdom, at one and
+the same time, and yet be strangers to each other; for although all
+Men are of Mankind, yet all have not Sympathy or Antipathy to each
+other; the like of several Plagues, although they be of the same kind
+of disease, yet, being in several places at one time, they may not
+be a kin to each other, nor one be produced by the other, except
+the Plague be brought over out of an infected Country, into a sound
+Country, by some means or other. And thus some Sympathy and Antipathy
+is made by a close conjunction, or corporeal uniting of parts, but not
+all; neither is it required, that all Sympathy and Antipathy must be
+mutual, or equally in both Parties, so that that part or party, which
+has a Sympathetical affection or inclination to the other, must needs
+receive the like sympathetical affection from that part again; for one
+man may have a sympathetical affection to another man, when as this
+man hath an antipathetical aversion to him; and the same may be, for
+ought we know, betwixt Iron and the Loadstone, as also betwixt the
+Needle and the North; for the Needle may have a sympathy towards the
+North, but not again the North towards the Needle; and so may the Iron
+have towards the Loadstone, but not again the Loadstone towards the
+Iron: Neither is Sympathy or Antipathy made by the issuing out of any
+invisible rayes, for then the rays betwixt the North and the Needle
+would have a great way to reach: But a sympathetical inclination in
+a Man towards another, is made either by sight, or hearing; either
+present, or absent: the like of infectious Diseases. I grant, that
+if both Parties do mutually affect each other, and their motions be
+equally agreeable; then the sympathy is the stronger, and will last
+the longer, and then there is a Union, Likeness, or Conformableness,
+of their Actions, Appetites, and Passions; For this kind of Sympathy
+works no other effects, but a conforming of the actions of one party,
+to the actions of the other, as by way of Imitation, proceeding from
+an internal sympathetical love and desire to please; for Sympathy
+doth not produce an effect really different from it self, or else the
+sympathy betwixt Iron and the Loadstone would produce a third Creature
+different from themselves, and so it would do in all other Creatures.
+But as I mentioned above, there are many sorts of attractions in
+Nature, and many several and various attractions onely in one sort of
+Creatures, nay, so many in one particular as not to be numbred; for
+there are many Desires, Passions, and Appetites, which draw or intice a
+man to something or other, as for example, to Beauty, Novelty, Luxury,
+Covetousness, and all kinds of Vertues and Vices; and there are many
+particular objects in every one of these, as for example, in Novelty.
+For there are so many several desires to Novelty, as there are Senses,
+and so many Novelties that satisfie those desires, as a Novelty to the
+Ear, a Novelty to the Sight, to Touch, Taste, and Smell; besides in
+every one of these, there are many several objects; To mention onely
+one example, for the novelty of Sight; I have seen an Ape, drest like a
+Cavalier, and riding on Horse-back with his sword by his side, draw a
+far greater multitude of People after him, then a Loadstone of the same
+bigness of the Ape would have drawn Iron; and as the Ape turn'd, so did
+the People, just like as the Needle turns to the North; and this is
+but one object in one kind of attraction, _viz._ Novelty: but there be
+Millions of objects besides. In like manner good cheer draws abundance
+of People, as is evident, and needs no Demonstration. Wherefore, as I
+said in the beginning, Sympathy is nothing else but natural Passions
+and Appetites, as Love, Desire, Fancy, Hunger, Thirst, &c. and its
+effects are Concord, Unity, Nourishment, and the like: But Antipathy is
+Dislike, Hate, Fear, Anger, Revenge, Aversion, Jealousie, &c. and its
+effects are Discord, Division, and the like. And such an Antipathy is
+between a Wolf and a Sheep, a Hound and a Hare, a Hawk and a Partridg,
+&c. For this Antipathy is nothing else but fear in the Sheep to run
+away from the Wolf, in the Hare to run from the Hound, and in the
+Partridg to flie from the Hawk; for Life has an Antipathy to that
+which is named Death; and the Wolf's stomack hath a sympathy to food,
+which causes him to draw neer, or run after those Creatures he has a
+mind to feed on. But you will say, some Creatures will fight, and kill
+each other, not for Food, but onely out of an Antipathetical nature. I
+answer: When as Creatures fight, and endeavour to destroy each other,
+if it be not out of necessity, as to preserve and defend themselves
+from hurt or danger, then it is out of revenge, or anger, or ambition,
+or jealousie, or custom of quarrelling, or breeding. As for example:
+Cocks of the Game, that are bred to fight with each other, and many
+other Creatures, as Bucks, Staggs, and the like, as also Birds, will
+fight as well as Men, and seek to destroy each other through jealousie;
+when as, had they no Females amongst them, they would perhaps live
+quiet enough, rather as sympathetical Friends, then antipathetical
+Foes; and all such Quarrels proceed from a sympathy to their own
+interest. But you may ask me, what the reason is, that some Creatures,
+as for example, Mankind, some of them, will not onely like one sort
+of meat better then another of equal goodness and nourishment, but
+will like and prefer sometimes a worse sort of meat before the best,
+to wit, such as hath neither a good taste nor nourishment? I answer:
+This is nothing else, but a particular, and most commonly an inconstant
+Appetite; for after much eating of that they like best, especially if
+they get a surfeit, their appetite is chang'd to aversion; for then all
+their feeding motions and parts have as much, if not more antipathy
+to those meats, as before they had a sympathy to them. Again, you may
+ask me the reason, why a Man seeing two persons together, which are
+strangers to him, doth affect one better then the other; nay, if one of
+these Persons be deformed or ill-favoured, and the other well-shaped
+and handsom; yet it may chance, that the deformed Person shall be more
+acceptable in the affections and eyes of the beholder, then he that
+is handsom? I answer: There is no Creature so deformed, but hath some
+agreeable and attractive parts, unless it be a Monster, which is never
+loved, but for its rarity and novelty, and Nature is many times pleased
+with changes, taking delight in variety: and the proof that such a
+sympathetical affection proceeds from some agreeableness of Parts,
+is, that if those persons were vail'd, there would not proceed such a
+partial choice or judgment from any to them. You may ask me further,
+whether Passion and Appetite are also the cause of the sympathy which
+is in the Loadstone towards Iron, and in the Needle towards the North?
+I answer, Yes: for it is either for nourishment, or refreshment, or
+love and desire of association, or the like, that the Loadstone draws
+Iron, and the Needle turns towards the North. The difference onely
+betwixt the sympathy in the Needle towards the North, and betwixt the
+sympathy in the Loadstone towards the Iron is, that the Needle doth
+always turn towards the North, but the Loadstone doth not always draw
+Iron: The reason is, because the sympathy of the Needle towards the
+North requires no certain distance, as I said in the beginning; and the
+North-pole continuing constantly in the same place, the Needle knows
+whither to turn; when as the sympathy between the Loadstone and Iron
+requires a certain distance, and when the Loadstone is not within this
+compass or distance, it cannot perform its effect, to wit, to draw the
+Iron, but the effect ceases, although the cause remains in vigour. The
+same may be said of the Flower that turns towards the Sun; for though
+the Sun be out of sight, yet the Flower watches for the return of the
+Sun, from which it receives benefit: Like as faithful Servants watch
+and wait for their Master, or hungry Beggers at a Rich man's door for
+relief; and so doth the aforesaid Flower; nay, not the Flower onely,
+but any thing that has freedom and liberty of motion, will turn towards
+those Places or Creatures whence it expects relief. Concerning ravenous
+Beasts that feed on dead Carcasses, they, having more eager appetites
+then food, make long flights into far distant Countries to seek food to
+live on; but surely, I think, if they had food enough at home, although
+not dead Carcasses, they would not make such great Journies; or if a
+battel were fought, and many slain, and they upon their journey should
+meet with sufficient food, they would hardly travel further before they
+had devoured that food first: But many Birds travel for the temper of
+the Air, as well as for food, witness Woodcocks, Cranes, Swallows,
+Fieldfares, and the like; some for cold, some for hot, and some for
+temperate Air. And as for such Diseases as are produced by conceit
+and at distance, the cause is, the fearfulness of the Patient, which
+produces Irregularities in the Mind, and these occasion Irregularities
+in the Body, which produce such a disease, as the Mind did fearfully
+apprehend; when as without that Passion and Irregularity, the Patient
+would, perhaps, not fall sick of that disease, But to draw towards an
+end, I'le answer briefly to your _Authors_ alledged example[4] which
+he gives of Wine, that it is troubled while the Vine flowreth: The
+reason, in my opinion, may perhaps be, that the Wine being the effect
+of the Vine, and proceeding from its stock as the producer, has not so
+quite alter'd Nature, as not to be sensible at all of the alteration
+of the Vine; For many effects do retain the proprieties of their
+causes; for example, many Children are generated, which have the same
+proprieties of their Parents, who do often propagate some or other
+vertuous or vicious qualities with their off-spring; And this is rather
+a proof that there are sensitive and rational motions, and sensitive
+and rational knowledge in all Creatures, and so in Wine, according to
+the nature or propriety of its Figure; for without motion, sense and
+reason, no effect could be; nor no sympathy or antipathy. But it is
+to be observed, that many do mistake the true Causes, and ascribe an
+effect to some cause, which is no more the cause of that same effect,
+then a particular Creature is the cause of Nature; and so they are apt
+to take the Fiddle for the hot Bricks, as if the Fiddle did make the
+Ass dance, when as it was the hot Bricks that did it; for several
+effects may proceed from one cause, and one effect from several causes;
+and so in the aforesaid example, the Wine may perhaps be disturbed by
+the alteration of the weather at the same time of the flowring of the
+Vines; and so may Animals, as well as Vegetables, and other Creatures,
+alter alike at one and the same point of time, and yet none be the
+cause of each others alteration. And thus, to shut up my discourse, I
+repeat again, that sympathy and antipathy are nothing else but ordinary
+Passions and Appetites amongst several Creatures, which Passions
+are made by the rational animate Matter, and the Appetites by the
+sensitive, both giving such or such motions, to such or such Creatures;
+for cross motions in Appetites and passions make Antipathy, and
+agreeable motions in Appetites and Passions make Sympathy, although the
+Creatures be different, wherein these motions, Passions and Appetites
+are made; and as without an object a Pattern cannot be, so without
+inherent or natural Passions and Appetites there can be no Sympathy or
+Antipathy: And there being also such Sympathy betwixt your Ladiship and
+me, I think my self the happiest Creature for it; and shall make it my
+whole study to imitate your Ladiship, and conform all my actions to the
+rule and pattern of yours, as becomes,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_faithful Friend, and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of Sympathetical Mediums.
+
+[2] In the Plague-Grave.
+
+[3] In the Magnetick care of Wounds.
+
+[4] _Ch._ Of the Magnetick Power.
+
+
+
+
+XVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+My opinion of Witches and Witchcraft, (of whose Power and strange
+effects your _Author_ is pleased to relate many stories) in brief,
+is this; My Sense and Reason doth inform me, that there is Natural
+Witchcraft, as I may call it, which is Sympathy, Antipathy, Magnetisme,
+and the like, which are made by the sensitive and rational motions
+between several Creatures, as by Imagination, Fancy, Love, Aversion,
+and many the like; but these Motions, being sometimes unusual and
+strange to us, we not knowing their causes, (For what Creature knows
+all motions in Nature, and their ways?) do stand amazed at their
+working power; and by reason we cannot assign any Natural cause for
+them, are apt to ascribe their effects to the Devil; but that there
+should be any such devillish Witchcraft, which is made by a Covenant
+and Agreement with the Devil, by whose power Men do enchaunt or bewitch
+other Creatures, I cannot readily believe. Certainly, I dare say,
+that many a good, old honest woman hath been condemned innocently,
+and suffered death wrongfully, by the sentence of some foolish and
+cruel Judges, meerly upon this suspition of Witchcraft, when as really
+there hath been no such thing; for many things are done by slights
+or juggling Arts, wherein neither the Devil nor Witches are Actors.
+And thus an Englishman whose name was _Banks_, was like to be burnt
+beyond the Seas for a Witch, as I have been inform'd, onely for making
+a Horse shew tricks by Art; There have been also several others; as
+one that could vomit up several kinds of Liquors and other things:
+and another who did make a Drum beat of it self. But all these were
+nothing but slights and jugling tricks; as also the talking and walking
+Bell; and the Brazen-Head which spake these words, _Time was, Time
+is_, and _Time is past_, and so fell down; Which may easily have been
+performed by speaking through a Pipe conveighed into the said head:
+But such and the like trifles will amaze many grave and wise men, when
+they do not know the manner or way how they are done, so as they are
+apt to judg them to be effected by Witchcraft or Combination with the
+Devil. But, as I said before, I believe there is Natural Magick; which
+is, that the sensitive and rational Matter oft moves such a way, as
+is unknown to us; and in the number of these is also the bleeding of
+a murdered body at the presence of the Murderer, which your _Author,_
+mentions;[1] for the corporeal motions in the murthered body may move
+so, as to work such effects, which are more then ordinary; for the
+animal Figure, being not so quickly dissolved, the animal motions are
+not so soon altered, (for the dissolving of the Figure is nothing else
+but an alteration of its Motions;) and this dissolution is not done in
+an instant of time, but by degrees: But yet I must confess, it is not a
+common action in Nature, for Nature hath both common, and singular or
+particular actions: As for example, Madness, natural Folly, and many
+the like, are but in some particular persons; for if those actions were
+general, and common, then all, or most men would be either mad, or
+fools, but, though there are too many already, yet all men are not so;
+and so some murthered bodies may bleed or express some alterations at
+the presence of the Murtherer, but I do not believe, that all do so;
+for surely in many, not any alteration will be perceived, and others
+will have the same alterations without the presence of the Murtherer.
+And thus you see, _Madam_, that this is done naturally, without the
+help of the Devil; nay, your _Author_ doth himself confess it to be
+so; for, says he, _The act of the Witch is plainly Natural; onely the
+stirring up of the vertue or power in the Witch comes from Satan._
+But I cannot understand what your _Author_ means, by the departing of
+spiritual rays from the Witch into Man, or any other animal, which she
+intends to kill or hurt; nor how Spirits wander about in the Air, and
+have their mansions there; for men may talk as well of impossibilities,
+as of such things which are not composed of Natural Matter: If man were
+an Incorporeal Spirit himself, he might, perhaps, sooner conceive the
+essence of a Spirit, as being of the same Nature; but as long as he is
+material, and composed of Natural Matter, he might as well pretend to
+know the Essence of God, as of an Incorporeal Spirit. Truly, I must
+confess, I have had some fancies oftentimes of such pure and subtil
+substances, purer and subtiler then the Sky or �thereal substance is,
+whereof I have spoken in my Poetical Works; but these substances, which
+I conceived within my fancy, were material, and had bodies, though
+never so small and subtil; for I was never able to conceive a substance
+abstracted from all Matter, for even Fancy it self is material, and
+all Thoughts and Conceptions are made by the rational Matter, and
+so are those which Philosophers call Animal Spirits, but a material
+Fancy cannot produce immaterial effects, that is, Ideas of Incorporeal
+Spirits: And this was the cause that in the first impression of my
+_Philosophical Opinions_, I named the sensitive and rational Matter,
+sensitive and rational Spirits, because of its subtilty, activity
+and agility; not that I thought them to be immaterial, but material
+Spirits: but since Spirits are commonly taken to be immaterial, and
+Spirit and Body are counted opposite to one another, to prevent
+a misapprehension in the thoughts of my Readers, as if I meant
+Incorporeal Spirits, I altered this expression in the last Edition, and
+call'd it onely sensitive and rational Matter, or, which is all one,
+sensitive and rational corporeal motions. You will say, perhaps, That
+the divine Soul in Man is a Spirit: but I desire you to call to mind
+what I oftentimes have told you, to wit, that when I speak of the Soul
+of Man, I mean onely the Natural, not the Divine Soul; which as she is
+supernatural, so she acts also supernaturally; but all the effects of
+the natural Soul, of which I discourse, are natural, and not divine or
+supernatural. But to return to Magnetisme; I am absolutely of opinion,
+that it is naturally effected by natural means, without the concurrence
+of Immaterial Spirits either good or bad, meerly by natural corporeal
+sensitive and rational motions; and, for the most part, there must be a
+due approach between the Agent and the Patient, or otherwise the effect
+will hardly follow, as you may see by the Loadstone and Iron; Neither
+is the influence of the Stars performed beyond a certain distance,
+that is, such a distance as is beyond sight or their natural power to
+work; for if their light comes to our Eyes, I know no reason against
+it, but their effects may come to our bodies. And as for infectious
+Diseases, they come by a corporeal imitation, as by touch, either of
+the infected air, drawn in by breath, or entring through the pores
+of the Body, or of some things brought from infected places, or else
+by hearing; but diseases, caused by Conceit, have their beginning,
+as all alterations have, from the sensitive and rational Motions,
+which do not onely make the fear and conceit, but also the disease;
+for as a fright will sometimes cure diseases, so it will sometimes
+cause diseases; but as I said, both fright, cure, and the disease, are
+made by the rational and sensitive corporeal motions within the body,
+and not by Supernatural Magick, as Satanical Witchcraft, entering
+from without into the body by spiritual rays. But having discoursed
+hereof in my former Letter, I will not trouble you with an unnecessary
+repetition thereof; I conclude therefore with what I begun, _viz._ that
+I believe natural Magick to be natural corporeal motions in natural
+bodies: Not that I say, Nature in her self is a Magicianess, but it
+may be called natural Magick or Witchcraft, meerly in respect to our
+Ignorance; for though Nature is old, yet she is not a Witch, but a
+grave, wise, methodical Matron, ordering her Infinite family, which are
+her several parts, with ease and facility, without needless troubles
+and difficulties; for these are onely made through the ignorance of
+her several parts or particular Creatures, not understanding their
+Mistress, Nature, and her actions and government, for which they cannot
+be blamed; for how should a part understand the Infinite body, when it
+doth not understand it self; but Nature understands her parts better
+then they do her. And so leaving Wise Nature, and the Ignorance of her
+Particulars, I understand my self so far that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.
+
+
+
+
+XVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am not of your _Authors_[1] opinion, That _Time hath no relation to
+Motion, but that Time and Motion are as unlike and different from each
+other as Finite from Infinite, and that it hath its own essence or
+being Immoveable, Unchangeable, Individable, and unmixed with things,
+nay, that Time is plainly the same with Eternity._ For, in my opinion,
+there can be no such thing as Time in Nature, but what Man calls Time,
+is onely the variation of natural motions; wherefore Time, and the
+alteration of motion, is one and the same thing under two different
+names; and as Matter, Figure, and Motion, are inseparable, so is Time
+inseparably united, or rather the same thing with them, and not a
+thing subsisting by it self; and as long as Matter, Motion and Figure
+have been existent, so long hath Time; and as long as they last, so
+long doth Time. But when I say, Time is the variation of motion, I
+do not mean the motion of the Sun or Moon, which makes Days, Months,
+Years, but the general motions or actions of Nature, which are the
+ground of Time; for were there no Motion, there would be no Time; and
+since Matter is dividable, and in parts, Time is so too; neither hath
+Time any other Relation to Duration, then what Nature her self hath.
+Wherefore your _Author_ is mistaken, when he says, Motion is made in
+Time, for Motion makes Time, or rather is one and the same with Time;
+and Succession is no more a stranger to Motion, then Motion is to
+Nature, as being the action of Nature, which is the Eternal servant of
+God. _But_, says he, _Certain Fluxes of Formerlinesses and Laternesses,
+have respect unto frail moveable things in their motions, wherewith
+they hasten unto the appointed ends of their period, and so unto their
+own death or destruction; but what relation hath all that to Time: for
+therefore also ought Time to run with all and every motion? Verily so
+there should be as many times and durations as there are motions._ I
+answer: To my Reason, there are as many times and durations as there
+are motions; for neither time nor duration can be separated from
+motion, no more then motion can be separated from them, being all one.
+But Time is not Eternity, for Eternity hath no change, although your
+_Author_ makes Time and Eternity all one, and a being or substance by
+it self: Yet I will rather believe _Solomon_, then him, who says, that
+there is a time to be merry, and a time to be sad; a time to mourn, and
+a time to rejoyce, and so forth: making so many divisions of Time as
+there are natural actions; whenas your _Author_ makes natural actions
+strangers to Nature, dividing them from their substances: Which seemeth
+very improbable in the opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_faithful Friend, and humble Servant._
+
+[1] In his Treatise of Time.
+
+
+
+
+XVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Authors_[1] opinion is, That _a bright burning Iron doth not
+burn a dead Carcass after an equal manner as it doth a live one; For
+in live bodies_, saith he, _it primarily hurts the sensitive Soul,
+the which therefore being impatient, rages after a wonderful manner,
+doth by degrees resolve and exasperate its own and vital liquors into
+a sharp poyson, and then contracts the fibres of the flesh, and turns
+them into an escharre, yea, into the way of a coal; but a dead Carcass
+is burnt by bright burning Iron, no otherwise, then if Wood, or if any
+other unsensitive thing should be; that is, it burns by a proper action
+of the fire, but not of the life._ To which opinion, I answer: That my
+Reason cannot conceive any thing to be without life, and so neither
+without sense; for whatsoever hath self-motion, has sense and life; and
+that self-motion is in every Creature, is sufficiently discoursed of in
+my former Letters, and in my _Philosophical Opinions_; for self-motion,
+sense, life, and reason, are the grounds and principles of Nature,
+without which no Creature could subsist. I do not say, That there is
+no difference between the life of a dead Carcass, and a live one,
+for there is a difference between the lives of every Creature; but to
+differ in the manner of life, and to have neither life nor sense at
+all, are quite different things: But your _Author_ affirms himself,
+that all things have a certain sense of feeling, when he speaks of
+Sympathy and Magnetisme, and yet he denies that they have life: And
+others again, do grant life to some Creatures, as to Vegetables, and
+not sense. Thus they vary in their Opinions, and divide sense, life,
+and motion, when all is but one and the same thing; for no life is
+without sense and motion, nor no motion without sense and life; nay,
+not without Reason; for the chief Architect of all Creatures, is
+sensitive and rational Matter. But the mistake is, that most men, do
+not, or will not conceive, that there is a difference and variety
+of the corporeal sensitive and rational motions in every Creature;
+but they imagine, that if all Creatures should have life, sense, and
+reason, they must of necessity have all alike the same motions, without
+any difference; and because they do not perceive the animal motions
+in a Stone or Tree, they are apt to deny to them all life, sense, and
+motion. Truly, _Madam_, I think no man will be so mad, or irrational,
+as to say a Stone is an Animal, or an Animal is a Tree, because a Stone
+and Tree have sense, life, and motion; for every body knows, that their
+Natural figures are different, and if their Natures be different,
+then they cannot have the same Motions, for the corporeal motions do
+make the nature of every particular Creature, and their differences;
+and as the corporeal motions act, work, or move, so is the nature of
+every figure, Wherefore, nobody, I hope, will count me so senseless,
+that I believe sense and life to be after the like manner in every
+particular Creature or part of Nature; as for example, that a Stone or
+Tree has animal motions, and doth see, touch, taste, smell and hear by
+such sensitive organs as an Animal doth; but, my opinion is, that all
+Sense is not bound up to the sensitive organs of an Animal, nor Reason
+to the kernel of a man's brain, or the orifice of the stomack, or the
+fourth ventricle of the brain, or onely to a mans body; for though we
+do not see all Creatures move in that manner as Man or Animals do, as
+to walk, run, leap, ride, &c. and perform exterior acts by various
+local motions; nevertheless, we cannot in reason say, they are void and
+destitute of all motion; For what man knows the variety of motions in
+Nature: Do not we see, that Nature is active in every thing, yea, the
+least of her Creatures. For example; how some things do unanimously
+conspire and agree, others antipathetically flee from each other; and
+how some do increase, others decrease; some dissolve, some consist,
+and how all things are subject to perpetual changes and alterations;
+and do you think all this is done without motion, life, sense, and
+reason? I pray you consider, _Madam_, that there are internal motions
+as well as external, alterative as well as constitutive; and several
+other sorts of motions not perceptible by our senses, and therefore
+it is impossible that all Creatures should move after one sort of
+motions. But you will say, Motion may be granted, but not Life, Sense,
+and Reason. I answer, I would fain know the reason why not; for I am
+confident that no man can in truth affirm the contrary: What is Life,
+but sensitive Motion? what is Reason, but rational motion? and do you
+think, _Madam_, that any thing can move it self without life, sense
+and reason? I, for my part, cannot imagine it should; for it would
+neither know why, whither, nor what way, or how to move. But you may
+reply, Motion may be granted, but not self-motion; and life, sense,
+and reason, do consist in self-motion. I answer: this is impossible;
+for not any thing in Nature can move naturally without natural motion,
+and all natural motion is self-motion. If you say it may be moved by
+another; My answer is, first, that if a thing has no motion in it self,
+but is moved by another which has self-motion, then it must give that
+immovable body motion of its own, or else it could not move, having
+no motion at all; for it must move by the power of motion, which is
+certain; and then it must move either by its own motion, or by a
+communicated or imparted motion; if by a communicated motion, then
+the self-moveable thing or body must transfer its own motion into the
+immoveable, and lose so much of its own motion as it gives away, which
+is impossible, as I have declared heretofore at large, unless it do
+also transfer its moving parts together with it, for motion cannot be
+transfered without substance. But experience and observation witnesseth
+the contrary. Next, I say, if it were possible that one body did
+move another, then most part of natural Creatures, which are counted
+immoveable of themselves, or inanimate, and destitute of self-motion,
+must be moved by a forced or violent, and not by a natural motion; for
+all motion that proceeds from an external agent or moving power, is
+not natural, but forced, onely self-motion is natural; and then one
+thing moving another in this manner, we must at last proceed to such
+a thing which is not moved by another, but hath motion in it self,
+and moves all others; and, perhaps, since man, and the rest of animals
+have self-motion, it might be said, that the motions of all other
+inanimate Creatures, as they call them, doth proceed from them; but man
+being so proud, ambitious, and self-conceited, would soon exclude all
+other animals, and adscribe this power onely to himself, especially
+since he thinks himself onely endued with Reason, and to have this
+prerogative above all the rest, as to be the sole rational Creature
+in the World. Thus you see, _Madam_, what confusion, absurdity, and
+constrained work will follow from the opinion of denying self-motion,
+and so consequently, life and sense to natural Creatures. But I, having
+made too long a digression, will return to your _Authors_ discourse:
+And as for that he says, _A dead Carcass burns by the proper action of
+the fire_, I answer, That if the dissolving motions of the fire be too
+strong for the consistent motions of that body which fire works upon,
+then fire is the cause of its alteration; but if the consistent motions
+of the body be too strong for the dissolving motions of the fire, then
+the fire can make no alteration in it. Again: he says, _Calx vive, at
+long as it remains dry, it gnaws not a dead Carcass; but it presently
+gnaws live flesh, and makes an escharre; and a dead carcass is by lime
+wholly resolved into a liquor, and is combibed, except the bone and
+gristle thereof; but it doth not consume live flesh into a liquor,
+but translates it into an escharre_. I will say no more to this, but
+that I have fully enough declared my opinion before, that the actions
+or motions of life alter in that which is named a dead Carcass, from
+what they were in that which is called a Living body; but although
+the actions of Life alter, yet life is not gone or annihilated; for
+life is life, and remains full the same, but the actions or motions of
+life change and differ in every figure; and this is the cause that the
+actions of Fire, Time, and _Calx-vive_, have not the same effects in a
+dead Carcass, as in a living Body; for the difference of their figures,
+and their different motions, produce different effects in them; and
+this is the cause, that one and the same fire doth not burn or act
+upon all bodies alike: for some it dissolves, and some not; and some
+it hardens, and some it consumes; and some later, some sooner: For put
+things of several natures into the same Fire, and you will see how they
+will burn, or how fire will act upon them after several manners; so
+that fire cannot alter the actions of several bodies to its own blas;
+and therefore, since a living and a dead Body (as they call them) are
+not the same, (for the actions or motions of life, by their change or
+alteration, have altered the nature or figure of the body) the effects
+cannot be the same; for a Carcass has neither the interior nor exterior
+motions of that figure which it was before it was a Carcass, and so the
+figure is quite alter'd from what it was, by the change and alteration
+of the motions. But to conclude, the motions of the exterior Agent,
+and the motions of the Patient, do sometimes joyn and unite, as in one
+action, or to one effect, and sometimes the motions of the Agent are
+onely an occasion, but not a co-workman in the production of such or
+such an effect, as the motions of the Patient do work; neither can the
+motions of the Agent work totally and meerly of themselves, such or
+such effects, without the assistance or concurrence of the motions
+of the Patient, but the motions of the Patient can; and there is
+nothing that can prove more evidently that Matter moves it self, and
+that exterior agents or bodies are onely an occasion to such or such
+a motion in another body, then to see how several things put into one
+and the same fire, do alter after several modes; which shews, it is not
+the onely action of fire, but the interior motions of the body thrown
+into the fire, which do alter its exterior form or figure. And thus, I
+think I have said enough to make my opinions clear, that they may be
+the better understood: which is the onely aim and desire of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your humble and_
+
+_faithful Servant._
+
+[1] Of the disease of the Stone, _Ch._ 9.
+
+
+
+
+XIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is not a Natural, but a Divine Philosopher, for in
+many places he undertakes to interpret the Scripture; wherein, to my
+judgment, he expresseth very strange opinions; you will give me leave
+at this present to note some few. First, in one place,[1] interpreting
+that passage of Scripture, where it is said,[2] That the _sons of God
+took to wives the daughters of men_: He understands by the Sons of
+God, those which came from the Posterity of _Adam_, begotten of a Man
+and a Woman, having the true Image of God: But by the Daughters of
+Men, he understands Monsters; that is, those which through the Devils
+mediation, were conceived in the womb of a Junior Witch or Sorceress:
+For when Satan could find no other ways to deprive all the race of
+Men of the Image of God, and extinguish the Immortal mind out of the
+flock of _Adams_ Posterity, he stirr'd up detestable copulations,
+from whence proceeded savage Monsters, as Faunes, Satyrs, Sylphs,
+Gnomes, Nymphs, Driades, Najades, Nereides, &c. which generated their
+off-springs amongst themselves, and their posterities again contracted
+their copulations amongst themselves, and at length began Wedlocks with
+Men; and from this copulation of Monsters and Nymphs, they generated
+strong Gyants. Which Interpretation, how it agrees with the Truth of
+Scripture, I will leave to Divines to judg: But, for my part, I cannot
+conceive, how, or by what means or ways, those Monsters and Nymphs were
+produced or generated. Next, his opinion is, That _Adam_ did ravish
+_Eve_, and defloured her by force, calling him the first infringer of
+modesty, and deflourer of a Virgin; and that therefore God let hair
+grow upon his chin, cheeks, and lips, that he might be a Compere,
+Companion, and like unto many four-footed Beasts, and might bear before
+him the signature of the same; and that, as he was lecherous after
+their manner, he might also shew a rough countenance by his hairs;
+which whether it be so, or not, I cannot tell, neither do I think your
+_Author_ can certainly know it himself; for the Scripture makes no
+mention of it: But this I dare say, that _Eves_ Daughters prove rather
+the contrary, _viz._ that their Grandmother did freely consent to their
+Grandfather. Also he says, That God had purposed to generate Man by
+the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, but Man perverted the Intent of
+God; for had _Adam_ not sinned, there had been no generation by the
+copulation of a Man and Woman, but all the off-springs had appear'd
+out of _Eve_, a Virgin, from the Holy Spirit, as conceived from God,
+and born of a woman, a virgin, To which, I answer, first, That it is
+impossible to know the Designs and secret purposes of God: Next, to
+make the Holy Spirit the common Generator of all Man-kind, is more
+then the Scripture expresses, and any man ought to say: Lastly, it is
+absurd, in my opinion, to say, that frail and mortal Men, can pervert
+the intent and designs of the Great God; or that the Devil is able to
+prevent God's Intent, (as his expression is in the same place.) But
+your _Author_ shews a great affection to the Female Sex, when he says,
+that God doth love Women before Men, and that he has given them a
+free gift of devotion before men; when as others do lay all the fault
+upon the Woman, that she did seduce the Man; however in expressing
+his affection for Women, your _Author_ expresses a partiality in God.
+And, as for his opinion, that God creates more Daughters then Males,
+and that more Males are extinguished by Diseases, Travels, Wars,
+Duels, Shipwracks, and the like: Truly, I am of the same mind, that
+more Men are kill'd by Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, &c. then
+Women; for Women never undergo these dangers, neither do so many kill
+themselves with intemperate Drinking, as Men do; but yet I believe,
+that Death is as general, and not more favourable to Women, then he
+is to Men; for though Women be not slain in Wars like Men, (although
+many are, by the cruelty of Men, who not regarding the weakness of
+their sex, do inhumanely kill them,) yet many do die in Child-bed,
+which is a Punishment onely concerning the Female sex. But to go on
+in your _Authors_ Interpretations: His knowledg of the Conception of
+the Blessed Virgin, reaches so far, as he doth not stick to describe
+exactly, not onely how the blessed Virgin conceiv'd in the womb, but
+first in the heart, or the sheath of the heart; and then how the
+conception removed from the heart, into the womb, and in what manner
+it was performed. Certainly, _Madam_, I am amazed, when I see men so
+conceited with their own perfections and abilities, (I may rather
+say, with their imperfections and weaknesses) as to make themselves
+God's privy Councilors, and his Companions, and partakers of all the
+sacred Mysteries, Designs, and hidden secrets of the Incomprehensible
+and Infinite God. O the vain Presumption, Pride, and Ambition of
+wretched Men! There are many more such expressions in your _Authors_
+works, which, in my opinion, do rather detract from the Greatness of
+the Omnipotent God, then manifest his Glory: As for example; That Man
+is the clothing of the Deity, and the sheath of the Kingdom of God,
+and many the like: which do not belong to God; for God is beyond all
+expression, because he is Infinite; and when we name God, we name an
+Unexpressible, and Incomprehensible Being; and yet we think we honour
+God, when we express him after the manner of corporeal Creatures.
+Surely, the noblest Creature that ever is in the World, is not able
+to be compared to the most Glorious God, but whatsoever comparison is
+made, detracts from his Glory: And this, in my opinion, is the reason,
+that God forbad any likeness to be made of him, either in Heaven, or
+upon Earth, because he exceeds all that we might compare or liken to
+him. And as men ought to have a care of such similizing expressions, so
+they ought to be careful in making Interpretations of the Scripture,
+and expressing more then the Scripture informs; for what is beyond the
+Scripture, is Man's own fancy; and to regulate the Word of God after
+Man's fancy, at least to make his fancy equal with the Word of God,
+is Irreligious. Wherefore, men ought to submit, and not to pretend to
+the knowledg of God's Counsels and Designs, above what he himself hath
+been pleased to reveal: as for example, to describe of what Figure
+God is, and to comment and descant upon the Articles of Faith; as
+how Man was Created; and what he did in the state of Innocence; how
+he did fall; and what he did after his fall: and so upon the rest of
+the Articles of our Creed, more then the Scripture expresses, or is
+conformable to it. For if we do this, we shall make a Romance of the
+holy Scripture, with our Paraphrastical descriptions: which alas! is
+too common already. The truth is, Natural Philosophers, should onely
+contain themselves within the sphere of Nature, and not trespass upon
+the Revelation of the Scripture, but leave this Profession to those to
+whom it properly belongs. I am confident, a Physician, or any other man
+of a certain Profession, would not take it well, if others, who are not
+professed in that Art, should take upon them to practise the same:
+And I do wonder, why every body is so forward to encroach upon the
+holy Profession of Divines, which yet is a greater presumption, then
+if they did it upon any other; for it contains not onely a most hidden
+and mystical knowledg, as treating of the Highest Subject, which is
+the most Glorious, and Incomprehensible God, and the salvation of our
+Souls; but it is also most dangerous, if not interpreted according to
+the Holy Spirit, but to the byass of man's fancy. Wherefore, _Madam_, I
+am afraid to meddle with Divinity in the least thing, lest I incur the
+hazard of offending the divine Truth, and spoil the excellent Art of
+Philosophying; for a Philosophical Liberty, and a Supernatural Faith,
+are two different things, and suffer no co-mixture; as I have declared
+sufficiently heretofore. And this you will find as much truth, as that
+I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ The Position is demonstrated.
+
+[2] _Gen._ 6. 2.
+
+
+
+
+XX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Although your _Author_[1] is of the opinion of _Plato_, in making
+_Three sorts of Atheists: One that believes no Gods; Another, which
+indeed admits of Gods, yet such as are uncarefull of us, and despisers
+of small matters, and therefore also ignorant of us: And lastly, a
+third sort, which although they believe the Gods to be expert in the
+least matters, yet do suppose that they are flexible and indulgent
+toward the smallest cold Prayers or Petitions_: Yet I cannot approve
+of this distinction, for I do understand but one sort of Atheists;
+that is, those which believe no God at all; but those which believe
+that there is a God, although they do not worship him truly, nor live
+piously and religiously as they ought, cannot, in truth, be called
+Atheists, or else there would be innumerous sorts of Atheists; to
+wit, all those, that are either no Christians, or not of this or that
+opinion in Christian Religion, besides all them that live wickedly,
+impiously and irreligiously; for to know, and be convinced in his
+reason, that there is a God, and to worship him truly, according to
+his holy Precepts and Commands, are two several things: And as for the
+first, that is, for the Rational knowledg of the Existence of God, I
+cannot be perswaded to believe, there is any man which has sense and
+reason, that doth not acknowledg a God; nay, I am sure, there is no
+part of Nature which is void and destitute of this knowledg of the
+existence of an Infinite, Eternal, Immortal, and Incomprehensible
+Deity; for every Creature, being indued with sense and reason, and
+with sensitive and rational knowledg, there can no knowledg be
+more Universal then the knowledg of a God, as being the root of
+all knowledg: And as all Creatures have a natural knowledg of the
+Infinite God, so, it is probable, they Worship, Adore, and Praise his
+Infinite Power and Bounty, each after its own manner, and according
+to its nature; for I cannot believe, God should make so many kinds of
+Creatures, and not be worshipped and adored but onely by Man: Nature is
+God's Servant, and she knows God better then any Particular Creature;
+but Nature is an Infinite Body, consisting of Infinite Parts, and if
+she adores and worships God, her Infinite Parts, which are Natural
+Creatures, must of necessity do the like, each according to the
+knowledg it hath: but Man in this particular goes beyond others, as
+having not onely a natural, but also a revealed knowledg of the most
+Holy God; for he knows Gods Will, not onely by the light of Nature,
+but also by revelation, and so more then other Creatures do, whose
+knowledg of God is meerly Natural. But this Revealed Knowledg makes
+most men so presumptuous, that they will not be content with it, but
+search more and more into the hidden mysteries of the Incomprehensible
+Deity, and pretend to know God as perfectly, almost, as themselves;
+describing his Nature and Essence, his Attributes, his Counsels, his
+Actions, according to the revelation of God, (as they pretend) when as
+it is according to their own Fancies. So proud and presumptuous are
+many: But they shew thereby rather their weaknesses and follies, then
+any truth; and all their strict and narrow pryings into the secrets of
+God, are rather unprofitable, vain and impious, then that they should
+benefit either themselves, or their neighbour; for do all we can, God
+will not be perfectly known by any Creature: The truth is, it is a
+meer impossibility for a finite Creature, to have a perfect Idea of
+an Infinite Being, as God is; be his Reason never so acute or sharp,
+yet he cannot penetrate what is Impenetrable, nor comprehend what is
+Incomprehensible: Wherefore, in my opinion, the best way is humbly to
+adore what we cannot conceive, and believe as much as God has been
+pleased to reveal, without any further search; lest we diving too deep,
+be swallowed up in the bottomless depth of his Infiniteness: Which I
+wish every one may observe, for the benefit of his own self, and of
+others, to spend his time in more profitable Studies, then vainly to
+seek for what cannot be found. And with this hearty wish I conclude,
+resting,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Image of the Mind.
+
+
+
+
+XXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is so much for Spirits, that he doth not stick to
+affirm,[1] _That Bodies scarce make up a moity or half part of the
+world; but Spirits, even by themselves, have or possess their moity,
+and indeed the whole world._ If he mean bodiless and incorporeal
+Spirits, I cannot conceive how Spirits can take up any place, for
+place belongs onely to body, or a corporeal substance, and millions of
+immaterial Spirits, nay, were their number infinite, cannot possess so
+much place as a small Pins point, for Incorporeal Spirits possess no
+place at all: which is the reason, that an Immaterial and a Material
+Infinite cannot hinder, oppose, or obstruct each other; and such an
+Infinite, Immaterial Spirit is God alone. But as for Created Immaterial
+Spirits, as they call them, it may be questioned whether they be
+Immaterial, or not; for there may be material Spirits as well as
+immaterial, that is, such pure, subtil and agil substances as cannot
+be subject to any humane sense, which may be purer and subtiller then
+the most refined air, or purest light; I call them material spirits,
+onely for distinctions sake, although it is more proper, to call them
+material substances: But be it, that there are Immaterial Spirits,
+yet they are not natural, but supernatural; that is, not substantial
+parts of Nature; for Nature is material, or corporeal, and so are all
+her Creatures, and whatsoever is not material is no part of Nature,
+neither doth it belong any ways to Nature: Wherefore, all that is
+called Immaterial, is a Natural Nothing, and an Immaterial Natural
+substance, in my opinion, is _non_-sense: And if you contend with me,
+that Created Spirits, as good and bad Angels, as also the Immortal Mind
+of Man, are Immaterial, then I say they are Supernatural; but if you
+say, they are Natural, then I answer they are Material: and thus I do
+not deny the existence of Immaterial Spirits, but onely that they are
+not parts of Nature, but supernatural; for there may be many things
+above Nature, and so above a natural Understanding, and Knowledg,
+which may nevertheless have their being and existence, although they
+be not Natural, that is, parts of Nature: Neither do I deny that those
+supernatural Creatures may be amongst natural Creatures, that is,
+have their subsistence amongst them, and in Nature; but they are not
+so commixed with them, as the several parts of Matter are, that is,
+they do not joyn to the constitution of a material Creature; for no
+Immaterial can make a Material, or contribute any thing to the making
+or production of it; but such a co-mixture would breed a meer confusion
+in Nature: wherefore, it is quite another thing, to be in Nature, or to
+have its subsistence amongst natural Creatures in a supernatural manner
+or way, and to be a part of Nature. I allow the first to Immaterial
+Spirits, but not the second, _viz._ to be parts of Nature. But what
+Immaterial Spirits are, both in their Essence or Nature, and their
+Essential Properties, it being supernatural, and above natural Reason,
+I cannot determine any thing thereof. Neither dare I say, they are
+Spirits like as God is, that is, of the same Essence or Nature, no
+more then I dare say or think that God is of a humane shape or figure,
+or that the Nature of God is as easie to be known as any notion else
+whatsoever, and that we may know as much of him as of any thing else
+in the world. For if this were so, man would know God as well as he
+knows himself, but God and his Attributes are not so easily known as
+man may know himself and his own natural Proprieties; for God and
+his Attributes are not conceiveable or comprehensible by any humane
+understanding, which is not onely material, but also finite; for
+though the parts of Nature be infinite in number, yet each is finite
+in it self, that is, in its figure, and therefore no natural Creature
+is capable to conceive what God is; for he being infinite, there is
+also required an infinite capacity to conceive him; Nay, Nature her
+self, although she is Infinite, yet cannot possibly have an exact
+notion of God, by reason she is Material, and God is Immaterial; and
+if the Infinite servant of God is not able to conceive God, much less
+will a finite part of Nature do it. Besides, the holy Church doth
+openly confess and declare the Incomprehensibility of God, when in the
+_Athanasian_ Creed, she expresses, that the Father is Incomprehensible,
+the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible, and
+that there are not three, but one Incomprehensible God: Therefore, if
+any one will prove the contrary, to wit, that God is Comprehensible,
+or (which is all one) that God is as easie to be known as any Creature
+whatsoever, he surely is more then the Church: But I shall never say or
+believe so, but rather confess my ignorance, then betray my folly; and
+leave things Divine to the Church; to which I submit, as I ought, in
+all Duty: and as I do not meddle with any Divine Mysteries, but subject
+my self, concerning my Faith or Belief, and the regulating of my
+actions for the obtaining of Eternal Life, wholly under the government
+and doctrine of the Church, so, I hope, they will also grant me leave
+to have my liberty concerning the contemplation of Nature and natural
+things, that I may discourse of them, with such freedom, as meer
+natural Philosophers use, or at least ought, to do; and thus I shall be
+both a good Christian, and a good Natural Philosopher: Unto which, to
+make the number perfect, I will add a third, which is, I shall be,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your real and faithful_
+
+_Friend and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.
+
+
+
+
+XXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Though I am loth (as I have often told you) to imbarque my self in the
+discourse of such a subject, as no body is able naturally to know,
+which is the supernatural and divine Soul in Man; yet your _Author_
+having, in my judgment, strange opinions, both of the Essence, Figure,
+Seat and Production of the Soul, and discoursing thereof, with such
+liberty and freedom, as of any other natural Creature, I cannot chuse
+but take some notice of his discourse, and make some reflections upon
+it; which yet, shall rather express my ignorance of the same subject,
+then in a positive answer, declare my opinion thereof; for, in things
+divine, I refer my self wholly to the Church, and submit onely to
+their instructions, without any further search of natural reason; and
+if I should chance to express more then I ought to do, and commit some
+error, it being out of ignorance rather then set purpose, I shall be
+ready upon better information, to mend it, and willingly subject my
+self under the censure and correction of the holy Church, as counting
+it no disgrace to be ignorant in the mysteries of Faith, since Faith
+is of things unknown, but rather a duty required from every Layman to
+believe simply the Word of God, as it is explained and declared by the
+Orthodox Church, without making Interpretations out of his own brain,
+and according to his own fancy, which breeds but Schismes, Heresies,
+Sects, and Confusions. But concerning your _Author_, I perceive by him,
+first, that he makes no distinction between the Natural or Rational
+Soul or Mind of Man, and between the Divine or Supernatural Soul, but
+takes them both as one, and distinguishes onely the Immortal Soul
+from the sensitive Life of Man, which he calls the Frail, Mortal,
+Sensitive Soul. Next, all his knowledg of this Immortal Soul is
+grounded upon Dreams and Visions, and therefore it is no wonder, if
+his opinions be somewhat strange and irregular. _I saw, in a Vision,_
+says he,[1] _my Mind in a humane shape; but there was a light, whose
+whole homogeneal body was actively seeing, a spiritual substance,
+Chrystalline, shining with a proper splendor, or a splendor of its own,
+but in another cloudy part it was rouled up as it were in the husk of
+it self; which whether it had any splendor of it self, I could not
+discern, by reason of the superlative brightness of the Chrystal Spirit
+contain'd within._ Whereupon he defines _the Soul_ to be _a Spirit,
+beloved of God, homogeneal, simple, immortal, created into the Image
+of God, one onely Being, whereto death adds nothing, or takes nothing
+from it, which may be natural or proper to it in the Essence of its
+simplicity._ As for this definition of the Soul, it may be true, for
+any thing I know: but when your _Author_ makes the divine Soul to be a
+Light, I cannot conceive how that can agree; for Light is a Natural and
+Visible Creature, and, in my opinion, a corporeal substance; whereas
+the Soul is immaterial and incorporeal: But be it, that Light is not a
+substance, but a neutral Creature, according to your _Author_; then,
+nevertheless the Immortal Soul cannot be said to be a light, because
+she is a substance. He may say,[2] The Soul is an Incomprehensible
+Light. But if the Soul be Incomprehensible, how then doth he know that
+she is a light, and not onely a light, but a glorious and splendorous
+light? You will say, By a Dream, or Vision. Truly, _Madam_, to judg
+any thing by a Dream, is a sign of a weak judgment. Nay, since your
+_Author_ calls the soul constantly a light; if it were so, and that
+it were such a splendorous, bright and shining light, as he says;
+then when the body dies, and the soul leaves its Mansion, it would
+certainly be seen, when it issues out of the body. But your _Author_
+calls the Soul a _Spiritual Substance_, and yet he says, she has _an
+homogeneal body, actively seeing and shining with a proper splendor
+of her own_; which how it can agree, I leave to you to judg; for I
+thought, an Immaterial spirit and a body were too opposite things, and
+now I see, your _Author_ makes Material and Immaterial, Spiritual and
+Corporeal, all one. But this is not enough, but he allows it a Figure
+too, and that of a humane shape; for says he, I _could never consider
+the Thingliness of the Immortal Mind with an Individual existence,
+deprived of all figure, neither but that it at least would answer to
+a humane shape_; but the Scripture, as much as is known to me, never
+doth express any such thing of the Immortal Soul, and I should be loth
+to believe any more thereof then it declares. The Apostles, although
+they were conversant with Christ, and might have known it better, yet
+were never so inquisitive into the nature of the Soul, as our Modern
+divine Philosophers are; for our Saviour, and they, regarded more the
+salvation of Man's Soul, and gave holy and wise Instructions rather,
+how to live piously and conformably to God's Will, to gain eternal
+Life, then that they should discourse either of the Essence or Figure,
+or Proprieties of the Soul, and whether it was a light, or any thing
+else, and such like needless questions, raised in after-times onely
+by the curiosity of divine Philosophers, or Philosophying Divines;
+For though Light is a glorious Creature, yet Darkness is as well a
+Creature as Light, and ought not therefore to be despised; for if it
+be not so bright, and shining as Light, yet it is a grave Matron-like
+Creature, and very useful: Neither is the Earth, which is inwardly
+dark, to be despised, because the Sun is bright. The like may be said
+of the soul, and of the body; for the body is very useful to the soul,
+how dark soever your _Author_ believes it to be; and if he had not
+seen light with his bodily eyes, he could never have conceived the
+Soul to be a Light: Wherefore your _Author_ can have no more knowledg
+of the divine soul then other men have, although he has had more
+Dreams and Visions; nay, he himself confesses, that the Soul is an
+Incomprehensible Light; which if so, she cannot, be perfectly known,
+nor confined to any certain figure; for a figure or shape belongs
+onely to a corporeal substance, and not to an incorporeal: and so, God
+being an Incomprehensible Being, is excluded from all figure, when as
+yet your _Author_ doth not stick to affirm, that God is of a humane
+figure too, as well as the humane Soul is; _For_, says he, _Since God
+hath been pleased to adopt the Mind alone into his own Image, it also
+seems to follow, that the vast and unutterable God is of a humane
+Figure, and that from an argument from the effect, if there be any
+force of arguments in this subject._ Oh! the audacious curiosity of
+Man! Is it not blasphemy to make the Infinite God of a frail and humane
+shape, and to compare the most Holy to a sinful Creature? Nay, is it
+not an absurdity, to confine and inclose that Incomprehensible Being
+in a finite figure? I dare not insist longer upon this discourse,
+lest I defile my thoughts with the entertaining of such a subject
+that derogates from the glory of the Omnipotent Creator; Wherefore, I
+will hasten, as much as I can, to the seat of the Soul, which, after
+relating several opinions, your _Author_ concludes to be the orifice
+of the stomack, where the Immortal Soul is involved and entertained
+in the radical Inn or Bride-bed of the sensitive Soul or vital Light;
+which part of the body is surely more honoured then all the rest: But
+I, for my part, cannot conceive why the Soul should not dwell in the
+parts of conception, as well, as in the parts of digestion, except it
+be to prove her a good Huswife; however, your _Author_ allows her to
+slide down sometimes: For, _The action of the Mind_, says he, _being
+imprisoned in the Body, doth always tend downwards_; but whether
+the Soul tend more downwards then upwards, Contemplative Persons,
+especially Scholars, and grave States-men, do know best; certainly, I
+believe, they find the soul more in their heads then in their heels,
+at least her operations. But, to conclude, if the Soul be pure and
+single of her self, she cannot mix with the Body, because she needs
+no assistance; nor joyn with the Body, though she lives in the Body,
+for she needs no support; and if she be individable, she cannot divide
+her self into several Parts of the Body; but if the Soul spread over
+all the Body, then she is bigger, or less, according as the Body is;
+and if she be onely placed in some particular part, then onely that
+one part is indued with a Soul, and the rest is Soul-less; and if she
+move from place to place, then some parts of the Body will be sometimes
+indued with a Soul, sometimes not; and if any one part requires not
+the subsistence of the Soul within it, then perhaps all the Body might
+have been able to spare her; neither might the Soul, being able to
+subsist without the body, have had need of it. Thus useless questions
+will trouble men's brains, if they give their fancies leave to work.
+I should add something of the Production of the Soul; but being tyred
+with so tedious a discourse of your _Author_, I am not able to write
+any more, but repose my Pen, and in the mean while rest affectionately,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Image of the Mind.
+
+[2] Of the Spirit of Life.
+
+
+
+
+XXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Authors_ comparison[1] of the Sun, with the immaterial or divine
+Soul in Man, makes me almost of opinion, that the Sun is the Soul of
+this World we inhabit, and that the fixed Stars, which are counted
+Suns by some, may be souls to some other worlds; for every one man has
+but one immaterial or divine soul, which is said to be individable
+and simple in its essence, and therefore unchangeable; and if the Sun
+be like this immaterial soul, then the Moon may be like the material
+soul. But as for the Production of this immaterial and divine Soul in
+Man, whether it come by an immediate Creation from God, or be derived
+by a successive propagation from Parents upon their Children, I cannot
+determine any thing, being supernatural, and not belonging to my
+study; nevertheless, the Propagation from Parents seems improbable to
+my reason; for I am not capable to imagine, how an immaterial soul,
+being individable, should beget another. Some may say, by imprinting or
+sealing, _viz._ that the soul doth print the Image of its own figure
+upon the spirit of the seed; which if so, then first there will onely
+be a production of the figure of the soul, but not of the substance,
+and so the Child will have but the Image of the soul, and not a real
+and substantial soul. Secondly, Every Child of the same Parents would
+be just alike, without any distinguishment; if not in body, yet in the
+Faculties and Proprieties of their Minds or Souls. Thirdly, There must
+be two prints of the two souls of both Parents upon one Creature, to
+wit, the Child; for both Parents do contribute alike to the Production
+of the Child, and then the Child would either have two souls, or both
+must be joyned as into one; which how it can be, I am not able to
+conceive. Fourthly, If the Parents print the Image of their souls upon
+the Child, then the Childs soul bears not the Image of God, but the
+Image of Man, to wit, his Parents. Lastly, I cannot understand, how an
+immaterial substance should make a print upon a corporeal substance,
+for Printing is a corporeal action, and belongs onely to bodies. Others
+may say, that the soul is from the Parents transmitted into the Child,
+like as a beam of Light; but then the souls of the Parents must part
+with some of their own substance; for light is a substance dividable,
+in my opinion; and if it were not, yet the soul is a substance, and
+cannot be communicated without losing some of his own substance,
+but that is impossible; for the immaterial soul being individable,
+cannot be diminished nor increased in its substance or Nature. Others
+again, will have the soul produced by certain Ideas; but Ideas being
+corporeal, cannot produce a substance Incorporeal or Spiritual.
+Wherefore I cannot conceive how the souls of the Parents, being
+individable in themselves, and not immoveable out of their bodies until
+the time of death, should commix so, as to produce a third immaterial
+soul, like to their own. You will say, As the Sun, which is the
+fountain of heat and light, heats and enlightens, and produces other
+Creatures. But I answer, The Sun doth not produce other Suns, at least
+not to our knowledg. 'Tis true, there are various and several manners
+and ways of Productions, but they are all natural, that is, material,
+or corporeal; to wit, Productions of some material beings, or corporeal
+substances; but the immaterial soul not being in the number of these,
+it is not probable, that she is produced by the way of corporeal
+productions, but created and infused from God, according to her nature,
+which is supernatural and divine: But being the Image of God, how she
+can be defiled with the impurity of sin, and suffer eternal damnation
+for her wickedness, without any prejudice to her Creator, I leave to
+the Church to inform us thereof. Onely one question I will add, Whether
+the Soul be subject to Sickness and Pain? To which I answer: As for the
+supernatural and divine Soul, although she be a substance, yet being
+not corporeal, but spiritual, she can never suffer pain, sickness, nor
+death; but as for the natural soul, to speak properly, there is no
+such thing in Nature as pain, sickness, or death; unless in respect
+to some Particular Creatures composed of natural Matter; for what Man
+calls Sickness, Pain, and Death, are nothing else but the Motions of
+Nature; for though there is but one onely Matter, that is, nothing but
+meer Matter in Nature, without any co-mixture of either a spiritual
+substance, or any thing else that is not Matter; yet this meer Matter
+is of several degrees and parts, and is the body of Nature; Besides,
+as there is but one onely Matter, so there is also but one onely
+Motion in Nature, as I may call it, that is, meer corporeal Motion,
+without any rest or cessation, which is the soul of that Natural body,
+both being infinite; but yet this onely corporeal Motion is infinitely
+various in its degrees or manners, and ways of moving; for it is
+nothing else but the action of natural Matter, which action must needs
+be infinite, being the action of an infinite body, making infinite
+figures and parts. These motions and actions of Nature, since they
+are so infinitely various, when men chance to observe some of their
+variety, they call them by some proper name, to make a distinguishment,
+especially those motions which belong to the figure of their own
+kind; and therefore when they will express the motions of dissolution
+of their own figure, they call them Death; when they will express
+the motions of Production of their figure, they call them Conception
+and Generation; when they will express the motions proper for the
+Consistence, Continuance and Perfection of their Figure, they call them
+Health; but when they will express the motions contrary to these, they
+call them Sickness, Pain, Death, and the like: and hence comes also the
+difference between regular and irregular motions; for all those Motions
+that belong to the particular nature and consistence of any figure,
+they call regular, and those which are contrary to them, they call
+irregular. And thus you see, _Madam_, that there is no such thing in
+Nature, as Death, Sickness, Pain, Health, &c. but onely a variety and
+change of the corporeal motions, and that those words express nothing
+else but the variety of motions in Nature; for men are apt to make more
+distinctions then Nature doth: Nature knows of nothing else but of
+corporeal figurative Motions, when as men make a thousand distinctions
+of one thing, and confound and entangle themselves so, with Beings,
+Non-beings, and Neutral-beings, Corporeals and Incorporeals, Substances
+and Accidents, or manners and modes of Substances, new Creations,
+and Annihilations, and the like, as neither they themselves, nor any
+body else, is able to make any sense thereof; for they are like the
+tricks and slights of Juglers, 'tis here, 'tis gone; and amongst those
+_Authors_ which I have read as yet, the most difficult to be understood
+is this _Author_ which I am now perusing, who runs such divisions, and
+cuts Nature into so small Parts, as the sight of my Reason is not sharp
+enough to discern them. Wherefore I will leave them to those that are
+more quick-sighted then I, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] Of the seat of the Soul. _It._ Of the Image of the Mind.
+
+
+
+
+XXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ relates,[1] how by some the _Immortal Soul is divided
+into two distinct parts; the Inferior or more outward, which by a
+peculiar name is called the Soul, and the other the Superior, the
+more inward, the which is called the bottom of the Soul or Spirit, in
+which Part the Image of God is specially contained; unto which is no
+access for the Devil, because there is the Kingdom of God_: and each
+part has distinct Acts, Proprieties, and Faculties. Truly, _Madam_, I
+wonder, how some men dare discourse so boldly of the Soul, without any
+ground either of Scripture or Reason, nay, with such contradiction to
+themselves, or their own opinions; For how can that be severed into
+parts, which in its nature is Individable? and how can the Image of
+God concern but one Part of the Soul, and not the other? Certainly,
+if the Soul is the Image of God, it is his Image wholly, and not
+partially, or in parts. But your _Author_ has other as strange and
+odd opinions as these, some whereof I have mentioned in my former
+Letters, the Souls being a Light, her Figure, her Residence, and many
+the like: Amongst the rest, there is one thing which your _Author_
+frequently makes mention of;[2] I know not what to call it, whether
+a thing, or a being, or no-thing; for it is neither of them; not a
+substance, nor an accident; neither a body, nor a spirit; and this
+Monster (for I think this is its proper name, since none other will
+fit it) is the Lacquey of the Soul, to run upon all errands; for the
+Soul sitting in her Princely Throne or Residence, which is the orifice
+of the stomack, cannot be every where her self; neither is it fit she
+should, as being a disgrace to her, to perform all offices her self
+for want of servants, therefore she sends out this most faithful and
+trusty officer, (your _Author_ calls him _Ideal Entity_) who being
+prepared for his journey, readily performs all her commands, as being
+not tied up to no commands of places, times or dimensions, especially
+in Women with Child he operates most powerfully; for sometime he
+printed a Cherry on a Child, by a strong Idea of the Mother; but this
+Ideal Entity or servant of the Soul, hath troubled my brain more, then
+his Mistress the Soul her self; for I could not, nor cannot as yet
+conceive, how he might be able to be the Jack of all offices, and do
+Journies and travel from one part of the body to another, being no body
+nor substance himself, nor tyed to any place, time, and dimension,
+and therefore I will leave him. Your _Author_ also speaks much of the
+Inward and Outward Man; but since that belongs to Divinity, I will
+declare nothing of it; onely this I say, that, in my opinion, the
+Inward and Outward man do not make a double Creature, neither properly,
+nor improperly; properly, as to make two different men; improperly, as
+we use to call that man double, whose heart doth not agree with his
+words. But by the Outward man I understand the sinful actions of flesh
+and blood, and by the Inward man the reformed actions of the Spirit,
+according to the Word of God; and therefore the Outward and Inward
+man make but one Man. Concerning the Natural Soul, your _Author_[3]
+speaks of her more to her disgrace then to her honor; for he scorns to
+call her a substance, neither doth he call her the Rational Soul, but
+he calls her the Sensitive Soul, and makes the Divine Soul to be the
+Rational Natural Soul, and the cause of all natural actions; for he
+being a Divine Philosopher, mixes Divine and Natural things together:
+But of the Frail, Mortal, Sensitive Soul, as he names her, which is
+onely the sensitive Life, his opinions are, that she is neither a
+substance, nor an accident, but a Neutral Creature, and a Vital Light,
+which hath not its like in the whole World, but the light of a Candle;
+for it is extinguished, and goes out like the flame of a Candle; it is
+locally present, and entertained in a place, and yet not comprehended
+in a place. Nevertheless, although this sensitive soul is no substance,
+yet it has the honor to be the Inn or Lodging-place of the Immortal
+Soul or Mind; and these two souls being both lights, do pierce each
+other; but the Mortal soul blunts the Immortal soul with its cogitation
+of the corruption of _Adam_. These opinions, _Madam_, I confess really,
+I do not know what to make of them; for I cannot imagine, how this
+Mortal soul, being no substance, can contain the Immortal soul, which
+is a substance; nor how they can pierce each other, and the Mortal
+soul being substanceless, get the better over an Immortal substance,
+and vitiate, corrupt, and infect it; neither can I conceive, how that,
+which in a manner is nothing already, can be made less and annihilated.
+Wherefore, my opinion is, that the Natural Soul, Life, and Body, are
+all substantial parts of Infinite Nature, not subsisting by themselves
+each apart, but inseparably united and co-mixed both in their actions
+and substances; for not any thing can and doth subsist of it self in
+Nature, but God alone; and things supernatural may, for ought I know:
+'Tis true, there are several Degrees, several particular Natures,
+several Actions or Motions, and several Parts in Nature, but none
+subsists single, and by it self, without reference to the whole, and to
+one another. Your _Author_ says, the Vital Spirit sits in the Throne
+of the Outward man as Vice Roy of the Soul, and acts by Commission of
+the Soul; but it is impossible, that one single part should be King
+of the whole Creature, since Rational and sensitive Matter is divided
+into so many parts, which have equal power and force of action in their
+turns and severall imployments; for though Nature is a Monarchess over
+all her Creatures, yet in every particular Creature is a Republick,
+and not a Monarchy; for no part of any Creature has a sole supreme
+Power over the rest. Moreover, your _Author_[4] says, That an _Angel
+is not a Light himself, nor has an Internal Light, natural and proper
+to himself, but is the Glass of an uncreated Light_: Which, to my
+apprehension, seems to affirm, That Angels are the Looking-glasses
+of God; a pretty Poetical Fancy, but not grounded on the Scripture:
+for the Scripture doth not express any such thing of them, but onely
+that they are[5] _Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them
+who shall be heirs of Salvation_: Which, I think, is enough for us to
+know here, and leave the rest until we come to enjoy their company in
+Heaven. But it is not to be admired, that those, which pretend to know
+the Nature and Secrets of God, should not have likewise knowledg of
+Supernatural Creatures; In which conceit I leave them, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your real and faithful_
+
+_Friend and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the Image of the Soul.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.
+
+[3] Of the seat of the Soul.
+
+[4] _Ch._ Of the Image of the Mind.
+
+[5] _Heb._ 11. 14.
+
+
+
+
+XXV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Reason and Intellect are two different things to your _Author_;[1]
+for _Intellect_, says he, _doth properly belong to the Immortal Soul,
+as being a Formal Light, and the very substance of the Soul it self,
+wherein the Image of God onely consists; But Reason is an uncertain,
+frail faculty of the Mortal Soul, and doth in no ways belong, nor has
+any communion with the Intellect of the Mind._ Which seems to me, as
+if your _Author_ did make some difference between the Divine, and
+the Natural Soul in Man, although he doth not plainly declare it in
+the same Terms; for that which I name the Divine Soul, is to him the
+Immortal Mind, Intellect, or Understanding, and the Seat of the Image
+of God; but the Natural Soul he calls the Frail, Mortal, and Rational
+Soul; and as Understanding is the Essence of the Immortal, so Reason
+is to him the Essence of the Mortal Soul; which Reason he attributes
+not only to Man, but also to Brutes: For _Reason and Discourse_, says
+he, _do not obscurely flourish and grow in brute Beasts, for an aged
+Fox is more crafty then a younger one by rational discourse_; and
+again, _That the Rational Part of the Soul doth belong to brutes, is
+without doubt_: Wherein he rightly dissents from those, which onely
+do attribute a sensitive Soul to brutes; and Reason to none but Man,
+whom therefore they call a Rational Creature, and by this Rational
+Faculty do distinguish him from the rest of Animals. And thus I
+perceive the difference betwixt your _Authors_ opinion, and theirs,
+is, That other Philosophers commonly do make the Rational soul, to be
+partly that which I call the supernatural and divine Soul, as onely
+belonging to man, and bearing the Image of God, not acknowledging any
+other Natural, but a Sensitive soul in the rest of Animals, and a
+Vegetative soul in Vegetables; and these three souls, or faculties,
+operations, or degrees, (call them what you will, for we shall not
+fall out about names,) concurr and joyn together in Man; but the
+rest of all Creatures, are void and destitute of Life, as well as of
+Soul, and therefore called Unanimate; and thus they make the natural
+rational soul, and the divine soul in man to be all one thing, without
+any distinguishment; but your _Author_ makes a difference between the
+Mortal and Immortal soul in Man; the Immortal he calls the Intellect
+or Understanding, and the Mortal soul he calls Reason: but to my
+judgment he also attributes to the immortal soul, actions which are
+both natural, and supernatural, adscribing that to the divine soul,
+which onely belongs to the natural, and taking that from the natural,
+which properly belongs to her. Besides, he slights and despises the
+Rational soul so, as if she were almost of no value with Man, making
+her no substance, but a mental intricate and obscure Being, and so far
+from Truth, as if there were no affinity betwixt Truth and Reason,
+but that they disagree in their very roots, and that the most refined
+Reason may be deceitful. But your _Author_, by his leave, confounds
+Reason, and Reasoning, which are two several and distinct things; for
+reasoning and arguing differs as much from Reason, as doubtfulness
+from certainty of knowledg, or a wavering mind from a constant mind;
+for Reasoning is the discoursive, and Reason the understanding part in
+Man, and therefore I can find no great difference between Understanding
+and Reason: Neither can I be perswaded, that Reason should not remain
+with Man after this life, and enter with him into Heaven, although
+your _Author_ speaks much against it; for if Man shall be the same
+then, which he is now, in body, why not in soul also? 'Tis true, the
+Scripture says, he shall have a more glorious body; but it doth not
+say, that some parts of the body shall be cast away, or remain behind;
+and if not of the body, why of the soul? Why shall Reason, which is
+the chief part of the natural Soul, be wanting? Your _Author_ is much
+for Intellect or Understanding; but I cannot imagine how Understanding
+can be without Reason. Certainly, when he saw the Immortal Soul in
+a Vision, to be a formal Light, how could he discern what he saw,
+without Reason? How could he distinguish between Light and Darkness,
+without Reason? How could he know the Image of the Mind to be the Image
+of God, without the distinguishment of Reason? You will say, Truth
+informed him, and not Reason. I answer, Reason shews the Truth. You
+may reply, Truth requires no distinguishment or judgment. I grant,
+that perfect Truth requires not reasoning or arguing, as whether it
+be so, or not; but yet it requires reason, as to confirm it to be so,
+or not so; for Reason is the confirmation of Truth, and Reasoning is
+but the Inquisition into Truth: Wherefore, when our Souls shall be in
+the fulness of blessedness, certainly, they shall not be so dull and
+stupid, but observe distinctions between God, Angels, and sanctified
+Souls; as also, that our glory is above our merit, and that there is
+great difference between the Damned, and the Blessed, and that God is
+an Eternal and Infinite Being, and onely to be adored, admired, and
+loved, and that we enjoy as much as can be enjoyed: All which the Soul
+cannot know without the distinguishment of Reason; otherwise we might
+say, the Souls in Heaven, love, joy, admire and adore, but know not
+what, why, or wherefore; For, shall the blessed Souls present continual
+Praises without reason? Have they not reason to praise God for their
+happiness, and shall they not remember the Mercies of God, and the
+Merits of his Son? For without remembrance of them, they cannot give
+a true acknowledgment, although your _Author_ says there is no use of
+Memory or remembrance in Heaven: but surely, I believe there is; for if
+there were not memory in Heaven, the Penitent Thief upon the Cross his
+Prayers had been in vain; for he desired our Saviour to remember him
+when he did come into his Kingdom: Wherefore if there be Understanding
+in Heaven, there is also Reason; and if there be Reason, there is
+Memory also: for all Souls in Heaven, as well as on Earth, have reason
+to adore, love, and praise God. But, _Madam_, my study is in natural
+Philosophy, not in Theology; and therefore I'le refer you to Divines,
+and leave your _Author_ to his own fancy, who by his singular Visions
+tells us more news of our Souls, then our Saviour did after his Death
+and Resurrection: Resting in the mean time,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ The hunting or searching out of Sciences. _It._ Of the Image
+of the Mind.
+
+
+
+
+XXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning those parts and chapters of your _Authors_ Works, which
+treat of Physick; before I begin to examine them, I beg leave of you
+in this present, to make some reflections first upon his Opinions
+concerning the Nature of Health and Diseases: As for _Health_, he is
+pleased to say,[1] That _it consists not in a just Temperature of the
+body, but in a sound and intire Life; for otherwise, a Temperature of
+body is as yet in a dead Carcass newly kill'd, where notwithstanding
+there is now death, but not life, not health_: Also he says,[2] _That
+no disease is in a dead carcass._ To which I answer, That, in my
+opinion, Life is in a dead Carcass, as well as in a living Animal,
+although not such a Life as that Creature had before it became a
+Carcass, and the Temperature of that Creature is altered with the
+alteration of its particular life; for the temperature of that
+particular life, which was before in the Animal, doth not remain in
+the Carcass, in such a manner as it was when it had the life of such
+or such an Animal; nevertheless, a dead Carcass hath life, and such a
+temperature of life, as is proper, and belonging to its own figure: for
+there are as many different lives, as there be different creatures,
+and each creature has its particular life and soul, as partaking of
+sensitive and rational Matter. And if a dead Carcass hath life, and
+such a temperature of motions as belong to its own life, then there
+is no question, but these motions may move sometimes irregularly in
+a dead Carcass as well, as in any other Creature; and since health
+and diseases are nothing else but the regularity or irregularity of
+sensitive corporeal Motions, a dead Carcass having Irregular motions,
+may be said as well to have diseases, as a living body, as they name
+it, although it is no proper or usual term for other Creatures, but
+onely for Animals. However, if there were no such thing as a disease
+(or term it what you will, I will call it Irregularity of sensitive
+motions) in a dead Carcass, How comes it that the infection of a
+disease proceeds often from dead Carcasses into living Animals? For,
+certainly, it is not meerly the odour or stink of a dead body, for
+then all stinking Carcasses would produce an Infection; wherefore this
+Infection must necessarily be inherent in the Carcass, and proceed
+from the Irregularity of its motions. Next I'le ask you, Whether a
+Consumption be a disease, or not? If it be, then a dead Carcass might
+be said to have a disease, as well as a living body; and the �gyptians
+knew a soveraign remedy against this disease, which would keep a dead
+Carcass intire and undissolved many ages; but as I said above, a dead
+Carcass is not that which it was being a living Animal, wherefore
+their effects cannot be the same, having not the same causes. Next,
+your _Author_ is pleased to call, with _Hippocrates, Nature the onely
+Physicianess of Diseases._ I affirm it; and say moreover, that as
+she is the onely Physicianess, so she is also the onely Destroyeress
+and Murtheress of all particular Creatures, and their particular
+lives; for she dissolves and transforms as well as she frames and
+creates; and acts according to her pleasure, either for the increase
+or decrease, augmentation or destruction, sickness or health, life
+or death of Particular Creatures. But concerning Diseases, your
+_Authors_ opinion is, That _a Disease is as Natural as Health._ I
+answer; 'tis true, Diseases are natural; but if we could find out the
+art of healing, as well as the art of killing and destroying; and the
+art of uniting and composing, as well as the art of separating and
+dividing, it would be very beneficial to man; but this may easier be
+wished for, then obtained; for Nature being a corporeal substance, has
+infinite parts, as well as an infinite body; and Art, which is onely
+the playing action of Nature, and a particular Creature, can easier
+divide and separate parts, then unite and make parts; for Art cannot
+match, unite, and joyn parts so as Nature doth; for Nature is not
+onely dividable and composeable, being a corporeal substance, but she
+is also full of curiosity and variety, being partly self-moving: and
+there is great difference between forced actions, and natural actions;
+for the one sort is regular, the other irregular. But you may say,
+Irregularities are as natural as Regularities. I grant it; but Nature
+leaves the irregular part most commonly to her daughter or creature
+Art, that is, she makes irregularities for varieties sake, but she
+her self orders the regular part, that is, she is more careful of her
+regular actions; and thus Nature taking delight in variety suffers
+irregularities; for otherwise, if there were onely regularities, there
+could not be so much variety. Again your _Author_ says,[3] That _a
+disease doth not consist but in living bodies._ I answer, there is
+not any body that has not life; for if life is general, then all
+figures or parts have life; but though all bodies have life, yet all
+bodies have not diseases; for diseases are but accidental to bodies,
+and are nothing else but irregular motions in particular Creatures,
+which may be not onely in Animals, but generally in all Creatures;
+for there may be Irregularities in all sorts of Creatures, which may
+cause untimely dissolutions; but yet all dissolutions are not made by
+irregular motions, for many creatures dissolve regularly, but onely
+those which are untimely. In the same place your _Author_ mentions,
+That _a Disease consists immediately in Life it self, but not in the
+dregs and filthinesses, which are erroneous forreigners and strangers
+to the life._ I grant, that a Disease is made by the motions of Life,
+but not such a life as your _Author_ describes, which doth go out like
+the snuff of a Candle, or as one of _Lucian's_ Poetical Lights; but
+by the life of Nature, which cannot go out without the destruction of
+Infinite Nature: and as the Motions of Nature's life make diseases or
+irregularities, so they make that which man names dregs and filths;
+which dregs, filths, sickness, and death, are nothing but changes
+of corporeal motions, different from those motions or actions that
+are proper to the health, perfection and consistence of such or such
+a figure or creature. But, to conclude, there is no such thing as
+corruption, sickness, or death, properly in Nature, for they are
+made by natural actions, and are onely varieties in Nature, but not
+obstructions or destructions of Nature, or annihilations of particular
+Creatures; and so is that we name Superfluities, which bear onely a
+relation to a particular Creature, which hath more Motion and Matter
+then is proper for the nature of its figure. And thus much of this
+subject for the present, from,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Call'd the Authors answers.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Of the subject of inhering of diseases.
+
+[3] _Ch._ The subject of inhering of diseases is in the point of life.
+_It. Ch._ Of the knowledg of diseases.
+
+
+
+
+XXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In my last, I remember, I told you of your _Authors_ opinion concerning
+the seat of Diseases, _viz._ that Diseases are properly in living
+bodies, and consist in the life it self; but when I consider his
+definition of Life, and of a Disease, I cannot conceive how they
+should consist together; for he describes[1] _a Disease to be a real,
+material and substantial being, truly subsisting in a body; but life
+to be a meer nothing, and_ _yet the immediate mansion of a disease,
+the inward subject, yea, and workman of the same; and that with the
+life all diseases depart into nothing._ Surely, _Madam_, it exceedeth
+my understanding; for, first, I cannot conceive how life, which is a
+meer Nothing, can be a lodging to something? Next, how Nothing can
+depart and die? and thirdly how Something can become Nothing? I think
+your _Author_ might call a dead Carcass as well No-thing, as Life; and
+since he names Diseases the Thieves of Life, they must needs be but
+poor Thieves, because they steal No-thing. But your _Author_ compares
+Life to Light, and calls it an Extinguishable Light, like the light of
+a Candle; which if so, then the old saying is verified, That life goes
+out like the snuff of a Candle. But I wonder, _Madam_, that grave and
+wise men will seriously make use of a similising old Proverb, or of a
+Poetical Fancy, in matter of natural Philosophy; for I have observed,
+that _Homer, Lucian, Ovid, Virgil, Horace,_ &c. have been very
+serviceable to great Philosophers, who have taken the ground of their
+Fictions, and transferred them into Natural Philosophy, as Immaterial
+substances, Non-beings, and many the like; but they can neither do any
+good nor hurt to Nature, but onely spoil Philosophical Knowledg; and as
+Nature is ignorant of Immaterials and Non-beings, so Art is ignorant
+of Nature; for Mathematical Rules, Measures, and Demonstrations,
+cannot rule, measure nor demonstrate Nature, no more, then Chymical
+Divisions, Dissolutions and Extractions (or rather distractions, nay,
+I may say destructions) can divide, dissolve, extract, compose, and
+unite, as Nature doth; Wherefore their Instruments, Figures, Furnaces,
+Limbecks, and Engines, cannot instruct them of the truth of Natures
+Principles; but the best and readiest way to find out Nature, or rather
+some truth of Nature, is sense and reason, which are Parts of Natures
+active substance, and therefore the truest informers of Nature; but
+the Ignorance of Nature has caused Ignorance amongst Philosophers,
+and the Ignorance of Philosophers hath caused numerous Opinions, and
+numerous Opinions have caused various Discourses and Disputes; which
+Discourses and Disputes, are not Sense and Reason, but proceed from
+Irregular Motions; and Truth is not found in Irregularities. But to
+return to Life: it seems your _Author_ hath taken his opinion from
+_Lucian's_ Kingdom of Lights, the Lights being the Inhabitants thereof;
+and when any was adjudged to die, his Light was put out, which was his
+punishment: And thus this Heathenish Fiction is become a Christian
+Verity; when as yet your _Author_ rayls much at those, that insist upon
+the Opinions and Doctrine of Pagan Philosophers. Wherefore I will leave
+this Poetical Fancy of Life, and turn to Death, and see what opinion
+your _Author_ hath of that. First, concerning the cause or original of
+Death; _Neither God_, says he,[2] _nor the Evil Spirit, is the Creator
+of Death, but Man onely, who made Death for himself; Neither did Nature
+make death, but Man made death natural._ Which if it be so, then Death
+being, to my opinion, a natural Creature, as well as Life, Sickness,
+and Health; Man, certainly, had great Power, as to be the Creator of a
+natural Creature. But, I would fain know the reason, why your _Author_
+is so unwilling to make God the Author of Death, and Sickness, as well
+as of Damnation? Doth it imply any Impiety or Irreligiousness? Doth
+not God punish, as well as reward? and is not death a punishment for
+our sin? You may say, Death came from sin, but sin did not come from
+God. Then some might ask from whence came sin? You will say, From the
+Transgression of the Command of God, as the eating of the Forbidden
+Fruit. But from whence came this Transgression? It might be answer'd,
+From the Perswasion of the Serpent. From whence came this Perswasion?
+From his ill and malitious nature to oppose God, and ruine the race of
+Mankind. From whence came this ill Nature? From his Fall. Whence came
+his Fall? From his Pride and Ambition to be equal with God. From whence
+came this Pride? From his Free-will. From whence came his Free-will?
+From God. Thus, _Madam_, if we should be too inquisitive into the
+actions of God, we should commit Blasphemy, and make God Cruel, as to
+be the Cause of Sin, and consequently of Damnation. But although God
+is not the Author of Sin, yet we may not stick to say, that he is the
+Author of the Punishment of Sin, as an Act of his Divine Justice; which
+Punishment, is Sickness, and Death; nay, I see no reason, why not of
+Damnation too, as it is a due punishment for the sins of the wicked;
+for though Man effectively works his own punishment, yet Gods Justice
+inflicts it: Like as a just Judg may be call'd the cause of a Thief
+being hang'd. But these questions are too curious; and some men will
+be as presumptuous as the Devil, to enquire into Gods secret actions,
+although they be sure that they cannot be known by any Creature.
+Wherefore let us banish such vain thoughts, and onely admire, adore,
+love, and praise God, and implore his Mercy, to give us grace to shun
+the punishments for our sins by the righteousness of our actions, and
+not endeavour to know his secret designs. Next, I dissent from your
+_Author_,[3] That _Death and all dead things do want roots whereby they
+may produce_: For death, and dead things, in my opinion, are the most
+active producers, at least they produce more numerously and variously
+then those we name living things; for example, a dead Horse will
+produce more several Animals, besides other Creatures, then a living
+Horse can do; but what _Archeus_ and _Ideas_ a dead Carcass hath, I can
+tell no more, then what _Blas_ or _Gas_ it hath; onely this I say, that
+it has animate Matter, which is the onely _Archeus_ or Master-workman,
+that produces all things, creates all things, dissolves all things,
+and transforms all things in Nature; but not out of Nothing, or into
+Nothing, as to create new Creatures which were not before in Nature, or
+to annihilate Creatures, and to reduce them to nothing; but it creates
+and transforms out of, and in the same Matter which has been from all
+Eternity. Lastly, your _Author_ is pleased to say, That _he doth not
+behold a disease as an abstracted Quality; and that Apoplexy, Leprosie,
+Dropsie, and Madness, as they are Qualities in the abstract, are not
+diseases._ I am of his mind, that a disease is a real and corporeal
+being, and do not understand what he and others mean by abstracted
+qualities; for Nature knows of no abstraction of qualities from
+substances, and I doubt Man can do no more then Nature doth: Besides,
+those abstractions are needless, and to no purpose; for no Immaterial
+quality will do any hurt, if it be no substance; wherefore Apoplexy,
+Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, are Corporeal beings, as well as the
+rest of Diseases, and not abstracted Qualities; and I am sure, Persons
+that are affected with those diseases will tell the same. Wherefore
+leaving needless abstractions to fancies abstracted from right sense
+and reason, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of the knowledg of diseases.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Called the Position.
+
+[3] _Ch._ Of the knowledg of diseases.
+
+
+
+
+XXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am very much troubled to see your _Authors_ Works fill'd with so
+many spiteful reproaches and bitter taunts against the Schools of
+Physicians, condemning both their Theory and Practice; nay, that not
+onely the Modern Schools of Physicians, but also the two ancient and
+famous Physicians, _Galen_, and _Paracelsus_, must sufficiently suffer
+by him; especially _Galen_; for there is hardly a Chapter in all his
+Works, which has not some accusations of blind errors, sloth, and
+sluggishness, Ignorance, Covetousness, Cruelty, and the like: Which I
+am very sorry for; not onely for the sake of your _Author_ himself, who
+herein doth betray both his rashness, and weakness, in not bridling
+his passions, and his too great presumption, reliance and confidence
+in his own abilities, and extraordinary Gifts; but also for the sake
+of the Fame and Repute of our Modern Physicians; for without making
+now any difference betwixt the _Galenists_ and _Paracelsians_, and
+examining which are the best, (for I think them both excellent in
+their kinds, especially when joyned together) I will onely say this
+in general, that the Art of Physick has never flourish'd better then
+now, neither has any age had more skilful, learned, and experienced
+Physicians, then this present; because they have not onely the knowledg
+and practise of those in ages Past, but also their own experience
+joyned with it, which cannot but add perfection to their Art; and I,
+for my part, am so much for the old way of Practice, that if I should
+be sick, I would desire rather such Physicians which follow the same
+way, then those, that by their new Inventions, perchance, cure one,
+and kill a hundred. But your _Author_[1] will have a Physician to be
+like a Handycrafts man, who being call'd to a work, promises that work,
+and stands to his promise; and therefore, _It is a shame_, says he,
+_in a Physician, being call'd to a sick man in the beginning of the
+disease, and when his strength is yet remaining, to suffer the same
+man to die._ This, in my opinion, is a very unreasonable comparison,
+to liken a Handicrafts man to a Physician, and the art of Curing to
+the art of Building, or any the like, without regard of so many great
+differences that are between them, which I am loth to rehearse, for
+brevities sake, and are apparant enough to every one that will consider
+them: but this I may say, that it is not always for want of skill and
+industry in a Physician, that the cure is not effected, but it lies
+either in the Incureableness of the disease, or any other external
+accidents that do hinder the success: Not but that the best Physicians
+may err in a disease, or mistake the Patients inward distemper by
+his outward temper, or the interior temper by his outward distemper,
+or any other ways; for they may easily err through the variation of
+the disease, which may vary so suddenly and oft, as it is impossible
+to apply so fast, and so many Medicines, as the alteration requires,
+without certain death; for the body is not able, oftentimes, to dispose
+and digest several Medicines so fast, as the disease may vary, and
+therefore what was good in this temper, may, perhaps, be bad in the
+variation; insomuch, that one medicine may in a minute prove a Cordial,
+and Poyson. Nay, it may be that some Physicians do err through their
+own ignorance and mistake, must we therefore condemn all the skill,
+and accuse all the Schools of Negligence, Cruelty, and Ignorance? God
+forbid: for it would be a great Injustice. Let us rather praise them
+for the good they do, and not rashly condemn them for the evil they
+could not help: For we may as well condemn those holy and industrious
+Divines, that cannot reform wicked and perverse Sinners, as Physicians,
+because they cannot restore every Patient to his former health, the
+Profession of a Physician being very difficult; for they can have but
+outward signs of inward distempers. Besides, all men are not dissected
+after they are dead, to inform Physicians of the true cause of their
+death; nay, if they were, perchance they would not give always a true
+information to the Physician, as is evident by many examples; but
+oftentimes the blame is laid upon the Physician, when as the fault is
+either in Nature, or any other cause, which Art could not mend. And
+if your _Author_ had had such an extraordinary Gift from God as to
+know more then all the rest of Physicians, why did he not accordingly,
+and as the Scripture speaks of Faith, shew his skill by his Works and
+Cures? certainly, could he have restored those that were born blind,
+lame, deaf and dumb, or cured the spotted Plague, or Apoplexy after
+the third fit, or the Consumption of Vital parts, or a Fever in the
+Arteries, or dissolved a Stone too big to go through the passage,
+and many the like; he would not onely have been cried up for a rare
+Physician, but for a miracle of the World, and worshipped as a Saint:
+But if he could not effect more then the Schools can do, why doth he
+inveigh so bitterly against them? Wherefore I cannot commend him in
+so doing; but as I respect the Art of Physick, as a singular Gift
+from God to Mankind, so I respect and esteem also learned and skilful
+Physicians, for their various Knowledg, industrious Studies, careful
+Practice, and great Experiences, and think every one is bound to do
+the like, they being the onely supporters and restorers of humane life
+and health: For though I must confess, with your _Author_, that God
+is the onely giver of Good, yet God is not pleased to work Miracles
+ordinarily, but has ordained means for the restoring of health,
+which the Art of Physick doth apply; and therefore those Persons
+that are sick, do wisely to send for a Physician; for Art, although
+it is but a particular Creature, and the handmaid of Nature, yet she
+doth Nature oftentimes very good service; and so do Physicians often
+prolong their Patients lives. The like do Chirurgeons; for if those
+Persons that have been wounded, had been left to be cured onely by the
+Magnetick Medicine, I believe, numbers that are alive would have been
+dead, and numbers would die that are alive; insomuch, as none would
+escape, but by miracle, especially if dangerously hurt. Concerning the
+Coveteousness of Physicians, although sickness is chargeable, yet I
+think it is not Charitable to say or to think, that Physitians regard
+more their Profit, then their Patients health; for we might as well
+condemn Divines for taking their Tithes and Stipends, as Physicians
+for taking their Fees: but the holy Writ tells us, that a Labourer is
+Worthy of his hire or reward; and, for my part, I think those commit a
+great sin, which repine at giving Rewards in any kind; for those that
+deserve well by their endeavours, ought to have their rewards; and such
+Meritorious Persons, I wish with all my Soul, may prosper and thrive.
+Nevertheless, as for those persons, which for want of means are not
+able to reward their Physicians, I think Physicians will not deal so
+unconscionably, as to neglect their health and lives for want of their
+Fees, but expect the reward from God, and be recompenced the better by
+those that have Wealth enough to spare. And this good opinion I have of
+them. So leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] In his Promises, _Column._ 3.
+
+
+
+
+XXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM_
+
+I am of your _Authors_ mind, That _heat is not the cause of digestion_;
+but I dissent from him, when he says, That it is _the Ferment of the
+stomach that doth cause it_: For, in my opinion, Digestion is onely
+made by regular digestive motions, and ill digestion is caused by
+irregular motions, and when those motions are weak, then there is no
+digestion at all, but what was received, remains unaltered; but when
+they are strong and quick, then they make a speedy digestion. You may
+ask me, what are digestive motions? I answer, They are transchanging,
+or transforming motions: but since there be many sorts of transchanging
+motions, digestive motions are those, which transchange food into the
+nourishment of the body, and dispose properly, fitly and usefully of
+all the Parts of the food, as well of those which are converted into
+nourishment, as of those which are cast forth. For give me leave to
+tell you, _Madam_, that some parts of natural Matter, do force or cause
+other parts of Matter to move and work according to their will, without
+any change or alteration of their parts; as for example, Fire and
+Metal; for Fire will cause Metal to flow, but it doth not readily alter
+it from its nature of being Metal; neither doth Fire alter its nature
+from being Fire. And again, some parts of Matter will cause other parts
+to work and act to their own will, by forcing these over-powred parts
+to alter their own natural motions into the motions of the victorious
+Party, and so transforming them wholly into their own Figure; as for
+example, Fire will cause Wood to move so as to take its figure, to
+wit, the figure of Fire, that is, to change its own figurative motions
+into the motions of Fire: and this latter kind of moving or working
+is found in digestion; for the regular digestive motions do turn all
+food received from its own nature or figure, into the nourishment,
+figure, or nature of the body, as into flesh, blood, bones, and the
+like. But when several parts of Matter meet or joyn with equal force
+and power, then their several natural motions are either quite altered,
+or partly mixt: As for example; some received things not agreeing with
+the natural constitution of the body, the corporeal motions of the
+received, and those of the receiver, do dispute or oppose each other:
+for the motions of the received, not willing to change their nature
+conformable to the desire of the digestive motions, do resist, and
+then a War begins, whereby the body suffers most; for it causes either
+a sickness in the stomack, or a pain in the head, or in the heart, or
+in the bowels, or the like: Nay, if the received food gets an absolute
+victory, it dissolves and alters oftentimes the whole body, it self
+remaining entire and unaltered, as is evident in those that die of
+surfeits. But most commonly these strifes and quarrels, if violent, do
+alter and dissolve each others forms or natures. And many times it is
+not the fault of the Received, but of the Receiver; as for example,
+when the digestive and transforming motions are either irregular, or
+weak; for they being too weak, or too few, the meat or food received
+is digested onely by halves; and being irregular, it causes that which
+we call corruption. But it may be observed, that the Received food is
+either agreeable, or disagreeable, to the Receiver; if agreeable, then
+there is a united consent of Parts, to act regularly and perfectly in
+digestion; if disagreeable, then the Received acts to the Ruine, that
+is, to the alteration or dissolution of the Nature of the Receiver; but
+if it be neutral, that is, neither perfectly agreeable, nor perfectly
+disagreeable, but between both, then the receiver, or rather the
+digestive Motions of the receiver, use a double strength to alter and
+transform the received. But you may ask me, _Madam_, what the reason
+is, that many things received, after they are dissolved into small
+parts, those parts will keep their former colour and savour? I answer;
+The cause is, that either the retentive Motions in the Parts of the
+received, are too strong for the digestive and alterative Motions of
+the receiver, or perchance, this colour and savour is so proper to
+them, as not to be transchanged: but you must observe, that those
+digestive, alterative and transchanging motions, do not act or move all
+after one and the same manner; for some do dissolve the natural figure
+of the received, some disperse its dissolved parts into the parts of
+the body, some place the dispersed parts fitly and properly for the
+use, benefit, and consistence of the body; for there is so much variety
+in this one act of digestion, as no man is able to conceive; and if
+there be such variety in one Particular natural action, what variety
+will there not be in all Nature? Wherefore, it is not, as I mentioned
+in the beginning, either Ferment, or Heat, or any other thing, that
+causes digestion; for if all the constitution and nature of our body
+was grounded or did depend upon Ferment, then Brewers and Bakers,
+and those that deal with Ferments, would be the best Physicians.
+But I would fain know the cause which makes Ferment? You may say,
+saltness, and sowreness. But then I ask, From whence comes saltness and
+sowreness? You may say, From the Ferment. But then I shall be as wise
+as before. The best way, perhaps, may be to say, with your _Author_,
+that Ferment is a Primitive Cause, and a beginning or Principle of
+other things, and it self proceeds from nothing. But then it is beyond
+my imagination, how that can be a Principle of material things, which
+it self is nothing; that is, neither a substance, nor an accident.
+Good Lord! what a stir do men make about nothing! I am amazed to see
+their strange Fancies and Conceptions vented for the Truest Reasons:
+Wherefore I will return to my simple opinion; and as I cannot conceive
+any thing that is beyond Matter, or a Body; so I believe, according to
+my reason, that there is not any part in Nature, be it never so subtil
+or small, but is a self-moving substance, or endued with self-motion;
+and according to the regularity and irregularity of these motions,
+all natural effects are produced, either perfect, or imperfect;
+timely births, or untimely and monstrous births; death, health, and
+diseases, good and ill dispositions, natural and extravagant Appetites
+and Passions, (I say natural, that is, according to the nature of
+their figures;) Sympathy and Antipathy, Peace and War, Rational and
+Phantastical opinions. Nevertheless, all these motions, whether
+regular or irregular, are natural; for regularity and irregularity
+hath but a respect to particulars, and to our conceptions, because
+those motions which move not after the ordinary, common or usual way or
+manner, we call Irregular. But the curiosity and variety in Nature is
+unconceiveable by any particular Creature; and so leaving it, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ says,[1] it is an ancient Truth, _That whatsoever things,
+meats being digested and cast out by vomit, are of a sowre taste and
+smell, yea, although they were seasoned with much sugar._ But I do
+not assent to this opinion; for I think that some Vomits have no more
+taste then pure Water hath. Neither am I of his mind, That _Digestion
+is hastened by sharpness or tartness:_ For do but try it by one
+simple experiment; take any kind of flesh-meat, boyl or stew it with
+Vinegar, or sowre wine, or with much salt; and you will find, that it
+doth require a longer time, or rather more motions to dissolve, then
+if you boyl it in fair water, without such ingredients as are sowre,
+sharp, or salt; also if you do but observe, you will find the dregs
+more sandy, stony and hard, being drest with much salt, and sharp
+wine, or vinegar, then when they are not mixt with such contracting
+and fixing Ingredients. Wherefore, if the Ferment of the stomack hath
+such a restringent and contracting quality, certainly digestions will
+be but slow and unprofitable; but Nature requires expulsion as much
+as attraction, and dilation as much as contraction, and digestion is
+a kind of dilation. Wherefore, in my judgment; contracting tartness
+and sharpness doth rather hinder digestion then further it. Next I
+perceive, your _Author_ inclines to the opinion, _That Choler is not
+made by meat_:[2] But I would ask him, whether any humor be made of
+meat, or whether blood, flesh, &c. are made and nourished by meat? If
+they be not, then my answer is, That we eat to no purpose; but if they
+be, then Choler is made so too. But if he says, That some are made, and
+some not; then I would ask, what that humor is made of, that is not
+made by meat or food received into the body? But we find that humors,
+blood, flesh, &c. will be sometimes more, sometimes less, according
+either to feeding, or to digestion, which digestion is a contribution
+of food to every several part of the body for its nourishment; and when
+there is a decay of those parts, then it is caused either by fasting,
+or by irregular digestion, or by extraordinary evacuation, or by
+distempered matter, &c. all which, causes sickness, paleness, leanness,
+weakness, and the like. Again: your _Author_ is against the opinion of
+the Schools, _That the Gall is a receptacle of superfluous humors and
+dregs_: for he says, _it has rather the constitution of a necessary
+and vital bowel, and is the balsom of the liver and blood._ Truly, it
+may be so, for any thing I know, or it may be not; for your _Author_
+could but guess, not assuredly know, unless he had been in a man as big
+as the Whale in whose belly _Jonas_ was three days, and had observed
+the interior parts and motions of every part for three years time, and
+yet he might perchance have been as ignorant at the coming forth, as
+if he never had been there; for Natures actions are not onely curious,
+but very various; and not onely various, but very obscure; in so much,
+as the most ingenious Artists cannot trace her ways, or imitate her
+actions; for Art being but a Creature, can do or know no more then a
+Creature; and although she is an ingenious Creature, which can and hath
+found out some things profitable and useful for the life of others,
+yet she is but a handmaid to Nature, and not her Mistress; which your
+_Author_, in my opinion, too rashly affirms, when he says,[3] That _the
+Art of Chymistry is not onely the Chambermaid and emulating Ape, but
+now and then the Mistress of Nature_: For Art is an effect of Nature,
+and to prefer the effect before the cause, is absurd. But concerning
+Chymistry, I have spoken in another place; I'le return to my former
+Discourse: and I wonder much why your _Author_ is so opposite to the
+Schools, concerning the doctrine of the Gall's being a receptacle for
+superfluities and dregs; for I think there is not any Creature that
+has not places or receptacles for superfluous matter, such as we call
+dregs; for even the purest and hardest Mineral, as Gold, has its dross,
+although in a less proportion then some other Creatures; nay, I am
+perswaded, that even Light, which your _Author_ doth so much worship,
+may have some superfluous matter, which may be named dregs; and since
+Nature has made parts in all Creatures to receive and discharge
+superfluous matter, (which receiving and discharging is nothing else
+but a joyning and dividing of parts to and from parts,) why may not the
+Gall be as well for that use as any other part? But I pray mistake me
+not, when I say _superfluous matter or dregs_; for I understand by it,
+that which is not useful to the nourishment or consistence of such or
+such a Creature; but to speak properly, there is neither superfluity
+of matter nor dregs in Nature. Moreover, your _Author_ mentions a
+_six-fold digestion_, and makes every digestion to be performed by
+inbreathing or inspiration; For _in the first digestion_, he says,
+_The spleen doth inspire a sowre Ferment into the Meat: In the second,
+The Gall doth inspire a ferment, or fermental blas into the slender
+entrails: In the third, The Liver doth inspire a bloody ferment into
+the veins of the Mensentery_, &c. I answer, first, I am confident
+Nature has more ways then to work onely by Inspirations, not onely in
+General, but in every Particular. Next, I believe there are not onely
+six, but many more digestions in an animal Creature; for not onely
+every sort of food, but every bit that is eaten, may require a several
+digestion, and every several part of the body works either to expel, or
+preserve, or for both; so that there are numerous several Motions in
+every Creature, and many changes of motions in each particular part;
+but Nature is in them all. And so leaving her, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Of a Six-fold digestion.
+
+[2] See _The passive deceiving of the Schools, the humorists,_ c. 1.
+
+[3] _Ch._ Heat doth not digest efficiently.
+
+
+
+
+XXXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_, in opposition to the Schools, endeavouring to prove
+that there are no humors in an animal body, except blood, proves
+many humors in himself. But I can see no reason, why Nature should
+not make several humors, as well as several Elements, Vegetables,
+Minerals, Animals, and other Creatures; and that in several parts of
+the body, and many several ways; for to mention but one sort of other
+Creatures, _viz._ Vegetables, they are, as we see, not onely produced
+many several ways, but in many several grounds; either by sowing,
+setting, or grafting, either in clayie, limy, sandy, chalky, dry, or
+wet grounds: And why may not several humors be produced as well of
+other Creatures and parts, as others are produced of them? for all
+parts of Nature are produced one from another, as being all of one
+and the same Matter, onely the variation of corporeal motions makes
+all the difference and variety between them, which variety of motions
+is impossible to be known by any particular Creature; for Nature can
+do more then any Creature can conceive. Truly, _Madam_, I should not
+be of such a mind, as to oppose the Schools herein so eagerly as your
+_Author_ doth; but artificial actions make men to have erroneous
+opinions of the actions of Nature, judging them all according to the
+rule and measure of Art, when as Art oft deludes men under the cover
+of truth, and makes them many times believe falshood for truth; for
+Nature is pleased with variety, and so doth make numerous absurdities,
+doubts, opinions, disputations, objections, and the like. Moreover,
+your _Author_ is as much against the radical moisture, as he is against
+the four humors; saying, that according to this opinion of the Schools,
+a fat belly, through much grease affording more fuel to the radical
+moisture, must of necessity live longer. But this, in my opinion,
+is onely a wilful mistake; for I am confident, that the Schools do
+not understand radical moisture to be gross, fat radical oyl, but a
+thin oylie substance. Neither do they believe radical heat to be a
+burning, fiery and consuming heat, but such a degree of natural heat,
+as is comfortable, nourishing, refreshing, and proper for the life
+of the animal Creature: Wherefore radical heat and moisture doth not
+onely consist in the Grease of the body; for a lean body may have as
+much, and some of them more Radical moisture, then fat bodies. But
+your _Author_ instead of this radical moisture, makes a nourishable
+moisture, onely, as I suppose, out of a mind to contradict the
+Schools; when as I do not perceive, that the Schools mean by Radical
+moisture, any other then a nourishable moisture, and therefore this
+distinction is needless. Lastly, he condemns the Schools, for making
+an affinity betwixt the bowels and the brain. But he might as will
+condemn Politicians, for saying there is an affinity betwixt Governors
+and Subjects, or betwixt command and obedience; but as the actions of
+Particulars, even from the meanest in a Commonwealth, may chance to
+make a Publick disturbance, so likewise in the Common-wealth of the
+body, one single action in a particular part may cause a disturbance
+of the whole Body, nay, a total ruine and dissolution of the composed;
+which dissolution is called Death; and yet these causes are neither
+Light, nor Blas, nor Gas, no more then men are shining Suns, or flaming
+Torches, or blazing Meteors, or azure Skies. Wherefore leaving your
+_Author_ to his contradicting humor, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I do verily believe, with the Schools, the _Purging of the Brain_,
+against your _Author_;[1] For I know no reason, why all the parts of
+a man's body should not stand in need of evacuation and Purging, as
+well as some. 'Tis true, if the substance or nourishment received were
+all useful, and onely enough for the maintenance, subsistance and
+continuance of the Creature, and no more, then there would be no need
+of such sort of evacuation; but I believe the corporeal self-motions
+in a body, discharge the superfluous matter out of every part of the
+body, if the motions of the superfluous matter be not too strong, and
+over-power the motions in the parts of the body; but some parts do
+produce more superfluities then others, by reason their property is
+more to dilate, then to contract, and more to attract, then to retain
+or fix; which parts are the brain, stomack, bowels, bladder, gall, and
+the like: wherefore, as there is nourishment in all parts of the body,
+so there are also excrements in all parts, for there is no nourishment
+without excrement. Next your _Author_ says, That _the nourishment of
+the solid parts is made with the transmutation of the whole venal blood
+into nourishment, without a separation of the pure from the impure._
+But I pray give me leave to ask, _Madam_, whether the solid Parts
+are not Instruments for the nourishment of the Venal blood? Truly, I
+cannot conceive, how blood should be nourished, wanting those solid
+parts, and their particular motions and imployments. Again: his opinion
+is, _That the brain is nourished by a few and slender veins; neither
+doth a passage or channel appear whereby a moist excrement may derive,
+or a vapour enter._ And by reason of the want of such a passage, in
+another place[2] he is pleased to affirm, _That nothing can fume up
+from the stomack into the brain_, and therefore _Wine doth not make
+drunk with fuming from the stomach into the head, but the Winie spirit
+is immediately snatched into the arteries out of the stomach without
+digestion, and so into the head, and there breeds a confusion._ First,
+I am not of the opinion, that all nourishment comes from the veins, or
+from one particular part of the body, no more do Excrements; neither do
+I believe that every passage in the body is visible to Anatomists, for
+Natures works are too curious and intricate for any particular Creature
+to find them out, which is the cause that Anatomists and Chymists
+are so oft mistaken in natural causes and effects; for certainly,
+they sometimes believe great Errors for great Truths. Next, as for
+Drunkenness, I believe that many, who drink much Wine, are drunk before
+such time as the Wine spirit can get into the Arteries; but if there be
+Pores to the Brain, as it is most probable, the spirit of Wine may more
+easily ascend and enter those Pores, then the Pores of the Arteries,
+or the Mouth-veins, and so make a circular journey to the Head. But
+as for Excrements, whereof I spake in the beginning, as they are made
+several manners or ways, and in several parts of the body, so they
+are also discharged several ways from several parts, and several ways
+from each particular part, indeed so many several ways and manners, as
+would puzzle the wisest man in the world, nay your _Authors Interior
+keeper of the Brain_, to find them out. Wherefore, to conclude, he is
+the best Physician, that can tell how to discharge superfluity, and to
+retain useful nourishments; or to restore by the application of proper
+Medicines, decaying parts, or to put in order Irregular motions; and
+not those that have Irregular opinions of Immaterial causes: To which,
+I leave them, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ Call'd _The Erring Watchman, or Wandring Keeper_.
+
+[2] _Ch._ call'd _The Spirit of Life_.
+
+
+
+
+XXXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I do not approve of your _Authors_ Doctrine, forbidding Phlebotomy or
+blood-letting in Fevers, opposite to the received Practice of the
+Schools; his reason is, that he believes there can be no corruption
+in the blood. _Corrupted blood_, says he,[1] _cannot be in the veins,
+neither doth a state of ill juice consist in the veins; for Gangrenes
+do teach, that nothing of Putrified matter can long persist without a
+further contagion of it self._ Also he says, _That the blood of the
+Veins is no otherwise distinguished by its several colours and signs,
+then as wine is troubled when the vine flourisheth._ To which I answer,
+first, That I can see no reason why there should not be as well corrupt
+blood, or an ill state of juice in the veins, as ill humors in the
+body. Perchance he will say, There is no corruption in the body. But
+Ulcers do teach the contrary. He may reply, Ulcers are not parts of the
+body. I answer, 'Tis true; but yet they are evil Inhabitants in the
+body, and the like may be in the Veins. But surely some men may have
+corrupted parts of their bodies, and yet live a great while; witness
+Ulcers in the Lungs, and other parts. But your _Author_ may say, When
+a part of the body is corrupted, it is no longer an animal Part. I
+grant it: but yet, as I said, that transformed part may remain in the
+body some time without destruction of the whole body; and so likewise,
+when some of the blood, is transchanged from being blood, so as not
+to be capable to be reduced again, it may nevertheless remain in the
+veins without definition of the veins, or of the whole body: Neither
+do I conceive any reason, why corrupt blood should Gangrene in the
+veins, and infect the adjoyning parts more then corrupted lungs do.
+Next, as for the comparison of the various colours and signs of the
+blood, with Wine being troubled when the Vine is flourishing; I answer,
+That it doth not prove any thing; for we speak of such colours, as
+are signs of corrupted, and not such as are signs of troubled blood:
+Besides, it is an unlike comparison; for though Wine may become thick
+by much fermentation, yet it doth not turn into water, as blood in
+some sick and diseased persons will do. But corrupted blood may be,
+not onely in the veins of sick, but also of healthy persons; and the
+story says, that _Seneca_, when his veins were cut, they would not
+bleed, although in a hot Bath, by reason that which was in the veins,
+was rather like a white jelly, then blood, and yet he was healthy,
+though old; which proves, that it is not necessary for the blood to
+be so pure and fluid as your _Author_ will have it. The truth is, the
+more fluid the blood is, the weaker it is; like balsam, the more gummy
+it is, the stronger it is: but veins, which are the mouth, to receive
+or suck in juices, as also the stomack which digests the meat that
+after is turned into blood, may be defective either through weakness,
+superfluity, obstruction, corruption, or evil and hurtful diet, or
+through the disorders of other particular parts, which may disturb
+all the parts in general, as skilful Physicians have observed, and
+therefore apply remedies accordingly; for if the defect proceeds from
+weakness, they give strengthening remedies; if from superfluities, they
+give evacuating remedies; if from evil diets, they prescribe such a
+course of diet as shall be beneficial, and conducing for the restoring
+of health to the whole body. But your _Author_, as I perceive, believes
+the blood to be the chief vital part of the body; which surely it is
+not: for if it were, the least disturbance of the blood would endanger
+the life of the whole body, and the least diminution would cause a
+total dissolution of that animal Creature which has blood: Not but
+that blood is as necessary as breath for respiration, and food for
+nourishment of the body; but too much blood is as dangerous to the
+life of the animal body, as too great a piece of food, which cannot
+be swallowed down, but doth stick in the throat, and stop the breath,
+or so much quantity as cannot be digested, for too great a fulness or
+abounding makes a stoppage of the blood, or which is worse, causes
+the veins to break, and an evil digestion, makes a corruption, or at
+least such disorder as to indanger the whole animal Figure. But some
+veins breed more blood, and some less, and some better, and some worse
+blood, some hotter, and some colder, some grosser, and some purer, some
+thicker, and some thinner; and some veins breed rather an evil juice or
+corrupt matter then pure blood; the truth is, blood is bred somewhat
+after the manner of Excrements, for the veins are somewhat like the
+guts, wherein the excrements are digested. But you will say, A man may
+live without excrements, but not without blood. I answer: a man can
+live no more without excrements and excremental humors, then he can
+without blood: but yet I am not of your _Authors_ mind, that bleeding
+and purging are destructive; for superfluities are as dangerous as
+scarcities, nay more; like as an house filled with rubbish is in more
+danger to sink or fall, then that which is empty; and when a house is
+on fire, it is wisdom to take out the Moveables, but a folly to let
+them increase the flame. But your _Author_ says, Blood-letting takes
+not onely away the bad, but also the good blood, by which it diminishes
+and impairs much the strength of the body. I will answer by way of
+question, Whether in War men would not venture the loss of some few
+friends, to gain the victory, or save the whole body of the Army: or
+whether the destroying of the enemies Army be not more advantageous,
+then the loss of some few friends? For although some good blood may
+issue out with the bad, yet the veins have more time, room, and some
+more power to get friendly juices from the several parts of the body,
+which will be more obedient, trusty, and true to the life and service
+of the whole body. But neither Fevers, nor any other distempers, will
+be more afraid of your _Authors_ words, Stones, Spirits, as also Rings,
+Beads, Bracelets, and the like toys, fitter for Children to play
+withal, then for Physicians to use; then an Army of men will be of
+their enemies Colours, Ensigns, Feathers, Scarfs, and the like; knowing
+it must be Swords, Pistols, Guns, Powder and Bullets, that must do the
+business to destroy the enemy, and to gain the victory: Wherefore in
+Diseases it must be Bleeding, Purging, Vomiting, using of Clysters,
+and the like, if any good shall be done. 'Tis true, they must well be
+ordered, otherwise they will do more hurt then good; for Diseases are
+like Enemies, which sometimes take away our Armes for their own uses.
+But your _Author_ says again, _That the Matter of a Fever floats not
+in the veins, nor sits nigh the heart._ I answer: There are several
+sorts of Fevers; for all Fevers are not produced after one and the
+same manner, or from one and the same cause, as is very well known
+to wise and experienced Physicians; but although some Fevers are not
+in the blood, yet that doth not prove, that the blood is never in a
+Fever; for sometimes the blood is in a Fever, and not the solid parts;
+and sometimes the fluid and moveable humors, and not the blood, or
+solid parts; and sometimes the solid parts, and not the blood, nor the
+liquid and moveable humors; and sometimes they are all in a Fever; and
+sometimes onely the radical parts, and neither the blood, humors, nor
+solid parts: and this last kind of Fever, which is a hectick Fever, in
+my opinion, is incureable; but the others may be cureable, if there
+be not too many varieties of distempers, or irregular motions. And as
+for a Fever in the solid parts, Letting of blood, and taking away the
+humor, may cure it; for the veins being empty, suck the heat out of
+the solid parts, which solid parts cannot draw out a distempered heat
+in the veins, and the opening of the veins gives vent to some of the
+interior heat to issue forth: Wherefore it is very requisite, that in
+all sorts of Fevers, except Hectick-Fevers, blood-letting should be
+used, not onely once, but often; for 'tis better to live with a little
+blood, and a little strength, which will soon be recovered, then to
+die with too much, or too hot and distempered blood. Also Purging, but
+especially Vomiting is very good; for if the humors be in a Feaver,
+they may infect the vital parts, as also the blood; but if they be not
+in a Fever, yet the solid parts or blood may do the same, and so make
+the contagion greater; for the humors are as the moveables in a house,
+which ought to be cast out if either they or the house should be on
+fire; and if a disorder proceeds from the error of a particular part,
+then care must be taken to rectifie that part for the health of the
+whole: Wherefore Physicians use in some cases Blood-letting, in some
+Purging, in some Vomiting, in some Bathing, in some Sweating, in some
+Cordials, especially after much evacuation, in some they prescribe a
+good diet, and in some they mix and prescribe partly one and partly the
+other, and in some cases they are forced to use all these remedies;
+for though great evacuations may cause weakness, yet they often save
+the life; and there is no Patient, but had rather lose some strength,
+then life; for life can gather strength again; but all strong men are
+not always long lived, nor all long-lived men very strong; for many
+that are but weak, will live to a very old age. Lastly, concerning what
+your _Author_ says, that there is but one Choler and Phlegme in Nature;
+I answer, That is more then he knows: for all that is in Nature, is
+not nor cannot be known by any Particular Creature; and he might say,
+as well, the same of particular Metals, as that there is but one sort
+of Gold or Silver, when as there is great difference in the weight,
+purity, colour, and gloss, of several parts of Gold and Silver; Neither
+is all Gold found in one place; but some is found in Rocks, some in
+Sand, some in Mines, some in Stones; and so Silver, some is found in
+the bowels of the Earth, some in the veins of Stones, and some in other
+Metals, as Lead, and Iron, and some in Coals. And the like may be said
+of Choler and Phlegme; for they may be several in several places or
+parts of the body, and be of different colours, tastes, odours, and
+degrees of heat or cold, thinness or thickness, or the like; for though
+there is but one Matter in Nature, yet this onely Matter by its several
+actions or motions changes into several figures, and so makes several
+sorts of Creatures, and different particulars in every sort. And thus,
+_Madam_, I have delivered unto you my opinion concerning the cure of
+Fevers by Blood-letting: Which I submit to the correction of your
+better judgment, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] In his Treatise of Fevers, _c._ 4.
+
+
+
+
+XXXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is not onely against Phlebotomy or Blood-letting, but
+against all Purging Medicines, which he condemns to _carry a hidden
+poyson in them, and to be a cruel and stupid invention._ But certainly
+he shall not have my assent; for if they be Poyson, they are a very
+beneficial Poyson; and Physical Purgations, in my opinion, are very
+necessary and profitable for the prolonging of life, and taking away
+of diseases, provided they be proper for those diseases in which they
+are used; and so is Phlebotomy, Vomits, and the like: but Medicines are
+often wrong applyed, and many times the disease is so various, that
+it is as hard for a Physician to hit right with several Medicines,
+as for a Gunner or Shooter to kill with Powder and small Shot a Bird
+flying in the Air; not that it is not possible to be done, but it
+is not ordinary, or frequent: neither doth the fault onely lie in
+the Gun, Powder, or Shot, but in the swiftness of the flight of the
+Bird, or in the various motion of the air, or in a hidden wind, or
+mist, or the like; for the same Gunner may perhaps easily kill a
+Bird sitting in a bush, or hopping upon the ground. The like may be
+said of Diseases, Physicians, and Medicines; for some diseases have
+such hidden alterations, by the sudden changes of motions, that a
+wise Physician will not, nor cannot venture to apply so many several
+medicines so suddenly as the alteration requires; and shall therefore
+Physicians be condemned? and not onely condemned for what cannot be
+helped by reason of the variety of irregular motions, but what cannot
+be helped in Nature? For some diseases are so deadly, as no art can
+cure them, when as otherwise Physicians with good and proper medicines,
+have, and do as yet rescue more people from death, then the Laws do
+from ruine. Nay, I have known many that have been great enemies to
+Physick, die in the flower of their age, when as others which used
+themselves to Physick, have lived a very long time. But you may say,
+Country-people and Labourers, take little or no Physick, and yet grow
+most commonly old, whereas on the contrary, Great and rich Persons
+take much Physick, and do not live so long as the common sort of men
+doth. I answer: It is to be observed, first, that there are more
+Commons, then Nobles, or Great and rich persons; and there is not so
+much notice taken of the death of a mean, as of a noble, great, or
+rich person; so that for want of information or knowledg, one may
+easily be deceived in the number of each sort of persons. Next, the
+Vulgar sort use laborious exercises, and spare diet; when as noble
+and rich persons are most commonly lazie and luxurious, which breeds
+superfluities of humors, and these again breed many distempers: For
+example, you shall find few poor men troubled with the Gout, Stone,
+Pox, and the like diseases, nor their Children with Rickets; for all
+this cometh by luxury, and no doubt but all other diseases are sooner
+bred with luxury, then temperance; but whatsoever is superfluous,
+may, if not be taken away, yet mediated with lenitive and laxative
+medicines. But as for Physicians, surely never age knew any better, in
+my opinion, then this present, and yet most of them follow the rules
+of the Schools, which are such as have been grounded upon Reason,
+Practice, and Experience, for many ages: Wherefore those that will
+wander from the Schools, and follow new and unknown ways, are, in my
+opinion, not Orthodoxes, but Hereticks in the Art of Physick. But to
+return to your _Author_, give me leave, _Madam_, to consider what his
+opinions are concerning the Purging of Choler; _Come on_, says he to
+the Schools,[1] _Why doth that, your Choler following with so swift
+an efflux, stink so horribly, which but for one quarter of an hour
+before did not stink?_ To which it may be answered, That though humors
+may not stink in themselves, yet the excrements mixt with the humors
+may stink; also the very passing thorow the excrements will cause a
+strong savour. But your _Author_ thinks, That _by passing through so
+suddenly, the humors cannot borrow such a smell of stinking dung from
+the Intestines._ Truly, 'tis easily said, but hardly proved, and the
+contrary is manifest by putting clear, pure water into a stinking
+vessel, which straightway is corrupted with an ill smell. He talks
+also of _Vitriol dissolved in Wine, which if it be taken, presently
+provokes vomit; but if after drinking it, any one shall drink thereupon
+a draught of Ale or Beer, or Water, &c. he indeed shall suffer many
+stools, yet wholly without stink._ I answer: This expresses Vitriol
+to be more poysonous, by taking away the natural savour of the bowels,
+then Scammony, Coloquintida, Manna, Cassia, Sena, Rhubarb, &c. to
+all which your _Author_ is a great enemy; and it is well known to
+experienced Physicians, that Medicines prepared by the art of fire are
+more poysonous and dangerous then natural drugs; nay, I dare say, that
+many Chymical Medicines, which are thought to be Cordials, and have
+been given to Patients for that purpose, have proved more poysonous
+then any Purging Physick. Again your _Author_ says, _It is worthy of
+Lamentation, that Physicians would have loosening things draw out one
+humor, and not another, by selection or choyce._ My answer is, That
+natural drugs and simples are as wise in their several operations, as
+Chymists in their artificial distillations, extractions, sublimations,
+and the like; but it has long been observed by Physicians, that one
+simple will work more upon one part of the body, then upon another; the
+like may be said of humors. But give me leave to tell you, _Madam_,
+that if your _Author_ believes magnetick or attractive cures (as he
+doth, and in whose behalf he makes very long discourses) he doth in
+this opinion contradict himself. He may say, perhaps, There is no such
+thing as what Physicians name humors. But grant there be none, yet he
+cannot deny that there are offensive juices, or moveable substances
+made by evil, as irregular digestions, which may be troublesom and
+hurtful to the nature of the body. Or perchance he will say, There are
+such humors, but they are beneficial and not offensive to the nature
+of the body. I answer: Then he must make an agreement with every part
+of the body, not to make more of these humors then is useful for the
+body. Also he mentions some few that took Purging Physick, and died.
+Truly so they might have done without taking it: but he doth not tell,
+how many have died for want of proper and timely Purges. In truth,
+_Madam_, 'tis an easie thing to find fault, but not so easie to mend
+it. And as for what he speaks of the weighing of those humors and
+excrements, which by purging were brought out of some Princes body, and
+how much by the Schools rules remained, and of the place which should
+maintain the remainder; I onely say this, that all the several sorts
+of juices, humors, or moveable substances in a body, do not lie in one
+place, but are dispersed, and spread all about and in several parts
+and places in the body; so that the several Laxative medicines do but
+draw them together, or open several parts, that they may have freedom
+to travel with their chief Commanders, which are the Purging medicines.
+But your _Author_ says, the Loadstone doth not draw rust. And I say, no
+more do Purging drugs draw out pure Matter: for it may be as natural
+for such medicines to draw or work onely upon superfluities, that is,
+corrupted, or evil-affected humors, juices or moveable substances, as
+for the Loadstone to draw Iron; and so it may be the property of Purges
+to draw onely the rust of the body, and not the pure metal, which are
+good humors. But few do consider or observe sufficiently the variety of
+Natures actions, and the motions of particular natural Creatures, which
+is the cause they have no better success in their cures. And so leaving
+them to a more diligent inquisition and search into Nature, and her
+actions, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] In his Treatise of Fevers, _c._ 5.
+
+
+
+
+XXXV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I find your _Author_ to be as great an enemy to Issues, Cauteries,
+Clysters, and the like, as he is to Blood-letting and Purging;
+especially to Issues, which he counts to be blasphemous against
+the Creator, and blames much the Schools for prescribing them. But
+concerning Blood-letting and Purging, I have declared my opinion in
+my former Letters; and if you desire my judgment of Clysters and
+Issues, I must needs tell you, that it is well known these many ages,
+that in such diseases which lie in the guts, and cause pain in the
+head, and stop the ureteres, Clysters have been very beneficial, but
+wise Physicians do not prescribe them, unless upon necessity: As for
+example; if the disease in the Guts proceed from cold or wind, they
+prescribe a Sack-Clyster, with oyl of Walnuts; and if the disease in
+the guts proceed from a sharp or bitter humor, then they prescribe
+Milk, or Posset, sweetned with Sugar: the same if the guts be too
+full of excrements or slime. But in case of diseases in the head or
+stomack, they prescribe attractive Clysters, to wit, such as draw down
+from the upper into the lower parts, wherein the Physical drugs are;
+and if the guts be too dry, or dryer then their nature requires,
+they prescribe moistening Clysters, such as have not onely wetting,
+but slimy qualities. And surely Clysters properly and timely applyed,
+are a safe, speedy, easie and profitable medicine, and far more safe
+then Chymical Salts, Tartars, Spirits, or the like. Next concerning
+Issues and Cauteries, your _Author_, I say, is so much against them,
+as he counts them a blasphemy; for says he,[1] _I have beheld always
+an implicite blasphemy in a Cautery, whereby they openly accuse the
+Creator of insufficiency in framing the emunctories; for I have bidden
+above a thousand Issues to be filled up with flesh._ Also, _That which
+God hath made whole and entire, that it might be very good, seems to
+the Schools, that it should be better if it be kept wounded._ Truly,
+_Madam_, in my opinion, it is no blasphemy at all, neither directly
+nor indirectly, to make Issues, but a meer superstition to believe the
+contrary, _viz._ that they are blasphemy, and a great folly not to make
+them when need requires it to the preservation of ones health. _God has
+made our body whole and intire_, says your _Author_: by which he will
+prove that no holes must be made in the body to let out excrementious
+matter, and therefore he thinks that body to be whole and intire which
+is without an Issue, when as yet our bodies have numerous issues,
+which are the pores of the skin, to let out sweat; and therefore if
+he counts that body not to be whole and intire that has Issues, then
+no humane body is intire. Certainly, no Artificial Issue will make
+the body maimed, but it will nevertheless continue whole and intire
+although it has Issues. He says it is Blasphemy; But how will he prove
+it? Surely not by the Scripture; and if not by the Scripture, then it
+is a blasphemy according to his own brain and fancy. 'Tis true, God
+gave no express Command to make Issues; but according to your _Author_,
+God did never create Diseases, and so there was no need either to
+make such Issues in bodies as to let out distempered Matter, or to
+give any command for them; but we might as well say, we must not use
+any Physick, because it is not so natural to man as food, and serves
+not for the nourishment of the body, but onely to keep off, or drive
+out diseases: Also no stone must be cut, but man must rather indure
+torment and death. But setting aside this superstitious doctrine of
+your _Author_, it is evident enough, and needs no proof, that Cancers,
+Fistulas, Wenns, Eating-evils, Madness, Fevers, Consumptions, Rheumes,
+Pleurisies, and numerous other diseases, are not better cured then by
+Issues, or making of wounds, either by Lancets, Pen-knifes, Scissers,
+Rasors, Corrosives, Causticks, Leeches, or the like. And although
+your _Author_ says, That _that Matter which proceeds from, or out of
+an Issue, is made in the lips of the wound, and not in the body; for
+it cannot possibly drain or draw out any moisture, either from within
+or between the skin and the flesh, having no passages_: Yet if this
+were so, how come Fistulas, Cancers, and the like diseases, to have
+passages from within the body to the exterior parts, so, as to make
+a wound, out of which much sharp and salt humor issues? which humor
+certainly is not made in the lips of the wound, but in the body: Also
+whence comes the humor that makes the Gout? For though the swelling and
+inflammation will sometimes appear exteriously, yet after some time
+those tumors and humors retire back into the body from whence they did
+flow; but he might as well say that Pit-falls or Sluces do not drain
+Land from a superfluity of Water, as that Issues do not drain the body
+of superfluous humors. Wherefore I am absolutely of opinion, that the
+Practice of the Schools is the best and wisest Practice, as well in
+making Issues, letting blood, Purging by Siege or Vomits, as any other
+means used by them; for by Issues I have seen many cured, when no
+other medicines would do any good with them; and letting blood, I am
+confident, hath rescued more lives, then the Universal Medicine, could
+Chymists find it out, perchance would do. So also Clysters and Vomits,
+skilfully applied, have done great benefits to the life of men; for
+every part and member hath its peculiar way to be purged and cleansed;
+for example, Clysters principally cleanse the Guts, Purges the Stomack,
+Vomits the Chest, Sneezing the Head, Bleeding the Veins, and Issues
+drain the whole body of naughty humors: All which remedies, properly
+and timely used, keep the body from being choak'd with superfluities.
+There are several other ways of cures besides for several diseases, but
+I leave those to learned and skilful Physicians, who know best how and
+when to use them to the benefit and health of their Patients, although
+your _Author_ finds much fault with them, and blames them for suffering
+men to die miserably; but God has given power to Nature to make certain
+dissolutions, although uncertain diseases, and uncertain remedies.
+Neither hath she in her power to give Immortal Life to particular
+Creatures, for this belongs to God alone, and therefore no Universal
+Medicine will keep out death, or prolong life further then its thread
+is spun, which I doubt is but a Chym�ra, and an impossible thing,
+by reason there are not onely so many different varieties in several
+diseases, but in one and the same disease, as no Universal remedy
+would do any good. But your _Author_ is much pleased with Paradoxes,
+and Paradoxes are not certain Truths: Wherefore it is better, in my
+judgment, to follow the old approved and practised way of the Schools,
+grounded upon Experience and Reason, then his Paradoxical Opinions.
+To which Schools, as your _Author_ is a great Enemy, so I am a great
+Friend, as well as,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble Servant._
+
+[1] Of Cauteries.
+
+
+
+
+XXXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I approve well of your _Authors_ opinion,[1] That _Drink ought not
+to be forbidden in Fevers_; but yet I would not allow so much as to
+drown and oppress the Patients life, but onely so much as to refresh
+and moisten him; and therefore the best way is to drink little and
+often. But as for Wine, which your _Author_ commends in Fevers, I am
+utterly against it, unless the Fever proceed from a cold or crude
+cause, otherwise cooling Ptisans are most beneficial to those that are
+sick of a continual Fever, which for the most part is a general Fever
+throughout the whole body, one part infecting the other, until they
+be all infected, like as in the Plague. And to let you know the proof
+of it; when I was once sick beyond the Seas, I sent for a Doctor of
+Physick who was an Irish-man: and hearing of some that knew him, and
+his practice, that he was not successful in his Cures, but that his
+Patients most commonly died, I asked him what he used to prescribe in
+such or such diseases? where amongst the rest, as I remember, he told
+me, That he allowed his Patients to drink Wine in a Fever. I thought
+he was in a great error, and told him my opinion, that though Wine
+might be profitable, perhaps, to some few, yet for the most part it
+was very hurtful and destructive, alledging another famous Physician
+in _France_, Dr. _Davison_, who used in continual Fevers, to prescribe
+onely cooling Ptisan, made of a little Barley, and a great quantity
+of Water, so thin as the Barley was hardly perceived, and a spoonfull
+of syrup of Limmon put into a quart of the said Ptisan; but in case
+of a Flux, he ordered some few seeds of Pomegranats to be put into
+it, and this cold Ptisan was to be the Patients onely drink: Besides,
+once in Twenty four hours he prescribed a couple of potched Eggs, with
+a little Verjuice, and to let the Patient blood, if he was dry and
+hot; I mean dry exteriously, as from sweat; and that either often or
+seldom, according as occasion was found: Also he prescribed two grains
+of Laudanum every night, but neither to give the Patient meat nor drink
+two hours before and after: Which advice and Practice of the mentioned
+Physician concerning Fevers, with several others, I declared to this
+Irish Doctor, and he observing this rule, cured many, and so recovered
+his lost esteem and repute. But your _Author_ being all for Wine, and
+against cooling drinks, or Julips, in hot Fevers, says, _That cooling
+means are more like to death, to cessation from motion, and to defect;
+but heat from moderate Wine is a mean like unto life._ To which I
+answer, first, That cold, or cooling things, are as active as hot or
+heating things; neither is death more cold then hot, nor life more hot
+then cold; for we see that Frost is as active and strong as burning
+heat; and Water, Air, and Earth, are as full of life, as Fire; and
+Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, have life as well as Animals: But
+we, feeling a Man's flesh cold when he is dissolving from an Animal,
+think death is cold; and seeing he was hot before the same alteration,
+say, Life is hot: Also finding an animal, when it is dissolving, to be
+without external local Motion, we say it is dead; and when it hath as
+yet this local motion before its alteration, we call it alive; which
+certainly is not proper. Next I say, that a wise Man when his house is
+fired, will fling or squirt water upon it, to quench it, and take out
+all moveables lest they should increase the flame; likewise he will
+make vent for the flame to issue forth. But perchance your _Author_ may
+say, that Fevers are not hot. Truly, in my opinion, he might say as
+well that Fire is cold. Again, he may say, That although the effect
+be hot, yet the cause is cold. I answer: That in some diseases, the
+effects become so firmly rooted, and so powerfull, that they must be
+more look'd upon then the cause: for such variety there is in Nature,
+that oftentimes, that which was now an effect, turns to be a cause, and
+again a cause an effect: For example; A cold cause often produces a hot
+effect, and this hot effect becomes again a cause of a cold effect:
+Which variation is not onely a trouble, but a great obstruction to wise
+Physicians; for Nature hath more varieties in diseases, then Physicians
+have remedies, And as for drink, if Fevers be neither hot, nor dry,
+nor require drink for want of moisture; then I see no reason why drink
+should be urged, and those Physicians blamed that forbid it; for if
+thirst proceed from an evil digestion, drink will rather weaken the
+stomack; for heat and driness draw soon away the drink in the stomack,
+and putting much into a weak stomack doth rather hurt then good. But
+if necessity require it, then I approve rather of raw and crude Water,
+then of hot inflaming Wine. And so taking my leave, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] Of Fevers, _Ch._ 12.
+
+
+
+
+XXXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In your _Authors_ Treatise of Fevers, I find one Chapter[1] whose
+Inscription is, _A Perfect Curing of all Fevers_, wherein he declares
+the secrets of the Cures of Fevers, consisting all in Chymical
+Medicines. But considering, that if all Fevers could be cured by such
+Medicines, then all Physicians would strive to obtain them; I can
+hardly believe (by your _Authors_ favour) that any such perfect curing
+of all Fevers can be effected, but that your _Authors_ prescriptions,
+if they should come to the tryal, might fail as well as any other.
+Likewise he mentions a Medicine of _Paracelsus_, Named _Diaceltesson_,
+or the _Coraline Secret_; which, he says, cures radically the Gout no
+less then Fevers: Which if so, I wonder why so many Great, Noble and
+Rich Persons, groan so much under the pains of the Gout; certainly
+it is not for want of cost to have them prepared, nor for want of an
+ingenious and experienced Chymist; for this age doth not want skilful
+workmen in that Art, nor worthy and wise Physicians, which if they knew
+such soveraign medicines, would soon apply them to their Patients;
+but I suppose that they finding their effects to be less then the
+cost and labour bestowed upon them, forbear to use them. Moreover, he
+mentions[2] another remedy for most diseases, by him call'd _Driff_,
+prepared also by the Art of Chymistry; but I believe all those remedies
+will not so often cure, as fail of cure, like as the Sympathetical
+Powder; for if there were such soveraign medicines that did never fail
+of a successful effect, certainly men being curious, inquisitive,
+and searching, would never leave till they had found them out. Also
+amongst Vegetables, the herb _Chameleon_ and _Arsmart_ are in great
+request with your _Author_; For, says he, _they by their touching
+alone, do presently take away cruel diseases, or at leastwise ease
+them._ Which if so, I wonder that there is not more use made of them,
+and they held in greater esteem then they are; Also that your _Author_
+doth not declare the vertue of them, and the manner and way how, and
+in what diseases to use them, for the benefit of his neighbour, to
+which end, he says, all his labours and actions are directed? But
+again, your _Author_ confirms, as an Eye-witness, _That the bone of
+the arm of a Toad presently has taken away the Tooth-ach at the first
+co-touching._ Which remedy, if it was constant, few, in my opinion,
+would suffer such cruel pains, and cause their teeth to be drawn out,
+especially if sound. Likewise of the mineral _Electrum or Amber_ of
+_Paracelsus_, he affirms[3] to have seen, that _hung about the neck, it
+has freed those that were persecuted by unclean spirits_, and that many
+simples have done the like effects; but surely, _Madam_, I cannot be
+perswaded that the Devil should be put away so easily; for he being a
+Spirit, will not be chased by corporeal means, but by spiritual, which
+is Faith, and Prayer; and the cure of dispossessing the Devil belongs
+to Divines, and not to Natural Philosophers or Physicians. But though
+exterior remedies, as Amulets, Pomanders, and the like, may perform
+sometimes such effects as to cure or preserve from some diseases, yet
+they are not ordinary and constant, but meerly by chance. But there are
+more false remedies then true ones, and if one remedy chance to work
+successfully with one distempered person, it may fail of its success
+applyed to others in the same kind of distemper; nay, it may cure
+perhaps one and the same person of a distemper once, and in the return
+of the same disease effect little or nothing; witness those remedies
+that are applyed in Agues, Tooth-aches, and the like, especially
+Amulets; for one and the same disease in several persons, or in one and
+the same person at several times, may vary and change so often, and
+proceed from so different causes, and be of so different tempers, and
+have such different motions, as one and the same medicine can do no
+good: And what would the skill of Physicians be, if one remedy should
+cure all diseases? Why should they take so much pains in studying the
+various causes, motions, and tempers of diseases, if one medicine had a
+general power over all? Nay, for what use should God have created such
+a number of different simples, Vegetables, and Minerals, if one could
+do all the business? Lastly, your _Author_ rehearses[4] some strange
+examples of Child-bearing Women, who having seen terrible and cruel
+sights, as Executions of Malefactors, and dismembring of their bodies,
+have brought forth monstrous births, without heads, hands, arms, leggs,
+&c. according to the objects they had seen. I must confess, _Madam_,
+that all Creatures are not always formed perfect; for Nature works
+irregularly sometimes, wherefore a Child may be born defective in some
+member or other, or have double members instead of one, and so may
+other animal Creatures; but this is nevertheless natural, although
+irregular to us: but to have a Child born perfect in the womb, and the
+lost member to be taken off there, and so brought forth defective,
+as your _Author_ mentions, cannot enter my belief; neither can your
+_Author_ himself give any reason, but he makes onely a bare relation
+of it; for certainly, if it was true, that the member was chopt, rent
+or pluckt off from the whole body of the Child, it could not have
+been done without a violent shock or motion of the Mother, which I am
+confident would never have been able to endure it; for such a great
+alteration in her body, would of necessity, besides the death of the
+Child, have caused a total dissolution of her own animal parts, by
+altering the natural animal motions: But, as I said above, those births
+are caused by irregular motions, and are not frequent and ordinary; for
+if upon every strange sight, or cruel object, a Child-bearing-woman
+should produce such effects, Monsters would be more frequent then they
+are. In short, Nature loves variety, and this is the cause of all
+strange and unusual natural effects; and so leaving Nature to her will
+and pleasure, my onely delight and pleasure is to be,
+
+Madam,
+
+_[Your] faithful Friend, and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 14.
+
+[2] In the _Ch._ named _Butler_.
+
+[3] Ch. Of the manner of entrance of things darted into the body.
+
+[4] _Ch._ Of things injected into the body.
+
+
+
+
+XXXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ reproving the Schools, that they forbid Salt to some
+diseased persons, as pernicious to their health: _Good God_, says
+he,[1] _how unsavoury are the Schools, and how unsavoury do they bid us
+to be!_ But I suppose the Schools do not absolutely forbid all diseased
+persons to abstein from salt, but onely not to use it excessively, or
+too frequently; for experience proves, that salt meats have not onely
+increased, but caused diseases, as the Stone, the Gout, Sciatica,
+Fistula's, Cancers, sore Eyes, sore Throats, and the like: I do not
+say, that those diseases are always bred with the excess of salt diets;
+for diseases of one and the same kind, may be bred variously; but this
+hath been observed, that whosoever is affected with such diseases,
+shall after a salt meal find himself in more pain then before;
+wherefore a constant or common salt diet cannot but be hurtful. Neither
+are those persons that feed much on salt meats, or use strong drinks,
+take number for number, so healthful or long-lived, as those that are
+temperate and abstaining. Next, your _Author_[2] bewails _The shameful
+simplicity of those, that give their Patients Leaf-Gold, Pearls, and
+bruised or powder'd pretious Stones, as Cordials, in fainting fits,
+and other distempers: For_, says he, _they may be dissolved, but not
+altered; wherefore they cannot produce any powerful effect to the
+health of the Patient._ Truly, _Madam_, I am not of his mind; for were
+it that those remedies or cordials could not be transchanged, yet their
+vertues may nevertheless be very beneficial to the sick: For example;
+a man that is assaulted by enemies, or by chance is fallen into a
+deep Pit, or is ready to be strangled, and in all not able to help
+himself, yet by the help of another man, may be rescued and freed from
+his danger, and from death, using such means as are able to release
+him, which either by drawing his Sword against his enemies, or by
+throwing a rope down into the Pit, and haling him out, or by cutting
+the rope by which he hung, may save him, and yet neither the man, nor
+any of his Instruments, as Sword, Rope, Knife, and the like, need to
+be transchanged. The like may be said of the aforementioned medicines
+or remedies; which if they be not transchangeable, yet they may
+nevertheless do such operations, as by their natural active qualities
+and proprieties to over-power the irregular motions in the natural
+parts of the body of the Patient; for many diseases proceed more from
+irregular motions then irregular parts: and although there is no motion
+without matter, yet one and the same matter may have divers and various
+changes of motions, and moving parts will either oppose or assist
+each other without transchanging. And truly, _Madam_, I wonder that
+your _Author_ doth condemn such Cordials made of Leaf-gold, Pearls,
+powdered precious Stones, or the like, and yet verily believe, that
+Amber, Saphires, Emeraulds, Beads, Bracelets, &c. outwardly applied or
+worn, can cure more then when inwardly taken; surely, if this be so,
+they cure more by Faith, then by Reason. But it seems your _Author_
+regulates the actions of Nature to the artificial actions of his
+Furnace, which although sometimes they produce wonderful effects, yet
+not such as Nature doth; for if they cure one, they commonly kill ten;
+nay, the best of their Medicine is so dangerous, as it ought not to be
+applied but in desperate cases: Wherefore Wise Physicians must needs be
+Provident and Cautious when they use them. And so leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] Of the disease of the Stone, _c._ 3.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Of the reason or consideration of diet.
+
+
+
+
+XXXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I will not dispute your _Authors_ opinion concerning the Plague of Men,
+which he says,[1] _doth not infect Beasts, neither doth the plague of
+Beasts infect Men_; but rather believe it to be so: for I have observed
+that Beasts infect onely each other, to wit, those of their own kind,
+as Men do infect other Men. For example: the Plague amongst Horses
+continues in their own kind, and so doth the Plague amongst Sheep;
+and for any thing we know, there may be a plague amongst Vegetables,
+as well as amongst Animals, and they may not onely infect each other
+but also those Animals that do feed on those infectious Vegetables:
+so that Infections may be caused several ways; either by inbreathing
+and attracting or sucking in the Poyson of the Plague, or by eating
+and converting it into the substance of the body; for some kinds of
+poyson are so powerful, as to work onely by way of inbreathing. Also
+some sorts of Air may be full of infection, and infect many Men,
+Beasts, Birds, Vegetables, and the like; for Infections are variously
+produced, Internally as well as Externally, amongst several particular
+Creatures; for as the Plague may be made internally, or within the body
+of a particular Creature, without any exterior infection entring from
+without into the body, so an external Infection again may enter many
+several ways into the body. And thus there be many contagious diseases
+caused meerly by the internal motions of the body, as by fright,
+terror, conceit, fancy, imagination, and the like, and many by the
+taking of poysonous matter from without into the body; but all are made
+by the natural motions or actions of animate matter, by which all is
+made that is in Nature, and nothing is new, as _Solomon_ says; but what
+is thought or seems to be new, is onely the variation of the Motions
+of this old Matter, which is Nature. And this is the reason that not
+every Age, Nation, or Creature, has always the like diseases; for as
+all the actions of Nature vary, so also do diseases. But to speak of
+the Plague, although I am of opinion, that the Plague of Beasts doth
+not infect Men, unless they be eaten; nor the plague of Men, Beasts;
+yet Magistrates do wisely in some places, that in the beginning of the
+plague of Men, they command Dogs and Cats to be kill'd, by reason, as
+your _Author_ saith, _The skins and flesh of Brutes may be defiled with
+our Plague, and they may be pestiferous contagions unto us._ I will
+add one thing more, which doth concern the Poyson of Measels, whereof
+your _Author_ is saying,[2] That _it is onely proper to humane kind._
+What kind of Measles he means, I know not; but certainly Hogs are often
+affected with that disease, as is vulgarly known; but whether they be
+different diseases in their kinds, and proceed from different motions,
+I will let others inquire. And so I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] In the Plague-grave, _ch._ 17.
+
+[2] _Ch._ Call'd, _The Lunar Tribute_.
+
+
+
+
+XL.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning the disease of the Stone, your _Author_ seems to be of an
+opinion, That the stone in the Bladder, and the stone in the Kidnies,
+are not made after one and the same manner: For, says he,[1] _The
+Bladder and the same Urine in number procreates a duelech of another
+condition, then that which is made in the Kidney._ And truly, _Madam_,
+it may be so; for there are several ways or modes in irregularities,
+as well as regularities, and not every kind is alike, no not every
+Particular, but there is some difference between them: Wherefore, it
+may very well be, that the corporeal motions that make the stone in
+the Kidneys, are not just alike to those that make the stone in the
+Bladder; and as each sort of stone is different, so their particular
+causes ought to be different; but this is to be observed, that
+generally all diseases which produce hardness, are made by contracting,
+condensing and retenting motions, and therefore the remedies of them
+must be dilating, rarifying and dissolving. Next your _Author_ says,
+_The Stone is not bred by heat, but heat is rather an effect of the
+stone; neither is a certain muscilage, or a slimy, snivelly Phlegme
+the cause or matter of the stone, but the stone is the cause of the
+phlegme._ But, in my judgment, it seems more probable, that a slimy
+matter is more proper for a stone to be made of, then that a stone
+should make slime, except it be in its dissolution; that is, when the
+stone, as in its generation or production it did change from a slimy
+or liquid substance to a stone by condensing and contracting motions,
+doth, by dilating and rarifying motions, dissolve again into such a
+liquid and slimy body. I will not say always, to wit, that the stone
+must needs be resolved into a slimy matter, but oftentimes it may be
+so. Neither can I absolutely affirm that either heat or cold onely is
+the cause of a stone; for some may be produced by hot, and some by
+cold contractions and densations, there being as many several sorts of
+stones as there are of other Creatures: But this is to be well noted,
+that as some sorts of hot contractions do make stones, so some sorts
+of hot dilations do dissolve them: The like of cold contractions and
+dilations. Again: your _Author_ speaking of the womb wherein the stone
+is made; _Every generated thing or being_, says he, _must of necessity
+have a certain place or womb where it is produced; for there must
+needs be places wherein things may be made before they are bred._ I
+answer: As there is not any body without place, nor any place without
+body, so the womb is not the place of the body generated, neither
+before nor after its generation, no more then a man can be said to
+be in a room when he is not there, but every body carries its place
+along with it. Moreover, concerning the voiding of bloody Urine, which
+happens sometimes in the disease of the Stone, my opinion is, That
+it doth not always proceed from the Stone, but many times from the
+breaking or voluntary opening of some Veins. But as for the cure of the
+disease of the Stone your _Author,_[2] is pleased to affirm, _That no
+disease is incurable_, and so neither the disease of the Stone, _For
+he himself has cured many of the Stone to which they had been obedient
+for some years._ Indeed, _Madam_, I fear his words are more cheerful
+then effectual; however it may be possible, if the Kidneys be no ways
+impaired, or the Bladder hurt; but if there be some such imperfection
+in either or both, then it is as much, in my opinion, as to say, Man
+can do more then Nature doth: Neither can I believe, that then any of
+your _Authors_ Chymical preparations, as _Aroph, Ludus, Alkahest_,
+and the like, if they were to be had, would do any good, no nor
+_Daucus_, or wild Carrot-seed, if the disease be as yet curable, will
+prove an effectual remedy for it, although your _Author_ is pleased
+to relate an example of a man, to whom it did much good; for I can
+affirm the contrary by other the like Examples, that it never did any
+good to those that used it; nor the liquor of the Birch-tree, whose
+venue and efficacy I do not believe to be so great as your _Author_
+describes:[3] But for the stoppage of Urine, Marsh-mallow and oyl of
+Almonds, which he despises, I approve to be good, and better then any
+of his Unknown, Chymical Secrets; for those Chymical Medicines, as he
+himself confesses, are hard to be had, especially _Alkahest_, which is
+onely to be obtained by a Particular favour from Heaven, and is rather
+a supernatural Gift, then a natural remedy. But your _Author_ doth
+wisely, to commend such remedies as can never, or with great difficulty
+be obtained, and then to say that no disease is incurable. And so
+leaving him to his unknown secrets, and those to them that will use
+them, I am resolved to adhere to the Practice of the Schools, which I
+am confident will be more beneficial to the health of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your real and faithful_
+
+_Friend and Servant._
+
+[1] Of the Stone, _ch._ 6. See the _ch._ called, _A Numero-Critical
+Paradox of supplies_.
+
+[2] _Ch._ 7.
+
+[3] _Ch._ 8.
+
+
+
+
+XLI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ speaking of the _Gout_, and of that kind of Gout which
+is called _Hereditary_, says, _It consists immediately in the Spirit
+of Life._ First, as for that which is called an Hereditary Disease,
+propagated from Parents upon their Children; my opinion is, That it
+is nothing else but the same actions of the animate matter, producing
+the same effect in the Child as they did in the Parent: For example;
+the same motions which made the Gout in the Parent, may make the same
+disease in the Child; but every Child has not his Parents diseases, and
+many Children have such diseases as their Parents never had; neither is
+any disease tied to a particular Family by Generation, but they proceed
+from irregular motions, and are generally in all Mankind; and therefore
+properly there is no such thing as an hereditary propagation of
+diseases; for one and the same kind of disease may be made in different
+persons, never a kin to one another, by the like motions; but because
+Children have such a neer relation to their Parents by Generation, if
+they chance to have the same diseases with their Parents, men are apt
+to conclude it comes by inheritance; but we may as well say, that all
+diseases are hereditary; for there is not any disease in Nature but is
+produced by the actions of Nature's substance; and if we receive life
+and all our bodily substance by Generation from our Parents, we may be
+said to receive diseases too; for diseases are inherent in the matter
+or substance of Nature, which every Creature is a part of, and are real
+beings made by the corporeal motions of the animate matter, although
+irregular to us; for as this matter moves, so is Life or Death,
+Sickness or Health, and all natural effects; and we consisting of the
+same natural matter, are naturally subject as well to diseases as to
+health, according as the Matter moves. Thus all diseases are hereditary
+in Nature; nay, the Scripture it self confirms it, informing us, that
+diseases, as well as death, are by an hereditary propagation derived
+from _Adam_ upon all Posterity. But as for the Gout, your _Authors_
+doctrine is,[1] _That Life is not a body, nor proper to a body, nor the
+off-spring of corporeal Proprieties_,[2] but a _meer No-thing_; and
+that _the Spirit of Life is a real being, to wit, the arterial blood
+resolved by the Ferment of the heart into salt air, and enlightned by
+life_,[3] and that the Gout doth immediately consist in this spirit of
+life. All which how it doth agree, I cannot conceive; for that a real
+being should be enlightned by Nothing, and be a spirit of Nothing, is
+not imaginable, nor how the Gout should inhabit in the spirit of life;
+for then it would follow, that a Child, as soon as it is brought forth
+into the world, would be troubled with the Gout, if it be as natural
+to him as life, or have its habitation in the Spirit of Life. Also
+your _Author_ is speaking of _an Appoplexy in the head, which takes
+away all sense and motion._ But surely, in my opinion, it is impossible
+that all sense and motion should be out of the head; onely that sense
+and motion, which is proper to the head, and to the nature of that
+Creature, is altered to some other sensitive and rational motions,
+which are proper to some other figure; for there is no part or particle
+of matter that has not motion and sense. I pray consider, _Madam_,
+is there any thing in Nature that is without motion? Perchance you
+will say, Minerals; but that is proved otherwise; as for example, by
+the sympathetical motion between the Loadstone and Iron, and between
+the Needle and the North, as also by the operation of Mercury, and
+several others; Wherefore there is no doubt, but all kinds, sorts and
+particulars of Creatures have their natural motions, although they are
+not all visible to us, but not such motions as are made by Gas, or
+Blas, or Ideas, &c. but corporeal sensitive and rational motions, which
+are the actions of Natural Matter. You may say, Some are of opinion,
+that Sympathy and Antipathy are not Corporeal motions. Truly, whosoever
+says so, speaks no reason; for Sympathy and Antipathy are nothing else
+but the actions of bodies, and are made in bodies; the Sympathy betwixt
+Iron and the Loadstone is in bodies; the Sympathy between the Needle
+and the North is in bodies; the Sympathy of the Magnetic powder is in
+bodies. The truth is, there is no motion without a body, nor no body
+without motion. Neither doth Sympathy and Antipathy work at distance
+by the power of Immaterial Spirits, or rays, issuing out of their
+bodies, but by agreeable or disagreeable corporeal motions; for if
+the motions be agreeable, there is Sympathy; if disagreeable, there
+is Antipathy; and if they be equally found in two bodies, then there
+is a mutual Sympathy or Antipathy; but if in one body onely, and not
+in the other, there is but Sympathy or Antipathy on one side, or in
+one Creature. Lastly, concerning _swoonings or fainting fits_, your
+_Authors_ opinion is, that they _proceed from the stomack_: Which I
+can hardly believe; for many will swoon upon the sight of some object,
+others at a sound, or report, others at the smell of some disagreeable
+odour, others at the taste of some or other thing that is not agreeable
+to their nature, and so forth: also some will swoon at the apprehension
+or conceit of something, and some by a disorder or irregularity of
+motions in exterior parts. Wherefore, my opinion is, that swoonings
+may proceed from any part of the body, and not onely from the stomack.
+But, _Madam_, I being no Physicianess may perhaps be in an error,
+and therefore I will leave this discourse to those that are thorowly
+learned and practised in this Art, and rest satisfied that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble Servant._
+
+[1] Of the disease of the Stone, _c._ 9.
+
+[2] Of the subject of inhering of diseases in the point of life.
+
+[3] Of the Spirit of Life.
+
+
+
+
+XLII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_[1] is inquiring whether some cures of diseases may be
+effected by bare co-touchings; and I am of his opinion, they may;
+for co-touchings of some exterior objects may cause alterations of
+some particular motions in some particular parts of matter, without
+either transferring their own motions into those parts, (for that this
+is impossible, I have heretofore declared) or without any corporeal
+departing from their own parts of matter into them, and alterations may
+be produced both in the motions and figures of the affected parts: but
+these cures are not so frequent as those that are made by the entring
+of medicines into the diseased parts, and either expel the malignant
+matter, or rectifie the irregular and disordered motions, or strengthen
+the weak, or reduce the straying, or work any other ways according to
+the nature and propriety of their own substance, and the disposition of
+the distempered parts: Nevertheless, those cures which are performed
+exteriously, as to heal inward affects by an outward bare co-touching,
+are all made by natural motions in natural substances, and not by
+_Non_-beings, substancelesse Ideas, or spiritual Rays; for those that
+will cure diseases by _Non_-beings, will effect little or nothing; for
+a disease is corporeal or material, and so must the remedies be, there
+being no cure made but by a conflict of the remedy with the disease;
+and certainly, if a _non_-being fight against a being, or a corporeal
+disease, I doubt it will do no great effect; for the being will be too
+strong for the _non_-being: Wherefore my constant opinion is, that
+all cures whatsoever, are perfected by the power of corporeal motions,
+working upon the affected parts either interiously or exteriously,
+either by applying external remedies to external wounds, or by curing
+internal distempers, either by medicines taken internally, or by bare
+external co-touchings. And such a remedy, I suppose, has been that
+which your _Author_ speaks of, a stone of a certain Irish-man, which
+by a meer external contact hath cured all kinds of diseases, either
+by touching outwardly the affected parts, or by licking it but with
+the tip of the Tongue, if the disease was Internal: But if the vertue
+of the Stone was such, as your _Author_ describes, certainly, what
+man soever he was that possessed such a jewel, I say, he was rather
+of the nature of the Devil, then of man, that would not divulge it
+to the general benefit of all mankind; and I wonder much, that your
+_Author_, who otherwise pretends such extraordinary Devotion, Piety,
+and Religiousness, as also Charity, _viz._ that all his works he has
+written, are for the benefit of his neighbour, and to detect the errors
+of the Schools meerly for the good of man, doth yet plead his cause,
+saying, That _secrets, as they are most difficultly prepared, so they
+ought to remain in secret forever in the possession of the Privy
+Councel_, what Privy Counsels he means, I know not; but certainly some
+are more difficult to be spoken to, or any thing to be obtained from,
+then the preparation of a Physical Arcanum. However, a general good
+or benefit ought not to be concealed or kept in privy Councels, but
+to be divulged and publickly made known, that all sorts of People, of
+what condition, degree, or Nation soever, might partake of the general
+blessing and bounty of God. But, _Madam_, you may be sure, that many,
+who pretend to know Physical secrets, most commonly know the least, as
+being for the most part of the rank of them that deceive the simple
+with strange tales which exceed truth; and to make themselves more
+authentical, they use to rail at others, and to condemn their skill,
+onely to magnifie their own: I say, many, _Madam_, as I have observed,
+are of that nature, especially those, that have but a superficial
+knowledg in the Art of Physick; for those that are thorowly learned,
+and sufficiently practised in it, scorn to do the like; which I wish
+may prosper and thrive by their skill. And so I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble Servant._
+
+[1] In the _ch._ call'd _Butler_.
+
+
+
+
+XLIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your _Author_ is pleased to relate a story[1] of one that died
+suddenly, and being dissected, there was not the least sign of decay
+or disorder found in his body. But I cannot add to those that wonder,
+when no sign of distemper is found in a man's body after he is dead;
+because I do not believe, that the subtillest, learnedst, and most
+practised Anatomist, can exactly tell all the Interior Government
+or motions, or can find out all obscure and invisible passages in a
+mans body; for concerning the motions, they are all altered in death,
+or rather in the dissolution of the animal figure; and although the
+exterior animal figure or shape doth not alter so soon, yet the animal
+motions may alter in a moment of time; which sudden alteration may
+cause a sudden death, and so the motions being invisible, the cause
+of death cannot be perceived; for no body can find that which is not
+to be found, to wit, animal motions in a dead man; for Nature hath
+altered these motions from being animal motions to some other kind
+of motions, she being as various in dissolutions, as in productions,
+indeed so various, that her ways cannot be traced or known thorowly
+and perfectly, but onely by piece-meals, as the saying is, that is,
+but partly: Wherefore man can onely know that which is visible, or
+subject to his senses; and yet our senses do not always inform us
+truly, but the alterations of grosser parts are more easily known, then
+the alterations of subtil corporeal motions, either in general, or in
+particular; neither are the invisible passages to be known in a dead
+Carcass, much less in a living body. But, I pray, mistake me not, when
+I say, that the animal motions are not subject to our exterior senses;
+for I do not mean all exterior animal motions, nor all interior animal
+motions; for though you do see no interior motion in an animal body,
+yet you may feel some, as the motion of the Heart, the motion of the
+Pulse, the motion of the Lungs, and the like; but the most part of
+the interior animal motions are not subject to our exterior senses;
+nay, no man, he may be as observing as he will, can possibly know by
+his exterior senses all the several and various interior motions in
+his own body, nor all the exterior motions of his exterior parts: and
+thus it remains still, that neither the subtillest motions and parts
+of matter, nor the obscure passages in several Creatures, can be known
+but by several parts; for what one part is ignorant of, another part
+is knowing, and what one part is knowing, another part is ignorant
+thereof; so that unless all the Parts of Infinite Matter were joyned
+into one Creature, there can never be in one particular Creature a
+perfect knowledg of all things in Nature. Wherefore I shall never
+aspire to any such knowledg, but be content with that little particular
+knowledg, Nature has been pleased to give me, the chief of which is,
+that I know my self, and especially that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+[1] _Ch._ 61. called, _The Preface_.
+
+
+
+
+XLIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I perceive you are desirous to know the cause, _Why a man is more weak
+at the latter end of a disease then at the beginning, and is a longer
+time recovering health, then loosing health_; as also _the reason of
+relapses and intermissions?_ First, as for weakness and strength, my
+opinion is, they are caused by the regular and irregular motions in
+several parts, each striving to over-power the other in their conflict;
+and when a man recovers from a disease, although the regular motions
+have conquered the irregular, and subdued them to their obedience, yet
+they are not so quite obedient as they ought, which causes weakness:
+Neither do the regular motions use so much force in Peace, as in War;
+for though animate matter cannot lose force, yet it doth not always
+use force; neither can the parts of Nature act beyond their natural
+power, but they do act within their natural power; neither do they
+commonly act to the utmost of their power. And as for Health, why it
+is sooner lost then recovered; I answer, That it is easier to make
+disorders then to rectifie them: as for example, in a Common-wealth,
+the ruines of War are not so suddenly repaired, as made. But concerning
+Relapses and Intermissions of diseases, Intermissions are like truces
+or cessations from War for a time; and Relapses are like new stirs or
+tumults of Rebellion; for Rebels are not so apt to settle in peace as
+to renew the war upon slight occasions; and if the regular motions
+of the body be stronger, they reduce them again unto obedience. But
+diseases are occasioned many several ways; for some are made by a home
+Rebellion, and others by forreign enemies, and some by natural and
+regular dissolutions, and their cures are as different; but the chief
+Magistrates or Governors of the animal body, which are the regular
+motions of the parts of the body, want most commonly the assistance
+of forreign Parts, which are Medicines, Diets, and the like; and if
+there be factions amongst these chief Magistrates, or motions of the
+parts of the body, then the whole body suffers a ruine. But since
+there would be no variety in Nature, nor no difference between Natures
+several parts or Creatures, if her actions were never different, but
+always agreeing and constant, a war or rebellion in Nature cannot be
+avoided: But, mistake me not, for I do not mean a war or rebellion in
+the nature or substance of Matter, but between the several parts of
+Matter, which are the several Creatures, and their several Motions; for
+Matter being always one and the same in its nature, has nothing to war
+withal; and surely it will not quarrel with its own Nature. Next you
+desire to know, that if Nature be in a Perpetual motion, _Whence comes
+a duration of some things, and a Tiredness, Weariness, Sluggishness,
+or Faintness?_ I answer, first, That in some bodies, the Retentive
+motions are stronger then the dissolving motions; as for example, Gold,
+and Quicksilver or Mercury; the separating and dissolving motions of
+Fire have onely power to melt and rarifie them for a time, but cannot
+alter their nature: so a Hammer, or such like instrument, when used,
+may beat Gold, and make it thin as a Cobweb, or as dust, but cannot
+alter its interior nature: But yet this doth not prove it to be either
+without motion, or to be altogether unalterable, and not subject to any
+dissolution; but onely that its retentive motions are too strong for
+the dissolving motions of the Fire, which by force work upon the Gold;
+and we might as well say, that Sand, or an Earthen Vessel, or Glass,
+or Stone, or any thing else, is unalterable, and will last eternally,
+if not disturbed. But some of Natures actions are as industrious to
+keep their figures, as others are to dissolve, or alter them; and
+therefore Retentive motions are more strong and active in some figures,
+then dissolving motions are in others, or producing motions in other
+Figures. Next, as for Tiredness, or Faintness of motions, there is no
+such thing as tiredness or faintness in Nature, for Nature cannot be
+tired, nor grow faint, or sick, nor be pained, nor die, nor be any
+ways defective; for all this is onely caused through the change and
+variety of the corporeal motions of Nature, and her several parts;
+neither do irregular motions prove any defect in Nature, but a prudence
+in Natures actions, in making varieties and alterations of Figures;
+for without such motions or actions, there could not be such varieties
+and alterations in Nature as there are: neither is slackness of some
+motions a defect, for Nature is too wise to use her utmost force in
+her ordinary works; and though Nature is infinite, yet it is not
+necessary she should use an infinite force and power in any particular
+act. Lastly, you desire my opinion, _Whether there be motion in a dead
+animal Creature._ To which, I answer: I have declared heretofore, that
+there is no such thing as death in Nature, but what is commonly named
+death, is but an alteration or change of corporeal motions, and the
+death of an animal is nothing else but the dissolving motions of its
+figure; for when a man is dying, the motions which did formerly work
+to the consistence of his figure do now work to the dissolution of
+his figure, and to the production of some other figures, changing and
+transforming every part thereof; but though the figure of that dead
+animal is dissolved, yet the parts of that dissolved figure remain
+still in Nature although they be infinitely changed, and will do so
+eternally, as long as Nature lasts by the Will of God; for nothing can
+be lost or annihilated in Nature. And this is all, _Madam_, that I can
+answer to your questions, wherein, I hope, I have obeyed your commands,
+according to the duty of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XLV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have thus far discharged my duty, that according to your commands,
+I have given you my judgment of the works of those four famous
+Philosophers of our age, which you did send me to peruse, and have
+withal made reflexions upon some of their opinions in Natural
+Philosophy, especially those, wherein I did find them dissent from the
+Ground and Principles of my own Philosophy. And since by your leave
+I am now publishing all those Letters which I have hitherto written
+to you concerning those aforesaid Authors, and their Works, I am
+confident I shall not escape the censures of their followers; But, I
+shall desire them, that they will be pleased to do me this Justice, and
+to examine first my opinions well, without any partiality or wilful
+misinterpretation of my sence, before they pass their censure: Next,
+I desire them to consider, That I have no skill in School-learning,
+and therefore for want of terms of Art may easily chance to slip, or
+at least, not express my opinions so clearly as my readers expected;
+However, I have done my endeavour, and to my sense and reason they
+seem clear and plain enough, especially as I have expressed them in
+those Letters I have sent you; for concerning my other Work, called
+_Philosophical Opinions_, I must confess, that it might have been done
+more exactly and perspicuously, had I been better skilled in such
+words and expressions as are usual in the Schools of Philosophers;
+and therefore, if I be but capable to learn names and terms of Art,
+(although I find my self very untoward to learn, and do despair of
+proving a Scholar) I will yet endeavour to rectifie that work, and
+make it more intelligible; for my greatest ambition is to express my
+conceptions so, that my Readers may understand them: For which I would
+not spare any labour or pains, but be as industrious as those that gain
+their living by their work; and I pray to God, that Nature may give me
+a capacity to do it. But as for those that will censure my works out of
+spite and malice, rather then according to justice, let them do their
+worst; for if God do but bless them, I need not to fear the power of
+Nature, much less of a part of Nature, as Man. Nay, if I have but your
+Ladiships approbation, it will satisfie me; for I know you are so wise
+and just in your judgment, that I may safely rely upon it: For which I
+shall constantly and unfeignedly remain as long as I live,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships most faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+SECT. IV.
+
+
+I.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I perceive, you take great delight in the study of Natural Philosophy,
+since you have not onely sent me some Authors to peruse, and give my
+judgment of their opinions, but are very studious your self in the
+reading of Philosophical Works: and truly, I think you cannot spend
+your time more honourably, profitably, and delightfully, then in the
+study of Nature, as to consider how Variously, Curiously, and Wisely,
+she acts in her Creatures; for if the particular knowledg of a mans
+self be commendable, much more is the knowledg of the general actions
+of Nature, which doth lead us to the knowledg of our selves. The truth
+is, by the help of Philosophy our minds are raised above our selves,
+into the knowledg of the Causes of all natural effects. But leaving the
+commending of this noble study, you are pleased to desire my opinion of
+a very difficult and intricate argument in Natural Philosophy, to wit,
+of Generation, or Natural Production. I must beg leave to tell you,
+first, that some (though foolishly) believe, it is not fit for Women to
+argue upon so subtil a Mystery: Next, there have been so many learned
+and experienced Philosophers, Physicians, and Anatomists, which have
+treated of this subject, that it might be thought a great presumption
+for me, to argue with them, having neither the learning nor experience
+by practice which they had: Lastly, There are so many several ways
+and manners of Productions in Nature, as it is impossible for a single
+Creature to know them all: For there are Infinite variations made
+by self-motion in Infinite Matter, producing several Figures, which
+are several Creatures in that same Matter. But you would fain know,
+how Nature, which is Infinite Matter, acts by self-motion? Truly,
+_Madam_, you may as well ask any one part of your body, how every
+other part of your body acts, as to ask me, who am but a small part of
+Infinite Matter, how Nature works. But yet, I cannot say, that Nature
+is so obscure, as her Creatures are utterly ignorant; for as there
+are two of the outward sensitive organs in animal bodies, which are
+more intelligible then the rest, to wit, the Ear, and the Eye; so in
+Infinite Matter, which is the body of Nature, there are two parts,
+which are more understanding or knowing then the rest, to wit, the
+Rational and Sensitive part of Infinite Matter; for though it be true,
+That Nature, by self-division, made by self-motion into self-figures,
+which are self-parts, causes a self-obscurity to each part, motion,
+and figure; nevertheless, Nature being infinitely wise and knowing,
+its infinite natural wisdom and knowledg is divided amongst those
+infinite parts of the infinite body: and the two most intelligible
+parts, as I said, are the sensitive and rational parts in Nature,
+which are divided, being infinite, into every Figure or Creature; I
+cannot say equally divided, no more, then I can say, all creatures are
+of equal shapes, sizes, properties, strengths, quantities, qualities,
+constitutions, semblances, appetites, passions, capacities, forms,
+natures, and the like; for Nature delights in variety, as humane
+sense and reason may well perceive: for seldom any two creatures are
+just alike, although of one kind or sort, but every creature doth vary
+more or less. Wherefore it is not probable, that the production or
+generation of all or most Creatures, should be after one and the same
+manner or way, for else all Creatures would be just alike without any
+difference. But this is to be observed, that though Nature delights
+in variety, yet she doth not delight in confusion, but, as it is the
+propriety of Nature to work variously, so she works also wisely; which
+is the reason, that the rational and sensitive parts of Nature, which
+are the designing and architectonical parts, keep the species of every
+kind of Creatures by the way of Translation in Generation, or natural
+Production; for whatsoever is transferred, works according to the
+nature of that figure or figures from whence it was transferred, But
+mistake me not; for I do not mean always according to their exterior
+Figure, but according to their interior Nature; for different motions
+in one and the same parts of matter, make different figures, wherefore
+much more in several parts of matter and changes of motion; But, as I
+said, Translation is the chief means to keep or maintain the species
+of every kind of Creatures, which Translation in natural production
+or generation, is of the purest and subtilest substances, to wit, the
+sensitive and rational, which are the designing and architectonical
+parts of Nature. You may ask me, _Madam_, what this wise and ingenious
+Matter is. I answer: It is so pure, subtil, and self-active, as our
+humane shares of sense and reason cannot readily or perfectly perceive
+it; for by that little part of knowledg that a humane creature hath, it
+may more readily perceive the strong action then the purer substance;
+for the strongest action of the purest substance is more perceivable
+then the matter or substance it self; which is the cause, that most
+men are apt to believe the motion, and to deny the matter, by reason
+of its subtilty; for surely the sensitive and rational matter is so
+pure and subtil, as not to be expressed by humane sense and reason.
+As for the rational matter, it is so pure, fine, and subtil, that it
+may be as far beyond lucent matter, as lucent matter is beyond gross
+vapours, or thick clouds; and the sensitive matter seems not much less
+pure: also there is very pure inanimate matter, but not subtil and
+active of it self; for as there are degrees in the animate, so there
+are also degrees in the inanimate matter; so that the purest degree
+of inanimate matter comes next to the animate, not in motion, but in
+the purity of its own degree; for it cannot change its nature so, as
+to become animate, yet it may be so pure in its own nature, as not to
+be perceptible by our grosser senses. But concerning the two degrees
+of animate Matter, to wit, the sensitive and rational, I say that the
+sensitive is much more acute then Vitriol, Aqua-fortis, Fire, or the
+like; and the rational much more subtil and active then Quicksilver,
+or Light, so as I cannot find a comparison fit to express them, onely
+that this sensitive and rational self-moving Matter is the life and
+soul of Nature; But by reason this Matter is not subject to our
+gross senses, although our senses are subject to it, as being made,
+subsisting and acting through the power of its actions, we are not
+apt to believe it, no more then a simple Country-wench will believe,
+that Air is a substance, if she neither hear, see, smell, taste, or
+touch it, although Air touches and surrounds her: But yet the effects
+of this animate matter prove that there is such a matter; onely, as I
+said before, this self-moving matter causing a self-division as well
+as a general action, is the cause of a self-obscurity, which obscurity
+causes doubts, disputes, and inconstancies in humane opinions, although
+not so much obscurity, as to make all Creatures blind-fold, for surely
+there is no Creature but perceives more or less. But to conclude, The
+Rational degree of Matter is the most intelligible, and the wisest part
+of Nature, and the Sensitive is the most laborious and provident part
+in Nature, both which are the Creators of all Creatures in Infinite
+Matter; and if you intend to know more of this Rational and Sensitive
+Matter, you may consult my Book of Philosophy, to which I refer you.
+And so taking my leave for the present, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+II.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I understand by your last, that you have read the Book of that most
+learned and famous Physician and Anatomist, Dr. _Harvey_, which treats
+of Generation; and in the reading of it, you have mark'd several
+scruples, which you have framed into several questions concerning that
+subject, to which you desire my answer. Truly, _Madam_, I am loth to
+imbarque my self in this difficult argument, not onely for the reasons
+I have given you heretofore, but also that I do not find my self
+able enough to give you such a satisfactory answer as perhaps you do
+expect. But since your Commands are so powerful with me, that I can
+hardly resist them, and your Nature so good that you easily pardon any
+thing that is amiss, I will venture upon it according to the strength
+of my Natural Reason, and endeavour to give you my opinion as well
+and as clearly as I can. Your first question is; _Whether the action
+of one or more producers be the onely cause of Natural Production
+or Generation, without imparting or transferring any of their own
+substance or Matter._ I answer: The sole co-action of the Producers may
+make a change of exterior forms or figures, but not produce another
+Creature; for if there were not substance or matter, as well as action,
+both transferred together, there would not be new Creatures made out
+of old Matter, but every production would require new Matter, which
+is impossible, if there be but one Matter, and that infinite; and
+certainly, humane sense and reason may well perceive, that there can be
+but one Matter, for several kinds of Matter would make a confusion; and
+thus if new Creatures were made onely by substanceless motion, it would
+not onely be an infinite trouble to Nature, to create something out of
+nothing perpetually, but, as I said, it would make a confusion amongst
+all Nature's works, which are her several Parts or Creatures. But by
+reason there is but one Matter, which is Infinite and Eternal, and this
+Matter has self-motion in it, both Matter and Motion must of necessity
+transmigrate, or be transferred together without any separation, as
+being but one thing, to wit, Corporeal Motion. 'Tis true, one part of
+animate or self-moving Matter, may without Translation move, or rather
+occasion other parts to move; but one Creature cannot naturally produce
+another without the transferring of its corporeal motions. But it is
+well to be observed, that there is great difference between the actions
+of Nature; for all actions are not generating, but some are patterning,
+and some transforming, and the like; and as for the transforming
+action, that may be without translation, as being nothing else but
+a change of motions in one and the same part or parts of Matter, to
+wit, when the same parts of Matter do change into several figures,
+and return into the same figures again. Also the action of Patterning
+is without Translation; for to pattern out, is nothing else but to
+imitate, and to make a figure in its own substance or parts of Matter
+like another figure. But in generation every producer doth transfer
+both Matter and Motion, that is, Corporeal Motion into the produced;
+and if there be more producers then one, they all do contribute to
+the produced; and if one Creature produces many Creatures, those many
+Creatures do partake more or less of their producer. But you may say,
+If the producer transfers its own Matter, or rather its own corporeal
+motions into the produced, many productions will soon dissolve the
+producer, and he will become a sacrifice to his off-spring. I answer;
+That doth not follow: for as one or more Creatures contribute to one
+or more other Creatures, so other Creatures do contribute to them,
+although not after one and the same manner or way, but after divers
+manners or ways; but all manners and ways must be by translation to
+repair and assist; for no Creature can subsist alone and of it self,
+but all Creatures traffick and commerce from and to each other, and
+must of necessity do so, since they are all parts of the same Matter:
+Neither can Motion subsist without Matter, nor quit Matter, nor act
+without Matter, no more, then an Artificer can work without materials,
+and without self-motion Matter would be dead and useless; Wherefore
+Matter and Motion must upon necessity not onely be inseparable, but
+be one body, to wit, corporeal motion; which motion by dividing and
+composing its several parts, and acting variously, is the cause of all
+Production, Generation, Metamorphosing, or any other thing that is done
+in Nature. But if, according to your _Author_, the sole action be the
+cause of Generation without transferring of substance, then Matter is
+useless, and of none or little effect; which, in my opinion, is not
+probable.
+
+Your second question is, _Whether the Production or Generation of
+animals is as the Conceptions of the Brain, which the Learned say are
+Immaterial?_ I answer: The Conceptions of the Brain, in my opinion,
+are not Immaterial, but Corporeal; for though the corporeal motions
+of the brain, or the matter of its conceptions, is invisible to
+humane Creatures, and that when the brain is dissected, there is no
+such matter found, yet that doth not prove, that there is no Matter,
+because it is not so gross a substance as to be perceptible by our
+exterior senses: Neither will your _Authors_ example hold, that as a
+builder erects a house according to his conception in the brain, the
+same happens in all other natural productions or generations; for, in
+my opinion, the house is materially made in the brain, which is the
+conception of the builder, although not of such gross materials, as
+Stone, Brick, Wood, and the like, yet of such matter as is the Rational
+Matter, that is, the house when it is conceived in the brain, is made
+by the rational corporeal figurative motions of their own substance
+or degree of Matter; But if all Animals should be produced by meer
+fancies, and a Man and a Woman should beget by fancying themselves
+together in copulation, then the produced would be a true Platonick
+Child; But if a Woman being from her Husband should be so got with
+Child, the question is, whether the Husband would own the Child; and
+if amorous Lovers (which are more contagious for appetite and fancy
+then Married persons) should produce Children by Immaterial contagions,
+there would be more Children then Parents to own them.
+
+Your third question is, _Whether Animals may not be produced, as many
+Diseases are, by contagion?_ I answer: Although contagions may be made
+at a distance, by perception; yet those diseases are not begotten
+by immaterial motions, but by the rational and sensitive corporeal
+motions, which work such diseases in the body of a Creature, by the
+association of parts, like as the same disease is made in another body:
+Neither are diseases always produced after one and the same manner, but
+after divers manners; whereas animals are produced as animals, that
+is, after one natural and proper way; for although all the effects in
+particular be not alike, yet the general way or manner to produce those
+effects is the same: As for example; there is no other way to produce
+a fruitful Egg, but by a Cock and a Hen; But a Contagious disease, as
+the small-Pox, or the like, may be produced by the way of Surfeits or
+by Conceit, which may cause the sensitive corporeal parts, through the
+irregular motions of the rational corporeal parts, to work and produce
+such a disease, or any other ways. But neither a disease, nor no
+creature else can be produced without matter, by substanceless motion;
+for wheresoever is motion, there is also matter, matter and motion
+being but one thing.
+
+Your fourth question is, _Whether an Animal Creature is perfectly
+shaped or formed at the first Conception?_ I answer: If the Creature
+be composed of many and different parts, my opinion is, it cannot be.
+You may say, That if it hath not all his parts produced at there will
+be required many acts of generation to beget or produce every part,
+otherwise the producers would not be the Parents of the produced in
+whole, but in part. I answer: The Producer is the designer, architect,
+and founder of the whole Creature produced; for the sensitive and
+rational corporeal motions, which are transferred from the producer or
+producers, joyn to build the produced like to the producer in specie,
+but the transferred parts may be invisible and insensible to humane
+Creatures, both through their purity and little quantity, until the
+produced is framed to some visible degree; for a stately building may
+proceed from a small beginning, neither can humane sense tell what
+manner of building is designed at the first foundation. But you may
+say, That many Eggs may be made by one act of the producers, to wit,
+the Cock and the Hen, and those many Eggs may be laid at several
+times, as also hatched at several times, and become Chickens at several
+times. I answer; It may well and easily be so: for the rational and
+sensitive parts or corporeal motions which were transferred in one act,
+designed many produced through that one act; for those transferred
+corporeal motions, although they have not a sufficient quantity of
+themselves to make all the produced in their perfect shapes at once,
+yet they are the chief designer, architect and founder of all that are
+to be produced; for the corporeal motions which are transferred, joyn
+with those they are transferred to, and being associates, work to one
+design, the sensitive being the architect, the rational the designer,
+which together with the inanimate parts of matter, can never want
+materials, neither can the materials want labourers; for the degrees of
+matter are inseparable, and do make but one body or substance. Again
+you may say, That some parts of Matter may produce another Creature
+not like to the producer in its species, as for example, Monsters.
+I answer, That is possible to be done, but yet it is not usual; for
+Monsters are not commonly born, but those corporeal motions which dwell
+in one species, work according to the nature of the same species; and
+when the parts of Matter are transferred from Creature to Creature,
+that is, are separated from some parts, and joyned to other parts of
+the same species, and the same nature; those transferred parts of
+matter, although invisible in quantity, by reason of their purity and
+subtilty, begin the work of the produced according to its natural
+species, and the labourers in other parts of matter work to the same
+end; just as it is in the artificial building of a house, where the
+house is first designed by the Architect, or Master, and then the
+labourers work not after their own fancy, (else it would not be the
+same house that was designed, nor any uniformity in it) but according
+to the architects or surveyors design; so those parts of matter or
+corporeal motions that are transferred from the producer, are like the
+architect, but the labourers or workmen are the assisting and adjoyning
+parts of matter. But you will say, How comes it, that many creatures
+may be made by one or two? I answer: As one owner or two partners may
+be the cause of many buildings, so few or more transferred rational
+and sensitive corporeal motions may make and produce as many creatures
+as they can get materials and labourers; for if they get one, they
+get the other, by reason the degrees of matter, _viz._ animate and
+inanimate, are inseparably mixt, and make but one body or substance;
+and the proof of it is, that all animals are not constant in the number
+of their off-spring, but sometimes produce more, and sometimes fewer,
+and sometimes their off-spring is less, and sometimes larger, according
+to the quantity of matter. Again you may say, That in some Creatures
+there is no passage to receive the transferred matter into the place
+of the architecture. I answer: That all passages are not visible to
+humane sense; and some humane Creatures have not a sufficient humane
+reason to conceive, that most of Natures works are not so gross as
+to be subject to their exterior senses; but as for such parts and
+passages, whether exterior or interior, visible or invisible, as also
+for copulation, conception, formation, nourishment, and the like in
+Generation, I leave you to Physicians and Anatomists. And to conclude
+this question, we may observe, that not any animal Creatures shape
+dissolveth in one instant of time, but by degrees; why should we
+believe then, that Animals are generated or produced in their perfect
+shape in one instant of time, and by one act of Nature? But sense and
+reason knows by observation, that an animal Creature requires more time
+to be generated, then to be dissolved, like as an house is sooner and
+with less pains pull'd down, then built up.
+
+Your Fifth question is, _Whether Animals are not generated by the way
+of Metamorphosing?_ To which I answer, That it is not possible that a
+third Creature can be made without translation of corporeal motions;
+and since Metamorphosing is onely a change of motions in the same parts
+of Matter, without any translation of corporeal motions, no animal
+Creature can be produced or generated by the way of Metamorphosing.
+
+Your Sixth question is, _Whether a whole may be made out of a part?_ I
+answer: There is no whole in Nature, except you will call Nature her
+self a whole; for all Creatures are but parts of Infinite Matter.
+
+Your Seventh question is, _Whether all Animals, as also Vegetables,
+are made or generated by the way of Eggs?_ I have said heretofore,
+That it is not probable, that different sorts, nay, different kinds
+of Creatures, should all have but one manner or way of production;
+for why should not Nature make different ways of productions, as well
+as different Creatures? And as for Vegetables, if all their Seeds be
+likened unto Eggs, then Eggs may very well be likened to Seeds; which
+if so, then a Peas-cod is the Hen, and the Peas in the Cod is the
+cluster of Eggs: the like of ears of Corn. And those animals that
+produce but one creature or seed at a time, may be like the kernel
+of a Nut, when the shell is broke, the creature comes forth. But how
+this will agree with your _Author_, who says, that the creature in the
+shell must make its own passage, I cannot tell; for if the Nut be not
+broken by some external means or occasion, the kernel is not like to
+get forth. And as for humane Eggs, I know not what to answer; for it is
+said, that the first Woman was made of a mans ribb; but whether that
+ribb was an egg, I cannot tell. And why may not Minerals and Elements
+be produced by the way of Eggs as well as Vegetables and Animals? Nay,
+why may not the whole World be likened unto an Egg? Which if so, the
+two Poles are the two ends the Egg; and for the Elements, the Yolk is
+the Fire, the White, the Water; the Film, the Air; and the Shell it
+self will very well serve for the Earth: But then it must first be
+broken, and pounded into one lump or solid mass, and so sink or swim
+into the midst of the liquid parts, as to the Center; and as for the
+several foetuses in this great Egg, they are the several Creatures in
+it. Or it might be said, that the Chaos was an Egg, and the Universe,
+the Chicken. But leaving this similizing, it is like, that some
+studious Men may by long study upon one part of the body, conceive and
+believe that all other parts are like that one part; like as those that
+have gazed long upon the Sun, all they see for a time, are Suns to
+them; or like as those which having heard much of Hobgoblins, all they
+see are Hobgoblins, their fancies making such things. But, _Madam_, to
+make a conclusion also of this question, I repeat what I said before,
+that all Creatures have not one way of production; and as they have
+not all one way of production, so they have neither one instant of
+time either for perfection or dissolution, but their perfection and
+dissolution is made by degrees.
+
+Your Eighth question is, _Whether it may not be, that the sensitive and
+rational corporeal motions in an Egg do pattern out the figure of the
+Hen and Cock, whilest the Hen sits upon the Egg, and so bring forth
+Chickens by the way of patterning?_ I answer: The action of patterning,
+is not the action of Generation; for as I said heretofore, the actions
+of Nature are different, and Generation must needs be performed by the
+way of translation, which translation is not required in the action
+of Patterning; but according as the Producers are, which transfer
+their own matter into the produced, so is the produced concerning its
+species; which is plainly proved by common examples; for if Pheasants,
+or Turky, or Goose-eggs, be laid under an ordinary Hen, or an ordinary
+Hens-egg be laid under a Pheasant, Turky, or Goose, the Chickens of
+those Eggs will never be of any other species then of those that
+produced the Egg; for an ordinary Hen, if she sit upon Pheasants,
+Turky, or Goose-eggs, doth not hatch Chickens of her own species, but
+the Chickens will be of the species either of the Pheasant, or Turky,
+or Goose, which did at first produce the Egg; which proves, that in
+Generation, or Natural production, there is not onely required the
+action of the Producers, but also a Transferring of some of their own
+parts to form the produced. But you may say, What doth the sitting Hen
+contribute then to the production of the Chicken? I answer: The sitting
+Hen doth onely assist the Egg in the production of the Chicken, as the
+Ground doth the Seed.
+
+Your Ninth question is, _Concerning the Soul of a particular Animal
+Creature, as whether it be wholly of it self and subsists wholly in
+and by it self?_ But you must give me leave first to ask you what Soul
+you mean, whether the Divine, or the Natural Soul, for there is great
+difference betwixt them, although not the least that ever I heard,
+rightly examined and distinguished; and if you mean the Divine Soul,
+I shall desire you to excuse me, for that belongs to Divines, and not
+to Natural Philosophers; neither am I so presumptuous as to intrench
+upon their sacred order. But as for the Natural Soul, the Learned have
+divided it into three parts, to wit, the Vegetative, Sensitive, and
+Rational Soul; and according to these three Souls, made three kinds
+of lives, as the Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational Life. But they
+might as well say, there are infinite bodies, lives, and souls, as
+three; for in Nature there is but one life, soul, and body, consisting
+all of one Matter, which is corporeal Nature. But yet by reason this
+life and soul is material, it is divided into numerous parts, which
+make numerous lives and souls in every particular Creature; for each
+particular part of the rational self-moving Matter, is each particular
+soul in each particular Creature, but all those parts considered in
+general, make but one soul of Nature; and as this self-moving Rational
+Matter hath power to unite its parts, so it hath ability or power to
+divide its united parts. And thus the rational soul of every particular
+Creature is composed of parts, (I mean parts of a material substance;
+for whatsoever is substanceless and incorporeal, belongs not to
+Nature, but is Supernatural;) for by reason the Infinite and Onely
+matter is by self-motion divided into self-parts, not any Creature can
+have a soul without parts; neither can the souls of Creatures subsist
+without commerce of other rational parts, no more then one body can
+subsist without the assistance of other bodies; for all parts belong
+to one body, which is Nature: nay, if any thing could subsist of it
+self, it were a God, and not a Creature: Wherefore not any Creature
+can challenge a soul absolutely to himself, unless Man, who hath a
+divine soul, which no other Creature hath. But that which makes so many
+confusions and disputes amongst learned men is, that they conceive,
+first, there is no rational soul but onely in man; next, that this
+rational soul in every man is individable. But if the rational soul is
+material, as certainly to all sense and reason it is, then it must not
+onely be in all material Creatures, but be dividable too; for all that
+is material or corporeal hath parts, and is dividable, and therefore
+there is no such thing in any one Creature as one intire soul; nay, we
+might as well say, there is but one Creature in Nature, as say, there
+is but one individable natural soul in one Creature.
+
+Your Tenth question is, _Whether Souls are producible, or can be
+produced?_ I answer: in my opinion, they are producible, by reason all
+parts in Nature are so. But mistake me not; for I do not mean that any
+one part is produced out of Nothing, or out of new matter; but one
+Creature is produced by another, by the dividing and uniting, joyning
+and disjoyning of the several parts of Matter, and not by substanceless
+Motion out of new Matter. And because there is not any thing in
+Nature, that has an absolute subsistence of it self, each Creature is a
+producer, as well as a produced, in some kind or other; for no part of
+Nature can subsist single, and without reference and assistance of each
+other, or else every single part would not onely be a whole of it self,
+but be as a God without controle; and though one part is not another
+part, yet one part belongs to another part, and all parts to one whole,
+and that whole to all the parts, which whole is one corporeal Nature.
+And thus, as I said before, productions of one or more creatures, by
+one or more producers, without matter, meerly by immaterial motions,
+are impossible, to wit, that something should be made or produced
+out of nothing; for if this were so, there would consequently be an
+annihilation or turning into nothing, and those creatures, which
+produce others by the way of immaterial motions, would rather be as a
+God, then a part of Nature, or Natural Matter. Besides, it would be an
+endless labour, and more trouble to create particular Creatures out
+of nothing, then a World at once; whereas now it is easie for Nature
+to create by production and transmigration; and therefore it is not
+probable, that any one Creature hath a particular life, soul, or body
+to it self, as subsisting by it self, and as it were precised from the
+rest, having its own subsistence without the assistance of any other;
+nor is it probable, that any one Creature is new, for all that is, was,
+and shall be, till the Omnipotent God disposes Nature otherwise.
+
+As for the rest of your questions, as whether the Sun be the cause of
+all motions, and of all natural productions; and whether the life of a
+Creature be onely in the blood, or whether it have its beginning from
+the blood, or whether the blood be the chief architect of an animal, or
+be the seat of the soul; sense and reason, in my opinion, doth plainly
+contradict them; for concerning the blood, if it were the seat of the
+Soul, then in the circulation of the blood, if the Soul hath a brain,
+it would become very dizzie by its turning round; but perchance some
+may think the Soul to be a Sun, and the Blood the Zodiack, and the body
+the Globe of the Earth, which the Soul surrounds in such time as the
+Blood is flowing about. And so leaving those similizing Fancies, I'le
+add no more, but repeat what I said in the beginning, that I rely upon
+the goodness of your Nature, from which I hope for pardon, if I have
+not so exactly and solidly answered your desire; for the argument of
+this discourse being so difficult, may easily lead me into an error,
+which your better judgment will soon correct; and in so doing you will
+add to those favours for which I am already,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships most obliged Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+III.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You thought verily, I had mistaken my self in my last, concerning the
+Rational Souls of every particular Creature, because I said, all
+Creatures had numerous Souls; and not onely so, but every particular
+Creature had numerous Souls. Truly, _Madam_, I did not mistake my self,
+for I am of the same opinion still; for though there is but one Soul
+in infinite Nature, yet that soul being dividable into parts, every
+part is a soul in every single creature, were the parts no bigger
+in quantity then an atome. But you ask whether Nature hath Infinite
+souls? I answer: That Infinite Nature is but one Infinite body, divided
+into Infinite parts, which we call Creatures; and therefore it may
+as well be said, That Nature is composed of Infinite Creatures or
+Parts, as she is divided into Infinite Creatures or Parts; for Nature
+being Material, is dividable, and composable. The same may be said
+of Nature's Soul, which is the Rational part of the onely infinite
+Matter, as also of Nature's Life, which is the sensitive part of the
+onely Infinite self-moving Matter; and of the Inanimate part of the
+onely Infinite Matter, which I call the body for distinction sake,
+as having no self-motion in its own nature, for Infinite Material
+Nature hath an Infinite Material Soul, Life, and Body. But, _Madam_,
+I desire you to observe what I said already, _viz._ that the parts
+of Nature are as apt to divide, as to unite; for the chief actions
+of Nature are to divide, and to unite; which division is the cause,
+that it may well be said, every particular Creature hath numerous
+souls; for every part of rational Matter is a particular Soul, and
+every part of the sensitive Matter is a particular Life; all which,
+mixed with the Inanimate Matter, though they be Infinite in parts, yet
+they make but one Infinite whole, which is Infinite Nature; and thus
+the Infinite division into Infinite parts is the cause, that every
+particular Creature hath numerous Souls, and the transmigration of
+parts from, and to parts, is the reason, that not any Creature can
+challenge a single soul, or souls to it self; the same for life. But
+most men are unwilling to believe, that Rational Souls are material,
+and that this rational Matter is dividable in Nature; when as humane
+sense and reason may well perceive, that Nature is active, and
+full of variety; and action, and variety cannot be without motion,
+division, and composition: but the reason that variety, division, and
+composition, runs not into confusion, is, that first there is but
+one kind of Matter; next, that the division and composition of parts
+doth ballance each other into a union in the whole. But, to conclude,
+those Creatures which have their rational parts most united, are the
+wisest; and those that have their rational parts most divided, are the
+wittiest; and those that have much of this rational matter, are much
+knowing; and those which have less of this rational matter, are less
+knowing; and there is no Creature that hath not some; for like as all
+the parts of a humane body are indued with life, and soul; so are all
+the parts of Infinite Nature; and though some parts of Matter are not
+animate in themselves, yet there is no part that is not mixt with the
+animate matter; so that all parts of Nature are moving, and moved.
+And thus, hoping I have cleared my self in this point, to your better
+understanding, I take my leave, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+IV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In the Works of that most famous Philosopher and Mathematician of our
+age _Gal._ which you thought worth my reading, I find, he discourses
+much of upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards; but to tell
+you really, I do not understand what he means by those words, for, in
+my opinion, there is properly no such thing as upwards, downwards,
+backwards, or forwards in Nature, for all this is nothing else but
+natural corporeal motions, to which in respect of some particulars we
+do attribute such or such names; for if we conceive a Circle, I pray
+where is upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards? Certainly, it
+is, in my opinion, just like that, they name Rest, Place, Space, Time,
+&c. when as Nature her self knows of no such things, but all these are
+onely the several and various motions of the onely Matter. You will
+say, How can Rest be a motion? I answer: Rest is a word which expresses
+rather mans ignorance then his knowledg; for when he sees, that a
+particular Creature has not any external local motion perceptible by
+his sight, he says it resteth, and this rest he calls a cessation from
+motion, when as yet there is no such thing as cessation from motion
+in Nature; for motion is the action of natural Matter, and its Nature
+is to move perpetually; so that it is more probable for motion to be
+annihilated, then to cease. But you may say, It is a cessation from
+some particular motion. I answer: You may rather call it an alteration
+of a particular motion, then a cessation; for though a particular
+motion doth not move in that same manner as it did before, nevertheless
+it is still there, and not onely there, but still moving; onely it is
+not moving after the same manner as it did move heretofore, but has
+changed from such a kind of motion to another kind of motion, and being
+still moving it cannot be said to cease: Wherefore what is commonly
+called cessation from motion, is onely a change of some particular
+motion, and is a mistake of change for rest. Next, I find in the same
+_Author_ a long discourse of circular and strait motions; to wit, _That
+they are simple motions, and that all others are composed out of them,
+and are mixt motions; Also, That the Circular Motion is perfect, and
+the Right imperfect; and that all the parts of the world, if moveable
+of their own nature, it is impossible, that their motions should be
+Right, or any other then Circular: That a Circular motion is never to
+be gotten naturally, without a preceding right motion: That a Right
+motion cannot naturally be perpetual: That a Right motion is impossible
+in the World well ordered:_ and the like. First, I cannot conceive why
+natural Matter should use the Circle-figure more then any other in
+the motions of her Creatures; for Nature, which is Infinite Matter,
+is not bound to one particular motion, or to move in a Circle more
+then any other figure, but she moves more variously then any one part
+of hers can conceive; Wherefore it is not requisite that the natural
+motions of natural bodies should be onely Circular. Next, I do not
+understand, why a Circular Motion cannot be gotten naturally without
+a precedent right motion; for, in my opinion, corporeal motions may
+be round or circular, without being or moving straight before; and if
+a straight line doth make a circle, then an imperfect figure makes
+a perfect; but, in my opinion, a circle may as well make a straight
+line, as a strait line a circle; except it be like a Gordian knot,
+that it cannot be dissolved, or that Nature may make some corporeal
+motions as constant as she makes others inconstant, for her motions
+are not alike in continuance and alteration. And as for right motion,
+that naturally it cannot be perpetual; my opinion is, that it cannot
+be, if Nature be finite; but if Nature be infinite, it may be: But the
+circular motion is more proper for a finite, then an infinite, because
+a circle-figure is perfect and circumscribed, and a straight line is
+infinite, or at least producible in infinite; and there may be other
+worlds in infinite Nature, besides these round Globes perceptible by
+our sight, which may have other figures; for though it be proper for
+Globes or Spherical bodies to move round, yet that doth not prove, that
+Infinite Matter moves round, or that all worlds must be of a Globous
+figure; for there may be as different Worlds, as other Creatures. He
+says, That a Right motion is impossible in the World well ordered; But
+I cannot conceive a Right motion to be less orderly then a Circular
+in Nature, except it be in some Particulars; but oftentimes that,
+which is well ordered in some cases, seems to some mens understandings
+and perceptions ill ordered in other cases; for man, as a part, most
+commonly considers but the Particulars, not the Generals, like as every
+one in a Commonwealth considers more himself and his Family, then the
+Publick. Lastly, Concerning the simplicity of Motions, as that onely
+circular and straight motions are simple motions, because they are made
+by simple Lines; I know not what they mean by simple Lines; for the
+same Lines which make straight and circular figures, may make as well
+other figures as those; but, in my opinion, all motions may be called
+simple, in regard of their own nature; for they are nothing else but
+the sensitive and rational part of Matter, which in its own nature is
+pure, and simple, and moves according to the Nature of each Figure,
+either swiftly or slowly, or in this or that sort of motion; but the
+most simple, purest and subtillest part is the rational part of matter,
+which though it be mixed with the sensitive and inanimate in one body,
+yet it can and doth move figuratively in its own matter, without the
+help or assistance of any other. But I desire you to remember, _Madam_,
+that in the compositions and divisions of the parts of Nature, there
+is as much unity and agreement as there is discord and disagreement;
+for in Infinite, there is no such thing, as most, and least; neither is
+there any such thing as more perfect, or less perfect in Matter. And
+as for Irregularities, properly there is none in Nature, for Nature is
+Regular; but that, which Man (who is but a small part of Nature, and
+therefore but partly knowing) names Irregularities, or Imperfections,
+is onely a change and alteration of motions; for a part can know the
+variety of motions in Nature no more, then Finite can know Infinite, or
+the bare exterior shape and figure of a mans body can know the whole
+body, or the head can know the mind; for Infinite natural knowledg is
+incorporeal; and being corporeal, it is dividable; and being dividable,
+it cannot be confined to one part onely; for there is no such thing as
+an absolute determination or subsistence in parts without relation or
+dependance upon one another. And since Matter is Infinite, and acts
+wisely, and all for the best, it may be as well for the best of Nature,
+when parts are divided antipathetically, as when they are united
+sympathetically: Also Matter being Infinite, it cannot be perfect,
+neither can a part be called perfect, as being a part. But mistake me
+not, _Madam;_ for when I say, there is no perfection in Nature, as I do
+in my _Philosophical Opinions_,[1] I mean by Perfection, a finiteness,
+absoluteness, or compleatness of figure; and in this sense I say Nature
+has no perfection by reason it is Infinite; but yet I do not deny, but
+that there is a perfection in the nature or essence of Infinite Matter;
+for Matter is perfect Matter; that is, pure and simple in its own
+substance or nature, as meer Matter, without any mixture or addition of
+some thing that is not Matter, or that is between Matter and no Matter;
+and material motions are perfect motions although Infinite: just as
+a line may be called a perfect line, although it be endless, and
+Gold, or other Mettal, may be called perfect Gold, or perfect Metal,
+although it be but apart, And thus it may be said of Infinite Nature,
+or Infinite Matter, without any contradiction, that it is both perfect,
+and not perfect; perfect in its nature or substance, not perfect in its
+exterior figure. But you may say, If Infinite Matter be not perfect,
+it is imperfect, and what is imperfect, wants something. I answer,
+That doth not follow: for we cannot say, that what is not perfect, must
+of necessity be imperfect, because there is something else, which it
+may be, to wit, Infinite; for as imperfection is beneath perfection,
+so perfection is beneath Infinite; and though Infinite Matter be not
+perfect in its figure, yet it is not imperfect, but Infinite; for
+Perfection and Imperfection belongs onely to Particulars, and not to
+Infinite. And thus much for the present. I conclude, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_most obliged Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Part._ 1. _c._ 14.
+
+
+
+
+V.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+The _Author_, mentioned in my former Letter, says, _That Quietness is
+the degree of Infinite slowness, and that a moveable body passing
+from quietness, passes through all the degrees of slowness without
+staying in any._ But I cannot conceive that all the Parts of Matter
+should be necessitated to move by degrees; for though there be degrees
+in Nature, yet Nature doth not in all her actions move by degrees. You
+may say, for example, from one to twenty, there are eighteen degrees
+between One, and Twenty; and all these degrees are included in the
+last degree, which is twenty. I answer; That may be: but yet there
+is no progress made through all those degrees; for when a body doth
+move strong at one time, and the next time after moves weak; I cannot
+conceive how any degrees should really be made between. You may say, by
+Imagination. But this Imagination of degrees, is like the conception of
+Space and Place, when as yet there is no such thing as Place or Space
+by it self; for all is but one body, and Motion is the action of this
+same body, which is corporeal Nature; and because a particular body
+can and doth move after various manners, according to the change of
+its corporeal motion, this variety of motions man call's Place, Space,
+Time, Degrees, &c. considering them by themselves, and giving them
+peculiar names, as if they could be parted from body, or at least be
+conceived without body; for the Conception or Imagination it self is
+corporeal, and so are they nothing else but corporeal motions. But it
+seems as if this same _Author_ conceived also motion to be a thing by
+it self, and that motion begets motion, when he says, That a body by
+moving grows stronger in motion by degrees, when as yet the strength
+was in the matter of the body eternally; for Nature was always a grave
+Matron, never a sucking Infant: and though parts by dissolving and
+composing may lose and get acquaintance of each other, yet no part
+can be otherwise in its nature, then ever it was; Wherefore change of
+corporeal motions is not losing nor getting strength or swiftness; for
+Nature doth not lose force, although she doth not use force in all
+her various actions; neither can any natural body get more strength
+than by nature it hath, although it may get the assistance of other
+bodies joyned to it. But swiftness and slowness are according to
+the several figurative actions of self-moving matter; which several
+actions or motions of Nature, and their alterations, cannot be found
+out by any particular Creature: as for example, the motions of Lead,
+and the motions of Wood, unless Man knew their several causes; for
+Wood, in some cases, may move slower then Lead; and Lead, in other
+cases, slower then Wood. Again: the same _Author_ says, _That an heavy
+moveable body descending, gets force enough to bring it back again to
+as much height._ But I think, it might as well be said, That a Man
+walking a mile, gets as much strength as to walk back that mile; when
+'tis likely, that having walked ten miles, he may not have so much
+strength as to walk back again one mile; neither is he necessitated to
+walk back, except some other more powerful body do force him back: for
+though Nature is self-moving, yet every part has not an absolute power,
+for many parts may over-power fewer; also several corporeal motions may
+cross and oppose as well as assist each other; for if there were not
+opposition, as well as agreement and assistance amongst Nature's parts,
+there would not be such variety in Nature as there is. Moreover, he
+makes mention of a _Line, with a weight hung to its end, which being
+removed from the perpendicular, presently falls to the same again._
+To which, I answer: That it is the appetite and desire of the Line,
+not to move by constraint, or any forced exterior motion; but that
+which forces the Line to move from the Perpendicular, doth not give it
+motion, but is onely an occasion that it moves in such a way; neither
+doth the line get that motion from any other exterior body, but it
+is the lines own motion; for if the motion of the hand, or any other
+exterior body, should give the line that motion, I pray, from which
+doth it receive the motion to tend to its former state? Wherefore, when
+the Line moves backwards or forwards, it is not, that the Line gets
+what it had not before, that is, a new corporeal motion, but it uses
+its own motion; onely, as I said, that exterior body is the occasion
+that it moves after such a manner or way, and therefore this motion
+of the line, although it is the lines own motion, yet in respect of
+the exterior body that causes it to move that way, it may be called a
+forced, or rather an occasioned motion. And thus no body can get motion
+from another body, except it get matter too; for all that motion that a
+body has, proceeds from the self-moving part of matter, and motion and
+matter are but one thing; neither is there any inanimate part of matter
+in Nature, which is not co-mixed with the animate, and consequently,
+there is no part which is not moving, or moved; the Animate part of
+matter is the onely self-moving part, and the Inanimate the moved:
+not that the animate matter doth give away its own motion to the
+inanimate, and that the inanimate becomes self-moving; but the animate,
+by reason of the close conjunction and commixture, works together with
+the inanimate, or causes the inanimate to work with it; and thus the
+inanimate remains as simple in its own nature, as the animate doth in
+its nature, although they are mixt; for those mixtures do not alter the
+simplicity of each others Nature. But having discoursed of this subject
+in my former Letters, I take my leave, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+VI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+It seems, my former Letter concerning Motion, has given you occasion to
+propound this following question to me, to wit, _When I throw a bowl,
+or strike a ball with my hand; whether the motion, by which the bowl
+or ball is moved, be the hands, or the balls own motion? or whether
+it be transferred out of my hand into the ball?_ To which I return
+this short answer: That the motion by which (for example) the bowl is
+moved, is the bowls own motion, and not the hands that threw it: for
+the hand cannot transfer its own motion, which hath a material being,
+out of it self into the bowl, or any other thing it handles, touches,
+or moves; or else if it did, the hand would in a short time become weak
+and useless, by losing so much substance, unless new motions were as
+fast created, as expended. You'll say, perhaps, that the hand and the
+bowl may exchange motions, as that the bowls own motion doth enter
+into the hand, and supply that motion which went out of the hand into
+the bowl, by a close joyning or touch, for in all things moving and
+moved, must be a joyning of the mover to the moved, either immediate,
+or by the means of another body. I answer: That this is more probable,
+then that the hand should give out, or impart motion to the bowl, and
+receive none from the bowl; but by reason motion cannot be transferred
+without matter, as being both inseparably united, and but one thing;
+I cannot think it probable, that any of the animate or self-moving
+matter in the hand, quits the hand, and enters into the bowl; nor
+that the animate matter, which is in the bowl, leaves the bowl, and
+enters into the hand, because that self-moving substance is not readily
+prepared for so sudden a Translation or Transmigration. You may say,
+It may as easily be done as food is received into an animal body and
+excrement discharged, or as air is taken in, and breath sent out, by
+the way of respiration; and that all Creatures are not onely produced
+from each other, but do subsist by each other, and act by each others
+assistance. I answer: It is very true, that all Creatures have more
+power and strength by a joyned assistance, then if every part were
+single, and subsisted of it self. But as some parts do assist each
+other, so on the other side, some parts do resist each other; for
+though there be a unity in the nature of Infinite Matter, yet there are
+divisions also in the Infinite parts of Infinite Matter, which causes
+Antipathy as much as Sympathy; but they being equal in assistance as
+well as in resistance, it causes a conformity in the whole nature of
+Infinite Matter; for if there were not contrary, or rather, I may
+say, different effects proceeding from the onely cause, which is the
+onely matter, there could not possibly be any, or at least, so much
+variety in Nature, as humane sense and reason perceives there is.
+But to return to our first argument: You may say, that motion may be
+transferred out of one body into another, without transferring any
+of the Matter. I answer: That is impossible, unless motion were that
+which some call No-thing, but how No-thing can be transferred, I cannot
+imagine: Indeed no sense and reason in Nature can conceive that which
+is No-thing; for how should it conceive that which is not in Nature
+to be found. You'll say, perhaps, It is a substanceless thing, or an
+incorporeal, immaterial being or form. I answer: In my opinion, it is
+a meer contradiction, to say, a substanceless thing, form, or being,
+for surely in Nature it cannot be. But if it be not possible that
+motion can be divided from matter, you may say, that body from whence
+the motion is transferred, would become less in bulk and weight, and
+weaker with every act of motion; and those bodies into which corporeal
+motion or self-moving matter was received, would grow bigger, heavier,
+and stronger. To which, I answer: That this is the reason, which denies
+that there can be a translation of motion out of the moving body into
+the moved; for questionless, the one would grow less, and the other
+bigger, that by loosing so much substance, this by receiving. Nay if it
+were possible, as it is not, that motion could be transferred without
+matter, the body out of which it goes, would nevertheless grow weaker;
+for the strength lies in the motion, unless you believe, this motion
+which is transferred to have been useless in the mover, and onely
+useful to the moved; or else it would be superfluous in the moved,
+except you say, it became to be annihilated after it was transferr'd
+and had done its effect; but if so, then there would be a perpetual and
+infinite creation and annihilation of substanceless motion, and how
+there could be a creation and annihilation of nothing, my reason cannot
+conceive, neither is it possible, unless Nature had more power then
+God, to create Nothing, and to annihilate Nothing. The truth is, it is
+more probable for sense and reason to believe a Creation of Something
+out of Nothing, then a Creation of Nothing out of Nothing. Wherefore
+it cannot in sense and reason be, that the motion of the hand is
+transferr'd into the bowl. But yet I do not say, that the motion of the
+hand doth not contribute to the motion of the bowl; for though the bowl
+hath its own natural motion in itself, (for Nature and her creatures
+know of no rest, but are in a perpetual motion, though not always
+exterior and local, yet they have their proper and certain motions,
+which are not so easily perceived by our grosser senses) nevertheless
+the motion of the bowl would not move by such an exterior local motion,
+did not the motion of the hand, or any other exterior moving body give
+it occasion to move that way; Wherefore the motion of the hand may
+very well be said to be the cause of that exterior local motion of the
+bowl, but not to be the same motion by which the bowl moves. Neither
+is it requisite, that the hand should quit its own motion, because it
+uses it in stirring up, or putting on the motion of the bowl; for it
+is one thing to use, and another to quit; as for example, it is one
+thing to offer his life for his friends service, another to imploy it,
+and another to quit or lose it. But, _Madam_, there may be infinite
+questions or exceptions, and infinite answers made upon one truth; but
+the wisest and most probable way is, to rely upon sense and reason,
+and not to trouble the mind, thoughts, and actions of life, with
+improbabilities, or rather impossibilities, which sense and reason
+knows not of, nor cannot conceive. You may say, A Man hath sometimes
+improbable, or impossible Fancies, Imaginations, or Chym�ra's, in
+his mind, which are No-things. I answer, That those Fancies and
+Imaginations are not No-things, but as perfectly imbodied as any other
+Creatures; but by reason, they are not so grossly imbodied, as those
+creatures that are composed of more sensitive and inanimate matter, man
+thinks or believes them to be no bodies; but were they substanceless
+figures, he could not have them in his mind or thoughts: The truth is,
+the purity of reason is not so perspicuous and plain to sense, as sense
+is to reason, the sensitive matter being a grosser substance then the
+rational. And thus, _Madam_, I have answered your proposed question,
+according to the ability of my Reason, which I leave to your better
+examination, and rest in the mean while,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+VII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Having made some mention in my former Letter of the Receiving of Food,
+and discharging of Excrements, as also of Respiration, which consists
+in the sucking in of air, and sending out of breath in an animal body;
+you desire to know, _Whether Respiration be common to all animal
+Creatures?_ Truly, I have not the experience, as to tell you really,
+whether all animals respire, or not; for my life being, for the most
+part, solitary and contemplative, but not active, I please my self
+more with the motions of my thoughts, then of my senses; and therefore
+I shall give you an answer according to the conceivement of my reason
+onely, which is, That I believe, all animals require Respiration; not
+onely those, which live in the air, but those also, which live in
+waters, and within the earth; but they do not respire all after one
+and the same manner; for the matter which they imbreath, is not every
+where the same, nor have they all the same organs, or parts, nor the
+same motions. As for example: Some Creatures require a more thin and
+rarer substance for their imbreathing or inspiring, then others, and
+some a more thick and grosser substance then others, according to
+their several Natures; for as there are several kinds of Creatures,
+according to their several habitations or places they live in, so they
+have each a distinct and several sort of matter or substance for their
+inspiration. As for example: Some live in the Air, some upon the face
+of the Earth, some in the bowels Earth, and some in Waters. There is
+some report of a Salamander, who lives in the Fire; but it being not
+certainly known, deserves not our speculation. And, as in my opinion,
+all animal Creatures require Respiration, so I do verily believe, that
+also all other kinds of Creatures, besides animals, have some certain
+manner of imbreathing and transpiring, _viz._ Vegetables, Minerals,
+and Elements, although not after the same way as Animals, yet in a
+way peculiar and proper to the nature of their own kind. For example:
+Take away the earth from Vegetables, and they will die, as being, in
+my opinion, stifled or smothered, in the same manner, as when the Air
+is taken away from some Animals. Also, take Minerals out of the bowels
+of the Earth, and though we cannot say, they die, or are dead, because
+we have not as yet found out the alterative motions of Minerals, as
+well as of Vegetables, or Animals, yet we know that they are dead from
+production and increase, for not any Metal increases being out of the
+Earth. And as for Elements, it is manifest that Fire will die for want
+of vent; but the rest of the Elements, if we could come to know the
+matter, manner, and ways of their Vital Breathing, we might kill or
+revive them as we do Fire. And therefore all Creatures, to my Reason,
+require a certain matter and manner of inspiration and expiration,
+which is nothing else but an adjoyning and disjoyning of parts to and
+from parts; for not any natural part or creature can subsist single,
+and by it self, but requires assistance from others, as this, and the
+rest of my opinions in Natural Philosophy, desire the assistance of
+your favour, or else they will die, to the grief of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+VIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Th'other day I met with the Work of that Learned _Author_ Dr. _Ch._
+which treats of Natural Philosophy; and amongst the rest, in the
+Chapter of Place, I found that he blames _Aristotle_ for saying, there
+are none but corporeal dimensions, Length, Breadth, and Depth in
+Nature, making besides these corporeal, other incorporeal dimensions
+which he attributes to _Vacuum_. Truly, _Madam_, an incorporeal
+dimension or extension, seems, in my opinion, a meer contradiction; for
+I cannot conceive how nothing can have a dimension or extension, having
+nothing to be extended or measured. His words are these: _Imagine we
+therefore, that God should please to annihilate the whole stock or
+mass of Elements, and all concretions resulting therefrom, that is,
+all corporeal substances now contained within the ambit or concave
+of the lowest Heaven, or Lunar sphear; and having thus imagined, can
+we conceive that all the vast space or region circumscribed by the
+concave superfice of the Lunar sphere, would not remain the same in all
+its dimensions, after as before the reduction of all bodies included
+therein to nothing?_ To which, I answer: That, in my opinion, he makes
+Nature Supernatural; for although God's Power may make Vacuum, yet
+Nature cannot; for God's and Nature's Power are not to be compared,
+neither is God's invisible Power perceptible by Natures parts; but
+according to Natural Perception, it is impossible to conceive a Vacuum,
+for we cannot imagine a Vacuum, but we must think of a body, as your
+_Author_ of the Circle of the Moon; neither could he think of space
+but from one side of the Circle to the other, so that in his mind he
+brings two sides together, and yet will have them distant; but the
+motions of his thoughts being subtiler and swifter then his senses,
+skip from side to side without touching the middle parts, like as a
+Squirrel from bough to bough, or an Ape from one table to another;
+without touching the ground, onely cutting the air. Next, he says,
+That an absolute Vacuum, is neither an Accident, nor a Body, nor yet
+Nothing, but Something, because it has a being; which opinion seems to
+me like that of the divine Soul; but I suppose Vacuum is not the divine
+Soul, nor the divine Soul, Vacuum; or else it could not be sensible
+of the blessed happiness in Heaven, or the Torments in Hell. Again
+he says, _Let us screw our supposition one pin higher, and farther
+imagine, that God, after the annihilation of this vast machine, the
+Universe, should create another in all respects equal to this, and
+in the same part of space wherein this now consists: First, we must
+conceive, that as the spaces were immense before God created the world,
+so also must they eternally persist of infinite extent, if he shall
+please at any time to destroy it; next, that these immense spaces are
+absolutely immoveable._ By this opinion, it seems, that Gods Power
+cannot so easily make or annihilate Vacuum, as a substance; because he
+believes it to be before all Matter, and to remain after all Matter,
+which is to be eternal; but I cannot conceive, why Matter, or fulness
+of body, should not as well be Infinite and Eternal, as his Conceived
+Vacuum; for if Vacuum can have an eternal and infinite being, why may
+not fulness of body, or Matter? But he calls Vacuum Immovable, which
+in my opinion is to make it a God; for God is onely Immoveable and
+Unalterable, and this is more Glorious then to be dependant upon God;
+wherefore to believe Matter to be Eternal, but yet dependent upon
+God, is a more humble opinion, then his opinion of Vacuum; for if
+Vacuum be not created, and shall not be annihilated, but is Uncreated,
+Immaterial, Immoveable, Infinite, and Eternal, it is a God; but if it
+be created, God being not a Creator of Nothing, nor an annihilator of
+Nothing, but of Something, he cannot be a Creator of Vacuum; for Vacuum
+is a pure Nothing. But leaving Nothing to those that can make something
+of it, I will add no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+
+IX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+That Learned _Author_, of whom I made mention in my last, is pleased to
+say in his Chapter of Time, that Time is the _Twin-brother to Space_;
+but if Space be as much as Vacuum, then I say, they are Twin-nothings;
+for there can be no such thing as an empty or immaterial space, but
+that which man calls space, is onely a distance betwixt several
+corporeal parts, and time is onely the variation of corporeal motions;
+for were there no body, there could not be any space, and were there no
+corporeal motion, there could not be any time. As for Time, considered
+in General, it is nothing else but the corporeal motions in Nature, and
+Particular times are the Particular corporeal motions; but Duration is
+onely a continuance, or continued subsistence of the same parts, caused
+by the consistent motions of those parts; Neither are Time, Duration,
+Place, Space, Magnitude, &c. dependents upon corporeal motions, but
+they are all one and the same thing; Neither was Time before, nor can
+be after corporeal motion, for none can be without the other, being all
+one: And as for Eternity, it is one fixed instant, without a flux, or
+motion. Concerning his argument of Divisibility of Parts, my opinion
+is, That there is no Part in Nature Individable, no not that so small a
+part, which the Epicureans name an Atome; neither is Matter separable
+from Matter, nor Parts from Parts in General, but onely in Particulars;
+for though parts can be separated from parts, by self-motion, yet upon
+necessity they must joyn to parts, so as there can never be a single
+part by it self. But hereof, as also of Place, Space, Time, Motion,
+Figure, Magnitude, &c. I have sufficiently discoursed in my former
+Letters, as also in my Book of Philosophy; and as for my opinion of
+Atoms, their figures and motions, (if any such things there be) I will
+refer you to my Book of Poems, out of which give me leave to repeat
+these following lines, containing the ground of my opinion of Atomes:[1]
+
+
+  _All Creatures, howsoe're they may be nam'd,
+  Are of_ long, square, flat, _or_ sharp _Atoms fram'd._
+
+  _Thus several figures several tempers make,
+  But what is mixt, doth of the four partake._
+
+  _The onely cause, why things do live and die,
+  'S according as the mixed Atomes lie._
+
+    _Thus life, and death, and young, and old,
+    Are as the several Atoms hold:
+    Wit, understanding in the brain
+    Are as the several atomes reign:_
+    _And dispositions, good, or ill,
+    Are as the several atomes still;
+    And every Passion, which doth rise,
+    Is as each several atome lies.
+    Thus sickness, health, and peace, and war,
+    Are as the several atomes are._
+
+If you desire to know more, you may read my mentioned Book of Poems
+whose first Edition was printed in the year, 1653. And so taking my
+leave of you, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+[1] _Pag._ 7. in the second Impression. _Pag._ 9. _Pag._ 22. _Pag._ 24.
+
+
+
+
+X.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I received the Book of your new _Author_ that treats of Natural
+Philosophy, which I perceive is but lately come forth; but although
+it be new, yet there are no new opinions in it; for the _Author_ doth
+follow the opinions of some old Philosophers, and argues after the
+accustomed Scholastical way, with hard, intricate, and nonsensical
+words: Wherefore I shall not take so much pains as to read it quite
+over, but onely pick out here and there some few discourses, which I
+shall think most convenient for the clearing of my own opinion; in
+the number of which, is, first, that of Matter, whereof the _Author_
+is pleased to proclaim the opinion that holds Matter to be Infinite,
+not onely absurd, but also impious. Truly, _Madam_, it is easily
+said, but hardly proved; and not to trouble you with unnecessary
+repetitions, I hope you do remember as yet what I have written to you
+in the beginning concerning the infiniteness of Nature, or natural
+Matter, where I have proved that it implies no impiety, absurdity, or
+contradiction at all, to believe that Matter is Infinite; for your
+_Authors_ argument, concluding from the finiteness of particular
+Creatures to Nature her self, is of no force; for though no part of
+Nature is Infinite in bulk, figure, or quantity, nevertheless, all the
+parts of Infinite Nature are Infinite in number, which infinite number
+of parts must needs make up one Infinite body in bulk, or quantity;
+for as a finite body or substance is dividable into finite parts, so
+an Infinite body, as Nature, or natural Matter, must of necessity be
+dividable into infinite parts in number, and yet each part must also
+be finite in its exterior figure, as I have proved in the beginning
+by the example of a heap of grains of corn. Certainly, _Madam_, I see
+no reason, but since, according to your _Author_, God, as the prime
+Cause, Agent, and Producer of all things, and the action by which he
+produced all things, is Infinite; the Matter out of which he produced
+all particular Creatures may be Infinite also. Neither doth it, to my
+sense and reason, imply any contradiction or impiety; for it derogates
+nothing from the Glory and Omnipotency of God, but God is still the
+God of Nature, and Nature is his Servant, although Infinite, depending
+wholly upon the will and pleasure of the All-powerful God: Neither
+do these two Infinites obstruct each other; for Nature is corporeal,
+and God is a supernatural and spiritual Infinite Being, and although
+Nature has an Infinite power, yet she has but an Infinite Natural
+power, whereas Gods Omnipotency is infinitely extended beyond Nature.
+But your _Author_ is pleased to refute that argument, which concludes
+from the effect to the cause, and proves Matter to be infinite, because
+God as the Cause is Infinite, saying, that this Rule doth onely hold
+in Univocal things, (by which, I suppose, he understands things of
+the same kind and nature) and not in opposites. Truly, _Madam_, by
+this he limits God's power, as if God were not able to work beyond
+Nature, and Natural Reason or Understanding; and measures Gods actions
+according to the rules of Logick; which whether it be not more impious,
+you may judg your self. And as for opposites, God and Nature are not
+opposites, except you will call opposites those which bear a certain
+relation to one another, as a Cause, and its Effect; a Parent, and a
+Child; a Master, and a Servant; and the like. Nay, I wonder how your
+_Author_ can limit Gods action, when as he confesses himself, that the
+Creation of the World is an Infinite action. God acted finitely, says
+he, by an Infinite action; which, in my opinion, is meer non-sense, and
+as much as to say, a man can act weakly by a strong action, basely by
+an honest action, cowardly by a stout action. The truth is, God being
+Infinite, cannot work finitely; for, as his Essence, so his Actions
+cannot have any limitation, and therefore it is most probable, that
+God made Nature Infinite; for though each part of Nature is finite
+in its own figure, yet considered in general, they are Infinite, as
+well in number, as duration, except God be pleased to destroy them;
+nay, every particular may in a certain sense be said Infinite, to
+wit, Infinite in time or duration; for if Nature be Infinite and
+Eternal, and there be no annihilation or perishing in Nature, but a
+perpetual successive change and alteration of natural figures, then
+no part of Nature can perish or be annihilated; and if no part of
+Nature perishes, then it lasts infinitely in Nature, that is, in the
+substance of natural Matter; for though the corporeal motions, which
+make the figures, do change, yet the ground of the figure, which is
+natural matter, never changes. The same may be said of corporeal
+motions: for though motions change and vary infinite ways, yet none is
+lost in Nature, but some motions are repeated again: As for example;
+the natural motions in an Animal Creature, although they are altered
+in the dissolution of the figure, yet they may be repeated again by
+piece-meals in other Creatures; like as a Commonwealth, or united body
+in society, if it should be dissolved or dispersed, the particulars
+which did constitute this Commonwealth or society, may joyn to the
+making of another society; and thus the natural motions of a body do
+not perish when the figure of the body dissolves, but joyn with other
+motions to the forming and producing of some other figures. But to
+return to your _Author_. I perceive his discourse is grounded upon a
+false supposition, which appears by his way of arguing from the course
+of the Starrs and Planets, to prove the finiteness of Nature; for by
+reason the Stars and Planets rowl about, and turn to the same point
+again, each within a certain compass of time, he concludes Nature or
+Natural Matter to be finite too. And so he takes a part for the whole,
+to wit, this visible World for all Nature, when as this World is
+onely a part of Nature, or Natural Matter, and there may be more, and
+Infinite worlds besides; Wherefore his conclusion must needs be false,
+since it is built upon a false ground. Moreover, he is as much against
+the Eternity of Matter, as he is against Infiniteness; concluding
+likewise from the parts to the whole; For, _says he_, since the parts
+of Nature are subject to a beginning and ending, the whole must be
+so too. But he is much mistaken, when he attributes a beginning and
+ending to parts, for there is no such thing as a beginning and ending
+in Nature, neither in the whole, nor in the parts, by reason there is
+no new creation or production of Creatures out of new Matter, nor any
+total destruction or annihilation of any part in Nature, but onely a
+change, alteration and transmigration of one figure into another; which
+change and alteration proves rather the contrary, to wit, that Matter
+is Eternal and Incorruptible; for if particular figures change, they
+must of necessity change in the Infinite Matter, which it self, and
+in its nature, is not subject to any change or alteration: besides,
+though particulars have a finite and limited figure, and do change,
+yet their species do not; for Mankind never changes, nor ceases to be,
+though _Peter_ and _Paul_ die, or rather their figures dissolve and
+divide; for to die is nothing else, but that the parts of that figure
+divide and unite into some other figures by the change of motion in
+those parts. Concerning the Inanimate Matter, which of it self is a
+dead, dull, and idle matter, your _Author_ denies it to be a co-agent
+or assistant to the animate matter: For, says he, how can dead and idle
+things act? To which, I answer: That your _Author_ being, or pretending
+to be a Philosopher, should consider that there is difference betwixt a
+Principal and Instrumental cause or agent; and although this inanimate,
+or dull matter, doth not act of it self as a principal agent, yet it
+can and doth act as an Instrument, according as it is imploy'd by the
+animate matter: for by reason there is so close a conjunction and
+commixture of animate and inanimate Matter in Nature, as they do make
+but one body, it is impossible that the animate part of matter should
+move without the inanimate; not that the inanimate hath motion in her
+self, but the animate bears up the inanimate in the action of her own
+substance, and makes the inanimate work, act, and move with her, by
+reason of the aforesaid union and commixture. Lastly, your _Author_
+speaks much of Minima's, _viz._ That all things may be resolved into
+their minima's, and what is beyond them, is nothing, and that there
+is one maximum, or biggest, which is the world, and what is beyond
+that, is Infinite. Truly, _Madam_, I must ingeniously confess, I am
+not so high learned, as to penetrate into the true sense of these
+words; for he says, they are both divisible, and indivisible, and yet
+no atomes, which surpasses my Understanding; for there is no such
+thing, as biggest and smallest in Nature, or in the Infinite matter;
+for who can know how far this World goes, or what is beyond it? There
+may be Infinite Worlds, as I said before, for ought we know; for God
+and Nature cannot be comprehended, nor their works measured, if we
+cannot find out the nature of particular things, which are subject
+to our exterior senses, how shall we be able to judg of things not
+subject to our senses. But your _Author_ doth speak so presumptuously
+of Gods Actions, Designs, Decrees, Laws, Attributes, Power, and secret
+Counsels, and describes the manner, how God created all things, and the
+mixture of the Elements to an hair, as if he had been Gods Counsellor
+and assistant in the work of Creation; which whether it be not more
+impiety, then to say, Matter is Infinite, I'le let others judg.
+Neither do I think this expression to be against the holy Scripture;
+for though I speak as a natural Philosopher, and am unwilling to cite
+the Scripture, which onely treats of things belonging to Faith, and
+not to Reason; yet I think there is not any passage which plainly
+denies Matter to be Infinite, and Eternal, unless it be drawn by force
+to that sense: _Solomon_ says, _That there is not any thing new_:
+and in another place it is said, _That God is all fulfilling_; that
+is, that the Will of God is the fulfilling of the actions of Nature:
+also the Scripture says, _That Gods ways are unsearchable, and past
+finding out._ Wherefore, it is easier to treat of Nature, then the God
+of Nature; neither should God be treated of by vain Philosophers, but
+by holy Divines, which are to deliver and interpret the Word of God
+without sophistry, and to inform us as much of Gods Works, as he hath
+been pleased to declare and make known. And this is the safest way, in
+the opinion of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your new _Author_ endeavours to prove, that Water in its own proper
+nature is thicker then Earth; which, to my sense and reason, seems not
+probable; for although water is less porous then earth in its exterior
+figure, yet 'tis not so thick as earth in its interior nature: Neither
+can I conceive it to be true, that water in its own nature, and as long
+as it remains water, should be as hard as Crystal, or stone, as his
+opinion is; for though Elements are so pliant (being not composed of
+many different parts and figures) as they can change and rechange their
+exterior figures, yet they do not alter their interior nature without a
+total dissolution; but your _Author_ may as well say, that the interior
+nature of man is dust and ashes, as that water in its interior nature
+is as thick as earth, and as hard as Christal, or stone; whereas yet
+a man, when he becomes dust and ashes, is not a man; and therefore,
+when water is become so thick as earth, or so hard as stone, it is not
+water; I mean when it is so in its interior nature, not in its exterior
+figure; for the exterior figure may be contracted, when yet the
+interior nature is dilative; and so the exterior may be thick or hard,
+when the interior is soft and rare. But you may say, that water is a
+close, and heavy, as also a smooth and glossy body. I answer: That doth
+not prove its interior nature to be hard, dense, thick, or contracted;
+for the interior nature and parts of a body may be different from the
+exterior figure or parts; neither doth the close joyning of parts
+hinder dilatation; for if so, a line or circle could not dilate or
+extend: But this close uniting of the parts of water is caused through
+its wet and glutinous quality, which wet and sticking quality is
+caused by a watery dilatation; for though water hath not interiously
+so rare a dilatation as Air, Fire, and Light, yet it hath not so close
+a contraction as Earth, Stone, or Metal; neither are all bodies that
+are smooth and shining, more solid and dense, then those that are
+rough and dark; for light is more smooth, glossy, and shining, then
+Water, Metal, Earth, or Transparent-stones, and yet is of a dilative
+nature. But because some bodies and figures which are transparent and
+smooth, are dense, hard, and thick, we cannot in reason, or sense,
+say, that all bodies and figures are so. As for Transparency, it is
+caused through a purity of substance, and an evenness of parts: the
+like is glossiness, onely glossiness requires not so much regularity,
+as transparency. But to return to Water; its exterior Circle-figure
+may dilate beyond the degree of the propriety or nature of water, or
+contract beneath the propriety or nature of water. Your _Author_ may
+say, Water is a globous body, and all globous bodies tend to a Center.
+I answer: That my sense and reason cannot perceive, but that Circles
+and Globes do as easily dilate, as contract: for if all Globes and
+Circles should endeavour to draw or fall from the circumference to the
+Center, the Center of the whole World, or at least of some parts of the
+World, would be as a Chaos: besides, it is against sense and reason,
+that all Matter should strive to a Center; for humane sense and reason
+may observe, that all Creatures, and so Matter, desire liberty, and a
+Center is but a Prison in comparison to the Circumference; wherefore
+if Matter crowds, it is rather by force, then a voluntary action. You
+will say, All Creatures desire rest, and in a Center there's rest. I
+answer; Humane sense and reason cannot perceive any rest in Nature: for
+all things, as I have proved heretofore, are in a perpetual motion.
+But concerning Water, you may ask me, _Madam_, Whether congeal'd
+Water, as Ice, if it never thaw, remains Water? To which, I answer:
+That the interior nature of Water remains as long as the Ice remains,
+although the outward form is changed; but if Ice be contracted into
+the firmness and density of Crystal, or Diamond, or the like, so as
+to be beyond the nature of Water, and not capable to be that Water
+again, then it is transformed into another Creature, or thing, which
+is neither Water, nor Ice, but a Stone; for the Icy contraction doth
+no more alter the interior nature of Water, which is dilating, then
+the binding of a man with Chains alters his nature from being a man;
+and it might be said as well, that the nature of Air is not dilating,
+when inclosed in a bladder, as that Water doth not remain Water in
+its interior nature, when it is contracted into Ice. But you may ask,
+Whether one extreme can change into another? I answer: To my sense
+and reason it were possible, if extremes were in Nature; but I do not
+perceive that in Nature there be any, although my sense and reason doth
+perceive alterations in the effects of Nature; for though one and the
+same part may alter from contraction to dilation, and from dilation
+to contraction; yet this contraction and dilation are not extremes,
+neither are they performed at one and the same time, but at different
+times. But having sufficiently declared my opinion hereof in my former
+Letters, I'l add no more, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+My discourse of Water in my last Letter has given you occasion to
+enquire after the reason, _Why the weight of a great body of water doth
+not press so hard and heavily as to bruise or crush a body, when it is
+sunk down to the bottom?_ As for example: If a man should be drowned,
+and afterwards cast out from the bottom of a great Sea, or River, upon
+the shore; he would onely be found smother'd or choak'd to death, and
+not press'd, crush'd, or bruised, by the weight of water. I answer;
+The reasons are plain: for, first, the nature of a mans respiration
+requires such a temperature of breath to suck in, as is neither too
+thick, nor too thin for his lungs, and the rest of his interior parts,
+as also for the organs and passages of his exterior senses, but fit,
+proper, and proportionable to those mentioned parts of his body: As for
+example; in a too thin and rarified air, man will be as apt to die for
+want of breath, as in a too gross and thick air he is apt to die with
+a superfluity of the substance he imbreaths; for thick smoak, or thick
+vapour, as also too gross air, will soon smother a man to death; and as
+for choaking, if a man takes more into his throat then he can swallow,
+he will die; and if his stomack be filled with more food then it is
+able to digest, if it cannot discharge it self, he will die with the
+excess of food; and if there be no food, or too little put into it, he
+will also die for want of food. So the eye, if it receives too many,
+or too gross, or too bright objects, it will be dazled or blinded,
+and some objects through their purity are not to be seen at all: The
+same for Hearing, and the rest of the exterior senses: And this is the
+reason, why man, or some animal Creatures are smother'd and choak'd
+with water; because water is thicker then the grossest air or vapour;
+for if smoak, which is rarer then water, will smother and choak a man,
+well may water, being so much thicker. But yet this smothering or
+choaking doth not prove, that water hath an interior or innate density
+(as your _Authors_ opinion is) no more then smoak, or thick and gross
+air hath; but the density of water is caused more through the wet and
+moist exterior parts, joyning and uniting closely together; and the
+interior nature of smoak being more moist or glutinous then thin air,
+and so more apt to unite its exterior parts, it makes it to come in
+effect nearer to water; for though water and smoak are both of rare
+natures, yet not so rare as clear and pure air; neither is water or
+smoak so porous as pure air, by reason the exterior parts of water and
+smoak are more moist or glutinous then pure air. But the thickness
+of water and smoak is the onely cause of the smothering of men, or
+some animals, as by stopping their breath, for a man can no more live
+without air, then he can without food; and a well tempered or middle
+degree of air is the most proper for animal Respiration; for if the
+air be too thick, it may soon smother or choak him; and if too thin,
+it is not sufficient to give him breath: And this is the reason that
+a man being drown'd, is not onely smother'd, but choak'd by water;
+because there enters more through the exterior passages into his body
+then can be digested; for water is apt to flow more forcibly and with
+greater strength then air; not that it is more dilating then air, but
+by reason it is thicker, and so stronger, or of more force; for the
+denser a body is, the stronger it is; and a heavy body, when moved, is
+more forcible then a light body. But I pray by this expression mistake
+not the nature of water; for the interior nature of water hath not
+that gravity, which heavy or dense bodies have, its nature being rare
+and light, as air, or fire; but the weight of water, as I said before,
+proceeds onely from the closeness and compactness of its exterior
+parts, not through a contraction in its interior nature; and there is
+no argument, which proves better, that water in its interior nature
+is dilating, then that its weight is not apt to press to a point; for
+though water is apt to descend, through the union of its parts, yet it
+cannot press hard, by reason of its dilating nature, which hinders that
+heavy pressing quality; for a dilating body cannot have a contracted
+weight, I mean, so as to press to a Center, which is to a point; and
+this is the reason, that when a grave or heavy body sinks down to the
+bottom of water, it is not opprest, hurt, crusht, or bruised by the
+weight of water; for, as I said, the nature of water being dilating,
+it can no more press hard to a center, then vapour, air, or fire: The
+truth is, water would be as apt to ascend as descend, if it were not
+for the wet, glutinous and sticking, cleaving quality of its exterior
+parts; but as the quantity and quality of the exterior parts makes
+water apt to sink, or descend, so the dilating nature makes it apt to
+flow, if no hinderance stop its course; also the quantity and quality
+of its exterior parts is the cause, that some heavy bodies do swim
+without sinking: as for example; a great heavy Ship will not readily
+sink, unless its weight be so contracted as to break asunder the united
+parts of water; for the wet quality of water causing its exterior parts
+to joyn close, gives it such an united strength, as to be able to bear
+a heavy burden, if the weight be dilated, or level, and not piercing or
+penetrating; for those bodies that are most compact, will sink sooner,
+although of less weight then those that are more dilated although of
+greater weight: Also the exterior and outward shape or form makes some
+bodies more apt to sink then others; Indeed, the outward form and shape
+of Creatures is one of the chief causes of either sinking or swimming.
+But to conclude, water in its interior nature is of a mean or middle
+degree, as neither too rare, nor too grave a body; and for its exterior
+quality, it is in as high a degree for wetness, as fire is for heat;
+and being apt both to divide, and to unite, it can bear a burden, and
+devour a burden, so that some bodies may swim, and others sink; and
+the cause, that a sunk body is not opprest, crush'd, or squeesed, is
+the dilating nature and quality of water, which hinders its parts
+from pressing or crowding towards a point or center; for although
+water is heavy, and apt to descend, yet its weight is not caused by
+a contraction of its substance, but by a union of its parts. Thus,
+_Madam_, I have obeyed your commands, in giving you my reasons to your
+propounded question, which if you approve, I have my aim; if not, I
+submit to your better judgment: for you know I am in all respects,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_to serve you._
+
+
+
+
+XIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am glad, you are pleased with my reasons I gave to your propounded
+question concerning the weight of Water; and since you have been
+pleased to send me some more of that subject, I shall be ready also
+to give my answer to them, according to the capacity of my judgment.
+First, you desire to know, _How it comes, that Water will by degrees
+ascend through a narrow pipe, when the pipe is placed straight upright;
+or perpendicular?_ The reason, in my opinion is, that Water, having a
+dilative nature, when it finds an obstruction to descend or flow even,
+will dilate it self ascendingly, according as it hath liberty, or
+freedom, and strength, or quantity; the truth is, water would be more
+apt to ascend then to descend, were it not for the close uniting of
+its liquid Parts, which causes its exterior density, and this density
+makes it of more weight then its nature is; and the proof that water
+is apt in its nature to ascend, is, that some sorts of vapours are
+made onely by the dilation and rarefaction of ascending Water. Your
+second question is, _Why the surface of water seems to be concave in
+its middle, and higher on every side?_ I answer, The interior figure
+of water is a circular figure, which being a round figure, is both
+concave, and convex; for where one is, the other must be; and the
+motions of ebbing and flowing, and ascending or descending, are partly
+of that figure; and so according to the exterior dilating strength
+or weakness, the exterior parts of water become either concave or
+convex; for in a full strength, as a full stream, the exterior parts
+of water flow in a convex figure, but when they want strength, they
+ebb in a concave figure. Your third question is, _What makes frozen
+water apt to break those Vessels wherein it is contained, in the act
+of freezing or congealing?_ I answer: The same cause that makes water
+clear, as also more swell'd then usually it is: which cause is the
+inherent dilative nature of water; for water being naturally dilative,
+when as cold attractions do assault it, the moist dilations of water
+in the conflict use more then their ordinary strength to resist those
+cold contracting motions, by which the body of water dilates it self
+into a larger compass, according as it hath liberty or freedom, or
+quantity of parts; and the cold parts not being able to drive the
+water back to its natural compass, bind it as it is extended, like as
+if a beast should be bound when his legs and neck are thrust out at
+the largest extent, in striving to kick or thrust away his enemies and
+imprisoners: And so the reason why water breaks these vessels wherein
+it is inclosed, in the act of its freezing or congealing is, that when
+the cold contractions are so strong as they endeavour to extinguish the
+dilating nature of water, the water refilling, forces its parts so, as
+they break the vessel which incloses them: The same reason makes Ice
+clear and transparent; for it is not the rarefaction of water that doth
+it, but the dilation, which causes the parts of water to be not onely
+more loose and porous, but also more smooth and even, by resisting the
+cold contractions; for every part endeavours to defend their borders
+with a well ordered and regular flowing or streaming, and not onely to
+defend, but to enlarge their compass against their enemies. Your fourth
+question is, How it comes _that Snow and Salt mixt together doth make
+Ice?_ The reason, in my judgment, is, that Salt being very active, and
+partly of the nature of fire, doth sometimes preserve, and sometimes
+destroy other bodies, according to its power, or rather according to
+the nature of those bodies it works on; and salt being mixt with snow,
+endeavours to destroy it; but having not so much force, melts it onely
+by its heat, and reduces it into its first principle, which is water,
+altering the figure of snow; but the cold contractions remaining in
+the water, and endeavouring to maintain and keep their power, straight
+draw the water or melted snow into the figure of ice, so as neither
+the salts heat, nor the waters dilative nature, are able to resist or
+destroy those cold contractions; for although they destroy'd the first
+figure, which is snow, yet they cannot hinder the second, which is Ice.
+Your last question is, _How the Clouds can hang so long in the Skie
+without falling down?_ Truly, _Madam_, I do not perceive that Clouds,
+being come to their full weight and gravity, do keep up in the air,
+but some of them fall down in showres of rain, others in great and
+numerous flakes of snow; some are turned into wind, and some fall down
+in thick mists, so that they onely keep up so long, until they are of
+a full weight for descent, or till their figure is altered into some
+other body, as into air, wind, rain, lightning, thunder, snow, hail,
+mist, and the like. But many times their dilating motions keep or
+hinder them from descending, to which contracting motions are required.
+In my opinion, it is more to be admired, that the Sea doth not rise,
+then that Clouds do not fall; for, as we see, Clouds fall very often,
+as also change from being Clouds, to some other figure: Wherefore it
+is neither the Sun, nor Stars, nor the Vapours, which arise from the
+Earth, and cause the Clouds, nor the porosity of their bodies, nor the
+Air, that can keep or hinder them from falling or changing to some
+other body; but they being come to their full weight, fall or change
+according as is fittest for them. And these are all the reasons I can
+give you for the present; if they do not satisfie you, I will study for
+others, and in all occasions endeavour to express my self,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since in my last, I made mention of the Congealing of Water into Ice
+and Snow, I cannot choose, but by the way tell you, that I did lately
+meet with an _Author_, who is of opinion, That Snow is nothing else but
+Ice broken or ground into small pieces. To which, I answer: That this
+opinion may serve very well for a Fancy, but not for a Rational Truth,
+or at least for a Probable Reason; For why may not the cold motions
+make snow without beating or grinding, as well as they make Ice? Surely
+Nature is wiser then to trouble her self with unnecessary labour, and
+to make an easie work difficult, as Art her Creature doth, or as some
+dull humane capacities conceive; for it is more easie for Nature to
+make Snow by some sorts of cold contractions, as she makes Ice by other
+sorts of cold contractions, then to force Air and Wind to beat, grinde,
+or pound Ice into Snow, which would cause a confusion and disturbance
+through the Irregularity of several parts, being jumbled in a confused
+manner together. The truth is, it would rather cause a War in Nature,
+then a natural production, alteration, or transformation: Neither can
+I conceive, in what region this turbulent and laborious work should be
+acted; certainly not in the caverns of the Earth, for snow descends
+from the upper Region. But, perchance, this _Author_ believes, that
+Nature imploys Wind as a Hand, and the Cold air as a Spoon, to beat Ice
+like the white of an Egg into a froth of Snow. But the great quantity
+of Snow, in many places, doth prove, that Snow is not made of the
+fragments of Ice, but that some sorts of cold contractions on a watery
+body, make the figure of snow in the substance of water, as other sorts
+of cold contractions make the figure of ice; which motions and figures
+I have treated of in my Book of Philosophy, according to that Judgment
+and Reason which Nature has bestowed upon me. The Author of this Fancy,
+gives the same reason for Snow being white: _For Ice_, says he, _is
+a transparent body, and all transparent bodies, when beaten into
+powder, appear white; and since Snow is nothing else but Ice powder'd
+small, it must of necessity shew white._ Truly, _Madam_, I am not so
+experienced, as to know that all transparent bodies, being beaten
+small, shew white; but grant it be so, yet that doth not prove, that
+the whiteness of snow proceeds from the broken parts of Ice, unless it
+be proved that the whiteness of all bodies proceeds from the powdering
+of transparent bodies, which I am sure he cannot do; for Silver, and
+millions of other things are white, which were never produced from the
+powder of transparent bodies: Neither do I know any reason against
+it, but that which makes a Lilly white, may also be the cause of the
+whiteness of Snow, that is, such a figure as makes a white colour; for
+different figures, in my opinion, are the cause of different colours,
+as you will find in my Book of Philosophy, where I say, that Nature
+by contraction of lines draws such or such a Figure, which is such or
+such a Colour; as such a Figure is red, and such a Figure is green,
+and so of all the rest: But the Palest colours, and so white, are the
+loosest and slackest figures; Indeed, white, which is the nearest
+colour to light, is the smoothest, evenest and straightest figure, and
+composed of the smallest lines: As for example; suppose the figure of
+8. were the colour of Red, and the figure of 1. the colour of White; or
+suppose the figure of Red to be a _z._ and the figure of an _r._ to be
+the figure of Green, and a straight _l._ the figure of White; And mixt
+figures make mixt colours: The like examples may be brought of other
+Figures, as of a Harpsichord and its strings, a Lute and its strings,
+a Harp and its strings, &c. By which your Reason shall judg, whether
+it be not easier for Nature, to make Snow and its whiteness by the way
+of contraction, then by the way of dissolution: As for example; Nature
+in making Snow, contracts or congeals the exterior figure of Water into
+the figure of a Harp, which is a Triangular figure with the figure
+of straight strings within it; for the exterior figure of the Harp
+represents the exterior figure of Snow, and the figure of the strings
+extended in straight lines represent the figure of its whiteness. And
+thus it is easier to make Snow and its whiteness at one act, then first
+to contract or congeal water into Ice, and then to cause wind and cold
+air to beat and break that Ice into powder, and lastly to contract
+or congeal that powder into flakes of Snow. Which would be a very
+troublesom work for Nature, _viz._ to produce one effect by so many
+violent actions and several labours, when the making of two figures by
+one action will serve the turn. But Nature is wiser then any of her
+Creatures can conceive; for she knows how to make, and how to dissolve,
+form; and transform, with facility and ease, without any difficulty;
+for her actions are all easie and free, yet so subtil, curious and
+various, as not any part or creature of Nature can exactly or throughly
+trace her ways, or know her wisdom. And thus leaving her, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have taken several questions out of your new _Author_, which I
+intend to answer in this present Letter according to the conceptions
+of my own sense and reason, and to submit them to your censure; which
+if you vouchsafe to grant me without partiality, I shall acknowledg
+my self much obliged to you for this favour. The first question is,
+_Why wet Linnen is dried in the Air?_ I answer; That, according to my
+sense and reason, the water which is spred upon the linnen, being not
+united in a full and close body, dilates beyond the Circle-degree of
+water and wetness, and so doth easily change from water to vapour,
+and from vapour to air, whereby the linnen becomes as dry, as it
+was before it became wet. The second question is, _Why Water and
+Wine intermix so easily and suddenly together?_ I answer: All wet
+liquors, although their exterior figures do differ, yet their interior
+natures, figures and forms are much alike, and those things that are
+of the same interior nature, do easily and suddenly joyn as into one:
+Wherefore Wine and Water having both wet natures, do soon incorporate
+together, whereas, were they of different natures, they would not so
+peaceably joyn together, but by their contrary natures become enemies,
+and strive to destroy each other; but this is to be observed, that
+the sharp points of the Circle-lines of Wine, by passing through the
+smooth Circle-lines of Water, help to make a more hasty and sudden
+conjunction. The third question, is, _Why Light, which in its nature is
+white, shining through a coloured Glass, doth appear of the same colour
+which the Glass is of, either Blew, Green, Red, or the like?_ I answer:
+The reason is, that though Light in its nature be white, and the Glass
+clear and transparent, yet when as the Glass is stained or painted with
+colours, both the clearness of the glass, and the whiteness of the
+light, is obstructed by the figure of that colour the glass is stained
+or painted withal, and the light spreading upon or thorow the glass,
+represents it self in the figure of that same colour; indeed, in all
+probability to sense and reason, it appears, that the lines or beams
+of light, which are straight, small, even, and parallel, do contract
+in their entrance through the glass into the figure of the colour the
+glass is stained or painted with, so that the light passes through the
+glass figuratively, in so much, as it seems to be of the same colour
+the glass is of, although in it self it is white, lucent, and clear;
+and as the light appears, so the eye receives it, if the sight be not
+destructive. The fourth question, is, _Whether_ (as your _Authors_
+opinion is) _kisses feel pleasing and delightful by the thinness of
+the parts, and a gentle stirring and quavering of the tangent spirits,
+that give a pleasing tact?_ I answer: If this were so, then all kisses
+would be pleasing, which surely are not; for some are thought very
+displeasing, especially from thin lips; wherefore, in my opinion, it
+is neither the thinness of the parts of the lips, nor the quavering of
+the tangent spirits, but the appetites and passions of life, reason,
+and soul, that cause the pleasure; Nevertheless, I grant, the stirring
+up of the spirits may contribute to the increasing, heightening, or
+strengthning of that tact, but it is not the prime cause of it. The
+fifth question, is, _Whether the greatest man have always the greatest
+strength?_ I answer, Not: for strength and greatness of bulk doth not
+always consist together, witness experience: for a little man may be,
+and is oftentimes stronger then a tall man. The like of other animal
+Creatures: As for example, some Horses of a little or middle size,
+have a great deal more strength then others which are high and big;
+for it is the quantity of sensitive matter that gives strength, and
+not the bigness or bulk of the body. The sixth question, is, _Whether
+this World or Universe be the biggest Creature?_ I answer: It is not
+possible to be known, unless Man could perfectly know its dimension
+or extension, or whether there be more Worlds then one: But, to speak
+properly, there is no such thing as biggest or least in Nature. The
+seventh question, is, _Whether the Earth be the Center of Matter, or of
+the World?_ As for Matter, it being Infinite, has no Center, by reason
+it has no Circumference; and, as for this World, its Center cannot be
+known, unless man knew the utmost parts of its circumference, for no
+Center can be known without its circumference; and although some do
+imagine this world so little, that in comparison to Infinite Matter, it
+would not be so big as the least Pins head, yet their knowledg cannot
+extend so far as to know the circumference of this little World; by
+which you may perceive the Truth of the old saying, Man talks much, but
+knows little. The eighth question is, _Whether all Centers must needs
+be full, and close, as a stufft Cushion; and whether the matter in
+the Center of the Universe or World be dense, compact, and heavy?_ I
+answer: This can no more be known, then the circumference of the World;
+for what man is able to know, whether the Center of the world be rare,
+or dense, since he doth not know where its Center is; and as for other
+particular Centers, some Centers may be rare, some dense, and some may
+have less matter then their circumferences. The ninth question is,
+_Whether Finite Creatures can be produced out of an Infinite material
+cause?_ I answer: That, to my sense and reason, an Infinite cause must
+needs produce Infinite effects, though not in each Particular, yet in
+General; that is, Matter, being Infinite in substance, must needs be
+dividable into Infinite parts in number, and thus Infinite Creatures
+must needs be produced out of Infinite Matter; but Man being but a
+finite part, thinks all must be finite too, not onely each particular
+Creature, but also the Matter out of which all Creatures are produced,
+which is corporeal Nature. Nevertheless, those Infinite effects in
+Nature are equalized by her different motions which are her different
+actions; for it is not _non_-sence, but most demonstrable to sense and
+reason that there are equalities or a union in Infinite. The tenth
+question is, _Whether the Elements be the onely matter out of which
+all other Creatures are produced?_ I answer: The Elements, as well as
+all other Creatures, as it appears to humane sense and reason, are all
+of one and the same Matter, which is the onely Infinite Matter; and
+therefore the Elements cannot be the Matter of all other Creatures,
+for several sorts of Creatures have several ways of productions, and
+I know no reason to the contrary, but that Animals, Vegetables, and
+Minerals, may as well derive their essence from each other, as from
+the Elements, or the Elements from them; for as all Creatures do
+live by each other, so they are produced from each other, according
+to the several ways or manners of productions. But mistake me not,
+_Madam_, for I speak of production in General, and not of such natural
+production whereby the several species of Creatures are maintained: As
+for example, Generation in Animals; for an Element cannot generate an
+Animal in that manner as an Animal can generate or produce its like;
+for as Nature is wise, so her actions are all wise and orderly, or
+else it would make a horrid confusion amongst the Infinite parts of
+Nature. The eleventh question is, _What is meant by Natural Theology?_
+I answer: Natural Theology, in my opinion, is nothing else but Moral
+Philosophy; for as for our belief, it is grounded upon the Scripture,
+and not upon Reason.
+
+These, _Madam_, are the questions which I have pickt out of your new
+_Author_, together with my answers, of which I desire your impartial
+Judgment: But I must add one thing more before I conclude, which is,
+I am much pleased with your _Authors_ opinion, That Sound may be
+perceived by the Eye, Colour by the Ear, and that Sound and Colour may
+be smell'd and tasted; and I have been of this opinion eleven years
+since, as you will find in my Book of Poems, whose first Edition was
+printed in the Year, 1653. And thus I take my leave of you, and remain
+constantly,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_to serve you._
+
+
+
+
+XVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning your question of the ascending nature of fire, I am
+absolutely of _Aristotle's_ Opinion, that it is as natural for Fire
+to ascend, as it is for Earth to descend; And why should we believe
+the nature of one, and doubt the nature of the other? For if it be
+granted, that there are as well ascending, as descending bodies in
+Nature, as also low and high places, (according to the situation of
+Particulars) and Circumferences, as well as Centers, (considering the
+shape of bodies) I cannot perceive by humane reason, but that the
+Nature of fire is ascending, and that it is very improbable, it should
+have a descending or contracting nature, as to tend or endeavour to a
+Center. But, _Madam_, give me leave to ask what sort of Fire you mean,
+whether a Celestial, or a Terrestrial Fire, _viz._ that which is named
+an Elemental fire, or any other sort of fire? for there may be as many
+several sorts of fire, as of other Creatures; or whether you mean onely
+that sort of fire that belongs to this terrestrial Globe, or all the
+fire in general that is in Infinite Nature? and if you mean onely that
+sort of fire which belongs to this Terrestrial World we live upon; I
+answer, There are many several sorts of that fire too; for all the
+fire belonging to this Earthly Globe, doth not lie in one place, body,
+or part, no more then all metal, or but one sort of metal, as Gold,
+lies in one mine, or all Mankind in one womb. Neither can I believe,
+that the Sun is the onely Celestial Fire in Nature, but that there may
+be as numerous Suns, as there are other sorts of Creatures in Nature.
+But as for the ascending propriety of this terrestrial Fire, you may
+say, That the Elements do commix and unite in this worldly Globe, and
+if Fire should have an ascending motion, it would pierce into other
+Globes, or Worlds, and never leave ascending. I answer: That, first of
+all, the strength of fire is to be considered, consisting not onely
+in its quantity, but also in its quality; as whether it can ascend
+to those bodies and places which are far above it: For example; A
+Man, or any other Creature, hath never so much strength, or ability,
+or length of life, as to travel to the utmost parts of the Universe,
+were the way never so plain and free, and the number of men never so
+great: the like for Elementary fire, which hath life and death, that
+is, generation and dissolution, and successive motion, as well as other
+Creatures. But you would fain know, whether fire, if it were left at
+liberty, would not turn to a Globous figure? I answer; That, to my
+sense and reason, it would not: but some men, seeing the flame of fire
+in an arched Oven, descend round the sides of the Oven in a Globous
+figure, do perhaps imagine the nature of fire to be descending, and its
+natural figure round as a Globe, which is ridiculous; for the fire in
+the Oven, although every where incompassed and bound, yet, according
+to its nature, ascends to the top of the Oven; and finding a stoppage
+and suppression, offers to descend perpendicularly; but by reason of
+a continual ascending of the following flame, the first, and so all
+the following parts of flame are forced to spread about, and descend
+round the sides of the Oven, so that the descension of the flame is
+forced, and not natural, and its Globous figure is caused, as it were,
+by a mould, which is the Oven. But some are of opinion, that all bodies
+have descending motions towards the Center of this worldly Globe, and
+therefore they do not believe, that any bodies do ascend naturally:
+But what reason have they to believe one, and not the other? Besides,
+how do they know that all bodies would rest in the Center of this
+terrestrial Globe, if they came thither? For if it was possible, that a
+hole could be digged from the superficies of this Earthly Globe thorow
+the middle or Center of it unto the opposite superficies, and a stone
+be sent thorow; the question is, whether the stone would rest in the
+Center, and not go quite thorow? Wherefore this is but an idle Fancy;
+and the proof that Fire tends not to a Center, is, because it cannot
+be poised or weighed, not onely by reason of its rarity, but of its
+dilative and aspiring Nature; and as fire is ascending, or aspiring,
+so likewise do I, _Madam_, aspire to the top of your favour, and shall
+never descend from the ambition to serve you, but by the suppression of
+death. Till then, I remain,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend,_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In your last, you were pleased to desire my answer to these following
+questions: First, _What the reason is, that a Vessel, although it be
+of a solid and compact substance, yet will retain the smell or odour
+of a forreign substance poured into it, for a long time?_ I answer:
+The Vessel, or rather the perceptive corporeal motions of the Vessel,
+having patterned out the figure of the sent of the odorous substance,
+retain that same figure of sent, although the odorous substance is
+gone; and as long as that patterned figure is perfect, the sent will
+remain in the Vessel, either more or less, according as the figure
+doth last or alter. But you must consider, _Madam_, that although it
+be the natural motions that make those patterns of odours, yet those
+patterned figures are but as it were artificial, like as a man who
+draws a Copy from an Original; for Nature has divers and several ways
+of such motions as we call Art, for whatsoever is an imitation, is that
+which man calls Art. Your second question was, _How it came, that the
+mind and understanding in many did die or dissolve before the body?_
+I answer: The reason is, because the rational corporeal motions alter
+before the sensitive; for as in some, as for example, in Natural fools,
+the rational motions never move to a regular humane understanding,
+so in some dying Persons they do make a general alteration before
+the sensitive. Your third question was, _Why a man, being bitten by
+a mad Dog, is onely distempered in his mind, and not in his body?_
+The reason, according to my judgment, is, that the rational part of
+Matter is onely disturbed, and not the sensitive. The fourth question
+was, _Why a Basilisk will kill with his eyes?_ I answer: It is the
+sensitive corporeal motions in the organ of sight in the man, which
+upon the printing of the figure of the eyes of the Basilisk, make a
+sudden alteration. Your fifth question was, _Why an Asp will kill
+insensibly by biting?_ The reason, in my opinion, is, That the biting
+of the Asp hath the same efficacy as deadly _Opium_ hath, yea, and much
+stronger. Your sixth question was, _Why a Dog that rejoyces, swings his
+tail, and a Lyon when angry, or a Cat when in a fear, do lift up their
+tails?_ I answer: The several motions of the mind may produce either
+but one, or several sorts of motions in some part or parts of the body;
+and as the sensitive motions of anger will produce tears, so will the
+motions of joy; but grief made by the rational motions of the mind,
+may by excess disturb and make a general alteration of the sensitive
+motions in an animal: the same may excessive joy. But, _Madam_, you may
+perhaps find out better reasons for your own questions then these are;
+for my endeavour was onely to frame my answer to the ground of my own
+opinions, and so to satisfie your desire, which was, and is still the
+ambition of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+
+XVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In your last, you were pleased to desire an account, how far, or how
+much I did understand the ancient and modern Philosophers in their
+Philosophical Writings. Truly, _Madam_, I can more readily tell you
+what I do not understand, then what I do understand: for, first, I do
+not understand their sophistical Logick, as to perswade with arguments
+that black is white, and white is black; and that fire is not hot, nor
+water wet, and other such things; for the glory in Logick is rather
+to make doubts, then to find truth; indeed, that Art now is like
+thick, dark clouds, which darken the light of truth. Next: I do not
+understand in particular, what they mean by second matter; for if they
+name figures and forms second matter, they may as well say, all several
+motions, which are the several actions of Nature, are several matters,
+and so there would be infinite several matters, which would produce a
+meer confusion in Nature. Neither do I understand, when they say, a
+body dissolves into the first matter; for I am not able to conceive
+their first matter, nor what they mean by _magna_ and _major materia_;
+for I believe there is but one matter, and the motion of that matter is
+its action by which it produces several figures and effects; so that
+the nature of the matter is one and the same, although its motions,
+that is, its actions, be various, for the various effects alter not
+the nature or unity of the onely matter. Neither do I understand what
+they mean by corruption, for surely Nature is not corruptible. Nor do
+I understand their individables in Nature, nor a bodiless form, nor
+a privation, nor a being without a body; nor any such thing as they
+call rest, for there's not any thing without motion in Nature: Some do
+talk of moving _minima's_, but they do not tell what those _minima's_
+or their motions are, or how they were produced, or how they came to
+move. Neither do I understand when they say there is but one World,
+and that finite; for if there be no more Matter then that which they
+call the whole World, and may be measured by a _Jacob's_ staff, then
+certainly there is but little matter, and that no bigger then an atome
+in comparison to Infinite. Neither can my reason comprehend, when they
+say, that not any thing hath power from its interior nature to move
+exteriously and locally; for common sense and reason, that is sight
+and observation, doth prove the contrary. Neither do I know what they
+mean by making a difference between matter and form, power and act;
+for there can be no form without matter, nor no matter without form;
+and as act includes power, so power is nothing without act: Neither
+can I conceive Reason to be separable from matter; nor what is meant
+when they say, that, onely that is real, which moves the understanding
+without. Nor do I understand what they mean by intentionals,
+accidentals, incorporeal beings, formal _ratio_, formal _unity_, and
+hundreds the like; enough to puzle truth, when all is but the several
+actions of one cause, to wit, the onely matter. But most men make such
+cross, narrow, and intricate ways in Nature, with their over-nice
+distinctions, that Nature appears like a Labyrinth, whenas really she
+is as plain as an un-plowed, ditched, or hedged champion: Nay, some
+make Nature so full, that she can neither move nor stir; and others
+again will have her so empty, as they leave not any thing within her;
+and some with their penetrations, pressings, squeezings, and the like,
+make such holes in her, as they do almost wound, press and squeeze
+her to death: And some are so learned, witty, and ingenious, as they
+understand and know to discourse of the true compass, just weight,
+exact rules, measures and proportions of the Universe, as also of the
+exact division of the _Chaos_, and the architecture of the world, to
+an atome. Thus, _Madam_, I have made my confession to you of what I
+understand not, and have endeavoured to make my ignorance as brief as I
+could; but the great God knows, that my ignorance is longer then that
+which is named life and death; and as for my understanding, I can onely
+say, that I understand nothing better, but my self to be,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your most faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since I have given you, in my last, an account how much I did
+understand the Philosophical works of both the ancient and modern
+Philosophers, or rather what I did not understand of them, you would
+fain have my opinion now of the persons themselves. Truly, _Madam_, as
+for those that are dead, or those that are living, I cannot say any
+thing, but that I believe they all were or are worthy persons, men
+of vast understandings, subtil conceptions, ingenious wits, painful
+students, and learned writers. But as for their works, as I told you
+heretofore, I confess ingeniously, I understand them not, by reason
+I am ignorant in their Scholastical Arts, as Logick, Metaphysick,
+Mathematicks, and the like: For to my simple apprehension, when as
+Logicians argue of natural causes and effects, they make natural
+causes to produce natural effects with more difficulty and enforcement
+then Nature knows of; and as for Mathematicians, they endeavour to
+inchant Nature with Circles, and bind her with lines so hard, as if she
+were so mad, that she would do some mischief, when left at liberty.
+Geometricians weigh Nature to an Atome, and measure her so exactly, as
+less then a hairs breadth; besides, they do press and squeeze her so
+hard and close, as they almost stifle her. And Natural Philosophers do
+so stuff her with dull, dead, senceless _minima's_, like as a sack with
+meal, or sand, by which they raise such a Dust as quite blinds Nature
+and natural reason. But Chymists torture Nature worst of all; for they
+extract and distil her beyond substance, nay, into no substance, if
+they could. As for natural Theologers, I understand them least of any;
+for they make such a gallamalfry of Philosophy and Divinity, as neither
+can be distinguished from the other. In short, _Madam_, They all with
+their intricate definitions and distinctions set my brain on the rack:
+but some Philosophers are like some Poets, for they endeavour to write
+strong lines. You may ask me, what is meant by strong lines? I answer:
+Weak sense. To which leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I am not of your opinion, That nice distinctions and Logistical
+arguments discover truth, dissolve doubts, and clear the understanding;
+but I say, they rather make doubts of truth, and blind-fold the
+understanding; Indeed, nice distinctions and sophistical arguments, are
+very pernicious both in Schools, Church, and State: As for the Church,
+although in Divinity there is but one Truth, yet nice distinctions, and
+Logistical sophistry, have made such confusion in it, as has caused
+almost as many several opinions as there are words in the Scripture;
+and as for natural Theology, which is moral Philosophy, they have
+divided vertues and vices into so many parts, and minced them so small,
+that neither can be clearly distinguished. The same in Government; they
+endeavour to cut between command and obedience to a hairs breadth.
+Concerning causes of Law, they have abolish'd the intended benefit, and
+banish'd equity; and instead of keeping Peace, they make War, causing
+enmity betwixt men: As for Natural Philosophy, they will not suffer
+sense and reason to appear in that study: And as for Physick, they have
+kill'd more men then Wars, Plagues, or Famine. Wherefore from nice
+distinctions and Logistical sophistry, Good God deliver us, especially,
+from those that concern Divinity; for they weaken Faith, trouble
+Conscience, and bring in Atheism: In short, they make controversies,
+and endless disputes. But least the opening of my meaning in such plain
+terms should raise a controversie also between you and me, I'le cut off
+here, and rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Yesterday I received a visit from the Lady _N. M._ who you know hath
+a quick wit, rational opinions, and subtil conceptions; all which she
+is ready and free to divulge in her discourse. But when she came to
+my Chamber, I was casting up some small accounts; which when she did
+see, What, said she, are you at Numeration? Yes, said I: but I cannot
+number well, nor much, for I do not understand Arithmetick. Said she,
+You can number to three. Yes, said I, I can number to four: Nay, faith,
+said she, the number of three is enough, if you could but understand
+that number well, for it is a mystical number. Said I, There is no
+great mystery to count that number; for one, and two, makes three. Said
+she, That is not the mystery; for the mystery is, That three makes
+one: and without this mystery no man can understand Divinity, Nature,
+nor himself. Then I desired her to make me understand that mystery.
+She said, It required more time to inform me, then a short visit, for
+this mystery was such, as did puzle all wise men in the world; and
+the not understanding of this mystery perfectly, had caused endless
+divisions and disputes. I desired, if she could not make me understand
+the mystery, she would but inform me, how three made one in Divinity,
+Nature, and Man. She said, That was easie to do; for in Divinity there
+are three Persons in one Essence, as God the Father, the Son, and the
+holy Ghost, whose Essence being individable, they make but one God;
+And as for Philosophy, there is but Matter, Motion, and Figure, which
+being individable, make but one Nature; And as for Man, there is Soul,
+Life, and Body, all three joyned in one Man. But I replied, Man's Life,
+Soul and Body, is dividable. That is true, said she, but then he is no
+more a Man; for these three are his essential parts, which make him to
+be a man; and when these parts are dissolved, then his interior nature
+is changed, so that he can no longer be call'd a man: As for example;
+Water being turned into Air, and having lost its interior nature, can
+no more be called Water, but it is perfect Air; the same is with Man:
+But as long as he is a Man, then these three forementioned parts which
+make him to be of that figure are individably united as long as man
+lasts. Besides, said she, this is but in the particular, considering
+man single, and by himself; but in general, these three, as life,
+soul, and body, are individably united, so that they remain as long
+as mankind lasts. Nay, although they do dissolve in the particulars,
+yet it is but for a time; for they shall be united again at the last
+day, which is the time of their resurrection; so that also in this
+respect we may justly call them individable, for man shall remain
+with an united soul, life, and body, eternally. And as she was thus
+discoursing, in came a Sophisterian, whom when she spied, away she
+went as fast as she could; but I followed her close, and got hold of
+her, then asked her, why she ran away? She answer'd, if she stayed,
+the Logician would dissolve her into nothing, for the profession of
+Logicians is to make something nothing, and nothing something. I pray'd
+her to stay and discourse with the Logician: Not for a world, said she,
+for his discourse will make my brain like a confused _Chaos_, full of
+senseless _minima's_; and after that, he will so knock, jolt, and jog
+it, and make such whirls and pits, as will so torture my brain, that I
+shall wish I had not any: Wherefore, said she, I will not stay now, but
+visit you again to morrow. And I wish with all my heart, _Madam_, you
+were so near as to be here at the same time, that we three might make
+a Triumvirate in discourse, as well as we do in friendship. But since
+that cannot be, I must rest satisfied that I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You were pleased to desire my opinion of the works of that Learned
+and Ingenious Writer _B._ Truly, _Madam_, I have read but some part
+of his works; but as much as I have read, I have observed, he is a
+very civil, eloquent, and rational Writer; the truth is, his style is
+a Gentleman's style. And in particular, concerning his experiments, I
+must needs say this, that, in my judgment, he hath expressed himself to
+be a very industrious and ingenious person; for he doth neither puzle
+Nature, nor darken truth with hard words and compounded languages,
+or nice distinctions; besides, his experiments are proved by his own
+action. But give me leave to tell you, that I observe, he studies the
+different parts and alterations, more then the motions, which cause
+the alterations in those parts; whereas, did he study and observe
+the several and different motions in those parts, how they change in
+one and the same part, and how the different alterations in bodies
+are caused by the different motions of their parts, he might arrive
+to a vast knowledg by the means of his experiments; for certainly
+experiments are very beneficial to man. In the next place, you desire
+my opinion of the Book call'd, _The Discourses of the Virtuosi in
+France_: I am sorry, _Madam_, this book comes so late to my hands, that
+I cannot read it so slowly and observingly, as to give you a clear
+judgment of their opinions or discourses in particular; however, in
+general, and for what I have read in it, I may say, it expresses the
+French to be very learned and eloquent Writers, wherein I thought our
+English had exceeded them, and that they did onely excel in wit and
+ingenuity; but I perceive most Nations have of all sorts. The truth
+is, ingenious and subtil wit brings news; but learning and experience
+brings proofs, at least, argumental discourses; and the French are
+much to be commended, that they endeavour to spend their time wisely,
+honourably, honestly, and profitably, not onely for the good and
+benefit of their own, but also of other Nations. But before I conclude,
+give me leave to tell you, that concerning the curious and profitable
+Arts mentioned in their discourses, I confess, I do much admire them,
+and partly believe they may arrive to the use of many of them; but
+there are two arts which I wish with all my heart I could obtain: the
+first is, to argue without error in all kinds, modes, and figures, in
+a quarter of an hour; and the other is to learn a way to understand
+all languages in six hours. But as for the first, I fear, if I want a
+thorow understanding in every particular argument, cause, or point, a
+general art or mode of words will not help me, especially, if I, being
+a woman, should want discretion: And as for the second, my memory is
+so bad, that it is beyond the help of Art, so that Nature has made
+my understanding harder or closer then Glass, through which the Sun
+of verity cannot pass, although its light doth; and therefore I am
+confident I shall not be made, or taught to learn this mentioned Art
+in six hours, no not in six months. But I wish all Arts were as easily
+practised, as mentioned; and thus I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Concerning your question, _Whether a Point be something, or nothing,
+or between both_; My opinion is, that a natural point is material;
+but that which the learned name a Mathematical point, is like their
+Logistical Egg, whereof there is nothing in Nature any otherwise,
+but a word, which word is material, as being natural; for concerning
+immaterial beings, it is impossible to believe there be any in Nature;
+and though witty Students, and subtil Arguers have both in past, and
+this present age, endeavoured to prove something, nothing; yet words
+and disputes have not power to annihilate any thing that is in Nature,
+no more then to create something out of nothing; and therefore they can
+neither make something, nothing; nor nothing to be something: for the
+most witty student, nor the subtilest disputant, cannot alter Nature,
+but each thing is and must be as Nature made it. As for your other
+question, _Whether there be more then five Senses?_ I answer: There
+are as many senses as there are sensitive motions, and all sensation
+or perception is by the way of patterning; and whosoever is of another
+opinion, is, in my judgment, a greater friend to contradiction, then to
+truth, at least to probability. Lastly, concerning your question, why a
+Gun, the longer its barrel is made, the further it will shoot, until it
+come to a certain degree of length; after which, the longer it is made,
+the weaker it becomes, so that every degree further, makes it shoot
+shorter and shorter, whereas before it came to such a degree of length,
+it shot further and further: Give me leave to tell you, _Madam_, that
+this question would be put more properly to a Mathematician, then to
+me, who am ignorant in the Mathematicks: However, since you are pleased
+to desire my opinion thereof, I am willing to give it you. There are,
+in my judgment, but three reasons which do produce this alteration:
+The one may be the compass of the stock, or barrel, which being too
+wide for the length, may weaken the force, or being too narrow for the
+length, may retard the force; the one giving liberty before the force
+is united, the other inclosing it so long by a streight passage, as
+it loses its force before it hath liberty; so that the one becomes
+stronger with length, the other weaker with length. The second reason,
+in my opinion, is, That degrees of strength may require degrees of the
+_medium_. Lastly, It may be, that Centers are required for degrees of
+strength; if so, every _medium_ may be a Center, and the middle length
+to such a compass may be a Center of such a force. But many times the
+force being weaker or stronger, is caused by the good or ill making of
+the Powder, or Locks, or the like. But, _Madam_, such questions will
+puzle me as much as those of Mr. _V. Z._ concerning those glasses,
+one of which being held close in ones hand, and a little piece being
+broke of its tail, makes as great a noise as the discharging of a
+Gun: Wherefore I beseech you, _Madam_, do not trouble my brain with
+Mathematical questions, wherein I have neither skill, learning, nor
+experience by Practice; for truly I have not the subtilty to find out
+their mystery, nor the capacity to understand arts, no more then I am
+capable to learn several languages. If you command me any thing else I
+am able to do, assure your self, there is none shall more readily and
+cheerfully serve you then my self; who am, and shall ever continue,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXIV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I have heard that Artists do glory much in their Glasses, Tubes,
+Engines, and Stills, and hope by their Glasses and Tubes to see
+invisible things, and by their Engines to produce incredible effects,
+and by their Stills, Fire, and Furnaces, to create as Nature doth;
+but all this is impossible to be done: For Art cannot arrive to that
+degree, as to know perfectly Natures secret and fundamental actions,
+her purest matter, and subtilest motions; and it is enough if Artists
+can but produce such things as are for mans conveniencies and use,
+although they never can see the smallest or rarest bodies, nor great
+and vast bodies at a great distance, nor make or create a Vegetable,
+Animal, or the like, as Nature doth; for Nature being Infinite, has
+also Infinite degrees of figures, sizes, motions, densities, rarities,
+knowledg, &c. as you may see in my Book of Philosophy, as also in my
+book of Poems, especially that part that treats of little, minute
+Creatures, which I there do name, for want of other expressions,
+Fairies; for I have considered much the several sizes of Creatures,
+although I gave it out but for a fancy in the mentioned book, lest I
+should be thought extravagant to declare that conception of mine for a
+rational truth: But if some small bodies cannot be perfectly seen but
+by the help of magnifying glasses, and such as they call Microscopia;
+I pray, Nature being Infinite, What figures and sizes may there not
+be, which our eyes with all the help of Art are not capable to see?
+for certainly, Nature hath more curiosities then our exterior senses,
+helped by Art, can perceive: Wherefore I cannot wonder enough at those
+that pretend to know the least or greatest parts or creatures in
+Nature, since no particular Creature is able to do it. But concerning
+Artists, you would fain know, _Madam_, whether the Artist be beholden
+to the conceptions of the Student? To which I return this short answer:
+That, in my judgment, without the Students conceptions, the Artist
+could not tell how to make experiments: The truth is, the conceptions
+of studious men set the Artists on work, although many Artists do
+ungratefully attribute all to their own industry. Neither doth it
+always belong to the studious Concepter to make trials or experiments,
+but he leaves that work to others, whose time is not so much
+imployed with thoughts or speculations, as with actions; for the the
+Contemplator is the Designer, and the Artist the Workman, or Labourer,
+who ought to acknowledg him his Master, as I do your _Ladiship_, for I
+am in all respects,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXV.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your Command in your last was to send you my opinion concerning the
+division of Religions, or of the several opinions in Religions, I
+suppose you mean the division of the Religion, not of Religions; for
+certainly, there is but one divine Truth, and consequently but one
+true Religion: But natural men being composed of many divers parts, as
+of several motions and figures, have divers and several Ideas, which
+the grosser corporeal motions conceive to be divers and several gods,
+as being not capable to know the Great and Incomprehensible God, who
+is above Nature. For example: Do but consider, _Madam_, what strange
+opinions the Heathens had of God, and how they divided him into so many
+several Persons, with so many several bodies, like men; whereas, surely
+God considered in his Essence, he being a Spirit, as the Scripture
+describes him, can neither have Soul nor body, as he is a God, but
+is an Immaterial Being; Onely the Heathens did conceive him to have
+parts, and so divided the Incomprehensible God into several Deities, at
+least they had several Deitical Ideas, or rather Fancies of him. But,
+_Madam_, I confess my ignorance in this great mystery, and honour, and
+praise the Omnipotent, Great, and Incomprehensible God, with all fear
+and humility as I ought; beseeching his infinite mercy to keep me from
+such presumption, whereby I might prophane his holy Name, and to make
+me obedient to the Church, as also to grant me life and health, that I
+may be able to express how much I am,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since I spake of Religion in my last, I cannot but acquaint you, that I
+was the other day in the company of Sir _P. H._ and Sir _R. L._ where
+amongst other discourses they talk'd of Predestination and Free-will.
+Sir _P. H._ accounted the opinion of Predestination not onely absurd,
+but blasphemous; for, said he, Predestination makes God appear Cruel,
+as first to create Angels and Man, and then to make them fall from
+their Glory, and damn them eternally: For God, said he, knew before
+he made them, they would fall; Neither could he imagine, from whence
+that Pride and Presumption did proceed, which was the cause of the
+Angels fall, for it could not proceed from God, God being infinitely
+Good. Sir _R. L._ answer'd, That this Pride and Presumption did not
+come from God, but from their own Nature. But, replyed Sir _P. H._
+God gave them that Nature, for they had it not of themselves, but all
+what they were, their Essence and Nature, came from God the Creator
+of all things, and to suffer that, which was in his power to hinder,
+was as much as to act. Sir _R. L._ said, God gave both Angels and Man
+a Free-will at their Creation. Sir _P. H._ answered, that a Free-will
+was a part of a divine attribute, which surely God would not give away
+to any Creature: Next, said he, he could not conceive why God should
+make Creatures to cross and oppose him; for it were neither an act of
+Wisdom to make Rebels, nor an act of Justice to make Devils; so that
+neither in his Wisdom, Justice, nor Mercy, God could give leave, that
+Angels and Man should fall through sin; neither was God ignorant that
+Angels and Man would fall; for surely, said he, God knew all things,
+past, present, and to come; wherefore, said he, Free-will doth weaken
+the Power of God, and Predestination doth weaken the power of man, and
+both do hinder each other: Besides, said he, since God did confirm
+the rest of the Angels in the same state they were before, so as they
+could not fall afterwards, he might as well have created them all so
+at first. But Sir _R. L._ replied, That God suffered Angels and Man to
+fall for his Glory, to shew his Justice in Devils, and his Mercy in
+Man; and that the Devils express'd God's Omnipotency as much as the
+Blessed. To which Sir _P. H._ answered, That they expressed more God's
+severity in those horrid torments they suffer through their Natural
+Imperfections, then his power in making and suffering them to sin.
+Thus they discoursed: And to tell you truly, _Madam_, my mind was more
+troubled, then delighted with their discourse; for it seemed rather to
+detract from the honour of the great God, then to increase his Glory;
+and no Creature ought either to think or to speak any thing that is
+detracting from the Glory of the Creator: Wherefore I am neither for
+Predestination, nor for an absolute Free-will, neither in Angels,
+Devils, nor Man; for an absolute Free-will is not competent to any
+Creature: and though Nature be Infinite, and the Eternal Servant to
+the Eternal and Infinite God, and can produce Infinite Creatures, yet
+her Power and Will is not absolute, but limited; that is, she has a
+natural free-will, but not a supernatural, for she cannot work beyond
+the power God has given her. But those mystical discourses belong to
+Divines, and not to any Lay-person, and I confess my self very ignorant
+in them. Wherefore I will nor dare not dispute God's actions, being all
+infinitely wise, but leave that to Divines, who are to inform us what
+we ought to believe, and how we ought to live. And thus taking my leave
+of you for the present, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+You are pleased to honor me so far, that you do not onely spend some
+time in the perusing of my Book called _Philosophical Opinions_, but
+take it so much into your consideration, as to examine every opinion
+of mine which dissents from the common way of the Schools, marking
+those places which seem somewhat obscure, and desiring my explanation
+of them; All which, I do not onely acknowledg as a great favour, but
+as an infallible testimony of your true and unfeigned friendship; and
+I cannot chuse but publish it to all the world; both for the honour
+of your self, as to let every body know the part of so true a friend,
+who is so much concerned for the honour and benefit of my poor Works;
+as also for the good of my mentioned Book, which by this means will be
+rendred more intelligible; for I must confess that my Philosophical
+Opinions are not so plain and perspicuous as to be perfectly understood
+at the first reading, which I am sorry for. And there be two chief
+reasons why they are so: First, Because they are new, and never vented
+before; for the have their original meerly from my own conceptions, and
+are not taken out of other Philosophers. Next, because I being a Woman,
+and not bred up to Scholarship, did want names and terms of Art, and
+therefore being not versed in the Writings of other Philosophers, but
+what I knew by hearing, I could not form my named Book so methodically,
+and express my opinions so artificially and clearly, as I might have
+done, had I been studious in the reading of Philosophical Books, or
+bred a Scholar; for then I might have dressed them with a fine coloured
+Covering of Logick and Geometry, and set them out in a handsome array;
+by which I might have also cover'd my ignorance, like as Stage-Players
+do cover their mean persons or degrees with fine Cloathes. But, as I
+said, I being void of Learning and Art, did put them forth according to
+my own conceptions, and as I did understand them myself; but since I
+have hitherto by the reading of those famous and learned _Authors_ you
+sent me, attained to the knowledg of some artificial Terms, I shall not
+spare any labour and pains to make my opinions so intelligible, that
+every one, who without partiality, spleen, or malice, doth read them,
+may also easily understand them: And thus I shall likewise endeavour to
+give such answers to your scruples, objections, or questions, as may
+explain those passages which seem obscure, and satisfie your desire. In
+the first place, and in general, you desire to know, _Whether any truth
+may be had in Natural Philosophy_: for since all this study is grounded
+upon probability, and he that thinks he has the most probable reasons
+for his opinion, may be as far off from truth, as he who is thought to
+have the least; nay, what seems most probable to day, may seem least
+probable to morrow, especially if an ingenious opposer, bring rational
+arguments against it: Therefore you think it is but vain for any one
+to trouble his brain with searching and enquiring after such things
+wherein neither truth nor certainty can be had. To which, I answer:
+That the undoubted truth in Natural Philosophy, is, in my opinion, like
+the Philosopher's Stone in Chymistry, which has been sought for by many
+learned and ingenious Persons, and will be sought as long as the Art
+of Chymistry doth last; but although they cannot find the Philosophers
+Stone, yet by the help of this Art they have found out many rare things
+both for use and knowledg. The like in Natural Philosophy, although
+Natural Philosophers cannot find out the absolute truth of Nature,
+or Natures ground-works, or the hidden causes of natural effects;
+nevertheless they have found out many necessary and profitable Arts and
+Sciences, to benefit the life of man; for without Natural Philosophy
+we should have lived in dark ignorance, not knowing the motions of
+the Heavens, the cause of the Eclipses, the influences of the Stars,
+the use of Numbers, Measures, and Weights, the vertues and effects
+of Vegetables and Minerals, the Art of Architecture, Navigation, and
+the like: Indeed all Arts and Sciences do adscribe their original to
+the study of Natural Philosophy; and those men are both unwise and
+ungrateful, that will refuse rich gifts because they cannot be masters
+of all Wealth; and they are fools, that will not take remedies when
+they are sick, because Medicines can onely recover them from death for
+a time, but not make them live for ever. But to conclude, Probability
+is next to truth, and the search of a hidden cause finds out visible
+effects; and this truth do natural Philosophers find, that there are
+more fools, then wise men, which fools will never attain to the honour
+of being Natural Philosophers. And thus leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships_
+
+_humble and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXVIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Your desire is to know, since I say Nature is Wise, Whether all her
+parts must be wise also? To which, I answer; That (by your favour) all
+her parts are not fools: but yet it is no necessary consequence, that
+because Nature is infinitely wise, all her parts must be so too, no
+more then if I should say, Nature is Infinite, therefore every part
+must be Infinite: But it is rather necessary, that because Nature
+is Infinite, therefore not any single part of hers can be Infinite,
+but must be finite. Next, you desire to know, Whether Nature or the
+self-moving matter is subject to err, and to commit mistakes? I answer:
+Although Nature has naturally an Infinite wisdom and knowledg, yet she
+has not a most pure and intire perfection, no more then she has an
+absolute power; for a most pure and intire perfection belongs onely
+to God: and though she is infinitely naturally wise in her self, yet
+her parts or particular creatures may commit errors and mistakes; the
+truth is, it is impossible but that parts or particular Creatures must
+be subject to errors, because no part can have a perfect or general
+knowledg, as being but a part, and not a whole; for knowledg is in
+parts, as parts are in Matter: Besides several corporeal motions, that
+is, several self-moving parts do delude and oppose each other by their
+opposite motions; and this opposition is very requisite in Nature to
+keep a mean, and hinder extreams; for were there not opposition of
+parts, Nature would run into extreams, which would confound her, and
+all her parts. And as for delusion, it is part of Natures delight,
+causing the more variety; but there be some actions in Nature which
+are neither perfect mistakes, nor delusions, but onely want of a clear
+and thorow perception: As for example; when a man is sailing in a
+Ship, he thinks the shore moves from the ship, when as it is the ship
+that moves from the shore: Also when a man is going backward from a
+Looking-glass, he thinks, the figure in the Glass goeth inward, whereas
+it is himself that goes backward, and not his figure in the glass. The
+cause of it is, That the perception in the eye perceives the distanced
+body, but not the motion of the distance or medium; for though the man
+may partly see the motion of the visible parts, yet he doth not see the
+parts or motion of the distance or medium, which is invisible, and not
+subject to the perception of sight; and since a pattern cannot be made
+if the object be not visible, hence I conclude, that the motion of the
+medium cannot make perception, but that it is the perceptive motions
+of the eye, which pattern out an object as it is visibly presented
+to the corporeal motions in the eye; for according as the object is
+presented, the pattern is made, if the motions be regular: For example;
+a fired end of a stick, if you move it in a circular figure, the
+sensitive corporeal motions in the eye pattern out the figure of fire,
+together with the exterior or circular motion, and apprehend it as a
+fiery circle; and if the stick be moved any otherwise, they pattern
+out such a figure as the fired end of the stick is moved in; so that
+the sensitive pattern is made according to the exterior corporeal
+figurative motion of the object, and not according to its interior
+figure or motions. And this, _Madam_, is in short my answer to your
+propounded questions, by which, I hope, you understand plainly the
+meaning of,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXIX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+The scruples or questions you sent me last, are these following. First,
+you desire to be informed what I mean by _Phantasmes_ and _Ideas_? I
+answer: They are figures made by the purest and subtilest degree of
+self-moving matter, that is to say, by the rational corporeal motions,
+and are the same with thoughts or conceptions. Next, your question
+is, what I do understand by _Sensitive Life_? I answer: It is that
+part of self-moving matter, which in its own nature is not so pure and
+subtil as the rational, for it is but the labouring, and the rational
+the designing part of matter. Your third question is, _Whether this
+sensitive self-moving matter be dense or rare?_ I answer: density and
+rarity are onely effects caused by the several actions, that is, the
+corporeal motions of Nature; wherefore it cannot properly be said, that
+sensitive matter is either dense, or rare; for it has a self-power to
+contract and dilate, compose and divide, and move in any kind of motion
+whatsoever, as is requisite to the framing of any figure; and thus
+I desire you to observe well, that when I say the rational part of
+matter is purer in its degree then the sensitive, and that this is a
+rare and acute matter, I do not mean that it is thin like a rare egg,
+but that it is subtil and active, penetrating and dividing, as well as
+dividable. Your fourth question is, _What this sensitive matter works
+upon?_ I answer: It works with and upon another degree of matter,
+which is not self-moving, but dull, stupid, and immoveable in its own
+nature, which I call the inanimate part or degree of matter. Your fifth
+question is, _Whether this inanimate Matter do never rest?_ I answer;
+It doth not: for the self-moving matter being restless in its own
+nature, and so closely united and commixed with the inanimate, as they
+do make but one body, will never suffer it to rest; so that there is no
+part in Nature but is moving; the animate matter in it self, or its own
+nature, the inanimate by the help or means of the animate. Your sixth
+question is, _If there be a thorow mixture of the parts of animate and
+inanimate matter, whether those parts do retain each their own nature
+and substance, so that the inanimate part of matter remains dull and
+stupid in its essence or nature, and the animate full of self-motion,
+or all self-motion?_ I answer: Although every part and particle of
+each degree are closely intermixed, nevertheless this mixture doth not
+alter the interior nature of those parts or degrees; As for example;
+a man is composed of Soul, and Body, which are several parts, but
+joyned as into one substance, _viz._ Man, and yet they retain each
+their own proprieties and natures; for although soul and body are so
+closely united as they do make but one Man, yet the soul doth not
+change into the body, nor the body into the soul, but each continues in
+its own nature as it is. And so likewise in Infinite Matter, although
+the degrees or parts of Matter are so throughly intermixed as they do
+make but one body or substance, which is corporeal Nature, yet each
+remains in its nature as it is, to wit, the animate part of matter doth
+not become dull and stupid in its nature, but remains self-moving;
+and the inanimate, although it doth move by the means of the animate,
+yet it doth not become self-moving, but each keeps its own interior
+nature and essence in their commixture. The truth is, there must of
+necessity be degrees of matter, or else there would be no such various
+and several effects in Nature, as humane sense and reason do perceive
+there are; and those degrees must also retain each their own nature and
+proprieties, to produce those various and curious effects: Neither must
+those different degrees vary or alter the nature of Infinite Matter;
+for Matter must and doth continue one and the same in its Nature,
+that is, Matter cannot be divided from being Matter: And this is my
+meaning, when I say in my _Philosophical Opinions, There is but one
+kind of Matter_: Not that Matter is not dividable into several parts
+or degrees, but I say, although Matter has several parts and degrees,
+yet they do not alter the nature of Matter, but Matter remains one and
+the same in its own kind, that is, it continues still Matter in its
+own nature notwithstanding those degrees; and thus I do exclude from
+Matter all that which is not Matter, and do firmly believe, that there
+can be no commixture of Matter and no Matter in Nature; for this would
+breed a meer confusion in Nature. Your seventh question is, _Whether
+that, which I name the rational part of self-moving Matter makes as
+much variety as the sensitive?_ To which I answer: That, to my sense
+and reason, the rational part of animate or self-moving Matter moves
+not onely more variously, but also more swiftly then the sensitive;
+for thoughts are sooner made, then words spoke, and a certain proof
+of it are the various and several Imaginations, Fancies, Conceptions,
+Memories, Remembrances, Understandings, Opinions, Judgments, and the
+like: as also the several sorts of Love, Hate, Fear, Anger, Joy, Doubt;
+and the like Passions. Your eighth question is, _Whether the Sensitive
+Matter can and doth work in it self and its own substance and degree?_
+My answer is, That there is no inanimate matter without animate, nor
+no animate without inanimate, both being so curiously and subtilly
+intermixt, as they make but one body; Nevertheless the several parts of
+this one body may move several ways. Neither are the several degrees
+bound to an equal mixture, no more then the several parts of one body
+are bound to one and the same size, bigness, shape, or motion; or the
+Sea is bound to be always at the high tide; or the Moon to be always
+at the Full; or all the Veins or Brains in animal bodies are bound to
+be of equal quantity; or every Tree of the same kind to bear fruit, or
+have leaves of equal number; or every Apple, Pear, or Plum, to have an
+equal quantity of juice; or every Bee to make as much honey and wax as
+the other. Your nineth question is, _Whether the Sensitive Matter can
+work without taking patterns?_ My answer is, That all corporeal motion
+is not patterning, but all patterning is made by corporeal motion;
+and there be more several sorts of corporeal motions then any single
+Creature is able to conceive, much less to express: But the perceptive
+corporeal motions are the ground-motions in Nature, which make, rule,
+and govern all the parts of Nature, as to move to Production, or
+Generation, Transformation, and the like. Your tenth question is, _How
+it is possible, that numerous figures can exist in one part of matter?
+for it is impossible that two things can be in one place, much less
+many._ My answer in short is, That it were impossible, were a part of
+Matter, and the numerous figures several and distinct things; but all
+is but one thing, that is, a part of Matter moving variously; for there
+is neither Magnitude, Place, Figure, nor Motion, in Nature, but what
+is Matter, or Body; Neither is there any such thing as Time: Wherefore
+it cannot properly be said, _There was_, and _There shall be_; but
+onely, _There is_. Neither can it properly be said, from this to that
+place; but onely in reference to the several moving parts of the onely
+Infinite Matter. And thus much to your questions; I add no more, but
+rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your faithful Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXX.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In your last, you were pleased to express, that some men, who think
+themselves wise, did laugh in a scornful manner at my opinion, when
+I say that every Creature hath life and knowledg, sense and reason;
+counting it not onely ridiculous, but absurd; and asking, whether you
+did or could believe, a piece of wood, metal, or stone, had as much
+sense as a beast, or as much reason as a man, having neither brain,
+blood, heart, nor flesh; nor such organs, passages, parts, nor shapes
+as animals? To which, I answer: That it is not any of these mentioned
+things that makes life and knowledg, but life and knowledg is the
+cause of them, which life and knowledg is animate matter, and is in
+all parts of all Creatures: and to make it more plain and perspicuous,
+humane sense and reason may perceive, that wood, stone, or metal, acts
+as wisely as an animal: As for example; Rhubarb, or the like drugs,
+will act very wisely in Purging; and Antimony, or the like, will act
+very wisely in Vomiting; and Opium will act very wisely in Sleeping;
+also Quicksilver or Mercury will act very wisely, as those that have
+the French disease can best witness: likewise the Loadstone acts very
+wisely, as Mariners or Navigators will tell you: Also Wine made of
+Fruit, and Ale of Malt, and distilled Aqua-vit� will act very subtilly;
+ask the Drunkards, and they can inform you; Thus Infinite examples may
+be given, and yet man says, all Vegetables and Minerals are insensible
+and irrational, as also the Planets and Elements; when as yet the
+Planets move very orderly and wisely, and the Elements are more active,
+nay, more subtil and searching then any of the animal Creatures;
+witness Fire, Air, and Water: As for the Earth, she brings forth her
+fruit, if the other Elements do not cause abortives, in due season; and
+yet man believes, Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, are dead, dull,
+senseless, and irrational Creatures, because they have not such shapes,
+parts, nor passages as Animals, nor such exterior and local motions
+as Animals have: but Man doth not consider the various, intricate and
+obscure ways of Nature, unknown to any particular Creature; for what
+our senses are not capable to know, our reason is apt to deny. Truly,
+in my opinion, Man is more irrational then any of those Creatures,
+when he believes that all knowledg is not onely confined to one sort
+of Creatures, but to one part of one particular Creature, as the head,
+or brain of man; for who can in reason think, that there is no other
+sensitive and rational knowledg in Infinite Matter, but what is onely
+in Man, or animal Creatures? It is a very simple and weak conclusion to
+say, Other Creatures have no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no tongues
+to taste, no noses to smell, as animals have; wherefore they have no
+sense or sensitive knowledg; or because they have no head, nor brain as
+Man hath, therefore they have no reason, nor rational knowledg at all:
+for sense and reason, and consequently sensitive and rational knowledg,
+extends further then to be bound to the animal eye, ear, nose, tongue,
+head, or brain; but as these organs are onely in one kind of Natures
+Creatures, as Animals, in which organs the sensitive corporeal motions
+make the perception of exterior objects, so there may be infinite other
+kinds of passages or organs in other Creatures unknown to Man, which
+Creatures may have their sense and reason, that is, sensitive and
+rational knowledg, each according to the nature of its figure; for as
+it is absurd to say, that all Creatures in Nature are Animals, so it is
+absurd to confine sense and reason onely to Animals; or to say, that
+all other Creatures, if they have sense and reason, life and knowledg,
+it must be the same as is in Animals: I confess, it is of the same
+degree, that is, of the same animate part of matter, but the motions
+of life and knowledg work so differently and variously in every kind
+and sort, nay, in every particular Creature, that no single Creature
+can find them out: But, in my opinion, not any Creature is without
+life and knowledg, which life and knowledg is made by the self-moving
+part of matter, that is, by the sensitive and rational corporeal
+motions; and as it is no consequence, that all Creatures must be alike
+in their exterior shapes, figures, and motions, because they are all
+produced out of one and the same matter, so neither doth it follow,
+that all Creatures must have the same interior motions, natures, and
+proprieties, and so consequently the same life and knowledg, because
+all life and knowledg is made by the same degree of matter, to wit, the
+animate. Wherefore though every kind or sort of Creatures has different
+perceptions, yet they are not less knowing; for Vegetables, Minerals,
+and Elements, may have as numerous, and as various perceptions as
+Animals, and they may be as different from animal perceptions as their
+kinds are; but a different perception is not therefore no perception:
+Neither is it the animal organs that make perception, nor the animal
+shape that makes life, but the motions of life make them. But some may
+say, it is Irreligious to believe any Creature has rational knowledg
+but Man. Surely, _Madam_, the God of Nature, in my opinion, will be
+adored by all Creatures, and adoration cannot be without sense and
+knowledg. Wherefore it is not probable, that onely Man, and no Creature
+else, is capable to adore and worship the Infinite and Omnipotent
+God, who is the God of Nature, and of all Creatures: I should rather
+think it irreligious to confine sense and reason onely to Man, and to
+say, that no Creature adores and worships God, but Man; which, in my
+judgment, argues a great pride, self-conceit, and presumption. And
+thus, _Madam_, having declared my opinion plainly concerning this
+subject, I will detain you no longer at this present, but rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your constant Friend_
+
+_and faithful Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXI.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+I perceive you do not well apprehend my meaning, when I say in my
+_Philosophical Opinions,_[1] _That the Infinite degrees of Infinite
+Matter are all Infinite:_ For, say you, the degrees of Matter cannot
+be Infinite, by reason there cannot be two Infinites, but one would
+obstruct the other. My answer is; I do not mean that the degrees of
+Matter are Infinite each in its self, that is, that the animate and
+inanimate are several Infinite matters, but my opinion is, that the
+animate degree of matter is in a perpetual motion, and the inanimate
+doth not move of it self, and that those degrees are infinite in their
+effects, as producing and making infinite figures; for since the cause,
+which is the onely matter, is infinite, the effects must of necessity
+be infinite also; the cause is infinite in its substance, the effects
+are Infinite in number. And this is my meaning, when I say,[2] that,
+although in Nature there is but one kind of matter, yet there are
+Infinite degrees, Infinite motions, and Infinite parts in that onely
+matter; and though Infinite and Eternal matter has no perfect or exact
+figure, by reason it is Infinite, and therefore unlimited, yet there
+being infinite parts in number, made by the infinite variations of
+motions in infinite Matter, these parts have perfect or exact figures,
+considered as parts, that is, single, or each in its particular figure:
+And therefore if there be Infinite degrees, considering the effects
+of the animate and inanimate matter, infinite motions for changes,
+infinite parts for number, infinite compositions and divisions for
+variety and diversity of Creatures; then there may also be infinite
+sizes, each part or figure differing more or less, infinite smallness
+and bigness, lightness and heaviness, rarity and density, strength and
+power, life and knowledg, and the like: But by reason Nature or Natural
+matter is not all animate or inanimate, nor all composing or dividing,
+there can be no Infinite in a part, nor can there be something biggest
+or smallest, strongest or weakest, heaviest or lightest, softest
+or hardest in Infinite Nature, or her parts, but all those several
+Infinites are as it were included in one Infinite, which is Corporeal
+Nature, or Natural Matter.
+
+Next, you desire my opinion of _Vacuum_, whether there be any, or not?
+for you say I determine nothing, of it in my Book of _Philosophical
+Opinions_. Truly, _Madam_, my sense and reason cannot believe a
+_Vacuum_, because there cannot be an empty Nothing; but change of
+motion makes all the alteration of figures, and consequently all that
+which is called place, magnitude, space, and the like; for matter,
+motion, figure, place, magnitude, &c. are but one thing. But some
+men perceiving the alteration, but not the subtil motions, believe
+that bodies move into each others place, which is impossible, because
+several places are onely several parts, so that, unless one part could
+make it self another part, no part can be said to succeed into anothers
+place; but it is impossible that one part should make it self another
+part, for it cannot be another, and it self, no more then Nature can be
+Nature, and not Nature; wherefore change of place is onely change of
+motion, and this change of motion makes alteration of Figures.
+
+Thirdly, you say, You cannot understand what I mean by Creation, for
+you think that Creation is a production or making of Something out of
+Nothing. To tell you really, _Madam_, this word is used by me for want
+of a better expression; and I do not take it in so strict a sense as
+to understand by it, a Divine or supernatural Creation, which onely
+belongs to God; but a natural Creation, that is, a natural production
+or Generation; for Nature cannot create or produce Something out of
+Nothing: And this Production may be taken in a double sence; First,
+in General, as for example, when it is said, that all Creatures are
+produced out of Infinite Matter; and in this respect every particular
+Creature which is finite, that is, of a circumscribed and limited
+figure, is produced of Infinite Matter, as being a part thereof: Next,
+Production is taken in a more strict sense, to wit, when one single
+Creature is produced from another; and this is either Generation
+properly so called, as when in every kind and sort each particular
+produces its like; or it is such a Generation whereby one creature
+produces another, each being of a different kind or species, as
+for example, when an Animal produces a Mineral, as when a Stone is
+generated in the Kidneys, or the like; and in this sence one finite
+creature generates or produces another finite creature, the producer
+as well as the produced being finite; but in the first sence finite
+creatures are produced out of infinite matter.
+
+Fourthly, you confess, You cannot well apprehend my meaning, when I
+say,[3] that the several kinds are as Infinite as the particulars; for
+your opinion is, That the number of particulars must needs exceed the
+number of kinds. I answer: I mean in general the Infinite effects of
+Nature which are Infinite in number, and the several kinds or sorts of
+Creatures are Infinite in duration, for nothing can perish in Nature.
+
+Fifthly, When I say,[4] that ascending and descending is often caused
+by the exterior figure or shape of a body; witness a Bird, who although
+he is of a much bigger size and bulk then a Worm, yet can by his
+shape lift himself up more agilly and nimbly then a Worm; Your opinion
+is, That his exterior shape doth not contribute any thing towards his
+flying, by reason a Bird being dead retains the same shape, but yet
+cannot fly at all. But, truly, _Madam_, I would not have you think that
+I do exclude the proper and interior natural motion of the figure of
+a Bird, and the natural and proper motions of every part and particle
+thereof; for that a Bird when dead, keeps his shape, and yet cannot
+fly, the reason is, that the natural and internal motions of the Bird,
+and the Birds wings, are altered towards some other shape or figure,
+if not exteriously, yet interiously; but yet the interior natural
+motions could not effect any flying or ascending without the help of
+the exterior shape; for a Man, or any other animal, may have the same
+interior motions as a Bird hath, but wanting such an exterior shape, he
+cannot fly; whereas had he wings like a Bird, and the interior natural
+motions of those wings, he might without doubt fly as well as a Bird
+doth.
+
+Sixthly, Concerning the descent of heavy bodies,[5] that it is more
+forcible then the ascent of light bodies, you do question the Truth
+of this my opinion. Certainly, _Madam_, I cannot conceive it to be
+otherwise by my sense and reason; for though Fire that is rare, doth
+ascend with an extraordinary quick motion, yet this motion is, in my
+opinion, not so strong and piercing as when grosser parts of Creatures
+do descend; but there is difference in strength and quickness; for had
+not Water a stronger motion, and another sort of figure then Fire,
+it could not suppress Fire, much less quench it. But Smoak, which is
+heavier then Flame, flies up, or rises before, or rather, above it:
+Wherefore I am still of the same opinion, that heavy bodies descend
+more forcibly then light bodies do ascend, and it seems most rational
+to me.
+
+Lastly, I perceive you cannot believe that all bodies have weight;
+by reason, if this were so, the Sun, and the Stars would have long
+since cover'd the Earth. In answer to this objection, I say, That as
+there can be no body without figure and magnitude, so consequently not
+without weight, were it no bigger then an atome; and as for the Sun's
+and the Stars not falling down, or rising higher, the reason is, not
+their being without weight, but their natural and proper motion, which
+keeps them constantly in their spheres; and it might as well be said, a
+Man lives not, or is not, because he doth not fly like a Bird, or dive
+and catch fish like a Cormorant, or dig and undermine like a Mole, for
+those are motions not proper to his nature. And these, _Madam_, are my
+answers to your objections, which if they do satisfie you, it is all
+I desire, if not, I shall endeavour hereafter to make my meaning more
+intelligible and study for other more rational arguments then these
+are, to let you see how much I value both the credit of my named Book,
+and your _Ladiships_ Commands; which assure you self, shall never be
+more faithfully performed, then by,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Ladiships most obliged Friend_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+[1] _Part._ 1. _c._ 4.
+
+[2] _Ch._ 8.
+
+[3] _Part._ 4. _c._ 10.
+
+[4] _Ch._ 20.
+
+[5] _Ch._ 21.
+
+
+
+
+XXXII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+Since my opinion is, that the Animate part of Matter, which is sense
+and reason, life and knowledg, is the designer, architect, and creator
+of all figures in Nature; you desire to know, whence this Animate
+Matter, sense and reason, or life and knowledg (call it what you will,
+for it is all one and the same thing) is produced? I answer: It is
+eternal. But then you say, it is coequal with God. I answer, That
+cannot be: for God is above all Natural sense and reason, which is
+Natural life and knowledg; and therefore it cannot be coequal with
+God, except it be meant in Eternity, as being without beginning and
+end. But if Gods Power can make Man's Soul, as also the good and evil
+Spirits to last eternally without end, he may, by his Omnipotency
+make as well things without beginning. You will say, If Nature were
+Eternal, it could not be created, for the word Creation is contrary
+to Eternity. I answer, _Madam_, I am no Scholar for words; for if you
+will not use the word Creation, you may use what other word you will;
+for I do not stand upon nice words and terms, so I can but express my
+conceptions: Wherefore, if it be (as in Reason it cannot be otherwise)
+that nothing in Nature can be annihilated, nor any thing created out
+of nothing, but by Gods special and all-powerful Decree and Command,
+then Nature must be as God has made her, until he destroy her. But if
+Nature be not Eternal, then the Gods of the Heathens were made in
+time, and were no more then any other Creature, which is as subject to
+be destroyed as created; for they conceived their Gods, as we do men,
+to have Material Bodies, but an Immaterial Spirit, or as some Learned
+men imagine, to be an Immaterial Spirit, but to take several shapes,
+and so to perform several corporeal actions; which truly is too humble
+and mean a conception of an Immaterial Being, much more of the Great
+and Incomprehensible God; which I do firmly believe is a most pure,
+all-powerful Immaterial Being, which doth all things by his own Decree
+and Omnipotency without any Corporeal actions or shapes, such as some
+fancy of D�mons and the like Spirits. But to return to the former
+question; you might as well enquire how the world, or any part of it
+was created, or how the variety of creatures came to be, as ask how
+Reason and sensitive corporeal Knowledg was produced. Nevertheless,
+I do constantly believe, that both sensitive and rational Knowledg
+in Matter was produced from God; but after what manner or way, is
+impossible for any creature or part of Nature to know, for Gods wayes
+are incomprehensible and supernatural. And thus much I believe, That
+as God is an Eternal Creator, which no man can deny, so he has also
+an Eternal Creature, which is Nature, or natural Matter. But put the
+case Nature or natural Matter was made when the World was created,
+might not God give this Natural Matter self-motion, as well as he gave
+self-motion to Spirits and Souls? and might not God endue this Matter
+with Sense and Reason, as well as he endued Man? Shall or can we bind
+up Gods actions with our weak opinions and foolish arguments? Truly,
+if God could not act more then Man is able to conceive, he were not a
+God of an infinite Power; but God is Omnipotent, and his actions are
+infinite, supernatural, and past finding out; wherefore he is rather to
+be admired, adored and worshipped, then to be ungloriously discoursed
+of by vain and ambitious men, whose foolish pride and presumption
+drowns their Natural Judgment and Reason; to which leaving them, I rest,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your Faithful Friend_
+
+_and Servant._
+
+
+
+
+XXXIII.
+
+
+_MADAM,_
+
+In obedience to your commands, I here send you also an explanation
+and clearing of those places and passages in my Book of Philosophy,
+which in your last Letter you were pleased to mark, as containing some
+obscurity and difficulty of being understood.
+
+First, When I say,[1] _Nature is an Individable Matter_, I do not mean
+as if Nature were not dividable into parts; for because Nature is
+material, therefore she must also needs be dividable into parts: But my
+meaning is, that Nature cannot be divided from Matter, nor Matter from
+Nature, that is, Nature cannot be Immaterial, nor no part of Nature,
+but if there be any thing Immaterial, it doth not belong to Nature.
+Also when I call Nature a _Multiplying Figure_;[2] I mean, that Nature
+makes infinite changes, and so infinite figures.
+
+Next, when I say,[3] _There are Infinite Divisions in Nature_; my
+meaning is not, that there are infinite divisions of one single part,
+but that Infinite Matter has Infinite parts, sizes, figures, and
+motions, all being but one Infinite Matter, or corporeal Nature. Also
+when I say single parts, I mean not parts subsisting by themselves,
+precised from each other, but single, that is, several or different, by
+reason of their different figures. Likewise, when I name Atomes, I mean
+small parts of Matter; and when I speak of Place and Time, I mean onely
+the variation of corporeal figurative motions.
+
+Again: when I say,[4] _Nature has not an absolute Power, because she
+has an Infinite power_; I mean by _absolute_, as much as finite, or
+circumscribed; and in this sense Nature cannot have an absolute power,
+for the Infiniteness hinders the absoluteness; but when in my former
+Letters I have attributed an absolute Power onely to God, and said that
+Nature has not an absolute power, but that her power, although it be
+Infinite, yet cannot extend beyond Nature, but is an Infinite natural
+power; I understand by an absolute Power, not a finite power, but such
+a power which onely belongs to God, that is, a supernatural and divine
+power, which power Nature cannot have, by reason she cannot make any
+part of her body immaterial, nor annihilate any part of her Creatures,
+nor create any part that was not in her from Eternity, nor make her
+self a Deity; for though God can impower her with a supernatural gift,
+and annihilate her when he pleases, yet she is no ways able to do it
+her self.
+
+Moreover, when I say,[5] _That one Infinite is contained within
+another_; I mean, the several sorts of Infinites, as Infinite in
+number, Infinite in duration; as also the Infinite degrees, motions,
+figures, sizes, compositions, divisions, &c. all which are contained in
+the Infinite body of Nature, which is the onely Infinite in quantity or
+substance, neither can the parts of Nature go beyond Infinite.
+
+Also when I say,[6] _That Matter would have power over Infinite,
+and Infinite over Matter, and Eternal over both_; I mean, that some
+corporeal actions endeavour to be more powerful then others, and thus
+the whole strives to over-power the parts, and the parts the whole:
+As for example, if one end of a string were tied about the little
+finger of ones hand, and the other end were in the power of the other
+whole hand, and both did pull several and opposite ways; certainly,
+the little finger would endeavour to over-power the hand, and the hand
+again would strive to over-power the little finger: The same may be
+said of two equal figures, as two hands, and other the like examples
+may be given. And this is also my meaning, when I say, that some
+shapes have power over others, and some degrees and temperaments of
+matter over others; whereby I understand nothing else, but that some
+parts have power over others. Also when I say,[7] that outward things
+govern, and a Creature has no power over it self, I mean, that which is
+stronger, by what means soever, is superior in power.
+
+When I say,[8] That _the Animate part of Matter is not so gross an
+Infinite as the Inanimate_, I do not attribute an Infiniteness to a
+part, as if animate matter considered as a part were infinite; but my
+meaning is, that the Animate matter produces infinite effects: For,
+it being the Designer, Architect, and Creator of all Figures, as also
+the Life and Soul of all Creatures, it must needs be infinite in its
+effects, as also infinite in its duration. But you may object, That a
+part cannot produce infinite effects. I answer, It is true, if animate
+matter should be considered in it self without the inanimate, it could
+not produce infinite effects, having nothing to work upon and withal;
+but because there is such a close and inseparable conjunction of
+those parts of matter, as they make but one body, and that Infinite,
+none can be or work without the other, but both degrees of matter,
+which make but one infinite Nature, are required in the production of
+the infinite effects and figures in Nature: Nevertheless, since the
+Animate part of Matter is the onely architect, creator, or producer
+of all those effects, by reason it is the self-moving part, and the
+Inanimate is onely the instrument which the Animate works withal, and
+the materials it works upon, the Production of the infinite effects
+in Nature is more fitly ascribed to the Animate then the Inanimate
+part of matter; as for example, If an architect should build an
+house, certainly he can do nothing without materials, neither can the
+materials raise themselves to such a figure as a house without the help
+of the architect and workmen, but both are of necessity required to
+this artificial production; nevertheless, the building of the house is
+not laid to the materials, but to the architect: the same may be said
+of animate and inanimate matter in the production of natural effects.
+Again, you may reply, That the animate and inanimate parts of matter
+are but two parts, and the number of Two is but a finite number,
+wherefore they cannot make one infinite body, such as I call Nature
+or natural Matter. I answer, _Madam_, I confess, that a finite number
+is not nor cannot make an infinite number; but I do not say, that the
+animate and inanimate parts or degrees of matter are two finite parts
+each subsisting by it self as circumscribed, and having its certain
+bounds, limits and circumference; for if this were so, certainly they
+being finite themselves, could not produce but finite effects; but my
+meaning is, that both the animate and inanimate matter do make but
+one Infinite bulk, body, or substance and are not two several and
+dividable bodies in themselves, and thus they may be divided not into
+two but into Infinite parts; Neither are they two different Matters,
+but they are but one Matter; for by the animate Matter I do understand
+self-motion; and that I call this self-motion Matter, the reason is,
+that no body shall think as if self-motion were immaterial; for my
+opinion is, that Nature is nothing but meer Matter, and that nothing is
+in Nature which is a part of Nature, that is not material; wherefore
+to avoid such a misapprehension (seeing that most learned men are
+so much for abstractions and immaterial beings) I called self-motion
+animate matter, or the animate part of matter; not as if they were two
+several matters, but that all is but one natural Matter, or corporeal
+Nature in one bulk, body, or substance, just like as the soul and body
+do make but one man; and to avoid also this misapprehension, lest they
+might be taken for several matters, I have upon better consideration,
+in this volume of _Philosophical Letters_, call'd the animate matter
+corporeal self-motion, which expression, I think, is more proper,
+plain, and intelligible then any other: Neither would I have you to
+scruple at it, when I say, that both parts or degrees of animate and
+inanimate matter do retain their own interior natures and proprieties
+in their commixture, as if those different natures and proprieties,
+where one is self-moving, and the other not, did cause them to be two
+different matters; for thus you might say as well, that several figures
+which have several and different interior natures and proprieties,
+are so many several matters. The truth is, if you desire to have the
+truest expression of animate and inanimate matter, you cannot find
+it better then in the definition of Nature, when I say, Nature is an
+infinite self-moving body; where by the body of Nature I understand the
+inanimate matter, and by self-motion the animate, which is the life
+and soul of Nature, not an immaterial life and soul, but a material,
+for both life, soul and body are and make but one self-moving body or
+substance which is corporeal Nature. And therefore when I call _Animate
+matter_ an _Extract_,[9] I do it by reason of its purity, subtilty and
+agility, not by reason of its immateriality. Also when I name the word
+Motion by it self, and without any addition, I understand corporeal
+Motion; and when I name Motion, Matter and Figure, I do not mean three
+several and distinct things, but onely figurative corporeal motion, or
+figurative self-moving matter, all being but one thing; the same when I
+speak of Place, Time, Magnitude, and the like.
+
+Concerning Natural Production or Generation; when I say,[10] _The same
+matter or figure of the producers doth not always move after one and
+the same manner in producing, for then the same producers would produce
+one and the same creature by repetition_, I do not mean the very same
+creature in number, unless the same motions and parts of matter did
+return into the producers again, which is impossible; but I understand
+the like creature, to wit, that one and the same sort of particular
+motions would make all particular figures resemble so, as if they were
+one and the same creature without any difference.
+
+When I say,[11] _Sensitive and Rational knowledg lives in sensitive
+and rational Matter, and Animate liveth in Inanimate matter_, I mean
+they are all several parts and actions of the onely infinite matter
+inseparable from each other; for wheresoever is matter, there is also
+self-motion, and wheresoever is self-motion, there is sense and reason,
+and wheresoever is sense and reason, there is sensitive and rational
+knowledge, all being but one body or substance, which is Nature.
+
+When I say,[12] _The death of particular Creatures causes an obscurity
+of Knowledge, and that particular Knowledges increase and decrease,
+and may be more or less_, I mean onely that parts divide themselves
+from parts, and joyn to other parts; for every several Motion is a
+several Knowledge, and as motion varies, so doth knowledge; but there
+is no annihilation of any motion, and consequently not of knowledge
+in Nature. And as for more or less knowledge, I mean more or less
+alteration and variety of corporeal figurative motions, not onely
+rational but sensitive, so that that creature which has most variety
+of those perceptive motions is most knowing, provided they be regular,
+that is, according to the nature and propriety of the figure, whether
+animal, vegetable, mineral, or elemental; for though a large figure
+is capable of most knowledge, yet it is not commonly or alwayes so
+wise or witty as a less, by reason it is more subject to disorders and
+irregularities; like as a private Family is more regular and better
+ordered then a great State or Common-wealth. Also when I say, _That
+some particular Knowledge lasts longer then some other_, I mean that
+some corporeal motions in some parts do continue longer then in others.
+
+When I say,[13] _A little head may be full, and a great head may be
+empty of rational matter_, I mean there may be as it were an ebbing
+or flowing, that is more or less of Rational Matter joyned with the
+Sensitive and Inanimate: And when I say, _That, if all the heads of
+Mankind were put into one, and sufficient quantity of Rational Matter
+therein, that Creature would not onely have the knowledge of every
+particular, but that Understanding and Knowledge would increase like
+Use-money_, my meaning is, that if there were much of those parts of
+rational matter joyned, they would make more variety by self-change of
+corporeal motions.
+
+When I name _Humane sense and reason_, I mean such sensitive and
+rational perception and knowledge as is proper to the nature of Man;
+and when I say _Animal sense and reason_, I mean such as is proper
+to the nature of all Animals; for I do not mean that the sensitive
+and rational corporeal motions which do make a man, or any Animal,
+are bound to such figures eternally, but whilest they work and move
+in such or such figures, they make such perceptions as belong to the
+nature of those figures; but when those self-moving parts dissolve the
+figure of an Animal into a Vegetable or any other Creature, then they
+work according to the nature of that same figure, both exteriously and
+interiously.
+
+When I say,[14] _That Place, Space, Measure, Number, Weight, Figures,
+&c. are mixed with Substance_, I do not mean they are incorporeal, and
+do inhere in substance as so many incorporeal modes or accidents; but
+my meaning is, they are all corporeal parts and actions of Nature,
+there being no such thing in Nature that may be called incorporeal; for
+Place, Figure, Weight, Measure, &c. are nothing without Body, but Place
+and Body are but one thing, and so of the rest. Also when I say,[15]
+_That sometimes Place, sometimes Time, and sometimes Number gives
+advantage_, I mean, that several parts of Matter are getting or losing
+advantage.
+
+When I say,[16] an Animal or any thing else that has exterior local
+motion, goeth or moveth to such or such a place, I mean, to such or
+such a body; and when such a Creature doth not move out of its place, I
+mean, it doth not remove its body from such or such parts adjoyning to
+it.
+
+When I say,[17] _The rational animate matter divides it self into
+as many parts, and after as many several manners as their place or
+quantity will give way to_, I mean their own place and quantity: also,
+as other parts will give way to those parts, for some parts will assist
+others, and some do obstruct others.
+
+When I say,[18] _That the Nature of extension or dilation strives or
+endeavours to get space, ground, or compass_, I mean those corporeal
+motions endeavour to make place and space by their extensions, that
+is, to spread their parts of matter into a larger compass or body. And
+when I say, _That Contractions endeavour to cast or thrust out space,
+place, ground, or compass_, My meaning is, That those corporeal motions
+endeavour to draw their parts of matter into a more close and solid
+body, for there is no place nor space without body.
+
+Also when I name[19] several _tempered substances and matters_, I mean
+several changes and mixtures of corporeal motions.
+
+Also when I speak of _Increase_ and _Decrease_, I mean onely an
+alteration of corporeal figurative motions, as uniting parts with
+parts, and dissolving or separating parts from parts.
+
+When I say,[20] That the motions of cold, and the motions of moisture,
+when they meet, make cold and moist effects, and when the motions of
+heat and moisture meet, make hot and moist effects; and so for the
+motions of cold and dryness: I mean, that when several parts do joyn
+in such several corporeal motions, they cause such effects; and when
+I say cold and heat presses into every particular Creature, I mean,
+that every Creatures natural and inherent perceptive motions make such
+patterns as their exterior objects are, _viz._ hot or cold, if they do
+but move regularly, for if they be irregular, then they do not: as for
+example; those in an Ague will shake for cold in a hot Summers day, and
+those that are in a Fever will burn with heat, although they were at
+the Poles.
+
+When I say,[21] that hot motions, and burning motions, and hot figures,
+and burning figures do not associate or joyn together in all Creatures:
+I mean, that the corporeal motions in some figures or creatures, do act
+in a hot, but not in a burning manner; and when I say, some creatures
+have both hot and burning motions and figures, I mean, the corporeal
+motions act both in a hot and burning manner; for though heat is in a
+degree to burning, yet it is not always burning, for burning is the
+highest degree of heat, as wetness is the highest degree of moisture.
+
+When I say,[22] _Warmth feeds other Creatures after a spiritual manner,
+not a corporeal_, My meaning is, not as if heat were not corporeal, but
+that those corporeal motions which make heat work invisibly, and not
+visibly like as fire feeds on fuel, or man on meat.
+
+Also when I say, _Excercise amongst animals gets strength_, I mean,
+that by excercise the inherent natural motions of an animal body are
+more active, as being more industrious.
+
+When I say,[23] _That the passage whence cold and sharp winds do
+issue out, is narrow_, I mean, when as such or such parts disjoyn or
+separate from other parts; as for example, when dilating parts disjoyn
+from contracting parts; and oftentimes the disjoyning parts do move
+according to the nature of those parts they disjoyn from.
+
+Concerning the actions of Nature, my meaning is, that there is not any
+action whatsoever, but was always in Nature, and remains in Nature so
+long as it pleases God that Nature shall last, and of all her actions
+Perception and self-love are her prime and chief actions; wherefore it
+is impossible but that all her particular creatures or parts must be
+knowing as well as self-moving, there being not one part or particle
+of Nature that has not its share of animate or self-moving matter, and
+consequently of knowledg and self-love, each according to its own kind
+and nature; but by reason all the parts are of one matter, and belong
+to one body, each is unalterable so far, that although it can change
+its figure, yet it cannot change or alter from being matter, or a part
+of Infinite Nature; and this is the cause there cannot be a confusion
+amongst those parts of Nature, but there must be a constant union and
+harmony betwixt them; for cross and opposite actions make no confusion,
+but onely a variety, and such actions which are different, cross and
+opposite, not moving always after their usual and accustomed way, I
+name Irregular, for want of a better expression; but properly there is
+no such thing as Irregularity in Nature, nor no weariness, rest, sleep,
+sickness, death or destruction, no more then there is place, space,
+time, modes, accidents, and the like, any thing besides body or matter.
+
+When I speak of _unnatural Motions_,[24] I mean such as are not
+proper to the nature of such or such a Creature, as being opposite or
+destructive to it, that is, moving or acting towards its dissolution.
+Also when I call Violence supernatural, I mean that Violence is beyond
+the particular nature of such a particular Creature, that is, beyond
+its natural motions; but not supernatural, that is beyond Infinite
+Nature or natural Matter.
+
+When I say, _A thing is forced_, I do not mean that the forced body
+receives strength without Matter; but that some Corporeal Motions joyn
+with other Corporeal Motions, and so double the strength by joyning
+their parts, or are at least an occasion to make other parts more
+industrious.
+
+By _Prints_ I understand the figures of the objects which are patterned
+or copied out by the sensitive and rational corporeal figurative
+Motions; as for example, when the sensitive corporeal motions pattern
+out the figure of an exteriour object, and the rational motions again
+pattern out a figure made by the sensitive motions, those figures of
+the objects that are patterned out, I name Prints; as for example, _The
+sense of Seeing is not capable to receive the Print_,[25] that is, the
+figure or pattern _of the object of the whole Earth_. And again, _The
+rational Motions are not alwayes exactly after the sensitive Prints_,
+that is, after the figures made by the sensitive motions. Thus by
+Prints I understand Patterns, and by printing patterning; not that the
+exteriour object prints its figure upon the exteriour sensitive organs,
+but that the sensitive motions in the organs pattern out the figure of
+the object: but though all printing is done by the way of patterning,
+yet all patterning is not printing. Therefore when I say,[26] that
+_solid bodies print their figures in that which is more porous and
+soft, and that those solid bodies make new prints perpetually; and as
+they remove, the prints melt out, like verbal or vocal sounds, which
+print words and set notes in the Air_; I mean, the soft body by its own
+self-motion patterns out the figure of the solid body, and not that
+the solid body makes its own print, and so leaves the place of its own
+substance with the print in the soft body; for place remains always
+with its own body, and cannot be separated from it, they being but
+one thing: for example; when a Seal is printed in Wax, the Seal gives
+not any thing to the Wax, but is onely an object patterned out by the
+figurative motions of the Wax in the action of printing or sealing.
+
+When I make mention[27] _of what the Senses bring in_, I mean what the
+sensitive Motions pattern out of forreign objects: And when I say,[28]
+_that the pores being shut, touch cannot enter_, I mean, the sensitive
+corporeal motions cannot make patterns of outward objects.
+
+Also when I say, _our Ears may be as knowing as our Eyes_, and so of
+the rest of the sensitive organs; I mean the sensitive motions in those
+parts or organs.
+
+When I say,[29] _The more the Body is at rest, the more active or busie
+is the Mind_, I mean when the sensitive Motions are not taken up with
+the action of patterning out forreign objects.
+
+When I say,[30] the Air is fill'd with sound, and that words are
+received into the ears, as figures of exterior objects are received
+into the eyes, I mean, the sensitive motions of the Air pattern out
+sound, and the sensitive motions of the Ears pattern out words, as the
+sensitive figurative motions of the Eyes pattern out the figures of
+external objects.
+
+Also when I speak of _Thunder_ and _Lightning_, to wit, _That Thunder
+makes a great noise by the breaking of lines_: My meaning is, That the
+Air patterns out this sound or noise of the lines; and by reason there
+are so many patterns made in the air by its sensitive motions, the Ear
+cannot take so exact a copy thereof, but somewhat confusedly; and this
+is the reason why Thunder is represented, or rather pattern'd out with
+some terrour; for Thunder is a confused noise, because the patterns are
+made confusedly.
+
+But concerning Sound and Light, I am forced to acquaint you, _Madam_,
+that my meaning thereof is not so well expressed in my Book of
+Philosophy, by reason I was not of the same opinion at that time when I
+did write that Book which I am now of; for upon better consideration,
+and a more diligent search into the causes of natural effects, I have
+found it more probable, that all sensitive perception is made by the
+way of Patterning, and so consequently the perception of Sound and of
+Light; wherefore, I beseech you, when you find in my mentioned Book
+any thing thereof otherwise expressed, do not judg of it as if I did
+contradict my self, but that I have alter'd my opinion since upon more
+probable reasons.
+
+Thus, _Madam_, you have a true declaration of my sence and meaning
+concerning those places, which in my _Philosophical Opinions_ you did
+note, as being obscure; but I am resolved to bestow so much time and
+labour as to have all other places in that Book rectified and cleared,
+which seem not perspicuous, lest its obscurity may be the cause of its
+being neglected: And I pray God of his mercy to assist me with his
+Grace, and grant that my Works may find a favourable acceptance. In
+the mean time, I confess my self infinitely bound to your Ladyship,
+that you would be pleased to regard so much the Honour of your Friend,
+and be the chief occasion of it; for which I pray Heaven may bless,
+prosper, and preserve you, and lend me some means and ways to express
+my self,
+
+Madam,
+
+_Your thankfull Friend,_
+
+_and humble Servant._
+
+
+[1] _Part._ 3. _c._ 13.
+
+[2] _Ibid._
+
+[3] _Part._ 1. _c._ 11.
+
+[4] _Part._ 1. _c._ 13, 14.
+
+[5] _P._ 1. _c._ 8.
+
+[6] _P._ 6. _c._ 3.
+
+[7] _P._ 3. _c._ 10.
+
+[8] _P._ 1. _Ch._ 3.
+
+[9] _P._ 4. _c._ 3, 32.
+
+[10] _P._ 1. _c._ 22.
+
+[11] _P._ 3. _c._ 15.
+
+[12] _Ibid._
+
+[13] _P._ 6. _c._ 11.
+
+[14] _P._ 3. _c._ 21.
+
+[15] _c._ 14.
+
+[16] _P._ 5. _c._ 51.
+
+[17] _P._ 6. _c._ 8.
+
+[18] _P._ 4. _c._ 34.
+
+[19] _Ibid._
+
+[20] _P._ 5. _c._ 4.
+
+[21] _P._ 5. _c._ 13.
+
+[22] _P._ 5. _c._ 27.
+
+[23] _P._ 5. _c._ 45.
+
+[24] _P._ 7. _c._ 11.
+
+[25] _P._ 3. _c._ 2.
+
+[26] _P._ 5. _c._ 23.
+
+[27] _P._ 6. _c._ 13.
+
+[28] _P._ 7. _c._ 12.
+
+[29] _P._ 6. _c._ 13.
+
+[30] _P._ 6. _c._ 29.
+
+
+
+
+  _Eternal God, Infinite Deity,
+  Thy Servant_, NATURE, _humbly prays to Thee,
+  That thou wilt please to favour Her, and give
+  Her parts, which are Her Creatures, leave to live,
+  That in their shapes and forms, what e're they be,
+  And all their actions they may worship thee;
+  For 'tis not onely Man that doth implore,
+  But all Her parts, Great God, do thee adore;
+  A finite Worship cannot be to thee,
+  Thou art above all finites in degree:
+  Then let thy Servant Nature mediate
+  Between thy Justice, Mercy, and our state,
+  That thou may'st bless all Parts, and ever be
+  Our Gracious God to all Eternity._
+
+
+FINIS.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Philosophical Letters: or, modest
+Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy, by Margaret Cavendish
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHICAL LETTERS: OR ***
+
+***** This file should be named 53679-8.txt or 53679-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/6/7/53679/
+
+Produced by Clare Graham and Marc D'Hooghe at Free
+Literature (online soon in an extended version, also linking
+to free sources for education worldwide ... MOOC's,
+educational materials,...) Images generously made available
+by the Internet Archive.
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
+be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
+law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
+so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
+States without permission and without paying copyright
+royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
+of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
+and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
+specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
+eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
+for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
+performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
+away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
+not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
+trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
+
+START: FULL LICENSE
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
+Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
+www.gutenberg.org/license.
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
+destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
+possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
+Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
+by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
+person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
+1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
+agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
+Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
+of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
+works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
+States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
+United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
+claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
+displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
+all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
+that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
+free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
+works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
+Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
+comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
+same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
+you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
+in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
+check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
+agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
+distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
+other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
+representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
+country outside the United States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
+immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
+prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
+on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
+performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
+
+  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
+  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
+  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
+  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
+  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
+  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
+  are located before using this ebook.
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
+derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
+contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
+copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
+the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
+redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
+either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
+obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
+additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
+will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
+posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
+beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
+any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
+to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
+other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
+version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
+(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
+to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
+of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
+Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
+full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+provided that
+
+* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
+  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
+  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
+  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
+  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
+  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
+  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
+  Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
+  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
+  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
+  works.
+
+* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
+  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
+  receipt of the work.
+
+* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
+are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
+from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
+Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
+Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
+contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
+or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
+other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
+cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
+with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
+with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
+lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
+or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
+opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
+the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
+without further opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
+OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
+damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
+violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
+agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
+limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
+unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
+remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
+accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
+production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
+including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
+the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
+or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
+additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
+Defect you cause.
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
+computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
+exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
+from people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
+generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
+Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
+www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
+U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
+mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
+volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
+locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
+Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
+date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
+official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+
+    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+    Chief Executive and Director
+    gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
+DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
+state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
+donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
+freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
+distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
+volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
+the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
+necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
+edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
+facility: www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
diff --git a/53679-8.zip b/53679-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..815749e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/53679-8.zip
diff --git a/53679-h.zip b/53679-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..63aa4fd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/53679-h.zip
diff --git a/53679-h/53679-h.htm b/53679-h/53679-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..326cdb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/53679-h/53679-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,19725 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Philosophical Letters:, by Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+
+body {
+    margin-left: 10%;
+    margin-right: 10%;
+}
+
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {
+    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+p {
+    margin-top: .51em;
+    text-align: justify;
+    margin-bottom: .49em;
+}
+
+.p2       {margin-top: 2em;}
+.p4       {margin-top: 4em;}
+.p6       {margin-top: 6em;}
+
+hr {
+    width: 33%;
+    margin-top: 2em;
+    margin-bottom: 2em;
+    margin-left: auto;
+    margin-right: auto;
+    clear: both;
+}
+
+hr.tb   {width: 45%;}
+hr.chap {width: 65%}
+hr.full {width: 95%;}
+
+hr.r5  {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;}
+hr.r65 {width: 65%; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em;}
+
+
+
+.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
+    visibility: hidden;
+    position: absolute;
+    left: 92%;
+    font-size: smaller;
+    text-align: right;
+} /* page numbers */
+
+
+a:link {color: #000099; text-decoration: none; }
+
+v:link {color: #000099; text-decoration: none; }
+
+
+
+
+.gesperrt
+{
+    letter-spacing: 0.2em;
+    margin-right: -0.2em;
+}
+
+em.gesperrt
+{
+    font-style: normal;
+}
+
+
+/* Images */
+.figcenter   {
+    margin: auto;
+    text-align: center;
+}
+
+
+/* Footnotes */
+.footnotes        {border: dashed 1px;}
+
+.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
+
+.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
+
+.fnanchor {
+    vertical-align: super;
+    font-size: .8em;
+    text-decoration:
+    none;
+}
+
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Philosophical Letters: or, modest
+Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy, by Margaret Cavendish
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
+other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
+whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
+the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
+www.gutenberg.org.  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
+to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.
+
+Title: Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy
+
+Author: Margaret Cavendish
+
+Release Date: December 6, 2016 [EBook #53679]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHICAL LETTERS: OR ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Clare Graham and Marc D'Hooghe at Free
+Literature (online soon in an extended version, also linking
+to free sources for education worldwide ... MOOC's,
+educational materials,...) Images generously made available
+by the Internet Archive.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+<div class="figcenter" style="width: 500px;">
+<img src="images/cover.jpg" width="500" alt="titlepage" />
+</div>
+
+<h1>Philosophical Letters:</h1>
+
+<h2>OR,</h2>
+
+<h2>MODEST REFLECTIONS</h2>
+<h2>Upon some Opinions in</h2>
+<h2><i>NATURAL PHILOSOPHY</i>,</h2>
+<h2>MAINTAINED</h2>
+<h2>By several Famous and Learned Authors of this Age,</h2>
+<h2>Expressed by way of LETTERS:<br />
+<br />
+<br /></h2>
+
+<h3>By the Thrice Noble, Illustrious, and Excellent Princess,</h3>
+<h2>The Lady MARCHIONESS of <i>NEWCASTLE</i>.</h2>
+
+<h3><i>LONDON</i>, Printed in the Year, 1664.</h3>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+
+<h3>TABLE OF CONTENTS</h3>
+
+<h4><a href="#TO_HER_EXCELLENCY">TO HER EXCELLENCY The Lady Marchioness of NEWCASTLE</a></h4>
+
+<h4><a href="#TO_HIS_EXCELLENCY">TO HIS EXCELLENCY The Lord Marquis of NEWCASTLE</a></h4>
+
+<h4><a href="#TO_THE">TO THE MOST FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE</a></h4>
+
+<h4><a href="#A_PREFACE">A PREFACE TO THE READER</a></h4>
+
+<h4><a href="#Philosophical_Letters">SECTION I</a><br /></h4>
+<p><a href="#Philosophical_Letters">Letters: I</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_II">II</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_III">III</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_IV">IV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_V">V</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_VI">VI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_VII">VII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_VIII">VIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_IX">IX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_X">X</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XI">XI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XII">XII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XIII">XIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XIV">XIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XV">XV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XVI">XVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XVII">XVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XVIII">XVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XIX">XIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XX">XX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXI">XXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXII">XXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXIII">XXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXIV">XXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXV">XXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXVI">XXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXVII">XXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXVIII">XXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXIX">XXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXX">XXX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXI">XXXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXII">XXXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXIII">XXXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXIV">XXXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXV">XXXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXVI">XXXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXVII">XXXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXVIII">XXXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XXXIX">XXXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XL">XL</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XLI">XLI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XLII">XLII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XLIII">XLIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XLIV">XLIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#I_XLV">XLV</a></p>
+
+<h4><a href="#Sect_II">SECTION II</a></h4>
+<p><a href="#Sect_II">Letters: I</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_II">II</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_III">III</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_IV">IV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_V">V</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_VI">VI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_VII">VII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_VIII">VIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_IX">IX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_X">X</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XI">XI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XII">XII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XIII">XIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XIV">XIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XV">XV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XVI">XVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XVII">XVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XVIII">XVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XIX">XIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XX">XX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXI">XXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXII">XXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXIII">XXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXIV">XXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXV">XXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXVI">XXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXVII">XXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXVIII">XXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXIX">XXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXX">XXX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXXI">XXXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXXII">XXXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXXIII">XXXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#II_XXXIV">XXXIV</a>;</p>
+
+<h4><a href="#SECT_III">SECTION III</a></h4>
+<p><a href="#SECT_III">Letters: I</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_II">II</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_III">III</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_IV">IV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_V">V</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_VI">VI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_VII">VII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_VIII">VIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_IX">IX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_X">X</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XI">XI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XII">XII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XIII">XIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XIV">XIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XV">XV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XVI">XVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XVII">XVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XVIII">XVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XIX">XIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XX">XX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXI">XXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXII">XXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXIII">XXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXIV">XXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXV">XXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXVI">XXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXVII">XXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXVIII">XXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXIX">XXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXX">XXX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXI">XXXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXII">XXXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXIII">XXXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXIV">XXXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXV">XXXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXVI">XXXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXVII">XXXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXVIII">XXXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XXXIX">XXXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XL">XL</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XLI">XLI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XLII">XLII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XLIII">XLIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XLIV">XLIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#III_XLV">XLV</a></p>
+
+<h4><a href="#SECT_IV">SECTION IV</a></h4>
+<p><a href="#SECT_IV">Letters:  I</a>&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_II">II</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_III">III</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_IV">IV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_V">V</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_VI">VI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_VII">VII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_VIII">VIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_IX">IX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_X">X</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XI">XI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XII">XII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XIII">XIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XIV">XIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XV">XV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XVI">XVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XVII">XVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XVIII">XVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XIX">XIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XX">XX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXI">XXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXII">XXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXIII">XXIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXIV">XXIV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXV">XXV</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXVI">XXVI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXVII">XXVII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXVIII">XXVIII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXIX">XXIX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXX">XXX</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXXI">XXXI</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXXII">XXXII</a>;&nbsp;
+<a href="#IV_XXXIII">XXXIII</a></p>
+
+<h4><a href="#Eternal_God_Infinite_Deity">ENVOI</a></h4>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+
+<h3><a name="TO_HER_EXCELLENCY" id="TO_HER_EXCELLENCY">TO
+HER EXCELLENCY<br />
+The Lady Marchioness of NEWCASTLE<br />
+On her Book of Philosophical Letters.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p>
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>'Tis Supernatural, nay 'tis Divine,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>To write whole Volumes ere I can a line.</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>I 'mplor'd the Lady Muses, those fine things,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>But they have broken all their Fidle-strings</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>And cannot help me; Nay, then I did try</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Their</i> Helicon, <i>but that is grown all dry:</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Then on</i> Parnassus <i>I did make a sallie,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>But that's laid level, like a Bowling-alley;</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Invok'd my Muse, found it a Pond, a Dream,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>To your eternal Spring, and running Stream;</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>So clear and fresh, with Wit and Phansie store,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>As then despair did bid me write no more.</i></span><br />
+<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 15em;">W. Newcastle.</span><br />
+</p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="TO_HIS_EXCELLENCY" id="TO_HIS_EXCELLENCY">TO HIS EXCELLENCY<br />
+The Lord Marquis of NEWCASTLE.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p>My Noble Lord,</p>
+
+<p>Although you have, always encouraged me
+in my harmless pastime of Writing, yet
+was I afraid that your Lordship would be
+angry with me for Writing and Publishing
+this Book, by reason it is a Book of
+Controversies, of which I have heard your Lordship
+say, That Controversies and Disputations make Enemies
+of Friends, and that such Disputations and Controversies
+as these, are a pedantical kind of quarrelling,
+not becoming Noble Persons. But your Lordship will
+be pleased to consider in my behalf, that it is impossible
+for one Person to be of every one's Opinion, if their
+opinions be different, and that my Opinions in Philosophy,
+being new, and never thought of, at least not
+divulged by any, but my self, are quite different from
+others: For the Ground of my Opinions is, that there
+is not onely a Sensitive, but also a Rational Life and
+Knowledge, and so a double Perception in all Creatures:
+And thus my opinions being new, are not so easily understood
+as those, that take up several pieces of old opinions,
+of which they patch up a new Philosophy, (if
+new may be made of old things,) like a Suit made up
+of old Stuff bought at the Brokers: Wherefore to find
+out a Truth, at least a Probability in Natural Philosophy
+by a new and different way from other Writers,
+and to make this way more known, easie and intelligible,
+I was in a manner forced to write this Book; for I have
+not contradicted those Authors in any thing, but what
+concerns and is opposite to my opinions; neither do I
+anything, but what they have done themselves, as being
+common amongst them to contradict each other:
+which may as well be allowable, as for Lawyers to plead
+at the Barr in opposite Causes. For as Lawyers are not
+Enemies to each other, but great Friends, all agreeing
+from the Barr, although not at the Barr: so it is with
+Philosophers, who make their Opinions as their Clients,
+not for Wealth, but for Fame, and therefore have no
+reason to become Enemies to each other, by being Industrious
+in their Profession. All which considered, was
+the cause of Publishing this Book; wherein although I
+dissent from their opinions, yet doth not this take off
+the least of the respect and esteem I have of their Merits
+and Works. But if your Lordship do but pardon
+me, I care not if I be condemned by others; for
+your Favour is more then the World to me, for which
+all the actions of my Life shall be devoted and ready to
+serve you, as becomes,</p>
+
+<p>My Lord,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Lordships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>honest Wife, and humble Servant</i>,</p>
+
+<p>M. N.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="TO_THE" id="TO_THE">TO THE MOST FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p>Most Noble, Ingenious, Learned, and Industrious Students.</p>
+
+<p><i>Be not offended, that I dedicate to you this weak and
+infirm work of mine; for though it be not an offering
+worthy your acceptance, yet it is as much as I can present
+for this time; and I wish from my Soul, I might be
+so happy as to have some means or ways to express my
+Gratitude for your Magnificent favours to me, having done
+me more honour then ever I could expect, or give sufficient
+thanks for: But your Generosity is above all Gratitude,
+and your Favours above all Merit, like as your Learning
+is above Contradiction: And I pray God your University
+may flourish to the end of the World, for the Service of
+the Church, the Truth of Religion, the Salvation of
+Souls, the instruction of Youth, the preservation of Health,
+and prolonging of Life, and for the increase of profitable
+Arts and Sciences: so as your several studies may be, like
+several Magistrates, united for the good and benefit of the
+whole Common-wealth, nay, the whole World. May
+Heaven prosper you, the World magnifie you, and Eternity
+record your same; Which are the hearty wishes and
+prayers of,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your most obliged Servant</p>
+
+<p><i>M. NEWCASTLE.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="A_PREFACE" id="A_PREFACE">A PREFACE TO THE READER.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>Worthy Readers</i>,</p>
+
+<p>I did not write this Book out of delight,
+love or humour to contradiction; for
+I would rather praise, then contradict any
+Person or Persons that are ingenious;
+but by reason Opinion is free, and may
+pass without a pass-port, I took the liberty to declare
+my own opinions as other Philosophers do, and to that
+purpose I have here set down several famous and learned
+Authors opinions, and my answers to them in the form
+of Letters, which was the easiest way for me to write;
+and by so doing, I have done that, which I would have
+done unto me; for I am as willing to have my opinions
+contradicted, as I do contradict others: for I love Reason
+so well, that whosoever can bring most rational and
+probable arguments, shall have my vote, although
+against my own opinion. But you may say, If contradictions
+were frequent, there would be no agreement
+amongst Mankind. I answer; it is very true:
+Wherefore Contradictions are better in general
+Books, then in particular Families, and in Schools
+better then in Publick States, and better in Philosophy
+then in Divinity. All which considered, I shun,
+as much as I can, not to discourse or write of either
+Church or State. But I desire so much favour, or
+rather Justice of you, <i>Worthy Readers</i>, as not to interpret
+my objections or answers any other ways then
+against several opinions in Philosophy; for I am confident
+there is not any body, that doth esteem, respect
+and honour learned and ingenious Persons more then
+I do: Wherefore judg me neither to be of a contradicting
+humor, nor of a vain-glorious mind for differing
+from other mens opinions, but rather that it
+is done out of love to Truth, and to make my own opinions
+the more intelligible, which cannot better be
+done then by arguing and comparing other mens opinions
+with them. The Authors whose opinions I
+mention, I have read, as I found them printed, in my
+native Language, except <i>Des Cartes</i>, who being in
+Latine, I had some few places translated to me out
+of his works; and I must confess, that since I have
+read the works of these learned men, I understand the
+names and terms of Art a little better then I did before;
+but it is not so much as to make me a Scholar, nor yet
+so little, but that, had I read more before I did begin
+to write my other Book called <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>,
+they would have been more intelligible; for my error
+was, I began to write so early, that I had not liv'd
+so long as to be able to read many Authors; I cannot
+say, I divulged my opinions as soon as I had conceiv'd
+them, but yet I divulged them too soon to have them
+artificial and methodical. But since what is past, cannot
+be recalled, I must desire you to excuse those faults,
+which were committed for want of experience and
+learning. As for School-learning, had I applied my
+self to it, yet I am confident I should never have arrived
+to any; for I am so uncapable of Learning, that I
+could never attain to the knowledge of any other Language
+but my native, especially by the Rules of Art:
+wherefore I do not repent that I spent not my time in
+Learning, for I consider, it is better to write wittily then
+learnedly; nevertheless, I love and esteem Learning, although
+I am not capable of it. But you may say, I have
+expressed neither Wit nor Learning in my Writings:
+Truly, if not, I am the more sorry for it; but self-conceit,
+which is natural to mankind, especially to
+our Sex, did flatter and secretly perswade me that my
+Writings had Sense and Reason, Wit and Variety; but
+Judgment being not called to Counsel, I yielded to Self-conceits
+flattery, and so put out my Writings to be
+Printed as fast as I could, without being reviewed or
+Corrected: Neither did I fear any censure, for Self-conceit
+had perswaded me, I should be highly applauded;
+wherefore I made such haste, that I had three or
+four Books printed presently after each other.</p>
+
+<p>But to return to this present Work, I must desire you,
+<i>worthy Readers</i>, to read first my Book called <i>Philosophical
+and Physical Opinions</i>, before you censure this,
+for this Book is but an explanation of the former, wherein
+is contained the Ground of my Opinions, and those
+that will judge well of a Building, must first consider
+the Foundation; to which purpose I will repeat some
+few Heads and Principles of my Opinions, which are
+these following: First, That Nature is Infinite, and
+the Eternal Servant of God: Next, That she is Corporeal,
+and partly self-moving, dividable and composable;
+that all and every particular Creature, as also all
+perception and variety in Nature, is made by corporeal
+self-motion, which I name sensitive and rational
+matter, which is life and knowledg, sense and reason.
+Again, That these sensitive and rational parts of matter
+are the purest and subtilest parts of Nature, as the active
+parts, the knowing, understanding and prudent parts,
+the designing, architectonical and working parts, nay,
+the Life and Soul of Nature, and that there is not any
+Creature or part of nature without this Life and Soul;
+and that not onely Animals, but also Vegetables, Minerals
+and Elements, and what more is in Nature, are endued
+with this Life and Soul, Sense and Reason: and because
+this Life and Soul is a corporeal Substance, it is
+both dividable and composable; for it divides and removes
+parts from parts, as also composes and joyns
+parts to parts, and works in a perpetual motion without
+rest; by which actions not any Creature can
+challenge a particular Life and Soul to it self, but every
+Creature may have by the dividing and composing nature
+of this self-moving matter more or fewer natural
+souls and lives.</p>
+
+<p>These and the like actions of corporeal Nature or natural
+Matter you may find more at large described in
+my afore-mentioned Book of <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>,
+and more clearly repeated and explained in this present.
+'Tis true, the way of arguing I use, is common, but
+the Principles, Heads and Grounds of my Opinions are
+my own, not borrowed or stolen in the least from any;
+and the first time I divulged them, was in the year 1653:
+since which time I have reviewed, reformed and reprinted
+them twice; for at first, as my Conceptions were
+new and my own, so my Judgment was young, and my
+Experience little, so that I had not so much knowledge
+as to declare them artificially and methodically; for as I
+mentioned before, I was always unapt to learn by
+the Rules of Art. But although they may be defective
+for want of Terms of Art, and artificial expressions,
+yet I am sure they are not defective for want of Sense
+and Reason: And if any one can bring more Sense and
+Reason to disprove these my opinions, I shall not repine
+or grieve, but either acknowledge my errour, if I find
+my self in any, or defend them as rationally as I can, if
+it be but done justly and honestly, without deceit, spight,
+or malice; for I cannot chuse but acquaint you, <i>Noble
+Readers</i>, I have been informed, that if I should be
+answered in my Writings, it would be done rather under
+the name and cover of a Woman, then of a Man,
+the reason is, because no man dare or will set his
+name to the contradiction of a Lady; and to confirm
+you the better herein, there has one Chapter of my
+Book called <i>The Worlds Olio</i>, treating of a Monastical
+Life, been answer'd already in a little Pamphlet, under
+the name of a woman, although she did little towards it;
+wherefore it being a Hermaphroditical Book, I judged
+it not worthy taking notice of. The like shall I do
+to any other that will answer this present work of mine,
+or contradict my opinions indirectly with fraud and deceit.
+But I cannot conceive why it should be a disgrace
+to any man to maintain his own or others opinions
+against a woman, so it be done with respect and civility;
+but to become a cheat by dissembling, and quit
+the Breeches for a Petticoat, meerly out of spight and
+malice, is base, and not fit for the honour of a man, or the
+masculine sex. Besides, it will easily be known; for
+a Philosopher or Philosopheress is not produced on a
+sudden. Wherefore, although I do not care, nor fear
+contradiction, yet I desire it may be done without fraud
+or deceit, spight and malice; and then I shall be ready to
+defend my opinions the best I can, whilest I live, and after
+I am dead, I hope those that are just and honorable will
+also defend me from all sophistry, malice, spight and
+envy, for which Heaven will bless them. In the mean
+time, <i>Worthy Readers</i>, I should rejoyce to see that my
+Works are acceptable to you, for if you be not partial,
+you will easily pardon those faults you find, when you
+do consider both my sex and breeding; for which favour
+and justice, I shall always remain,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your most obliged Servant,</i></p>
+
+<p>M. N.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h2><a name="Philosophical_Letters" id="Philosophical_Letters">Philosophical Letters.</a></h2>
+
+<h2>SECT. I.</h2>
+
+<h3>I.</h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You have been pleased to send me the
+Works of four Famous and Learned
+Authors, to wit, of two most Famous
+Philosophers of our Age, <i>Des Cartes</i>,
+and <i>Hobbs</i>, and of that Learned
+Philosopher and Divine Dr. <i>More</i>,
+as also of that Famous Physician and
+Chymist <i>Van Helmont</i>. Which Works you have sent
+me not onely to peruse, but also to give my judgment
+of them, and to send you word by the usual way of our
+Correspondence, which is by Letters, how far, and
+wherein I do dissent from these Famous Authors, their
+Opinions in <i>Natural Philosophy</i>. To tell you truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, your Commands did at first much affright
+me, for it did appear, as if you had commanded me to
+get upon a high Rock, and fling my self into the Sea,
+where neither a Ship, nor a Plank, nor any kind of help
+was near to rescue me, and save my life; but that I was
+forced to sink, by reason I cannot swim: So I having no
+Learning nor Art to assist me in this dangerous undertaking,
+thought, I must of necessity perish under the
+rough censures of my Readers, and be not onely
+accounted a fool for my labour, but a vain and presumptuous
+person, to undertake things surpassing the ability of
+my performance; but on the other side I considered
+first, that those Worthy Authors, were they my censurers,
+would not deny me the same liberty they take
+themselves; which is, that I may dissent from their Opinions,
+as well as they dissent from others, and from amongst
+themselves: And if I should express more Vanity
+then Wit, more Ignorance then Knowledg, more
+Folly then Discretion, it being according to the Nature
+of our Sex, I hoped that my Masculine Readers would
+civilly excuse me, and my Female Readers could not
+justly condemn me. Next I considered with my self,
+that it would be a great advantage for my Book called
+<i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, as to make it more perspicuous
+and intelligible by the opposition of other Opinions,
+since two opposite things placed near each other, are the
+better discerned; for I must confess, that when I did
+put forth my Philosophical Work at first, I was not so
+well skilled in the Terms or Expressions usual in
+<i>Natural Philosophy</i>; and therefore for want of their knowledg,
+I could not declare my meaning so plainly and
+clearly as I ought to have done, which may be a sufficient
+argument to my Readers, that I have not read
+heretofore any <i>Natural Philosophers</i>, and taken some
+Light from them; but that my Opinions did meerly
+issue from the Fountain of my own Brain, without any
+other help or assistance. Wherefore since for want of
+proper Expressions, my named Book of <i>Philosophy</i> was
+accused of obscurity and intricacy, I thought your Commands
+would be a means to explain and clear it the better,
+although not by an Artificial way, as by Logical Arguments
+or Mathematical Demonstrations, yet by expressing
+my Sense and Meaning more properly and clearly
+then I have done heretofore: But the chief reason of all
+was, the Authority of your Command, which did work
+so powerfully with me, that I could not resist, although
+it were to the disgrace of my own judgment and wit;
+and therefore I am fully resolved now to go on as far, and
+as well as the Natural strength of my Reason will reach:
+But since neither the strength of my Body, nor of my
+understanding, or wit, is able to mark every line,
+or every word of their works, and to argue upon
+them, I shall onely pick out the ground Opinions of the
+aforementioned Authors, and those which do directly
+dissent from mine, upon which I intend to make some
+few Reflections, according to the ability of my Reason;
+and I shall meerly go upon the bare Ground of <i>Natural
+Philosophy</i>, and not mix Divinity with it, as many Philosophers
+use to do, except it be in those places, where I
+am forced by the Authors Arguments to reflect upon it,
+which yet shall be rather with an expression of my ignorance,
+then a positive declaration of my opinion or judgment
+thereof; for I think it not onely an absurdity, but
+an injury to the holy Profession of Divinity to draw her
+to the Proofs in <i>Natural Philosophy</i>; wherefore I shall
+strictly follow the Guidance of <i>Natural Reason</i>, and
+keep to my own ground and Principles as much as I can;
+which that I may perform the better, I humbly desire
+the help and assistance of your Favour, that according
+to that real and intire Affection you bear to me, you
+would be pleased to tell me unfeignedly, if I should
+chance to err or contradict but the least probability of
+truth in any thing; for I honor Truth so much, as I
+bow down to its shadow with the greatest respect and
+reverence; and I esteem those persons most, that love
+and honor Truth with the same zeal and fervor, whether
+they be Ancient or Modern Writers.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, <i>Madam</i>, although I am destitute of the help of
+Arts, yet being supported by your Favour and wise Directions,
+I shall not fear any smiles of scorn, or words of
+reproach; for I am confident you will defend me against
+all the mischievous and poisonous Teeth of malicious
+detractors. I shall besides, implore the assistance of the
+Sacred Church, and the Learned Schools, to take me
+into their Protection, and shelter my weak endeavours:
+For though I am but an ignorant and simple Woman,
+yet I am their devoted and honest Servant, who shall
+never quit the respect and honor due to them, but live
+and die theirs, as also,</p>
+
+<p>MADAM,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<p>M. N.</p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_II" id="I_II">II.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Before I begin my Reflections upon the Opinions
+of those Authors you sent me, I will answer
+first your Objection concerning the Ground
+of my Philosophy, which is Infinite Matter: For
+you were pleased to mention, That you could not well
+apprehend, how it was possible, that many Infinites
+could be contained in one Infinite, since one Infinite
+takes up all Place Imaginary, leaving no room for any
+other; Also, if one Infinite should be contained in an
+other Infinite, that which contains, must of necessity be
+bigger then that which is contained, whereby the Nater
+of Infinite would be lost; as having no bigger nor
+less, but being of an Infinite quantity.</p>
+
+<p>First of all, <i>Madam</i>, there is no such thing as All in
+Infinite, nor any such thing as All the Place, for Infinite is
+not circumscribed nor limited: Next, as for that one
+Infinite cannot be in an other Infinite, I answer, as well as
+one Finite can be in another Finite; for one Creature is
+not onely composed of Parts, but one Part lies within
+another, and one Figure within another, and one Motion
+within another. As for example, Animal Kind, have
+they not Internal and External Parts, and so Internal and
+External Motions? And are not Animals, Vegetables
+and Minerals inclosed in the Elements? But as for Infinites,
+you must know, <i>Madam</i>, that there are several
+kindes of Infinites. For there is first Infinite in quantity
+or bulk, that is such a big and great Corporeal substance,
+which exceeds all bounds and limits of measure, and may
+be called Infinite in Magnitude. Next there is Infinite
+in Number, which exceeds all numeration and account,
+and may be termed Infinite in Multitude; Again there
+is Infinite in Quality; as for example, Infinite degrees
+of softness, hardness, thickness, thinness, heat and cold, &amp;c.
+also Infinite degrees of Motion, and so Infinite Creations,
+Infinite Compositions, Dissolutions, Contractions,
+Dilations, Digestions, Expulsions; also Infinite degrees
+of Strength, Knowledg, Power, &amp;c. Besides
+there is Infinite in Time, which is properly named Eternal.
+Now, when I say, that there is but one Infinite,
+and that Infinite is the Onely Matter, I mean infinite in
+bulk and quantity. And this Onely matter, because it
+is Infinite in bulk, must of necessity be divisible into infinite
+Parts, that is, infinite in number, not in bulk or
+quantity; for though Infinite Parts in number make
+up one infinite in quantity, yet they considered in themselves,
+cannot be said Infinite, because every Part is of
+a certain linked and circumscribed Figure, Quantity and
+Proportion, whereas Infinite hath no limits nor bounds:
+besides it is against the nature of a single Part to be Infinite,
+or else there would be no difference between the
+Part and the whole, the nature of a Part requiring that
+it must be less then its whole, but all what is less hath a
+determined quantity, and so becomes finite. Therefore
+it is no absurdity to say, that an Infinite may have
+both Finite and Infinite Parts, Finite in Quantity, Infinite
+in Number. But those that say, if there were an
+Infinite Body, that each of its Parts must of necessity be
+Infinite too, are much mistaken; for it is a contradiction
+in the same Terms to say One Infinite Part, for
+the very Name of a Part includes a Finiteness, but take
+all parts of an Infinite Body together, then you may
+rightly say they are infinite. Nay Reason will inform
+you plainly, for example: Imagine an Infinite number
+of grains of Corn in one heap, surely if the number of
+Grains be Infinite, you must grant of necessity the
+bulk or body, which contains this infinite number of
+grains, to be Infinite too; to wit, Infinite in quantity,
+and yet you will find each Grain in it self to be Finite.
+But you will say, an Infinite Body cannot have parts,
+for if it be Infinite, it must be Infinite in Quantity, and
+therefore of one bulk, and one continued quantity, but
+Infinite parts in number make a discrete quantity. I answer
+it is all one; for a Body of a continued quantity
+may be divided and severed into so many Parts either
+actually, or mentally in our Conceptions or thoughts;
+besides nature is one continued Body, for there is no
+such <i>Vacuum</i> in Nature, as if her Parts did hang together
+like a linked Chain; nor can any of her Parts subsist
+single and by it self, but all the Parts of Infinite
+Nature, although they are in one continued Piece, yet
+are they several and discerned from each other by their
+several Figures. And by this, I hope, you will understand
+my meaning, when I say, that several Infinites may be
+included or comprehended in one Infinite; for by the one
+Infinite, I understand Infinite in Quantity, which includes
+Infinite in Number, that is Infinite Parts; then
+Infinite in Quality, as Infinite degrees of Rarity, Density,
+Swiftness, Slowness, Hardness, Softness, &amp;c. Infinite
+degrees of Motions, Infinite Creations, Dissolutions,
+Contractions, Dilations, Alterations, &amp;c. Infinite
+degrees of Wisdom, Strength, Power, &amp;c., and
+lastly Infinite in Time or Duration, which is Eternity,
+for Infinite and Eternal are inseparable; All which Infinites
+are contained in the Onely Matter as many Letters
+are contained in one Word, many Words in one Line,
+many Lines in one Book. But you will say perhaps,
+if I attribute an Infinite Wisdom, Strength,
+Power, Knowledg, &amp;c. to Nature; then Nature is in
+all coequal with God, for God has the same Attributes:
+I answer, Not at all; for I desire you to understand me
+rightly, when I speak of Infinite Nature, and when I
+speak of the Infinite Deity, for there is great difference
+between them, for it is one thing a Deitical or Divine Infinite,
+and another a Natural Infinite; You know, that
+God is a Spirit, and not a bodily substance, again that
+Nature is a Body, and not a Spirit, and therefore none of
+these Infinites can obstruct or hinder each other, as being
+different in their kinds, for a Spirit being no Body, requires
+no place, Place being an attribute which onely
+belongs to a Body, and therefore when I call Nature
+Infinite, I mean an Infinite extension of Body, containing
+an Infinite number of Parts; but what doth an Infinite
+extension of Body hinder the Infiniteness of God,
+as an Immaterial Spiritual being? Next, when I do
+attribute an Infinite Power, Wisdom, Knowledg, &amp;c.
+to Nature, I do not understand a Divine, but a Natural
+Infinite Wisdom and Power, that is, such as properly
+belongs to Nature, and not a supernatural, as is in
+God; For Nature having Infinite parts of Infinite degrees,
+must also have an Infinite natural wisdom to order
+her natural Infinite parts and actions, and consequently
+an Infinite natural power to put her wisdom
+into act; and so of the rest of her attributes, which are
+all natural: But Gods Attributes being supernatural,
+transcend much these natural infinite attributes; for God,
+being the God of Nature, has not onely Natures Infinite
+Wisdom and Power, but besides, a Supernatural
+and Incomprehensible Infinite Wisdom and Power; which
+in no wayes do hinder each other, but may very
+well subsist together. Neither doth Gods Infinite Justice
+and his Infinite Mercy hinder each other; for Gods
+Attributes, though they be all several Infinites, yet they
+make but one Infinite.</p>
+
+<p>But you will say, If Nature's Wisdom and Power extends
+no further then to natural things, it is not Infinite,
+but limited and restrained. I answer, That doth not
+take away the Infiniteness of Nature; for there may be
+several kinds of Infinites, as I related before, and
+one may be as perfect an Infinite as the other in its kind.
+For example: Suppose a Line to be extended infinitely
+in length, you will call this Line Infinite, although it
+have not an Infinite breadth; Also, if an infinite length
+and breadth joyn together, you will call it, an infinite
+Superficies, although it wants an infinite depth; and
+yet every Infinite, in its kinde, is a Perfect Infinite, if
+I may call it so: Why then shall not Nature also be said
+to have an Infinite Natural Wisdom and Power, although
+she has not a Divine Wisdom and Power? Can
+we say, Man hath not a free Will, because he hath not
+an absolute free Will, as God hath? Wherefore, a
+Natural Infinite, and the Infinite God, may well stand
+together, without any opposition or hinderance, or without
+any detracting or derogating from the Omnipotency
+and Glory of God; for God remains still the God of
+Nature, and is an Infinite Immaterial Purity, when as
+Nature is an Infinite Corporeal Substance; and Immaterial
+and Material cannot obstruct each other. And
+though an Infinite Corporeal cannot make an Infinite
+Immaterial, yet an Infinite Immaterial can make an
+Infinite Corporeal, by reason there is as much difference
+in the Power as in the Purity: And the disparity
+between the Natural and Divine Infinite is such, as
+they cannot joyn, mix, and work together, unless
+you do believe that Divine Actions can have allay.</p>
+
+<p>But you may say, Purity belongs onely to natural
+things, and none but natural bodies can be said purified,
+but God exceeds all Purity. 'Tis true: But if
+there were infinite degrees of Purity in Matter, Matter
+might at last become Immaterial, and so from an Infinite
+Material turn to an Infinite Immaterial, and from Nature
+to be God: A great, but an impossible Change.
+For I do verily believe, that there can be but one Omnipotent
+God, and he cannot admit of addition, or diminution;
+and that which is Material cannot be Immaterial,
+and what is Immaterial cannot become Material, I
+mean, so, as to change their natures; for Nature
+is what God was pleased she should be; and will be
+what she was, until God be pleased to make her otherwise.
+Wherefore there can be no new Creation of
+matter, motion, or figure; nor any annihilation of any
+matter, motion, or figure in Nature, unless God do create
+a new Nature: For the changing of Matter into several
+particular Figures, doth not prove an annihilation
+of particular Figures; nor the cessation of particular Motions
+an annihilation of them: Neither doth the variation
+of the Onely Matter produce an annihilation of any
+part of Matter, nor the variation of figures and motions
+of Matter cause an alteration in the nature of Onely
+Matter: Wherefore there cannot be new Lives, Souls
+or Bodies in Nature; for, could there be any thing
+new in Nature, or any thing annihilated, there would
+not be any stability in Nature, as a continuance of every
+kind and sort of Creatures, but there would be a
+confusion between the new and old matter, motions,
+and figures, as between old and new Nature; In
+truth, it would be like new Wine in old Vessels, by
+which all would break into disorder. Neither can
+supernatural and natural effects be mixt together, no
+more then material and immaterial things or beings:
+Therefore it is probable, God has ordained Nature to
+work in her self by his Leave, Will, and Free Gift. But
+there have been, and are still strange and erroneous
+Opinions, and great differences amongst Natural Philosophers,
+concerning the Principles of Natural things; some
+will have them <i>Atoms</i>, others will have the first Principles
+to be <i>Salt, Sulphur</i> and <i>Mercury</i>; some will have
+them to be the four Elements, as <i>Fire, Air, Water,</i> and
+<i>Earth</i>; and others will have but one of these Elements
+also some will have <i>Gas</i> and <i>Blas, Ferments, Ideas</i> and
+the like; but what they believe to be Principles and
+Causes of natural things, are onely Effects; for in all
+Probability it appears to humane sense and reason, that
+the cause of every particular material Creature is the
+onely and Infinite Matter, which has Motions and Figures
+inseparably united; for Matter, Motion and Figure,
+are but one thing, individable in its Nature. And
+as for Immaterial Spirits, there is surely no such thing
+in Infinite Nature, to wit, so as to be Parts of Nature; for
+Nature is altogether Material, but this opinion proceeds
+from the separation or abstraction of Motion from Matter,
+<i>viz.</i> that man thinks matter and motion to be dividable
+from each other, and believes motion to be a thing
+by its self, naming it an Immaterial thing, which has a
+being, but not a bodily substance: But various and different
+effects do not prove a different Matter or Cause,
+neither do they prove an unsetled Cause, onely the variety
+of Effects hath obscured the Cause from the several
+parts, which makes Particular Creatures partly Ignorant, and
+partly knowing. But in my opinion, Nature
+is material, and not any thing in Nature, what belongs
+to her, is immaterial; but whatsoever is Immaterial, is
+Supernatural, Therefore Motions, Forms, Thoughts,
+Ideas, Conceptions, Sympathies, Antipathies, Accidents,
+Qualities, as also Natural Life, and Soul, are
+all Material: And as for Colours, Sents, Light, Sound,
+Heat, Cold, and the like, those that believe them not
+to be substances or material things, surely their brain or
+heart (take what place you will for the forming of Conceptions)
+moves very Irregularly, and they might as
+well say, Our sensitive Organs are not material; for what
+Objects soever, that are subject to our senses, cannot in
+sense be denied to be Corporeal, when as those things
+that are not subject to our senses, can be conceived
+in reason to be Immaterial? But some Philosophers
+striving to express their wit, obstruct reason; and
+drawing Divinity to prove Sense and Reason, weaken
+Faith so, as their mixed Divine Philosophy becomes
+meer Poetical Fictions, and Romancical expressions, making
+material Bodies immaterial Spirits, and immaterial
+Spirits material Bodies; and some have conceived some
+things neither to be Material nor Immaterial but between
+both. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I wish their Wits had
+been less, and their Judgments more, as not to jumble
+Natural and Supernatural things together, but to distinguish
+either clearly, for such Mixtures are neither
+Natural nor Divine; But as I said, the Confusion comes
+from their too nice abstractions, and from the separation
+of Figure and Motion from Matter, as not conceiving
+them individable; but if God, and his servant
+Nature were as Intricate and Confuse in their Works,
+as Men in their Understandings and Words, the Universe
+and Production of all Creatures would soon be
+without Order and Government, so as there would be
+a horrid and Eternal War both in Heaven, and in the
+World, and so pittying their troubled Brains, and
+wishing them the Light of Reason, that they may clearly
+perceive the Truth, I rest</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your real Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_III" id="I_III">III.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>It seems you are offended at my Opinion, that <i>Nature</i>
+is Eternal without beginning, which, you say,
+is to make her God, or at least coequal with God;
+But, if you apprehend my meaning rightly, you will
+say, I do not: For first, God is an Immaterial and Spiritual
+Infinite Being, which Propriety God cannot give away
+to any Creature, nor make another God in Essence like
+to him, for Gods Attributes are not communicable to any
+Creature; Yet this doth not hinder, that God should not
+make Infinite and Eternal Matter, for that is as easie to
+him, as to make a Finite Creature, Infinite Matter being
+quite of another Nature then God is, to wit, Corporeal,
+when God is Incorporeal, the difference whereof
+I have declared in my former Letter. But as for
+<i>Nature</i>, that it cannot be Eternal without beginning,
+because God is the Creator and Cause of it, and that the
+Creator must be before the Creature, as the Cause before
+the Effect, so, that it is impossible for <i>Nature</i> to be
+without a beginning; if you will speak naturally, as human
+reason guides you, and bring an Argument concluding
+from the Priority of the <i>Cause</i> before the
+<i>Effect</i>, give me leave to tell you, that God is not tied to
+Natural Rules, but that he can do beyond our Understanding,
+and therefore he is neither bound up to time,
+as to be before, for if we will do this, we must not allow,
+that the Eternal Son of God is Coeternal with the Father,
+because nature requires a Father to exist before
+the Son, but in God is no time, but all Eternity; and
+if you allow, that God hath made some Creatures, as
+Supernatural Spirits, to live Eternally, why should he
+not as well have made a Creature from all Eternity? for
+Gods making is not our making, he needs no Priority of
+Time. But you may say, the Comparison of the Eternal
+Generation of the Son of God is Mystical and Divine,
+and not to be applied to natural things: I answer,
+The action by which God created the World or made
+Nature, was it natural or supernatural? surely you will
+say it was a Supernatural and God-like action, why then
+will you apply Natural Rules to a God-like and Supernatural
+Action? for what Man knows, how and
+when God created Nature? You will say, the Scripture
+doth teach us that, for it is not Six thousand years,
+when God created this World, I answer, the holy
+Scripture informs us onely of the Creation of this
+Visible World, but not of Nature and natural Matter;
+for I firmly believe according to the Word of
+God, that this World has been Created, as is described
+by <i>Moses</i>, but what is that to natural Matter?
+There may have been worlds before, as many are of
+the opinion that there have been men before <i>Adam</i>, and
+many amongst Divines do believe, that after the destruction
+of this World God will Create a new World again,
+as a new Heaven, and a new Earth; and if this be
+probable, or at least may be believed without any prejudice
+to the holy Scripture, why may it not be probably
+believed that there have been other worlds before this visible
+World? for nothing is impossible with God; and
+all this doth derogate nothing from the Honour and
+Glory of God, but rather increases his Divine Power. But
+as for the Creation of this present World, it is related,
+that there was first a rude and indigested Heap, or Chaos,
+without form, void and dark; and God said, <i>Let it be
+light; Let there be a Firmament in the midst of the Waters,
+and let the Waters under the Heaven be gathered
+together, and let the dry Land appear; Let the Earth
+bring forth Grass, the Herb yielding seed, and the
+Fruit-tree yielding Fruit after its own kind; and let there
+be Lights in the Firmament, the one to rule the Day, and
+the other the Night; and let the Waters bring forth
+abundantly the moving Creature that hath life; and let
+the Earth bring forth living Creatures after its kinde; and
+at last God said, Let us make Man, and all what was
+made, God saw it was good.</i> Thus all was made by
+Gods Command, and who executed his Command
+but the Material servant of God, Nature? which ordered
+her self-moving matter into such several Figures as
+God commanded, and God approved of them. And
+thus, <i>Madam</i>, I verily believe the Creation of the
+World, and that God is the Sole and omnipotent Creator
+of Heaven and Earth, and of all Creatures therein;
+nay, although I believe Nature to have been from
+Eternity, yet I believe also that God is the God and
+Author of Nature, and has made Nature and natural
+Matter in a way and manner proper to his Omnipotency
+and Incomprehensible by us: I will pass by natural
+Arguments and Proofs, as not belonging to such
+an Omnipotent Action; as for example, how the nature
+of relative terms requires, that they must both exist
+at one point of Time, <i>viz.</i> a Master and his Servant,
+and a King and his Subjects; for one bearing relation
+to the other, can in no ways be considered as different
+from one another in formiliness or laterness of Time;
+but as I said, these being meerly natural things, I will
+nor cannot apply them to Supernatural and Divine Actions;
+But if you ask me, how it is possible that <i>Nature</i>, the
+Effect and Creature of God, can be Eternal without beginning?
+I will desire you to answer me first, how a
+Creature can be Eternal without end, as, for example.
+Supernatural Spirits are, and then I will answer you,
+how a Creature can be Eternal without beginning;
+For Eternity consists herein, that it has neither beginning
+nor end; and if it be easie for God to make a Being
+without end, it is not difficult for Him to make a Being
+without beginning. One thing more I will add, which is,
+That if <i>Nature</i> has not been made by God from all
+Eternity, then the Title of God, as being a Creator,
+which is a Title and action, upon which our Faith is
+grounded, (for it is the first Article in our Creed) has
+been accessory to God, as I said, not full Six thousand
+years ago; but there is not any thing accessory to God;
+he being the Perfection himself. But, <i>Madam</i>, all what
+I speak, is under the liberty of Natural Philosophy, and
+by the Light of Reason onely, not of Revelation; and
+my Reason being not infallible; I will not declare my
+Opinions for an infallible Truth: Neither do I think,
+that they are offensive either to Church or State, for I
+submit to the Laws of One, and believe the Doctrine
+of the Other, so much, that if it were for the advantage
+of either, I should be willing to sacrifice my Life, especially
+for the Church; yea, had I millions of Lives, and
+every Life was either to suffer torment or to live in ease,
+I would prefer torment for the benefit of the Church;
+and therefore, if I knew that my Opinions should give
+any offence to the Church, I should be ready every minute
+to alter them: And as much as I am bound in all
+duty to the obedience of the Church, as much am I particularly
+bound to your Ladiship, for your entire love
+and sincere affection towards me, for which I shall live
+and die,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your most faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_IV" id="I_IV">IV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have chosen, in the first place, the Work of that
+famous Philosopher <i>Hobbs</i> called <i>Leviathan</i>, wherein
+I find he sayes,<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That the cause of sense or sensitive
+perception is the external body or Object, which presses the
+Organ proper to each Sense</i>. To which I answer, according
+to the ground of my own <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, That all
+things, and therefore outward objects as well as sensitive
+organs, have both Sense and Reason, yet neither the
+objects nor the organs are the cause of them; for Perception
+is but the effect of the Sensitive and rational
+Motions, and not the Motions of the Perception; neither
+doth the pressure of parts upon parts make Perception;
+for although Matter by the power of self-motion is
+as much composeable as divideable, and parts do joyn to
+parts, yet that doth not make perception; nay, the several
+parts, betwixt which the Perception is made, may
+be at such a distance, as not capable to press: As for example,
+Two men may see or hear each other at a distance,
+and yet there may be other bodies between them, that
+do not move to those perceptions, so that no pressure can
+be made, for all pressures are by some constraint and
+force; wherefore, according to my Opinion, the Sensitive
+and Rational free Motions, do pattern out each
+others object, as Figure and Voice in each others Eye
+and Ear; for Life and Knowledge, which I name Rational
+and Sensitive Matter, are in every Creature, and
+in all parts of every Creature, and make all perceptions
+in Nature, because they are the self-moving parts of
+Nature, and according as those Corporeal, Rational,
+and Sensitive Motions move, such or such perceptions are
+made: But these self-moving parts being of different degrees
+(for the Rational matter is purer then the Sensitive)
+it causes a double perception in all Creatures, whereof one
+is made by the Rational corporeal motions, and the
+other by the Sensitive; and though both perceptions are
+in all the body, and in every part of the body of a Creature,
+yet the sensitive corporeal motions having their proper
+organs, as Work-houses, in which they work some
+sorts of perceptions, those perceptions are most commonly
+made in those organs, and are double again; for the
+sensitive motions work either on the inside or on the out-side
+of those organs, on the inside in Dreams, on the
+out-side awake; and although both the Rational and the
+Sensitive matter are inseparably joyned and mixed together,
+yet do they not always work together, for oftentimes
+the Rational works without any sensitive paterns,
+and the sensitive again without any rational paterns.
+But mistake me not, <i>Madam</i>, for I do not absolutely
+confine the sensitive perception to the Organs, nor the
+rational to the Brain, but as they are both in the whole
+body, so they may work in the whole body according
+to their own motions. Neither do I say, that there is no
+other perception in the Eye but sight, in the Ear but
+hearing, and so forth, but the sensitive organs have
+other perceptions besides these; and if the sensitive and
+rational motions be irregular in those parts, between
+which the perception is made, as for example, in the
+two fore-mentioned men, that see and hear each other,
+then they both neither see nor hear each other perfectly;
+and if one's motions be perfect, but the
+other's irregular and erroneous, then one sees and
+hears better then the other; or if the Sensitive and
+Rational motions move more regularly and make perfecter
+paterns in the Eye then in the Ear, then they
+see better then they hear; and if more regularly and
+perfectly in the Ear then in the Eye, they hear better then
+they see: And so it may be said of each man singly, for
+one man may see the other better and more perfectly,
+then the other may see him; and this man may hear the
+other better and more perfectly, then the other may hear
+him; whereas, if perception were made by pressure,
+there would not be any such mistakes; besides the hard
+pressure of objects, in my opinion, would rather annoy
+and obscure, then inform. But as soon as the object is removed,
+the Perception of it, made by the sensitive motions
+in the Organs, ceaseth, by reason the sensitive Motions
+cease from paterning, but yet the Rational Motions
+do not always cease so suddenly, because the sensitive
+corporeal Motions work with the Inanimate Matter,
+and therefore cannot retain particular figures long,
+whereas the Rational Matter doth onely move in its own
+substance and parts of matter, and upon none other, as
+my Book of Philosophical Opinions will inform you
+better. And thus Perception, in my opinion, is not
+made by Pressure, nor by Species, nor by matter going
+either from the Organ to the Object, or from the
+Object into the Organ. By this it is also manifest, that
+Understanding comes not from Exterior Objects, or
+from the Exterior sensitive Organs; for as Exterior Objects
+do not make Perception, so they do neither make
+Understanding, but it is the rational matter that doth it,
+for Understanding may be without exterior objects and
+sensitive organs; And this in short is the opinion of</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>ch.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_V" id="I_V">V.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>Madam</i>,</p>
+
+<p>Your Authours opinion is,<a name="FNanchor_1_2" id="FNanchor_1_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_2" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> that <i>when a thing lies
+still, unless somewhat else stir it, it will lie still for
+ever; but when a thing is in motion, it will eternally
+be in motion, unless somewhat else stay it; the reason
+is,</i> saith he, <i>because nothing can change it self</i>; To tell
+you truly, <i>Madam</i>, I am not of his opinion, for if
+Matter moveth it self, as certainly it doth, then the
+least part of Matter, were it so small as to seem Individable,
+will move it self; 'Tis true, it could not desist
+from motion, as being its nature to move, and no
+thing can change its Nature; for God himself, who
+hath more power then self-moving Matter, cannot
+change himself from being God; but that Motion
+should proceed from another exterior Body, joyning
+with, or touching that body which it moves, is in my
+opinion not probable; for though Nature is all Corporeal,
+and her actions are Corporeal Motions, yet
+that doth not prove, that the Motion of particular
+Creatures or Parts is caused by the joining, touching or
+pressing of parts upon parts; for it is not the several
+parts that make motion, but motion makes them; and
+yet Motion is not the cause of Matter, but Matter is
+the cause of Motion, for Matter might subsist without
+Motion, but not Motion without Matter, onely there
+could be no perception without Motion, nor no Variety,
+if Matter were not self-moving; but Matter, if it
+were all Inanimate and void of Motion, would lie as a
+dull, dead and senseless heap; But that all Motion
+comes by joining or pressing of other parts, I deny, for
+if sensitive and rational perceptions, which are sensitive
+and rational motions, in the body, and in the mind,
+were made by the pressure of outward objects, pressing
+the sensitive organs, and so the brain or interior parts
+of the Body, they would cause such dents and holes
+therein, as to make them sore and patched in a short time;
+Besides, what was represented in this manner, would
+always remain, or at least not so soon be dissolved, and
+then those pressures would make a strange and horrid
+confusion of Figures, for not any figure would be distinct;
+Wherefore my opinion is, that the sensitive and
+rational Matter doth make or pattern out the figures of
+several Objects, and doth dissolve them in a moment of
+time; as for example, when the eye seeth the object
+first of a Man, then of a Horse, then of another Creature,
+the sensitive motions in the eye move first into
+the figure of the Man, then straight into the figure of
+the Horse, so that the Mans figure is dissolved and altered
+into the figure of the Horse, and so forth; but if
+the eye sees many figures at once, then so many several
+figures are made by the sensitive Corporeal Motions,
+and as many by the Rational Motions, which are Sight
+and Memory, at once: But in sleep both the sensitive
+and rational Motions make the figures without patterns,
+that is, exterior objects, which is the cause that
+they are often erroneous, whereas, if it were the former
+Impression of the Objects, there could not possibly be
+imperfect Dreams or Remembrances, for fading of Figures
+requires as much motion, as impression, and impression
+and fading are very different and opposite motions;
+nay, if Perception was made by Impression,
+there could not possibly be a fading or decay of the figures
+printed either in the Mind or Body, whereas yet,
+as there is alteration of Motions in self-moving Matter,
+so there is also an alteration of figures made by these motions.
+But you will say, it doth not follow, if Perception
+be made by Impression, that it must needs continue
+and not decay; for if you touch and move a string, the
+motion doth not continue for ever, but ceaseth by degrees;
+I answer, There is great difference between
+Prime self-motion, and forced or Artificial Motions;
+for Artificial Motions are onely an Imitation of Natural
+Motions, and not the same, but caused by Natural
+Motions; for although there is no Art that is not made
+by Nature, yet Nature is not made by Art; Wherefore
+we cannot rationally judg of Perception by comparing
+it to the motion of a string, and its alteration to
+the ceasing of that motion, for Nature moveth not by
+force, but freely. 'Tis true, 'tis the freedom in Nature
+for one man to give another a box on the Ear, or
+to trip up his heels, or for one or more men to fight with
+each other; yet these actions are not like the actions of
+loving Imbraces and Kissing each other; neither are the
+actions one and the same, when a man strikes himself,
+and when he strikes another; and so is likewise the action
+of impression, and the action of self-figuring not one
+and the same, but different; for the action of impression
+is forced, and the action of self-figuring is free;
+Wherefore the comparison of the forced motions of a
+string, rope, watch, or the like, can have no place here;
+for though the rope, made of flax or hemp, may have
+the perception of a Vegetable, yet not of the hand, or
+the like, that touched or struck it; and although the
+hand doth occasion the rope to move in such a manner,
+yet it is not the motion of the hand, by which it moveth,
+and when it ceases, its natural and inherent power to
+move is not lessened; like as a man, that hath left off carving
+or painting, hath no less skill then he had before,
+neither is that skill lost when he plays upon the Lute or
+Virginals, or plows, plants, and the like, but he hath
+onely altered his action, as from carving to painting, or
+from painting to playing, and so to plowing and planting,
+which is not through disability but choice. But
+you will say, it is nevertheless a cessation of such a motion.
+I grant it: but the ceasing of such a motion is not
+the ceasing of self-moving matter from all motions, neither
+is cessation as much as annihilation, for the motion
+lies in the power of the matter to repeat it, as oft it will, if
+it be not overpowred, for more parts, or more strength,
+or more motions may over-power the less; Wherefore
+forced, or artificial and free Natural motions are different
+in their effects, although they have but one Cause,
+which is the self-moving matter, and though Matter is
+but active and passive, yet there is great Variety, and
+so great difference in force and liberty, objects and perceptions,
+sense and reason, and the like. But to conclude,
+perception is not made by the pressure of objects,
+no more then hemp is made by the Rope-maker, or metal
+by the Bell-founder or Ringer, and yet neither
+the rope nor the metal is without sense and reason,
+but the natural motions of the metal, and the artificial
+motions of the Ringer are different; wherefore a natural
+effect in truth cannot be produced from an artificial
+cause, neither can the ceasing of particular forced
+or artificial motions be a proof for the ceasing of general,
+natural, free motions, as that matter it self should
+cease to move; for there is no such thing as rest in Nature,
+but there is an alteration of motions and figures in
+self-moving matter, which alteration causeth variety as
+well in opinions, as in every thing else; Wherefore in
+my opinion, though sense alters, yet it doth not decay,
+for the rational and sensitive part of matter is as lasting as
+matter it self, but that which is named decay of sense, is
+onely the alteration of motions, and not an obscurity of
+motions, like, as the motions of memory and forgetfulness,
+and the repetition of the same motions is called
+remembrance. And thus much of this subject for the
+present, to which I add no more but rest</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_2" id="Footnote_1_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_2"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_VI" id="I_VI">VI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your Authour discoursing of Imagination, saith,<a name="FNanchor_1_3" id="FNanchor_1_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_3" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+<i>That as soon as any object is removed from our
+Eyes, though the Impression that is made in us remain,
+yet other objects more present succeeding and working
+on us, the Imagination of the past is obscured and made
+weak</i>. To which I answer, first, that he conceives Sense
+and Imagination to be all one, for he says, <i>Imagination
+is nothing else, but a fading or decaying sense</i>; whereas in
+my opinion they are different, not onely their matter,
+but their motions also being distinct and different;
+for Imagination is a rational perception, and Sense a sensitive
+perception; wherefore as much as the rational matter
+differs from the sensitive, as much doth Imagination
+differ from Sense. Next I say, that Impressions do not
+remain in the body of sensitive matter, but it is in its power
+to make or repeat the like figures; Neither is Imagination
+less, when the object is absent, then when present,
+but the figure patterned out in the sensitive organs,
+being altered, and remaining onely in the Rational part
+of matter, is not so perspicuous and clear, as when it was
+both in the Sense and in the Mind: And to prove that
+Imagination of things past doth not grow weaker by distance
+of time, as your Authour says, many a man in his
+old age, will have as perfect an Imagination of what is past
+in his younger years, as if he saw it present. And as
+for your Authours opinion, that <i>Imagination and Memory
+are one and the same</i>, I grant, that they are made
+of one kind of Matter; but although the Matter is
+one and the same, yet several motions in the several parts
+make Imagination and Memory several things: As for
+Example, a Man may Imagine that which never came
+into his Senses, wherefore Imagination is not one and
+the same thing with Memory. But your Authour
+seems to make all Sense, as it were, one Motion, but
+not all Motion Sense, whereas surely there is no Motion,
+but is either Sensitive or Rational; for Reason is
+but a pure and refined Sense, and Sense a grosser Reason.
+Yet all sensitive and rational Motions are not one
+and the same; for forced or Artificial Motions, though
+they proceed from sensitive matter, yet are they so different
+from the free and Prime Natural Motions, that
+they seem, as it were, quite of another nature: And
+this distinction neglected is the Cause, that many make
+Appetites and Passions, Perceptions and Objects, and
+the like, as one, without any or but little difference.
+But having discoursed of the difference of these Motions
+in my former Letter, I will not be tedious to you
+with repeating it again, but remain,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_3" id="Footnote_1_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_3"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_VII" id="I_VII">VII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your Authours opinion, concerning Dreams,<a name="FNanchor_1_4" id="FNanchor_1_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_4" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+seemeth to me in some part very rational and probable,
+in some part not; For when he sayes, that
+<i>Dreams are onely Imaginations of them that sleep, which
+imaginations have been before either totally or by parcels
+in the Sense; and that the organs of Sense, as the Brain
+and the Nerves, being benumb'd in sleep, as not easily to
+be moved by external objects, those Imaginations proceed
+onely from the agitation of the inward parts of mans body,
+which for the connexion they have with the Brain, and
+other organs, when they be distemper'd, do keep the same
+in motion, whereby the Imaginations there formerly made,
+appear as if a man were waking</i>; This seems to my Reason
+not very probable: For, first, Dreams are not absolutely
+Imaginations, except we do call all Motions and
+Actions of the Sensitive and Rational Matter, Imaginations.
+Neither is it necessary, that all Imaginations
+must have been before either totally or by parcels in the
+Sense; neither is there any benumbing of the organs of
+Sense in sleep. But Dreams, according to my opinion,
+are made by the Sensitive and Rational Corporeal Motions,
+by figuring several objects, as awake; onely the
+difference is, that the Sensitive motions in Dreams work
+by rote and on the inside of the Sensitive organs, when
+as awake they work according to the patterns of outward
+objects, and exteriously or on the outside of the
+sensitive Organs, so that sleep or dreams are nothing
+else but an alteration of motions, from moving exteriously
+to move interiously, and from working after a
+Pattern to work by rote: I do not say that the body
+is without all exterior motions, when asleep, as breathing
+and beating of the Pulse (although these motions
+are rather interior then exterior,) but that onely the
+sensitive organs are outwardly shut, so as not to receive
+the patterns of outward Objects, nevertheless the sensitive
+Motions do not cease from moving inwardly; or
+on the inside of the sensitive Organs; But the rational
+matter doth often, as awake, so asleep or in dreams,
+make such figures, as the sensitive did never make either
+from outward objects, or of its own accord; for
+the sensitive hath sometimes liberty to work without
+Objects, but the Rational much more, which is not
+bound either to the patterns of Exterior objects, or
+of the sensitive voluntary Figures. Wherefore it is
+not divers distempers, as your Authour sayes, that
+cause different Dreams, or Gold, or Heat; neither
+are Dreams the reverse of our waking Imaginations,
+nor all the Figures in Dreams are not made with their
+heels up, and their heads downwards, though some
+are; but this error or irregularity proceeds from want
+of exterior Objects or Patterns, and by reason the
+sensitive Motions work by rote; neither are the Motions
+reverse, because they work inwardly asleep, and
+outwardly awake, for Mad-men awake see several Figures
+without Objects. In short, sleeping and waking,
+is somewhat after that manner, when men are
+called either out of their doors, or stay within their
+houses; or like a Ship, where the Mariners work
+all under hatches, whereof you will find more in
+my Philosophical Opinions; and so taking my leave,
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_4" id="Footnote_1_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_4"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_VIII" id="I_VIII">VIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your Authour going on in his discourse of Imagination,
+says,<a name="FNanchor_1_5" id="FNanchor_1_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_5" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That, as we have no Imagination,
+whereof we have not formerly had sense, in whole or in
+parts; so we have not Transition from one Imagination to
+another, whereof we never had the like before in our senses</i>.
+To which my answer is in short, that the Rational
+part of Matter in One composed figure, as in Man, or
+the like Creature, may make such figures, as the senses
+did never make in that composed Figure or Creature;
+And though your Authour reproves those that say,<a name="FNanchor_2_6" id="FNanchor_2_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_6" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+<i>Imaginations rise of themselves</i>; yet, if the self-moving
+part of Matter, which I call Rational, makes Imaginations,
+they must needs rise of themselves; for the Rational
+part of matter being free and self-moving, depends
+upon nothing, neither Sense nor Object, I mean, so, as
+not to be able to work without them. Next, when
+your Author, defining <i>Understanding</i>, says that it is
+nothing else, but<a name="FNanchor_3_7" id="FNanchor_3_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_7" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>an Imagination raised by words or
+other voluntary signs</i>, My Answer is, that Understanding,
+and so Words and Signs are made by self-moving
+Matter, that is, Sense and Reason, and not Sense and
+Reason by Words and Signs; wherefore Thoughts
+are not like<a name="FNanchor_4_8" id="FNanchor_4_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_8" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>Water upon a plain Table, which is drawn and
+guided by the finger this or that way</i>, for every Part of
+self-moving matter is not alwayes forced, perswaded or
+directed, for if all the Parts of Sense and Reason were ruled
+by force or perswasion, not any wounded Creature
+would fail to be healed, or any disease to be cured by
+outward Applications, for outward Applications to
+Wounds and Diseases might have more force, then any
+Object to the Eye: But though there is great affinity
+and sympathy between parts, yet there is also great difference
+and antipathy betwixt them, which is the cause
+that many objects cannot with all their endeavours
+work such effects upon the Interiour parts, although
+they are closely press'd, for Impressions of objects do
+not always affect those parts they press. Wherefore,
+I am not of your Author's opinion, that all Parts of
+Matter press one another; It is true, <i>Madam</i>, there
+cannot be any part single, but yet this doth not prove,
+that parts must needs press each other: And as for his
+<i>Train of Thoughts</i>, I must confess, that Thoughts for
+the most part are made orderly, but yet they do not
+follow each other like Geese, for surely, man has sometimes
+very different thoughts; as for Example, a man
+sometime is very sad for the death of his Friend, and
+thinks of his own death, and immediately thinks of a
+wanton Mistress, which later thought, surely, the
+thought of Death did not draw in; wherefore, though
+some thought may be the Ring-leader of others, yet
+many are made without leaders. Again, your Author
+in his description of the Mind sayes, that <i>the discourse
+of the mind, when it is govern'd by design, is nothing
+but seeking, or the Faculty of Invention; a hunting
+out of the Causes of some Effects, present or past; or
+of the Effects of some present or past Cause. Sometimes a
+man seeks what he has lost, and from that Place and Time
+wherein he misses it, his mind runs back from place to place,
+and time to time, to find where and when he had it, that
+is to say, to find some certain and limited Time and Place,
+in which to begin a method of Seeking. And from thence
+his thoughts run over the same places and times to find
+what action or other occasion might make him lose it. This
+we call Remembrance or calling to mind. Sometimes a man
+knows a place determinate, within the compass whereof
+he is to seek, and then his thoughts run over all the Parts
+thereof in the same manner as one would sweep a room
+to find a Jewel, or as a Spaniel ranges the field till he find
+a sent; or as a Man should run over the Alphabet to
+start a Rime.</i> Thus far your Author: In which discourse
+I do not perceive that he defineth what the Mind
+is, but I say, that if, according to his opinion, nothing
+moves it self, but one thing moves another, then the
+Mind must do nothing, but move backward and forward,
+nay, onely forward, and if all actions were
+thrusting or pressing of parts, it would be like a crowd
+of People, and there would be but little or no motion,
+for the crowd would make a stoppage, like water in a
+glass, the mouth of the Glass being turned downwards,
+no water can pass out, by reason the numerous drops
+are so closely press'd, as they cannot move exteriously.
+Next, I cannot conceive how the Mind can run back
+either to Time or Place, for as for Place, the mind is inclosed
+in the body, and the running about in the parts
+of the body or brain will not inform it of an Exterior
+place or object; besides, objects being the cause of the
+minds motion, it must return to its Cause, and so move
+until it come to the object, that moved it first, so that
+the mind must run out of the body to that object, which
+moved it to such a Thought, although that object
+were removed out of the World (as the phrase is:) But
+for the mind to move backward, to Time past, is more
+then it can do; Wherefore in my opinion, Remembrance,
+or the like, is onely a repetition of such Figures
+as were like to the Objects; and for Thoughts
+in Particular, they are several figures, made by the
+mind, which is the Rational Part of matter, in its own
+substance, either voluntarily, or by imitation, whereof
+you may see more in my Book of Philosophical Opinions.
+Hence I conclude, that Prudence is nothing
+else, but a comparing of Figures to Figures, and of the
+several actions of those Figures; as repeating former
+Figures, and comparing them to others of the like nature,
+qualities, proprieties, as also chances, fortunes, &amp;c.
+Which figuring and repeating is done actually, in and
+by the Rational Matter, so that all the observation of
+the mind on outward Objects is onely an actual repetition
+of the mind, as moving in such or such figures and
+actions; and when the mind makes voluntary Figures
+with those repeated Figures, and compares them together,
+this comparing is Examination; and when several
+Figures agree and joyn, it is Conclusion or Judgment:
+likewise doth Experience proceed from repeating
+and comparing of several Figures in the Mind, and
+the more several Figures are repeated and compared, the
+greater the experience is. One thing more there is in
+the same Chapter, which I cannot let pass without examination;
+Your Authour says, That <i>things Present
+onely have a being in Nature, things Past onely a being
+in the Memory, but things to come have no being at all</i>;
+Which how it possibly can be, I am not able to conceive;
+for certainly, if nothing in nature is lost or annihilated,
+what is past, and what is to come, hath as well
+a being, as what is present; and, if that which is now, had
+its being before, why may it not also have its being hereafter?
+It might as well be said, that what is once forgot,
+cannot be remembred; for whatsoever is in Nature,
+has as much a being as the Mind, and there is
+not any action, or motion, or figure, in Nature, but
+may be repeated, that is, may return to its former Figure,
+When it is altered and dissolved; But by reason
+Nature delights in variety, repetitions are not so frequently
+made, especially of those things or creatures,
+which are composed by the sensitive corporeal motions
+in the inanimate part of Matter, because they are not so
+easily wrought, as the Rational matter can work upon its
+own parts, being more pliant in its self, then the Inanimate
+matter is; And this is the reason, that there are
+so many repetitions of one and the same Figure in the
+Rational matter, which is the Mind, but seldom any in
+the Gross and inanimate part of Matter, for Nature
+loves ease and freedom: But to conclude, <i>Madam</i>, I
+perceive your Author confines Sense onely to Animal-kind,
+and Reason onely to Man-kind: Truly, it is
+out of self-love, when one Creature prefers his own Excellency
+before another, for nature being endued with
+self-love, all Creatures have self-love too, because they
+are all Parts of Nature; and when Parts agree or disagree,
+it is out of Interest and Self-love; but Man herein
+exceeds all the rest, as having a supernatural Soul, whose
+actions also are supernatural; To which I leave him,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_5" id="Footnote_1_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_5"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_6" id="Footnote_2_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_6"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_7" id="Footnote_3_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_7"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>ibid. c.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_8" id="Footnote_4_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_8"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_IX" id="I_IX">IX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>When your Author discourseth of the use of
+<i>Speech or Words and Names</i>, he is pleas'd to
+say,<a name="FNanchor_1_9" id="FNanchor_1_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_9" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That their use is to serve for marks and
+notes of Remembrance</i>; Whereof to give you my opinion,
+I say, That Speech is natural to the shape of
+Man; and though sometimes it serves for marks or notes
+of remembrance, yet it doth not always, for all other
+Animals have Memory without the help of Speech, and
+so have deaf and dumb men, nay more then those that
+hear and speak: Wherefore, though Words are useful
+to the mind, and so to the memory, yet both can be
+without them, whereas Words cannot be without Memory;
+for take a Bird, and teach him to speak, if he had
+not Memory, before he heard the words, he could never
+learn them. You will ask me, <i>Madam</i>, What then,
+is Memory the Cause of Speech? I answer, Life and
+Knowledg, which is Sense and Reason, as it creates and
+makes all sorts of Creatures, so also amongst the rest it
+makes Words: And as I said before, that Memory
+may be without the help of Speech or Words, so I say
+also, that there is a possibility of reckoning of numbers,
+as also of magnitudes, of swiftness, of force, and other
+things without words, although your Author denies it:
+But some men are so much for Art, as they endeavour
+to make Art, which is onely a Drudgery-maid of Nature,
+the chief Mistress, and Nature her Servant, which
+is as much as to prefer Effects before the Cause, Nature
+before God, Discord before Unity and Concord.</p>
+
+<p>Again, your <i>Author</i>, in his Chapter of Reason,<a name="FNanchor_2_10" id="FNanchor_2_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_10" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+defines <i>Reason</i> to be nothing else but <i>Reckoning</i>: I answer,
+That in my opinion Reckoning is not Reason it
+self, but onely an effect or action of Reason; for Reason,
+as it is the chiefest and purest degree of animate
+matter, works variously and in divers motions, by
+which it produces various and divers effects, which are
+several Perceptions, as Conception, Imagination, Fancy,
+Memory, Remembrance, Understanding, Judgment,
+Knowledg, and all the Passions, with many more:
+Wherefore this Reason is not in one undivided part,
+nor bound to one motion, for it is in every Creature
+more or less, and moves in its own parts variously; and
+in some Creatures, as for example, in some men, it moves
+more variously then in others, which is the cause that
+some men are more dull and stupid, then others; neither
+doth Reason always move in one Creature regularly,
+which is the cause, that some men are mad or foolish:
+And though all men are made by the direction of
+Reason, and endued with Reason, from the first time
+of their birth, yet all have not the like Capacities, Understandings,
+Imaginations, Wits, Fancies, Passions, &amp;c.
+but some more, some less, and some regular, some irregular,
+according to the motions of Reason or Rational
+part of animate matter; and though some rational parts
+may make use of other rational Parts, as one man of another
+mans Conceptions, yet all these parts cannot associate
+together; as for example, all the Material parts
+of several objects, no not their species, cannot enter or
+touch the eye without danger of hurting or loosing it,
+nevertheless the eye makes use of the objects by patterning
+them out, and so doth the rational matter, by taking
+patterns from the sensitive; And thus knowledg or perception
+of objects, both sensitive and rational, is taken
+without the pressure of any other parts; for though
+parts joyn to parts, (for no part can be single) yet this
+joining doth not necessarily infer the pressure of objects
+upon the sensitive organs; Whereof I have already
+discoursed sufficiently heretofore, to which I refer you,
+and rest</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_9" id="Footnote_1_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_9"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_10" id="Footnote_2_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_10"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_X" id="I_X">X.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Understanding</i> says your Author,<a name="FNanchor_1_11" id="FNanchor_1_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_11" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>is nothing
+else but Conception caused by speech, and therefore,
+if speech be peculiar to man, (as, for ought I know, it
+is) then is understanding peculiar to him also.</i> Where he
+confineth Understanding onely to speech and to Mankind;
+But, by his leave, <i>Madam</i>, I surely believe,
+that there is more understanding in Nature, then that,
+which is in speech, for if there were not, I cannot conceive,
+how all the exact forms in Generations could be
+produced, or how there could be such distinct degrees
+of several sorts and kinds of Creatures, or distinctions
+of times and seasons, and so many exact motions and
+figures in Nature: Considering all this, my reason
+perswadeth me, that all Understanding, which is a part
+of Knowledg, is not caused by speech, for all the motions
+of the Celestial Orbs are not made by speech, neither
+is the knowledg or understanding which a man
+hath, when sick, as to know or understand he is sick,
+made by speech, nor by outward objects, especially in
+a disease he never heard, nor saw, nor smelt, nor tasted,
+nor touched; Wherefore all Perception, Sensation,
+Memory, Imagination, Appetite, Understanding,
+and the like, are not made nor caused by outward
+objects, nor by speech. And as for names of things,
+they are but different postures of the figures in our
+mind or thoughts, made by the Rational matter; But
+Reasoning is a comparing of the several figures with
+their several postures and actions in the Mind, which
+joyned with the several words, made by the sensitive motions,
+inform another distinct and separate part, as an
+other man, of their minds conceptions, understanding,
+opinions, and the like.</p>
+
+<p>Concerning Addition and Subtraction, wherein
+your <i>Author</i> sayes Reasoning consists, I grant, that it
+is an act of Reasoning, yet it doth not make Sense or
+Reason, which is Life and Knowledge, but Sense and
+Reason which is self-motion, makes addition and subtraction
+of several Parts of matter; for had matter not
+self-motion, it could not divide nor compose, nor make
+such varieties, without great and lingring retardments,
+if not confusion. Wherefore all, what is made in
+Nature, is made by self-moving matter, which self-moving
+matter doth not at all times move regularly, but
+often irregularly, which causes false Logick, false Arithmetick,
+and the like; and if there be not a certainty
+in these self-motions or actions of Nature, much less in
+Art, which is but a secundary action; and therefore,
+neither speech, words, nor exterior objects cause Understanding
+or Reason. And although many parts of
+the Rational and Sensitive Matter joyned into one, may
+be stronger by their association, and over-power other
+parts that are not so well knit and united, yet these are
+not the less pure; onely these Parts and Motions being
+not equal in several Creatures, make their Knowledge
+and Reason more or less: For, when a man hath more
+Rational Matter well regulated, and so more Wisdom
+then an other, that same man may chance to over-power
+the other, whose Rational Matter is more irregular,
+but yet not so much by strength of the united
+Parts, as by their subtilty; for the Rational Matter
+moving regularly, is more strong with subtilty, then
+the sensitive with force; so that Wisdom is stronger
+then Life, being more pure, and so more active; for in
+my opinion, there is a degree of difference between
+Life and Knowledge, as my Book of <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>
+will inform you.</p>
+
+<p>Again, your <i>Author</i> sayes, <i>That Man doth excel all
+other Animals in this faculty, that when he conceives any
+thing whatsoever, he is apt to enquire the Consequences of
+it, and what effects he can do with it: Besides this</i> (sayes
+he) <i>Man hath an other degree of Excellence, that he
+can by Words reduce the Consequences he finds to General
+Rules called Theoremes or Aphorisms, that is, he can
+reason or reckon not onely in Number, but in all other
+things, whereof one may be added unto, or substracted
+from an other.</i> To which I answer, That according to
+my Reason I cannot perceive, but that all Creatures
+may do as much; but by reason they do it not after the
+same manner or way as Man, Man denies, they can do
+it at all; which is very hard; for what man knows,
+whether Fish do not Know more of the nature of Water,
+and ebbing and flowing, and the saltness of the
+Sea? or whether Birds do not know more of the nature
+and degrees of Air, or the cause of Tempests?
+or whether Worms do not know more of the nature of
+Earth, and how Plants are produced? or Bees of the
+several sorts of juices of Flowers, then Men? And
+whether they do not make there Aphorismes and Theoremes
+by their manner of Intelligence? For, though
+they have not the speech of Man, yet thence doth not
+follow, that they have no Intelligence at all. But the
+Ignorance of Men concerning other Creatures is the
+cause of despising other Creatures, imagining themselves
+as petty Gods in Nature, when as <i>Nature</i> is not capable
+to make one God, much less so many as Mankind;
+and were it not for Mans supernatural Soul, Man would
+not be more Supreme, then other Creatures in Nature,
+<i>But</i> (says your <i>Author</i>) <i>this Priviledge in Man is allay'd
+by another, which is, No living Creature is subject
+to absurdity, but onely Man.</i> Certainly, <i>Madam</i>, I
+believe the contrary, to wit, that all other Creatures do
+as often commit mistakes and absurdities as Man, and if
+it were not to avoid tediousness, I could present sufficient
+proofs to you: Wherefore I think, not onely
+Man but also other Creatures may be Philosophers and
+subject to absurdities as aptly as Men; for Man doth,
+nor cannot truly know the Faculties, and Abilities or
+Actions of all other Creatures, no not of his own
+Kind as Man-Kind, for if he do measure all men by
+himself he will be very much mistaken, for what he
+conceives to be true or wise, an other may conceive to
+be false and foolish. But Man may have one way of
+Knowledge in Philosophy and other Arts, and other
+Creatures another way, and yet other Creatures manner
+or way may be as Intelligible and Instructive to
+each other as Man's, I mean, in those things which
+are Natural. Wherefore I cannot consent to what
+your <i>Author</i> says, <i>That Children are not endued with
+Reason at all, till they have attained to the use of Speech</i>;
+for Reason is in those Creatures which have not Speech,
+witness Horses, especially those which are taught in
+the manage, and many other Animals. And as for the
+weak understanding in Children, I have discoursed
+thereof in my Book of Philosophy; The rest of this
+discourse, lest I tire you too much at once, I shall reserve
+for the next, resting in the mean time,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_11" id="Footnote_1_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_11"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XI" id="I_XI">XI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>Madam,</i></p>
+
+<p>I sent you word in my last, that your <i>Author's</i> opinion
+is, <i>That Children are not endued with Reason at
+all, until they have attained to the use of Speech,</i> in
+the same Chapter<a name="FNanchor_1_12" id="FNanchor_1_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_12" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> he speaks to the same purpose thus:
+<i>Reason is not as Sense and Memory born with us, nor gotten
+by experience onely, as Prudence is, but attained by
+industry.</i> To which I reply onely this, That it might
+as well be said, a Child when new born hath not flesh
+and blood, because by taking in nourishment or food,
+the Child grows to have more flesh and blood; or, that
+a Child is not born with two legs, because he cannot go,
+or with two arms and hands, because he cannot help
+himself; or that he is not born with a tongue, because
+he cannot speak: For although Reason doth not move
+in a Child as in a Man, in Infancy as in Youth, in
+Youth as in Age, yet that doth not prove that Children
+are without Reason, because they cannot run and prate:
+I grant, some other Creatures appear to have more
+Knowledg when new born then others; as for example,
+a young Foal has more knowledg than a young Child,
+because a Child cannot run and play; besides a Foal
+knows his own Dam, and can tell where to take his food,
+as to run and suck his Dam, when as an Infant cannot
+do so, nor all beasts, though most of them can, but
+yet this doth not prove, that a Child hath no reason at
+all; Neither can I perceive that man is a Monopoler of
+all Reason, or Animals of all Sense, but that Sense and
+Reason are in other Creatures as well as in Man and Animals;
+for example, Drugs, as Vegetables and Minerals,
+although they cannot slice, pound or infuse, as
+man can, yet they can work upon man more subtilly,
+wisely, and as sensibly either by purging, vomiting,
+spitting, or any other way, as man by mincing, pounding
+and infusing them, and Vegetables will as wisely
+nourish Men, as Men can nourish Vegetables; Also
+some Vegetables are as malicious and mischievous to
+Man, as Man is to one another, witness Hemlock,
+Nightshade, and many more; and a little Poppy will
+as soon, nay sooner cause a Man to sleep, though silently,
+then a Nurse a Child with singing and rocking; But
+because they do not act in such manner or way as Man,
+Man judgeth them to be without sense and reason; and
+because they do not prate and talk as Man, Man believes
+they have not so much wit as he hath; and because
+they cannot run and go, Man thinks they are not
+industrious; the like for Infants concerning Reason. But
+certainly, it is not local motion or speech that makes
+sense and reason, but sense and reason makes them; neither
+is sense and reason bound onely to the actions of
+Man, but it is free to the actions, forms, figures and
+proprieties of all Creatures; for if none but Man had
+reason, and none but Animals sense, the World could
+not be so exact, and so well in order as it is: but Nature
+is wiser then Man with all his Arts, for these are
+onely produced through the variety of Natures actions,
+and disputes through the superfluous varieties of Mans
+follies or ignorances, not knowing Natures powerful
+life and knowledg: But I wonder, <i>Madam</i>, your <i>Author</i>
+says in this place, <i>That Reason is not born with
+Man</i>, when as in another place,<a name="FNanchor_2_13" id="FNanchor_2_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_13" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> he says, <i>That every
+man brought Philosophy, that is Natural reason with him
+into the World</i>; Which how it agree, I will leave to others
+to judg, and to him to reconcile it, remaining in the
+meantime,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Constant Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_12" id="Footnote_1_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_12"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_13" id="Footnote_2_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_13"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> In his <i>Elements of Philosophy, part.</i> 1.
+<i>c.</i> 1. <i>art.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XII" id="I_XII">XII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>Madam,</i></p>
+
+<p>Two sorts of motions, I find your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_1_14" id="FNanchor_1_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_14" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> doth
+attribute to Animals, <i>viz. Vital and Animal, the
+Vital motions</i>, says he, <i>are begun in Generation,
+and continued without Interruption through their whole life,
+and those are the Course of the Blood, the Pulse, the
+Breathing, Conviction, Nutrition, Excretion, &amp;c. to
+which motions there needs no help of Imaginations; But
+the animal Motions, otherwise called voluntary Motions,
+are to go, to speak, to move any of our limbs, in such
+manner as is first fancied in our minds: And because going,
+speaking, and the like voluntary motions, depend always
+upon a precedent thought of whither, which way, and what,
+it is evident, that the Imagination is the first Internal beginning
+of all voluntary Motion</i>. Thus far your <i>Author</i>.
+Whereof in short I give you my opinion, first concerning
+Vital Motions, that it appears improbable if
+not impossible to me, that Generation should be the
+cause and beginning of Life, because Life must of necessity
+be the cause of Generation, life being the Generator
+of all things, for without life motion could not be,
+and without motion not any thing could be begun, increased,
+perfected, or dissolved. Next, that Imagination
+is not necessary to Vital Motions, it is probable
+it may not, but yet there is required Knowledg, which
+I name Reason; for if there were not Knowledg in all
+Generations or Productions, there could not any distinct
+Creature be made or produced, for then all Generations
+would be confusedly mixt, neither would there be any
+distinct kinds or sorts of Creatures, nor no different Faculties,
+Proprieties, and the like. Thirdly, concerning
+<i>Animal Motions</i>, which your <i>Author</i> names <i>Voluntary
+Motions, as to go, to speak, to move any of our limbs,
+in such manner as is first fancied in our minds, and that they
+depend upon a precedent thought of whither, which way, and
+what, and that Imagination is the first Internal beginning
+of them</i>; I think, by your <i>Authors</i> leave, it doth
+imply a contradiction, to call them Voluntary Motions,
+and yet to say they are caused and depend upon our
+Imagination; for if the Imagination draws them this
+way, or that way, how can they be voluntary motions,
+being in a manner forced and necessitated to move according
+to Fancy or Imagination? But when he goes
+on in the same place and treats of Endeavour, Appetite,
+Desire, Hunger, Thirst, Aversion, Love, Hate, and the
+like, he derives one from the other, and treats well as a
+Moral Philosopher; but whether it be according to the
+truth or probability of Natural Philosophy, I will leave
+to others to judge, for in my opinion Passions and Appetites
+are very different, Appetites being made by the
+motions of the sensitive Life, and Passions, as also Imagination,
+Memory, &amp;c. by the motions of the rational
+Life, which is the cause that Appetites belong more to
+the actions of the Body then the Mind: 'Tis true, the
+Sensitive and Rational self-moving matter doth so much
+resemble each other in their actions, as it is difficult to distinguish
+them. But having treated hereof at large in
+my other Philosophical Work, to cut off repetitions, I
+will refer you to that, and desire you to compare our
+opinions together: But certainly there is so much variety
+in one and the same sort of Passions, and so of Appetites,
+as it cannot be easily express'd. To conclude, I do not
+perceive that your <i>Author</i> tells or expresses what the
+cause is of such or such actions, onely he mentions their
+dependance, which is, as if a man should converse with
+a Nobleman's Friend or Servant, and not know the
+Lord himself. But leaving him for this time, it is sufficient
+to me, that I know your Ladyship, and your Ladyship
+knows me, that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend, and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_14" id="Footnote_1_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_14"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Leviathan, part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 6.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XIII" id="I_XIII">XIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>Madam,</i></p>
+
+<p>Having obey'd your Commands in giving you
+my opinion of the First Part of the Book of
+that famous and learned <i>Author</i> you sent me, I
+would go on; but seeing he treats in his following Parts
+of the Politicks, I was forced to stay my Pen, because of
+these following Reasons. First, That a Woman is not
+imployed in State Affairs, unless an absolute Queen.
+Next, That to study the Politicks, is but loss of Time,
+unless a man were sure to be a Favourite to an absolute
+Prince. Thirdly, That it is but a deceiving Profession,
+and requires more Craft then Wisdom. All which
+considered, I did not read that part of your <i>Author</i>: But
+as for his <i>Natural Philosophy</i>, I will send you my opinion
+so far as I understand it: For what belongs to Art,
+as to Geometry, being no Scholar, I shall not trouble my
+self withal. And so I'l take my leave of you, when I
+have in two or three words answered the Question you
+sent me last, which was, Whether Nature be the Art
+of God, Man the Art of Nature, and a Politick Government
+the Art of Man? To which I answer, 'Tis
+probable it may be so; onely I add this, That Nature
+doth not rule God, nor Man Nature, nor Politick Government
+Man; for the Effect cannot rule the Cause,
+but the Cause doth rule the Effect: Wherefore if men
+do not naturally agree, Art cannot make unity amongst
+them, or associate them into one Politick Body and so
+rule them; But man thinks he governs, when as it is Nature
+that doth it, for as nature doth unite or divide parts
+regularly or irregularly, and moves the several minds of
+men and the several parts of mens bodies, so war is
+made or peace kept: Thus it is not the artificial form
+that governs men in a Politick Government, but a natural
+power, for though natural motion can make artificial
+things, yet artificial things cannot make natural power;
+and we might as well say, nature is governed by
+the art of nature, as to say man is ruled by the art and invention
+of men. The truth is, Man rules an artificial
+Government, and not the Government Man, just
+like as a Watch-maker rules his Watch, and not the
+Watch the Watch-maker. And thus I conclude and
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XIV" id="I_XIV">XIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning the other Book of that learned Author
+<i>Hobbs</i> you sent me, called <i>Elements of Philosophy</i>,
+I shall likewise according to your desire,
+give you my judgment and opinion of it as I have done
+of the former, not that I intend to prejudice him any
+ways thereby, but onely to mark those places wherein
+I seem to dissent from his opinions, which liberty, I
+hope, he will not deny me; And in order to this, I have
+read over the first Chapter of the mentioned Book,
+treating of Philosophy in General, wherein amongst the
+rest, discoursing of the Utility of Natural Philosophy,
+and relating the commodities and benefits which proceed
+from so many arts and sciences, he is pleased to say,<a name="FNanchor_1_15" id="FNanchor_1_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_15" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+that they are <i>injoyed almost by all people of</i> Europe, Asia,
+<i>and some of</i> Africa, <i>onely the Americans, and those
+that live neer the Poles do want them: But why</i>, says he,
+<i>have they sharper wits then these? Have not all men one
+kind of soul, and the same faculties of mind?</i> To which,
+give me leave, <i>Madam</i>, to add, That my opinion is, that
+there is a difference between the Divine and the Natural
+soul of man, and though the natural mind or soul
+is of one kind, yet being made of rational matter, it is
+divideable and composeable, by which division and
+composition, men may have more or less wit, or quicker
+and slower wit; the like for Judgments, Imaginations,
+Fancies, Opinions, &amp;c. For were the natural rational
+mind individeable, all men would have the like degree
+of wit or understanding, all men would be Philosophers
+or fools, which by reason they are not, it proves the
+natural rational mind is divideable and composeable, making
+variations of its own several parts by self-motion;
+for it is not the several outward objects, or forreign instructions,
+that make the variety of the mind; neither
+is wit or ingenuity alike in all men; for some are natural
+Poets, Philosophers, and the like, without learning,
+and some are far more ingenious then others, although
+their breeding is obscure and mean, Neither will learning
+make all men Scholars, for some will continue Dunces
+all their life time; Neither doth much experience make
+all men wise, for some are not any ways advanced in
+their wisdom by much and long experiences; And as
+for Poetry, it is according to the common Proverb; a
+<i>Poet is born, not made</i>; Indeed learning doth rather hurt
+Fancy, for great Scholars are not always good Poets,
+nor all States-men Natural Philosophers, nor all Experienced
+Men Wise Men, nor all Judges Just, nor all
+Divines Pious, nor all Pleaders or Preachers Eloquent,
+nor all Moral Philosophers Vertuous; But all this is
+occasioned by the various Motions of the rational self-moving
+matter, which is the Natural Mind. And
+thus much for the present of the difference of wits and
+faculties of the mind; I add no more, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_15" id="Footnote_1_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_15"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 7.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XV" id="I_XV">XV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>My Discourse for the present shall be of <i>Infinite</i>,
+and the question shall be first <i>Whether several
+Finite parts, how many soever there be, can make an
+Infinite.</i> Your Author says,<a name="FNanchor_1_16" id="FNanchor_1_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_16" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>that several Finite parts
+when they are all put together make a whole Finite</i>; which,
+if his meaning be of a certain determinate number, how
+big soever, of finite parts, I do willingly grant, for all
+what is determinate and limited, is not Infinite but Finite;
+neither is there any such thing, as Whole or All in
+Infinite; but if his meaning be, that no Infinite can be
+made of finite parts, though infinite in number, I deny it;
+Next he says <i>there can be no such thing as One in Infinite,
+because No thing can be said One, except there be another
+to compare it withal</i>; which in my opinion doth not
+follow, for there is but One God, who is Infinite, and
+hath none other to be compared withal, and so there
+may be but one Onely Infinite in Nature, which is
+Matter. But when he says, <i>there cannot be an Infinite
+and Eternal Division</i>, is very true, <i>viz.</i>, in this sense,
+that one single part cannot be actually infinitely divided,
+for the Compositions hinder the Divisions in Nature,
+and the Divisions the Compositions, so that Nature,
+being Matter, cannot be composed so, as not to have
+parts, nor divided so, as that her parts should not be
+composed, but there are nevertheless infinite divided
+parts in Nature, and in this sense there may also be infinite
+divisions, as I have declared in my Book of Philosophy<a name="FNanchor_2_17" id="FNanchor_2_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_17" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>.
+And thus there are Infinite divisions of Infinite
+parts in Nature, but not Infinite actual divisions of
+one single part; But though Infinite is without end, yet
+my discourse of it shall be but short and end here, though
+not my affection, which shall last and continue with the
+life of</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_16" id="Footnote_1_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_16"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Elem. of Philos. c.</i> 7. <i>a.</i> 1 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_17" id="Footnote_2_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_17"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XVI" id="I_XVI">XVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>An <i>Accident</i>, says your <i>Author</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_18" id="FNanchor_1_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_18" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>is nothing else, but
+the manner of our Conception of body, or that Faculty
+of any body, by which it works in us a Conception
+of it self</i>; To which I willingly consent; but yet
+I say, that these qualities cannot be separated from the
+body, for as impossible it is that the essence of Nature
+should be separable from Nature, as impossible is it that
+the various modes or alterations, either of Figures or
+Motions, should be separable from matter or body;
+Wherefore when he goes on, and says,<a name="FNanchor_2_19" id="FNanchor_2_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_19" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>An accident is
+not a body, but in a body, yet not so, as if any thing were
+contained therein, as if for example, redness were in blood
+in the same manner as blood is in a bloody cloth; but as
+magnitude is in that which is great, rest in that which resteth,
+motion in that which is moved</i>; I answer, that in
+my opinion, not any thing in Nature can be without a
+body, and that redness is as well in blood, as blood is in
+a bloody cloth, or any other colour in any thing else; for
+there is no colour without a body, but every colour hath
+as well a body as any thing else, and if Colour be a separable
+accident, I would fain know, how it can be separated
+from a subject, being bodiless, for that which is no
+body is nothing, and nothing cannot be taken away
+from any thing; Wherefore as for natural Colour it
+cannot be taken away from any creature, without the
+parts of its substance or body; and as for artificial Colours,
+when they are taken away, it is a separation of
+two bodies, which joyned together; and if Colour, or
+Hardness, or Softness do change, it is nothing else but
+an alteration of motions and not an annihilation, for all
+changes and alterations remain in the power of Corporeal
+motions, as I have said in other places; for we might
+as well say, life doth not remain in nature, when a body
+turns from an animal to some other figure, as believe that
+those, they name accidents, do not remain in Corporeal
+Motions; Wherefore I am not of your <i>Authors</i> mind,
+when he says,<a name="FNanchor_3_20" id="FNanchor_3_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_20" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> that <i>when a White thing is made black,
+the whiteness perishes</i>; for it cannot perish, although it
+is altered from white to black, being in the power of the
+same matter, to turn it again from black to white, so as
+it may make infinite Repetitions of the same thing; but
+by reason nature takes delight in variety, she seldom uses
+such repetitions; nevertheless that doth not take away
+the Power of self-moving matter, for it doth not,
+and it cannot, are two several things, and the latter
+doth not necessarily follow upon the former; Wherefore
+not any, the least thing, can perish in Nature, for
+if this were possible, the whole body of nature might
+perish also, for if so many Figures and Creatures should
+be annihilated and perish without any supply or new
+Creation, Nature would grow less, and at last become
+nothing; besides it is as difficult for Nature to turn something
+into nothing, as to Create something out of nothing;
+Wherefore as there is no annihilation or perishing
+in Nature, so there is neither any new Creation in
+Nature. But your <i>Author</i> makes a difference between
+bodies and accidents, saying, <i>that bodies are things and
+not generated, but accidents are Generated and not things.</i>
+Truly, <i>Madam</i>, these accidents seem to me
+to be like <i>Van Helmont's</i> Lights, Gases, Blazes and
+Ideas; and Dr <i>More's</i> Immaterial Substances or D�mons,
+onely in this Dr <i>More</i> hath the better, that his
+Immaterial Substances, are beings, which subsist of
+themselves, whereas accidents do not, but their existence
+is in other bodies; But what they call Accidents,
+are in my opinion nothing else but Corporeal Motions,
+and if these accidents be generated, they must needs be
+bodies, for how nothing can be Generated in nature, is
+not conceivable, and yet your <i>Author</i> denies,<a name="FNanchor_4_21" id="FNanchor_4_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_21" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> that
+<i>Accidents are something, namely some part of a natural
+thing</i>; But as for Generations, they are onely various
+actions of self-moving matter, or a variety of Corporeal
+Motions, and so are all Accidents whatsoever, so that
+there is not any thing in nature, that can be made new,
+or destroyed, for whatsoever was and shall be, is in
+nature, though not always in act, yet in power, as in the
+nature and power of Corporeal motions, which is self-moving
+matter, And as there is no new Generation of
+Accidents, so there is neither a new Generation of Motions;
+wherefore when your <i>Author</i> says,<a name="FNanchor_5_22" id="FNanchor_5_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_22" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> <i>That, when
+the hand, being moved, moveth the pen, the motion doth
+not go out of the hand into the pen, for so the writing might
+be continued, though the hand stood still, but a new motion
+is generated in the pen, and is the pens motion</i>: I am of his
+opinion, that the motion doth not go out of the hand
+into the pen, and that the motion of the pen, is the pens
+own motion; but I deny, that after holding the hand a
+little while still, and beginning to write again, a new
+motion of the pen is generated; for it is onely a repetition,
+and not a new generation, for the Hand, Pen
+and Ink, repeat but the same motion or action of
+writing: Besides, Generation is made by Connexion
+or Conjunction of parts, moving by consent to such
+or such Figures, but the motion of the Hand or the
+Pen is always one and the same; wherefore it is but
+the variation and repetition in and of the same motion
+of the Hand, or Pen, which may be continued
+in that manner infinitely, just as the same Corporeal
+Motions can make infinite variations and repetitions
+of one and the same Figure, repeating it as
+oft as they please, as also making Copy of Copy;
+And although I do not deny, but there are Generations
+in Nature, yet not annihilations or perishings,
+for if any one motion or figure should perish, the
+matter must perish also; and if any one part of matter
+can perish, all the matter in nature may perish
+also; and if there can any new thing be made or
+created in nature, which hath not been before, there
+may also be a new Nature, and so by perishings and new
+Creations, this World would not have continued an
+age; But surely whatsoever is in Nature, hath been existent
+always. Wherefore to conclude, it is not the
+generation and perishing of an Accident that makes
+its subject to be changed, but the production and alteration
+of the Form, makes it said to be generated
+or destroyed, for matter will change its motions
+and figures without perishing or annihilating;
+and whether there were words or not, there would
+be such causes and effects; But having not the
+art of Logick to dispute with artificial words, nor
+the art of Geometry to demonstrate my opinions by
+Mathematical Figures, I fear they will not be so
+well received by the Learned; However, I leave
+them to any mans unprejudiced Reason and Judgment,
+and devote my self to your service, as becomes,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_18" id="Footnote_1_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_18"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Elem. of Philos. c.</i> 8. <i>art.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_19" id="Footnote_2_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_19"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_20" id="Footnote_3_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_20"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 20.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_21" id="Footnote_4_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_21"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_22" id="Footnote_5_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_22"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 21.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XVII" id="I_XVII">XVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> concerning Place and Magnitude
+says,<a name="FNanchor_1_23" id="FNanchor_1_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_23" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>, that <i>Place is nothing out of the mind, nor
+Magnitude any thing within it; for Place is a meer
+Phantasme of a body of such quantity and figure, and
+Magnitude a peculiar accident of the body</i>; but this doth
+not well agree with my reason, for I believe that Place,
+Magnitude and Body are but one thing, and that
+Place is as true an extension as Magnitude, and not a
+feigned one; Neither am I of his opinion, <i>that Place
+is Immoveable</i>, but that place moves, according as the
+body moveth, for not any body wants place, because
+place and body is but one thing, and wheresoever is
+body, there is also place, and wheresoever is place, there
+is body, as being one and the same; Wherefore <i>Motion
+cannot be a relinquishing of one place and acquiring another</i>,<a name="FNanchor_2_24" id="FNanchor_2_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_24" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+for there is no such thing as place different from
+body, but what is called change of place, is nothing
+but change of corporeal motions; for, say an house
+stands in such a place, if the house be gone, the place is
+gone also, as being impossible that the place of the house
+should remain, when the house is taken away; like as
+a man when he is gone out of his chamber, his place is
+gone too; 'Tis true, if the ground or foundation do
+yet remain, one may say, there stood such an house heretofore,
+but yet the place of the house is not there really
+at that present, unless the same house be built up again
+as it was before, and then it hath its place as before; Nevertheless
+the house being not there, it cannot be said
+that either place or house are annihilated, <i>viz.</i>, when
+the materials are dissolved, no not when transformed into
+millions of several other figures, for the house remains
+still in the power of all those several parts of matter;
+and as for <i>space</i>, it is onely a distance betwixt some
+parts or bodies; But an <i>Empty place</i> signifies to my opinion
+Nothing, for if place and body are one and the
+same, and empty is as much as nothing; then certainly
+these two words cannot consist together, but are destructive
+to one another. Concerning, that your <i>Author</i>
+says,<a name="FNanchor_3_25" id="FNanchor_3_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_25" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>Two bodies cannot be together in the same place, nor
+one body in two places at the same time</i>, is very true, for
+there are no more places then bodies, nor more bodies
+then places, and this is to be understood as well of
+the grosser, as the purest parts of nature, of the mind
+as well as of the body, of the rational and sensitive animate
+matter as well as of the inanimate, for there is no
+matter, how pure and subtil soever, but is imbodied,
+and all that hath body hath place. Likewise I am of
+his opinion,<a name="FNanchor_4_26" id="FNanchor_4_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_26" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>That one body hath always one and the same
+magnitude</i>; for, in my opinion, magnitude, place and
+body do not differ, and as place, so magnitude can never
+be separated from body. But when he speaks of
+<i>Rest</i>, I cannot believe there is any such thing truly in
+Nature, for it is impossible to prove, that any thing is
+without Motion, either consistent, or composing, or
+dissolving, or transforming motions, or the like, although
+not altogether perceptible by our senses, for all the
+Matter is either moving or moved, and although the
+moved parts are not capable to receive the nature of self-motion
+from the self-moving parts, yet these self-moving
+parts, being joyned and mixt with all other parts of the
+moved matter, do always move the same; for the
+Moved or Inanimate part of Matter, although it is a
+Part of it self, yet it is so intermixt with the self-moving
+Animate Matter, as they make but one Body; and
+though some parts of the Inanimate may be as pure as
+the Sensitive Animate Matter, yet they are never so subtil
+as to be self-moving; Wherefore the Sensitive moves
+in the Inanimate, and the Rational in the Sensitive, but
+often the Rational moves in it self. And, although
+there is no rest in nature, nevertheless Matter could
+have been without Motion, when as it is impossible that
+Matter could be without place or magnitude, no more
+then Variety can be without motion; And thus much
+at this present: I conclude, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_23" id="Footnote_1_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_23"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 8. <i>a.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_24" id="Footnote_2_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_24"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_25" id="Footnote_3_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_25"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_26" id="Footnote_4_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_26"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XVIII" id="I_XVIII">XVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Passing by those Chapters of your <i>Authors</i>, that
+treat of <i>Power and Act, Identy and Difference, Analogisme,
+Angle and Figure, Figures deficient,
+dimension of Circles</i>, and several others, most of which
+belong to art, as to Geometry, and the like; I am come
+to that wherein he discourses of <i>Sense</i> and <i>Animal Motion</i>,
+saying,<a name="FNanchor_1_27" id="FNanchor_1_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_27" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That some Natural bodies have in themselves
+the patterns almost of all things, and others of none
+at all</i>; Whereof my opinion is, that the sensitive and
+rational parts of Matter are the living and knowing parts
+of Nature, and no part of nature can challenge them
+onely to it self, nor no creature can be sure, that sense is
+onely in Animal-kind, and reason in Man-kind; for
+can any one think or believe that Nature is ignorant and
+dead in all her other parts besides Animals? Truly
+this is a very unreasonable opinion; for no man, as wise
+as he thinks himself, nay were all Man-kind joyned into
+one body, yet they are not able to know it, unless
+there were no variety of parts in nature, but onely one
+whole and individeable body, for other Creatures may
+know and perceive as much as Animals, although they
+have not the same Sensitive Organs, nor the same manner
+or way of Perception. Next your <i>Author</i> says,<a name="FNanchor_2_28" id="FNanchor_2_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_28" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+<i>The cause of Sense or Perception consists herein, that the
+first organ of sense is touched and pressed; For when the
+uttermost part of the organ is pressed, it no sooner yields,
+but the part next within it is pressed also, and in this manner
+the pressure or motion is propagated through all the
+parts of the organ to the innermost. And thus also the
+pressure of the uttermost part proceeds from the pressure of
+some more remote body, and so continually, till we come to
+that, from which, as from its fountain, we derive the
+Phantasme or Idea, that is made in us by our sense: And
+this, whatsoever it be, is that we commonly call the object;
+Sense therefore is some Internal motion in the Sentient,
+generated by some Internal motion of the Parts of the object,
+and propagated through all the media to the innermost
+part of the organ. Moreover there being a resistance or
+reaction in the organ, by reason of its internal motion against
+the motion propagated from the object, there is also
+an endeavour in the organ opposite to the endeavour proceeding
+from the object, and when that endeavour inwards
+is the last action in the act of sense, then from the
+reaction a Phantasme or Idea has its being.</i> This is your
+<i>Authors</i> opinion, which if it were so, perception could
+not be effected so suddenly, nay I think the sentient by so
+many pressures in so many perceptions, would at last
+be pressed to death, besides the organs would take a
+great deal of hurt, nay totally be removed out of their
+places, so as the eye would in time be prest into the centre
+of the brain; And if there were any Resistance, Reaction
+or Indeavour in the organ, opposite to the Endeavour
+of the object, there would, in my opinion, be always
+a war between the animal senses and the objects,
+the endeavour of the objects pressing one way, and the
+senses pressing the other way, and if equal in their
+strengths, they would make a stop, and the sensitive organs
+would be very much pained. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, in
+my opinion, it would be like that Custom which formerly
+hath been used at <i>Newcastle</i>, when a man was
+married, the guests divided themselves, behind and
+before the Bridegroom, the one party driving him back,
+the other forwards, so that one time a Bridegroom was
+killed in this fashion; But certainly Nature hath a
+more quick and easie way of giving intelligence and
+knowledg to her Creatures, and doth not use such constraint
+and force in her actions; Neither is sense or sensitive
+perception a meer Phantasme or Idea, but a Corporeal
+action of the sensitive and rational matter, and
+according to the variation of the objects or patterns, and
+the sensitive and rational motions, the perception also is
+various, produced not by external pressure, but by internal
+self-motion, as I have declared heretofore; and
+to prove, that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions
+are the onely cause of perception; I say, if those
+motions in an animal move in another way, and
+not to such perceptions, then that animal can neither
+hear, see, taste, smell nor touch, although all his sensitive
+organs be perfect, as is evident in a man falling into
+a swoon, where all the time he is in a swoon, the pressure
+of the objects is made without any effect; Wherefore,
+as the sensitive and rational corporeal motions
+make all that is in nature; so likewise they make perception,
+as being perception it self, for all self-motion is
+perception, but all perception is not animal perception;
+or after an animal way; and therefore sense cannot decay
+nor die, but what is called a decay or death, is nothing
+else but a change or alteration of those Motions.
+But you will say, <i>Madam</i>, it may be, that one body,
+as an object, leaves the print of its figure, in the next
+adjoyning body, until it comes to the organ of sense, I
+answer that then soft bodies onely must be pressed, and
+the object must be so hard as to make a print, and as for
+rare parts of matter, they are not able to retain a print
+without self-motion; Wherefore it is not probable that
+the parts of air should receive a print, and print the same
+again upon the adjoyning part, until the last part of the
+air print it upon the eye; and that the exterior parts of
+the organ should print upon the interior, till it come to
+the centre of the Brain, without self-motion. Wherefore
+in my opinion, Perception is not caused either by
+the printing of objects, nor by pressures, for pressures
+would make a general stop of all natural motions, especially
+if there were any reaction or resistence of sense;
+but according to my reason, the sensitive and rational
+corporeal motions in one body, pattern out the Figure
+of another body, as of an exterior object, which may be
+done easily without any pressure or reaction; I will not
+say, that there is no pressure or reaction in Nature, but
+pressure and reaction doth not make perception, for the
+sensitive and rational parts of matter make all perception
+and variety of motion, being the most subtil parts of Nature,
+as self-moving, as also divideable, and composeable,
+and alterable in their figurative motions, for this
+Perceptive matter can change its substance into any figure
+whatsoever in nature, as being not bound to one
+constant figure. But having treated hereof before, and
+being to say more of it hereafter, this shall suffice for
+the present, remaining always,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_27" id="Footnote_1_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_27"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>C.</i> 25. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_28" id="Footnote_2_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_28"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XIX" id="I_XIX">XIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>To discourse of the World and Stars, is more then
+I am able to do, wanting the art of Astronomy
+and Geometry; wherefore passing by that Chapter
+of your Author, I am come to that<a name="FNanchor_1_29" id="FNanchor_1_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_29" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> wherein he
+treats of Light, Heat and Colours; and to give you my
+opinion of Light, I say, it is not the light of the Sun,
+that makes an Animal see, for we can see inwardly in
+Dreams without the Suns light, but it is the sensitive
+and rational Motions in the Eye and Brain that make
+such a figure as Light; For if Light did press upon the
+Eye, according to your <i>Authors</i> opinion, it might put
+the Eye into as much pain as Fire doth, when it sticks
+its points into our skin or flesh. The same may be said of
+Colours, for the sensitive motions make such a figure,
+which is such a Colour, and such a Figure, which is
+such a Colour; Wherefore Light, Heat and Colour,
+are not bare and bodiless qualities, but such figures
+made by corporeal self-motions, and are as well real
+and corporeal objects as other figures are; and when
+these figures change or alter, it is onely that their motions
+alter, which may alter and change heat into cold,
+and light into darkness, and black colour into white. But
+by reason the motions of the Sun are so constant, as the
+motions of any other kind of Creatures, it is no more
+subject to be altered then all the World, unless Nature
+did it by the command of God; for though the Parts
+of self-moving Matter be alterable, yet all are not altered;
+and this is the reason, that the figure of Light in our eye
+and brain is altered, as well as it is alterable, but not the real
+figure of the Sun, neither doth the Sun enter our eyes;
+and as the Light of the Sun is made or patterned in the
+eye, so is the light of Glow-worms-tails, and Cats-eyes,
+that shine in the dark, made not by the Sun's, but their
+own motions in their own parts; The like when we
+dream of Light, the sensitive corporeal motions working
+inwardly, make the figure of light on the inside of
+the eye, as they did pattern out the figure of light on the
+outside of the eye when awake, and the objects before
+them; for the sensitive motions of the eye pattern out the
+figure of the object in the eye, and the rational motions
+make the same figure in their own substance. But there
+is some difference between those figures that perceive
+light, and those that are light themselves; for when we
+sleep, there is made the figure of light, but not from a
+copy; but when the eye seeth light, that figure is made
+from a copy of the real figure of the Sun; but those
+lights which are inherent, as in Glow-worms-tails, are
+original lights, in which is as much difference as between
+a Man and his Picture; and as for the swiftness of
+the Motions of light, and the violence of the Motions
+of fire, it is very probable they are so, but they are a certain
+particular kind or sort of swift and violent motions;
+neither will all sorts of swift and violent motions make
+fire or light, as for example the swift and violent Circular
+motion of a Whirlewind neither makes light nor fire;
+Neither is all fire light, nor all light fire, for there is a
+sort of dead fire, as in Spices, Spirits, Oyles, and the
+like; and several sorts of lights, which are not hot, as
+the light which is made in Dreams, as also the inherent
+lights in Glow-worms, Cats-eyes, Fish-bones, and the
+like; all which several fires and lights are made by the
+self-moving matter and motions distinguishable by their
+figures, for those Motions make such a figure for the
+Suns light, such a figure for Glow-worms light, such a
+figure for Cats-eyes light, and so some alteration in every
+sort of light; The same for Fire, onely Fire-light
+is a mixt figure, as partly of the figure of Fire, and partly
+of the figure of Light: Also Colours are made after
+the like manner, <i>viz.</i> so many several Colours, so many
+several Figures; and as these Figures are less or more
+different, so are the Colours.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, <i>Madam</i>, whosoever will study Nature, must
+consider the Figures of every Creature, as well as their
+Motions, and must not make abstractions of Motion
+and Figure from Matter, nor of Matter from Motion
+and Figure, for they are inseparable, as being but one
+thing, <i>viz.</i> Corporeal Figurative Motions; and whosoever
+conceives any of them as abstract, will, in my opinion,
+very much erre; but men are apt to make more
+difficulties and enforcements in nature then nature ever
+knew. But to return to Light: There is no better argument
+to prove that all objects of sight are figured in the
+Eye, by the sensitive, voluntary or self-motions, without
+the pressure of objects, but that not onely the pressure
+of light would hurt the tender Eye, but that the
+eye doth not see all objects according to their Magnitude,
+but sometimes bigger, sometimes less: as for example, when
+the eye looks through a small passage, as a Perspective-glass,
+by reason of the difficulty of seeing a body
+through a small hole, and the double figure of the glass
+being convex and concave, the corporeal motions use
+more force, by which the object is enlarged, like as a
+spark of fire by force is dilated into a great fire, and a
+drop of water by blowing into a bubble; so the corporeal
+motions do double and treble their strength, making
+the Image of the object exceeding large in the eye; for
+though the eye be contracted, yet the Image in the eye
+is enlarged to a great extension; for the sensitive and rational
+matter is extremely subtil, by reason it is extreamly pure,
+by which it hath more means and ways of magnifying
+then the Perspective-glass. But I intend to write
+more of this subject in my next, and so I break off here,
+resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_29" id="Footnote_1_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_29"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 27.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XX" id="I_XX">XX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Some perhaps will question the truth or probability
+of my saying, that Light is a Body, objecting that
+if light were a body, when the Sun is absent or retires
+under our Horizon, its light would leave an empty
+place, or if there were no empty place but all full, the
+light of the Sun at its return would not have room to display
+it self, especially in so great a compass as it doth, for
+two bodies cannot be in one place at one time. I <i>answer</i>,
+all bodies carry their places along with them, for body
+and place go together and are inseparable, and when the
+light of the Sun is gone, darkness succeeds, and when
+darkness is gone, light succeeds, so that it is with light and
+darkness as with all Creatures else; For you cannot believe,
+that if the whole World were removed, there
+would be a place of the world left, for there cannot be
+an empty nothing, no more then there can be an empty
+something; but if the world were annihilated, the place
+would be annihilated too, place and body being one and
+the same thing; and therefore in my opinion, there be
+no more places then there are bodies, nor no more bodies
+then there are places.</p>
+
+<p>Secondly, They will think it absurd that I say, the
+eye can see without light; but in my opinion it seems
+not absurd, but very rational, for we may see in dreams,
+and some do see in the dark, not in their fancy or imagination,
+but really; and as for dreams, the sensitive
+corporeal motions make a light on the inside of the organ
+of sight really, as I have declared in my former Letter.
+But that we do not see ordinarily without exterior
+Light, the reason is, that the sensitive Motions cannot
+find the outward objects to pattern out without exterior
+light, but all perception doth not proceed from light,
+for all other perception besides animal sight requires not
+light. Neither in my opinion, doth the Perception of sight
+in all Creatures but Animals, but yet Animals do often
+see in the dark, and in sleep: I will not say but that the
+animate matter which by self-motion doth make the
+Perception of light with other perceptive Figures, and so
+animal perceptive light may be the presenter or ground
+perceptive figure of sight; yet the sensitive corporeal
+motions can make other figures without the help of
+light, and such as light did never present: But when
+the eye patterns out an exterior object presented by light,
+it patterns also out the object of light; for the sensitive
+motions can make many figures by one act, not onely
+in several organs, but in one organ; as for example,
+there is presented to sight a piece of Imbroydery, wherein
+is silk, silver and gold upon Sattin in several forms or
+figures, as several flowers, the sensitive motions streight
+by one and the same act, pattern out all those several figures
+of flowers, as also the figures of Silk, Silver, Gold
+and Sattin, without any pressure of these objects, or
+motions in the medium, for if they all should press, the
+eye would no more see the exterior objects, then the
+nose, being stopt, could smell a presented perfume.</p>
+
+<p><i>Thirdly</i>, They may ask me, if sight be made in
+the eye, and proceeds not from the outward object, what
+is the reason that we do not see inwardly, but outwardly
+as from us? I answer, when we see objects outwardly,
+as from us, then the sensitive motions work on the outside
+of the organ, which organ being outwardly convex,
+causes us to see outwardly, as from us, but in
+dreams we see inwardly; also the sensitive motions do
+pattern out the distance together with the object: But
+you will say, the body of the distance, as the air, cannot
+be perceived, and yet we can perceive the distance; I
+answer, you could not perceive the distance, but by
+such or such an object as is subject to your sight; for you
+do not see the distance more then the air, or the like rare
+body, that is between grosser objects; for if there
+were no stars, nor planets, nor clouds, nor earth, nor
+water, but onely air, you would not see any space or
+distance; but light being a more visible body then air,
+you might figure the body of air by light, but so, as
+in an extensive or dilating way; for when the mind or
+the rational matter conceives any thing that hath not
+such an exact figure, or is not so perceptible by our senses;
+then the mind uses art, and makes such figures,
+which stand like to that; as for example, to express infinite
+to it self, it dilates it parts without alteration, and
+without limitation or circumference; Likewise, when
+it will conceive a constant succession of Time, it draws
+out its parts into the figure of a line; and if eternity, it
+figures a line without beginning, and end. But as for
+Immaterial, no mind can conceive that, for it cannot put it
+self into nothing, although it can dilate and rarifie it self
+to an higher degree, but must stay within the circle of
+natural bodies, as I within the circle of your Commands,
+to express my self</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and obedient Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXI" id="I_XXI">XXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Heat and Cold, according to your <i>Authors</i> opinion,
+are made by Dilation and Contraction: for
+says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_30" id="FNanchor_1_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_30" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>When the Motion of the ambient �thereal
+substance makes the spirits and fluid parts of our bodies tend
+outwards, we acknowledg heat, but by the indeavour inwards
+of the same spirits and humors we feel cold: so that
+to cool is to make the exterior parts of the body endeavour
+inwards, by a motion contrary to that of calefaction, by which
+the internal parts are called outwards. He therefore that
+would know the cause of Cold, must find by what motion
+the exterior parts of any body endeavour to retire inwards.</i>
+But I desire you to consider, <i>Madam</i>, that there be moist
+Colds, and dry Heats, as well as dry Colds, and moist
+Heats; wherefore all sorts of Cold are not made by the
+retyring of parts inwards, which is contraction or attraction;
+neither are all sorts of Heat made by parts
+tending outwards, which is dilation or rarefaction; for a
+moist cold is made by dilation, and a dry heat by contraction,
+as well as a moist heat is made by dilation, and
+a dry cold by contraction: But your <i>Author</i> makes not
+this difference, but onely a difference between a dilated
+heat, and a contracted cold; but because a cold wind is
+made by breath blown thorow pinched or contracted
+lips, and an hot wind by breath through opened and
+extended lips, should we judg that all heat and cold
+must be made after one manner or way? The contracted
+mouth makes Wind as well as the dilated, but yet
+Wind is not made that way, as heat and cold; for it may
+be, that onely the air pressed together makes wind, or it
+may be that the corporeal motions in the air may change
+air into wind, as they change water into vapour, and vapour
+into air; or it may be something else that is invisible
+and rare, as air; and there may be several sorts of
+wind, air, heat, cold, as of all other Creatures, more
+then man is capable to know. As for your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion concerning the congealing of Water, and how
+Ice is made, I will not contradict it, onely I think nature
+hath an easier way to effect it, then he describes;
+Wherefore my opinion is, that it is done by altering
+motions; as for example, the corporeal motions making
+the figure of water by dilation in a Circle figure,
+onely alter from such a dilating circular figure into a
+contracted square, which is Ice, or into such a contracted
+triangle, as is snow: And thus water and vapour
+may be changed with ease, without any forcing, pressing,
+raking, or the like. The same may be said of
+hard and bent bodies; and of restitution, as also of air,
+thunder and lightning, which are all done by an easie
+change of motion, and changing into such or such a figure
+is not the motion of Generation, which is to build
+a new house with old materials, but onely a Transformation;
+I say a new house with old materials; not that
+I mean there is any new Creation in nature, of any
+thing that was not before in nature; for nature is not
+God, to make new beings out of nothing, but any thing
+may be called new, when it is altered from one figure
+into another. I add no more at this time, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_30" id="Footnote_1_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_30"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>C.</i> 28. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXII" id="I_XXII">XXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>The Generation of sound, according to your worthy
+<i>Authors</i> opinion, is as follows: <i>As Vision,</i>
+says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_31" id="FNanchor_1_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_31" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>so hearing is Generated by the medium, but
+not in the same manner; for sight is from pressure, that
+is, from an endeavour, in which there is no perceptible progression
+of any of the parts of the medium, but one part urging
+or thrusting on another, propagateth that action successively
+to any distance whatsoever; whereas the motion of
+the medium, by which sound is made, is a stroke; for when
+we hear, the drum of the Ear, which is the first organ of
+hearing, is strucken, and the drum being stricken, the</i> Pia
+Mater <i>is also shaken, and with it the arteries inserted into
+it, by which the action propagated to the heart it self, by
+the reaction of the heart a Phantasme is made which we call
+Sound.</i> Thus far your <i>Author</i>: To which give me
+leave to reply, that I fear, if the Ear was bound to hear
+any loud Musick, or another sound a good while, it
+would soundly be beaten, and grow sore and bruised
+with so many strokes; but since a pleasant sound would
+be rendred very unpleasant in this manner, my opinion
+is, that like as in the Eye, so in the Ear the corporeal
+sensitive motions do pattern out as many several figures,
+as sounds are presented to them; but if these motions be
+irregular, then the figure of the sound in the ear is not
+perfect according to the original; for if it be, that the
+motions are tyred with figuring, or the object of sound
+be too far distant from the sensitive organ, then they
+move slowly and weakly, not that they are tyred or weak
+in strength, but with working and repeating one and the
+same object, and so through love to variety, change
+from working regularly to move irregularly, so as not
+to pattern outward objects as they ought, and then there
+are no such patterns made at all, which we call to be
+deaf; and sometimes the sensitive motions do not so readily
+perceive a soft sound near, as a stronger farther off.
+But to prove it is not the outward object of sound with
+its striking or pressing motion, nor the medium, that
+causes this perception of sense, if there be a great solid body,
+as a wall, or any other partition betwixt two rooms,
+parting the object and the sensitive organ, so, as the
+sound is not able to press it, nevertheless the perception
+will be made; And as for pipes to convey sounds, the
+perception is more fixt and perfecter in united then in
+dilated or extended bodies, and then the sensitive motions
+can make perfecter patterns; for the stronger the
+objects are, the more perfect are the figures and patterns
+of the objects, and the more perfect is the perception.
+But when the sound is quite out of the ear, then the
+sensitive motions have altered the patterning of such figures
+to some other action; and when the sound fadeth
+by degrees, then the figure or pattern alters by degrees;
+but for the most part the sensitive corporeal motions alter
+according as the objects are presented, or the perception
+patterns out. Neither do they usually make figures
+of outward objects, if not perceived by the senses,
+unless through Irregularities as in Mad men, which see
+such and such things, when as these things are not neer,
+and then the sensitive motions work by rote, or after
+their own voluntary invention. As for Reflexion, it is
+a double perception, and so a double figure of one object;
+like as many pictures of one man, where some are
+more perfect then others, for a copy of a copy is not so
+perfect as a copy of an original. But the recoyling of
+sound is, that the sensitive motions in the ear begin a new
+pattern, before they dissolved the former, so as there is
+no perfect alteration or change, from making to dissolving,
+but pattern is made upon pattern, which causes a
+confusion of figures, the one being neither perfectly finished,
+nor the other perfectly made. But it is to be
+observed, that not always the sensitive motions in the
+organs take their pattern from the original, but from copies;
+as for example, the sensitive motions in the eye,
+pattern out the figure of an eye in a glass, and so do not
+take a pattern from the original it self, but by an other pattern,
+representing the figure of the eye in a Looking-glass;
+The same doth the Ear, by patterning out Ecchoes,
+which is but a pattern of a pattern; But when as
+a man hears himself speak or make a sound, then the corporeal
+sensitive motions in the Ear, pattern out the object
+or figure made by the motions of the tongue and the
+throat, which is voice; By which we may observe, that
+there may be many figures made by several motions
+from one original; as for example, the figure of a
+word is made in a mans mouth, then the copy of that
+figure is made in the ear, then in the brain, and then
+in the memory, and all this in one Man: Also a word
+being made in a mans mouth, the air takes a copy or
+many copies thereof; but the Ear patterns them both
+out, first the original coming from the mouth, and
+then the copy made in the air, which is called an Eccho,
+and yet not any strikes or touches each others parts, onely
+perceives and patterns out each others figure. Neither
+are their substances the same, although the figures be
+alike; for the figure of a man may be carved in wood,
+then cut in brass, then in stone, and so forth, where the
+figure may be always the same, although the substances
+which do pattern out the figure are several, <i>viz.</i> Wood,
+Brass, Stone, &amp;c. and so likewise may the figure of a
+stone be figured in the fleshy substance of the Eye, or
+the figure of light or colour, and yet the substance of the
+Eye remains full the same; neither doth the substantial
+figure of a stone, or tree, patterned out by the sensitive
+corporeal motions, in the flesh of an animal eye, change
+from being a vegetable or mineral, to an animal, and if
+this cannot be done by nature, much less by art; for if the
+figure of an animal be carved in wood or stone, it doth
+not give the wood or stone any animal knowledg, nor
+an animal substance, as flesh, bones, blood, &amp;c. no
+more doth the patterning or figuring of a Tree give a
+vegetable knowledg, or the substance of wood to the
+eye, for the figure of an outward object doth not alter
+the substance that patterns it out or figures it, but the patterning
+substance doth pattern out the figure, in it self,
+or in its own substance, so as the figure which is pattern'd,
+hath the same life and knowledg with the substance
+by and in which it is figured or pattern'd, and the
+inherent motions of the same substance; and according
+as the sensitive and rational self-moving matter moves,
+so figures are made; and thus we see, that lives, knowledges,
+motions and figures are all material, and all
+Creatures are indued with life, knowledg, motion and
+figure, but not all alike or after the same manner. But
+to conclude this discourse of perception of Sound, the
+Ear may take the object of sound afar off, as well as at a
+near distance; not onely if many figures of the same
+sound be made from that great distance, but if the interposing
+parts be not so thick, close, or many as to hinder
+or obscure the object from the animal Perception in the
+sensitive organ; for if a man lays his Ear near to the
+Ground, the Ear may hear at a far distance, as well as
+the Eye can see, for it may hear the noise of a troop afar
+off, perception being very subtil and active; Also
+there may several Copies be made from the Original,
+and from the last Copy nearest to the Ear, the Ear may
+take a pattern, and so pattern out the noise in the organ,
+without any strokes to the Ear, for the subtil matter
+in all Creatures doth inform and perceive. But
+this is well to be observed, that the figures of objects
+are as soon made, as perceived by the sensitive motions
+in their work of patterning. And this is my Opinion
+concerning the Perception of Sound, which together
+with the rest I leave to your Ladyships and others wiser
+Judgment, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_31" id="Footnote_1_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_31"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 29. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXIII" id="I_XXIII">XXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I perceive by your last, that you cannot well apprehend
+my meaning, when I say that the print or figure
+of a Body Printed or Carved, is not made by
+the motions of the body Printing or Carving it, but by
+the motions of the body or substance Printed or Carved;
+for say you, Doth a piece of Wood carve it self,
+or a black Patch of a Lady cut its own figure by its own
+motions? Before I answer you, <i>Madam</i>, give me
+leave to ask you this question, whether it be the motion
+of the hand, or the Instrument, or both, that print or
+carve such or such a body? Perchance you will say,
+that the motion of the hand moves the Instrument, and
+the Instrument moves the Wood which is to be carved:
+Then I ask, whether the motion that moves the Instrument,
+be the Instruments, or the Hands? Perchance you
+will say the Hands; but I answer, how can it be the
+Hands motion, if it be in the Instrument? You will
+say, perhaps, the motion of the hand is transferred out
+of the hand into the instrument, and so from the instrument
+into the carved figure; but give me leave to ask
+you, was this motion of the hand, that was transferred,
+Corporeal or Incorporeal? If you say, Corporeal,
+then the hand must become less and weak, but if Incorporeal,
+I ask you, how a bodiless motion can have force
+and strength to carve and cut? But put an Impossible
+proposition, as that there is an Immaterial motion, and
+that this Incorporeal motion could be transferred out of
+one body into another; then I ask you, when the hand
+and instrument cease to move, what is become of the
+motion? Perhaps you will say, the motion perishes
+or is annihilated, and when the hand and the instrument
+do move again, to the carving or cutting of the
+figure, then a new Incorporeal Motion is created; Truly
+then there will be a perpetual creation and annihilation
+of Incorporeal motions, that is, of that which naturally
+is nothing; for an Incorporeal being is as much as a natural
+No-thing, for Natural reason cannot know nor
+have naturally any perception or Idea of an Incorporeal
+being: besides, if the motion be Incorporeal, then
+it must needs be a supernatural Spirit, for there is not
+any thing else Immaterial but they, and then it will be
+either an Angel or a Devil, or the Immortal Soul of
+man; but if you say it is the supernatural Soul, truly I
+cannot be perswaded that the supernatural Soul should
+not have any other imployment then to carve or cut
+prints, or figures, or move in the hands, or heels, or
+legs, or arms of a Man; for other animals have the
+same kind of Motions, and then they might have a
+Supernatural Soul as well as Man, which moves in
+them. But if you say, that these transferrable motions
+are material, then every action whereby the hand
+moves to the making or moving of some other body,
+would lessen the number of the motions in the hand, and
+weaken it, so that in the writing of one letter, the hand
+would not be able to write a second letter, at least not
+a third. But I pray, <i>Madam</i>, consider rationally,
+that though the Artificer or Workman be the occasion
+of the motions of the carved body, yet the motions of
+the body that is carved, are they which put themselves
+into such or such a figure, or give themselves such or such
+a print as the Artificer intended; for a Watch, although
+the Artist or Watch-maker be the occasional cause that
+the Watch moves in such or such an artificial figure, as
+the figure of a Watch, yet it is the Watches own motion
+by which it moves; for when you carry the Watch
+about you, certainly the Watch-makers hand is not
+then with it as to move it; or if the motion of the Watch-makers
+hand be transferred into the Watch, then certainly
+the Watch-maker cannot make another Watch,
+unless there be a new creation of new motions made
+in his hands; so that God and Nature would be as much
+troubled and concerned in the making of Watches, as in
+the making of a new World; for God created this
+World in six days, and rested the seventh day, but this
+would be a perpetual Creation; Wherefore I say that
+some things may be Occasional causes of other things,
+but not the Prime or Principal causes; and this distinction
+is very well to be considered, for there are no frequenter
+mistakes then to confound these two different
+causes, which make so many confusions in natural Philosophy;
+and this is the Opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXIV" id="I_XXIV">XXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In answer to your question, What makes Eccho, I
+say, it is that which makes all the effects of Nature,
+<i>viz.</i> self-moving matter; I know, the common opinion
+is, that Eccho is made like as the figure of a Face,
+or the like, in a Looking-glass, and that the Reverberation
+of sound is like the Reflection of sight in a Looking-glass;
+But I am not of that opinion, for both Eccho,
+and that which is called the Reflection in a Looking-glass,
+are made by the self-moving matter, by way of
+patterning and copying out. But then you will ask me,
+whether the glass takes the copy of the face, or the face
+prints its copy on the glass, or whether it be the <i>medium</i>
+of light and air that makes it? I answer, although many
+Learned men say, that as all perception, so also the
+seeing of ones face in a Looking-glass, and Eccho, are
+made by impression and reaction; yet I cannot in my
+simplicity conceive it, how bodies that come not near,
+or touch each other, can make a figure by impression
+and reaction: They say it proceeds from the motions of
+the <i>Medium</i> of light, or air, or both, <i>viz.</i> that the <i>Medium</i>
+is like a long stick with two ends, whereof one
+touches the object, the other the organ of sense, and
+that one end of it moving, the other moves also at the
+same point of Time, by which motions it may make
+many several figures; But I cannot conceive, how this
+motion of pressing forward and backward should make
+so many figures, wherein there is so much variety and
+curiosity. But, say light and air are as one figure,
+and like as a seal do print another body; I answer, if
+any thing could print, yet it is not probable, that so soft
+and rare bodies as light and air, could print such solid
+bodies as glass, nor could air by reverberation make such a
+sound as Eccho. But mistake me not, for, <i>I do not say</i>,
+that the Corporeal motions of light or air, cannot,
+or do not pencil, copie, or pattern out any figure,
+for both light and air are very active in such sorts of
+Motions, but I say, they cannot do it on any other bodies
+but their own. But to cut off tedious and unnecessary
+disputes, I return to the expressing of my own opinion,
+and believe, that the glass in its own substance
+doth figure out the copy of the face, or the like, and
+from that copy the sensitive motions in the eyes take another
+copy, and so the rational from the sensitive; and
+in this manner is made both rational and sensitive perception,
+sight and knowledg. The same with Ecchoes;
+for the air patterns out the copy of the sound, and then
+the sensitive corporeal motions in the ear pattern again
+this copy from the air, and so do make the perception and
+sense of hearing. You may ask me, <i>Madam</i>, if it be so, that
+the glass and the air copy out the figure of the face and
+of sound, whether the Glass may be said to see and the Air
+to speak? I answer, I cannot tell that; for though I say, that
+the air repeats the words, and the glass represents the face,
+yet I cannot guess what their perceptions are, onely this
+I may say, that the air hath an elemental, and the glass
+a mineral, but not an animal perception. But if these
+figures were made by the pressures of several objects or
+parts, and by reaction, there could not be such variety
+as there is, for they could but act by one sort of motion:
+Likewise is it improbable, that sounds, words or voices,
+should like a company of Wild-Geese fly in the air,
+and so enter into the ears of the hearers, as they into
+their nests: Neither can I conceive, how in this manner
+a word can enter so many ears, that is, be divided
+into every ear, and yet strike every ear with an undivided
+vocal sound; You will say, as a small fire doth
+heat and warm all those that stand by; for the heat issues
+from the fire, as the light from the Sun. I answer, all
+what issues and hath motion, hath a Body, and yet
+most learned men deny that sound, light and heat have
+bodies: But if they grant of light that it has a body, they
+say it moves and presses the air, and the air the eye, and
+so of heat; which if so, then the air must not move to
+any other motion but light, and onely to one sort of
+light, as the Suns light; for if it did move in any other
+motion, it would disturb the light; for if a Bird did but
+fly in the air, it would give all the region of air another
+motion, and so put out, or alter the light, or at
+least disturb it; and wind would make a great disturbance
+in it. Besides, if one body did give another body
+motion, it must needs give it also substance, for motion
+is either something or nothing, body or no body,
+substance or no substance; if nothing, it cannot enter
+into another body; if something, it must lessen the bulk
+of the body it quits, and increase the bulk of the body it
+enters, and so the Sun and Fire with giving light and
+heat, would become less, for they cannot both give and
+keep at once, for this is as impossible, as for a man to
+give to another creature his human Nature, and yet to
+keep it still. Wherefore my opinion is for heat, that
+when many men stand round about a fire, and are heated
+and warmed by it, the fire doth not give them any
+thing, nor do they receive something from the fire, but
+the sensitive motions in their bodies pattern out the object
+of the fires heat, and so they become more or less
+hot according as their patterns are numerous or perfect;
+And as for air, it patterns out the light of the Sun, and
+the sensitive motions in the eyes of animals pattern out
+the light in the air. The like for Ecchoes, or any other
+sound, and for the figures which are presented in a
+Looking-glass. And thus millions of parts or creatures
+may make patterns of one or more objects, and the
+objects neither give nor loose any thing. And this I
+repeat here, that my meaning of Perception may be the
+better understood, which is the desire of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXV" id="I_XXV">XXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM</i></p>
+
+<p>I perceive you are not fully satisfied with my former
+Letter concerning Eccho, and a figure presented in a
+Looking-glass; for you say, how is it possible, if
+Eccho consists in the ears patterning out of a voice or
+sound, but that it will make a confusion in all the parts of
+the air? My answer is, that I doe not say that Eccho is
+onely made by the patterning out of the voice or sound,
+but by repeating the same voice or sound, which repetition
+is named an Eccho, for millions of ears in animals may
+pattern out a voice or words, and yet never repeat them,
+and so may millions of parts of the air; wherefore Eccho
+doth not consist in the bare patterning out, but in
+the repetition of the same sound or words, which are
+pattern'd out; and so some parts of the air may at one
+and the same time pattern out a sound and not repeat
+it, and some may both pattern out, and repeat it,
+but some may neither pattern out, nor repeat it, and therefore
+the Repetition, not the bare Patterning out is called
+Eccho: Just as when two or more men do answer or mock
+each other, and repeat each others words, it is not necessary,
+if there were a thousand standers by, that they
+should all do the same. And as for the figure presented
+in a Looking-glass, I cannot conceive it to be made by
+pressure and reaction; for although there is both pressure
+and reaction in nature, and those very frequent amongst
+natures Parts, yet they do neither make perception
+nor production, although both pressure and reaction
+are made by corporeal self-motions; Wherefore the
+figure presented in a Looking-glass, or any other smooth
+glassie body, is, in my opinion, onely made by the motions
+of the Looking-glass, which do both pattern out,
+and present the figure of an external object in the Glass:
+But you will say, why do not the motions of other bodies
+pattern out, and present the figures of external objects,
+as well as smooth glassie bodies do? I answer, they
+may pattern out external objects, for any thing I know;
+but the reason that their figures are not presented to our
+eyes, lies partly in the presenting subject it self, partly
+in our sight; for it is observed, that two things are
+chiefly required in a subject that will present the figure of
+an external object; first it must be smooth, even and
+glassie, next it must not be transparent: the first is manifest
+by experience; for the subject being rough and
+uneven, will never be able to present such a figure; as
+for example, A piece of steel rough and unpolished, although
+it may perhaps pattern out the figure of an external
+object, yet it will never present its figure, but as soon
+as it is polished, and made smooth and glassie, the figure
+is presently perceived. But this is to be observed,
+that smooth and glassie bodies do not always pattern out
+exterior objects exactly, but some better, some worse;
+like as Painters have not all the same ingenuity; neither
+do all eyes pattern out all objects exactly; which
+proves that the perception of sight is not made by pressure
+and reaction, otherwise there would be no difference,
+but all eyes would see alike. Next I say, it is
+observed, that the subject which will present the figure
+of an external object, must not be transparent; the reason
+is, that the figure of Light being a substance of a
+piercing and penetrating quality, hath more force on
+transparent, then on other solid dark bodies, and so
+disturbs the figure of an external object pattern'd out
+in a transparent body, and quite over-masters it. But
+you will say, you have found by experience, that if
+you hold a burning Candle before a Transparent-glass,
+although it be in an open Sun-light, yet the figure
+of light and flame of the Candle will clearly be
+seen in the Glass. I answer, that it is an other thing with
+the figure of Candle-light, then of a duskish or dark
+body; for a Candle-light, though it is not of the same
+sort as the Suns light, yet it is of the same nature and quality,
+and therefore the Candle-light doth resist and oppose
+the light of the Sun, so that it cannot have so much
+power over it, as over the figures of other bodies patterned
+out and presented in Transparent-glass. Lastly,
+I say, that the fault oftentimes lies in the perceptive motions
+of our sight, which is evident by a plain and Concave-glass;
+for in a plain Looking-glass, the further
+you go from it, the more your figure presented in the
+glass seems to draw backward; and in a Concave-glass,
+the nearer you go to it, the more seems your figure to
+come forth: which effects are like as an house or tree
+appears to a Traveller; for, as the man moves from the
+house or tree, so the house or tree seems to move from
+the man; or like one that sails upon a Ship, who imagines
+that the Ship stands still, and the Land moves;
+when as yet it is the Man and the Ship that moves, and
+not the House, or Tree, or the Land; so when a Man
+turns round in a quick motion, or when his head is dizzie,
+he imagines the room or place, where he is, turns round.
+Wherefore it is the Inherent Perceptive motions in the
+Eye, and not the motions in the Looking-glass, which
+cause these effects. And as for several figures that are
+presented in one glass, it is absurd to imagine that so
+many several figures made by so many several motions
+should touch the eye; certainly this would make such a
+disturbance, if all figures were to enter or but to touch
+the eye, as the eye would not perceive any of them, at
+lead not distinctly; Wherefore it is most probable that
+the glass patterns out those figures, and the sensitive corporeal
+motions in the eye take again a pattern from
+those figures patterned out by the glass, and so make
+copies of copies; but the reason why several figures
+are presented in one glass in several places, is, that
+two perfect figures cannot be in one point, nor made
+by one motion, but by several corporeal motions.
+Concerning a Looking-glass, made in the form or
+shape of a Cylinder, why it represents the figure of
+an external object in an other shape and posture then
+the object is, the cause is the shape and form of the
+Glass, and not the patterning motions in the Glass. But
+this discourse belongs properly to the Opticks, wherefore
+I will leave it to those that are versed in that Art, to
+enquire and search more after the rational truth thereof.
+In the mean time, my opinion is, that though the object
+is the occasion of the figure presented in a Looking-glass,
+yet the figure is made by the motions of the glass
+or body that presents it, and that the figure of the glass
+perhaps may be patterned out as much by the motions
+of the object in its own substance, as the figure of the
+object is patterned out and presented by the motions of
+the glass in its own body or substance. And thus I conclude
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXVI" id="I_XXVI">XXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since I mentioned in my last that Light did disturb
+the figures of External objects presented in Transparent
+bodies; you were pleased to ask, Whether
+light doth penetrate transparent bodies? I answer,
+for anything I know, it may; for when I consider the
+subtil, piercing and penetrating nature of light, I believe
+it doth; but again, when I consider that light is
+presented to our sight by transparent bodies onely, and
+not by duskish and dark bodies, and yet that those
+duskish bodies are more porous then the transparent bodies,
+so that the light hath more passage to pass through
+them, then through transparent bodies; but that on the
+contrary, those dark bodies, as Wood, and the like, do
+quite obscure the light, when as transparent bodies, as
+Glass, &amp;c. transmit it, I am half perswaded that the
+transparent bodies, as Glass, rather present the Light by
+patterning it out, then by giving it passage: Also I
+am of a mind, that the air in a room may pattern out the
+Light from the Glass, for the Light in a room doth not
+appear so clear as in the Glass; also if the Glass be any
+way defective, it doth not present the Light so perfectly,
+whereas, if it were the penetration of light through
+the glass, the light would pass through all sorts of glass
+alike, which it doth not, but is more clearly seen through
+some, and more obscurely through others, according
+to the goodness or purity of the glass. But you may say,
+that the light divulges the imperfection or goodness of
+the glass; I answer, so it doth of any other objects perceived
+by our sight; for light is the presenter of objects
+to the sense and perception of sight, and for any thing
+I know, the corporeal optick motions make the figure of
+light, the ground figure of all other figures patterned out
+by the corporeal optick motions, as in dreams, or when
+as some do see in the dark, that is, without the help of
+exterior light. But you may say, That if the glass and the
+air in a room did pattern out the figure of light, those
+patterns of light would remain when light is absent: I
+answer, That is not usual in nature; for when the object
+removes, the Pattern alters; I will not say but that the
+corporeal optick motions may work by rote without objects,
+but that is irregular, as in some distempers. And
+thus, <i>Madam</i>, I have given you my opinion also to
+this your question; if you have any more scruples, I
+pray let me know of them, and assure your self that I
+shall be ready upon all occasions to express my self,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXVII" id="I_XXVII">XXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your desire is to know, why sound is louder in a
+Vault, and in a large Room then in a less? I answer,
+A Vault or arched Figure is the freest from
+obstruction, as being without corners and points, so as
+the sensitive and rational corporeal motions of the Ear
+can have a better perception; like as the Eye can see
+farthest from a hill then being upon a level ground,
+because the prospect is freer from the hill, as without
+obstruction, unless it be so cloudy that the clouds do hinder
+the perception; And as the eye can have a better
+prospect upon a hill, so the ear a stronger perception
+in a Vault; And as for sound, that it is better perceived
+in a large, then in a little close room or place, it is
+somewhat like the perception of sent, for the more the
+odorous parts are bruised, the stronger is that perception
+of sent, as being repeated double or treble, which makes
+the perception stronger, like as a thick body is stronger
+then a thin one; So likewise the perception of sound
+in the air; for though not all the parts of the air make
+repetitions, yet some or many make patterns of the
+sound; the truth is, Air is as industrious to divulge
+or present a sound, by patterns to the Ear, as light
+doth objects to the Eye. But then you may ask
+me, Why a long hollow pipe doth convey a voice to
+the ear more readily, then any large and open place?
+My answer is, That the Parts of the air in a long pipe
+are more Composed and not at liberty to wander, so
+that upon necessity they must move onely to the patterning
+out of the sound, having no choice, which
+makes the sound much stronger, and the perception of
+the Ear perfecter; But as for Pipes, Vaults, Prospects,
+as also figures presented in a room through a little
+hole, inverted, and many the like, belongs more to
+Artists then to my study, for though Natural Philosophy
+gives or points out the Ground, and shews the
+reason, yet it is the Artist that Works; Besides it
+is more proper for Mathematicians to discourse of, which
+study I am not versed in; and so leaving it to them,
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXVIII" id="I_XXVIII">XXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>From Sound I am come to Sent, in the discourse
+whereof, your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_1_32" id="FNanchor_1_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_32" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> is pleased to set down these
+following propositions: 1. <i>That smelling is hindred
+by cold and helped by heat</i>: 2. <i>That when the Wind
+bloweth from the object, the smell is the stronger, and when it
+blows from the sentient towards the object, the weaker,
+which by experience is found in dogs, that follow the track
+of beasts by the Sent</i>: 3. <i>That such bodies as are last
+pervious to the fluid medium, yield less smell then such as
+are more pervious</i>: 4. <i>That such bodies as are of their
+own nature odorous, become yet more odorous, when they are
+bruised</i>: 5. <i>That when the breath is stopped (at least in
+man) nothing can be smelt</i>: 6. <i>That the Sense of smelling
+is also taken away by the stopping of the nostrils,
+though the mouth be left open.</i> To begin from the last,
+I say, that the nose is like the other sensitive organs,
+which if they be stopt, the corporeal sensitive motions
+cannot take copies of the exterior objects, and therefore
+must alter their action of patterning to some other, for
+when the eye is shut and cannot perceive outward objects
+then it works to the Sense of Touch, or on the
+inside of the organ to some phantasmes; and so do the
+rest of the Senses. As for the stopping of breath,
+why it hinders the Sent, the cause is, that the nostrils
+and the mouth are the chief organs, to receive air and
+to let out breath: but though they be common passages
+for air and breath, yet taste is onely made in the mouth
+and tongue, and sent in the nose; not by the pressure of
+meat, and the odoriferous object, but by patterning
+out the several figures or objects of sent and taste, for
+the nose and the mouth will smell and taste one, nay several
+things at the same time, like as the eye will see light,
+colour, and other objects at once, which I think can
+hardly be done by pressures; and the reason is, that the
+sensitive motions in the sensitive organs make patterns of
+several objects at one time, which is the cause, that when
+flowers, and such like odoriferous bodies are bruised,
+there are as many figures made as there are parts bruised
+or divided, and by reason of so many figures the sensitive
+knowledg is stronger; but that stones, minerals, and
+the like, seem not so strong to our smell, the reason is,
+that their parts being close and united, the sensitive motions
+in the organ cannot so readily perceive and pattern
+them out, as those bodies which are more porous and
+divided. But as for the wind blowing the sent either to
+or from the sentient, it is like a window or door that by
+the motion of opening and shutting, hinders or disturbeth
+the sight; for bodies coming between the object
+and the organ, make a stop of that perception. And as
+for the Dogs smelling out the track of Beasts, the cause
+is, that the earth or ground hath taken a copy of that
+sent, which copy the sensitive motions in the nose of
+the Dog do pattern out, and so long as that figure
+or copy lasts, the Dog perceives the sent, but if he
+doth not follow or hunt readily, then there is either
+no perfect copy made by the ground, or otherwise
+he cannot find it, which causes him to seek and smell
+about until he hath it; and thus smell is not made
+by the motion of the air, but by the figuring motions
+in the nose: Where it is also to be observed,
+that not onely the motions in one, but in millions of
+noses, may pattern out one little object at one time,
+and therefore it is not, that the object of sent fills a
+room by sending out the sent from its substance, but
+that so many figures are made of that object of sent
+by so many several sensitive motions, which pattern
+the same out; and so the air, or ground, or any other
+creature, whose sensitive motions pattern out
+the object of sent, may perceive the same, although
+their sensitive organs are not like to those of animal
+Creatures; for if there be but such sensitive motions
+and perceptions, it is no matter for such organs.
+Lastly, it is to be observed, That all Creatures have
+not the same strength of smelling, but some smell
+stronger, some weaker, according to the disposition
+of their sensitive motions: Also there be other parts
+in the body, which pattern out the object of sent,
+besides the nose, but those are interior parts, and
+take their patterns from the nose as the organ properly
+designed for it; neither is their resentment the
+same, because their motions are not alike, for the
+stomack may perceive and pattern out a sent with aversion,
+when the nose may pattern it out with pleasure.
+And thus much also of Sent; I conclude and
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_32" id="Footnote_1_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_32"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 29. <i>art.</i> 12.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXIX" id="I_XXIX">XXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning your Learned Authors discourse of
+Density and Rarity, he defines<a name="FNanchor_1_33" id="FNanchor_1_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_33" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Thick to be that,
+which takes up more parts of a space given; and
+thin, which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude:
+not that there is more matter in one place then in an other
+equal place, but a greater quantity of some named body;
+wherefore the multitude and paucity of the parts contained
+within the same space do constitute density and rarity.</i>
+Whereof my opinion is, That there is no more nor less
+space or place then body according to its dilation or
+contraction, and that space and place are dilated and
+contracted with the body, according to the magnitude
+of the body, for body, place and magnitude are
+the same thing, only place is in regard of the several
+parts of the body, and there is as well space betwixt
+things distant a hairs breadth from one another, as betwixt
+things distant a million of miles, but yet this space is
+nothing from the body; but it makes, that that body
+has not the same place with this body, that is, that this
+body is not that body, and that this bodies place is not
+that bodies place. Next your <i>Author</i> sayes,<a name="FNanchor_2_34" id="FNanchor_2_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_34" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>He
+hath already clearly enough demonstrated, that there
+can be no beginning of motion, but from an external and
+moved body, and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards
+cannot be cast down again, but by external motion.</i>
+Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I will not speak of your <i>Authors</i> demonstrations,
+for it is done most by art, which I have
+no knowledg in, but I think I have probably declared,
+that all the actions of nature are not forced by one
+part, driving, pressing, or shoving another, as a man
+doth a wheel-barrow, or a whip a horse; nor by reactions,
+as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs, or as men
+with carts meeting each other in a narrow lane. But
+to prove there is no self-motion in nature, he goes on
+and says; <i>To attribute to created bodies the power to
+move themselves, what is it else, then to say that there be
+creatures which have no dependance upon the Creator?</i>
+To which I answer, That if man (who is but a single
+part of nature) hath given him by God the power and
+a free will of moving himself, why should not God
+give it to Nature? Neither can I see, how it can take
+off the dependance upon God, more then Eternity; for,
+if there be an Eternal Creator, there is also an Eternal
+Creature, and if an Eternal Master, an Eternal Servant,
+which is Nature; and yet Nature is subject to
+Gods Command, and depends upon him; and if all
+Gods Attributes be Infinite, then his Bounty is Infinite
+also, which cannot be exercised but by an Infinite Gift,
+but a Gift doth not cause a less dependance. I do not
+say, That man hath an absolute Free-will, or power
+to move, according to his desire; for it is not conceived,
+that a part can have an absolute power: nevertheless
+his motion both of body and mind is a free and self-motion,
+and such a self-motion hath every thing in
+Nature according to its figure or shape; for motion and
+figure, being inherent in matter, matter moves figuratively.
+Yet do I not say, That there is no hindrance,
+obstruction and opposition in nature; but as there is
+no particular Creature, that hath an absolute power of
+self-moving; so that Creature which hath the advantage
+of strength, subtilty, or policy, shape, or figure,
+and the like, may oppose and over-power another
+which is inferior to it, in all this; yet this hinderance
+and opposition doth not take away self-motion. But I
+perceive your <i>Author</i> is much for necessitation, and against
+free-will, which I leave to Moral Philosophers
+and Divines. And as for the ascending of light, and
+descending of heavy bodies, there may be many causes,
+but these four are perceiveable by our senses, as bulk,
+or quantity of body, grossness of substance, density,
+and shape or figure, which make heavy bodies descend:
+But little quantity, purity of substance, rarity, and figure
+or shape make light bodies ascend. Wherefore I
+cannot believe, that there are<a name="FNanchor_3_35" id="FNanchor_3_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_35" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>certain little bodies as atoms,
+and by reason of their smallness, invisible, differing
+from one another in consistence, figure, motion and magnitude,
+intermingled with the air</i>, which should be the
+cause of the descending of heavy bodies. And concerning
+air,<a name="FNanchor_4_36" id="FNanchor_4_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_36" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>whether it be subject to our senses or not</i>, I say,
+that if air be neither hot, nor cold, it is not subject; but
+if it be, the sensitive motions will soon pattern it out, and
+declare it. I'le conclude with your <i>Authors</i> question,<a name="FNanchor_5_37" id="FNanchor_5_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_37" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
+<i>What the cause is, that a man doth not feel the weight of Water
+in Water?</i> and answer, it is the dilating nature of Water.
+But of this question and of Water I shall treat
+more fully hereafter, and so I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_33" id="Footnote_1_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_33"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>C.</i> 30. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_34" id="Footnote_2_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_34"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_35" id="Footnote_3_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_35"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_36" id="Footnote_4_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_36"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_37" id="Footnote_5_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_37"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 6.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXX" id="I_XXX">XXX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am reading now the works of that Famous and
+most Renowned <i>Author, Des Cartes,</i> out of which
+I intend to pick out onely those discourses which I
+like best, and not to examine his opinions, as they go
+along from the beginning to the end of his books; And
+in order to this, I have chosen in the first place, his discourse
+of motion, and do not assent to his opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_38" id="FNanchor_1_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_38" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+when he defines <i>Motion to be onely a Mode of a thing,
+and not the thing or body it selfe</i>; for, in my opinion,
+there can be no abstraction made of motion from body,
+neither really, nor in the manner of our conception, for
+how can I conceive that which is not, nor cannot be
+in nature, that is, to conceive motion without body?
+Wherefore Motion is but one thing with body, without
+any separation or abstraction soever. Neither doth
+it agree with my reason, that<a name="FNanchor_2_39" id="FNanchor_2_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_39" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>one body can give or transferr
+motion into another body; and as much motion it gives
+or transferrs into that body, as much loses it: As for example,
+in two hard bodies thrown against one another,
+where one, that is thrown with greater force, takes the
+other along with it, and loses as much motion as it gives it.</i>
+For how can motion, being no substance, but onely a
+mode, quit one body, and pass into another? One
+body may either occasion, or imitate anothers motion,
+but it can neither give nor take away what belongs to its
+own or another bodies substance, no more then matter
+can quit its nature from being matter; and therefore
+my opinion is, that if motion doth go out of one body
+into another, then substance goes too; for motion, and
+substance or body, as afore-mentioned, are all one
+thing, and then all bodies that receive motion from other
+bodies, must needs increase in their substance and
+quantity, and those bodies which impart or transferr motion,
+must decrease as much as they increase: Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, that neither Motion nor Figure should subsist
+by themselves, and yet be transferable into other
+bodies, is very strange, and as much as to prove them
+to be nothing, and yet to say they are something. The
+like may be said of all others, which they call accidents,
+as skill, learning, knowledge, &amp;c. saying, they are
+no bodies, because they have no extension, but inherent
+in bodies or substances as in their subjects; for although
+the body may subsist without them, yet they being always
+with the body, body and they are all one thing:
+And so is power and body, for body cannot quit power,
+nor power the body, being all one thing. But to return
+to Motion, my opinion is, That all matter is partly
+animate, and partly inanimate, and all matter is moving
+and moved, and that there is no part of Nature
+that hath not life and knowledg, for there is no Part that
+has not a comixture of animate and inanimate matter;
+and though the inanimate matter has no motion, nor
+life and knowledg of it self, as the animate has, nevertheless
+being both so closely joyned and commixed as in
+one body, the inanimate moves as well as the animate,
+although not in the same manner; for the animate
+moves of it self, and the inanimate moves by the help of
+the animate, and thus the animate is moving and the
+inanimate moved; not that the animate matter transfers,
+infuses, or communicates its own motion to the
+inanimate; for this is impossible, by reason it cannot
+part with its own nature, nor alter the nature of inanimate
+matter, but each retains its own nature; for the
+inanimate matter remains inanimate, that is, without
+self-motion, and the animate loses nothing of its self-motion,
+which otherwise it would, if it should impart
+or transferr its motion into the inanimate matter; but
+onely as I said heretofore, the inanimate works or moves
+with the animate, because of their close union and commixture;
+for the animate forces or causes the inanimate
+matter to work with her; and thus one is moving, the
+other moved, and consequently there is life and knowledg
+in all parts of nature, by reason in all parts of nature
+there is a commixture of animate and inanimate
+matter: and this Life and Knowledg is sense and reason,
+or sensitive and rational corporeal motions, which are all
+one thing with animate matter without any distinction
+or abstraction, and can no more quit matter, then matter
+can quit motion. Wherefore every creature being
+composed of this commixture of animate and inanimate
+matter, has also selfe-motion, that is life and knowledg,
+sense and reason, so that no part hath need to give or
+receive motion to or from another part; although it
+may be an occasion of such a manner of motion to another
+part, and cause it to move thus or thus: as for
+example, A Watch-maker doth not give the watch its
+motion, but he is onely the occasion, that the watch
+moves after that manner, for the motion of the watch
+is the watches own motion, inherent in those parts ever
+since that matter was, and if the watch ceases to move
+after such a manner or way, that manner or way of motion
+is never the less in those parts of matter, the watch
+is made of, and if several other figures should be made
+of that matter, the power of moving in the said manner
+or mode, would yet still remain in all those parts of
+matter as long as they are body, and have motion in
+them. Wherefore one body may occasion another
+body to move so or so, but not give it any motion, but
+every body (though occasioned by another, to move
+in such a way) moves by its own natural motion; for
+self-motion is the very nature of animate matter, and is
+as much in hard, as in fluid bodies, although your
+<i>Author</i> denies it, saying,<a name="FNanchor_3_40" id="FNanchor_3_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_40" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>The nature of fluid bodies consists
+in the motion of those little insensible parts into which
+they are divided, and the nature of hard bodies, when those
+little particles joyned closely together, do rest</i>; for there
+is no rest in nature; wherefore if there were a World of
+Gold, and a World of Air, I do verily believe, that
+the World of Gold would be as much interiously active,
+as the World of Air exteriously; for Natures motions
+are not all external or perceptible by our senses, neither
+are they all circular, or onely of one sort, but there is
+an infinite change and variety of motions; for though
+I say in my Philosophical opinions,<a name="FNanchor_4_41" id="FNanchor_4_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_41" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>As there is but one
+onely Matter, so there is but one onely Motion</i>; yet I do
+not mean, there is but one particular sort of motions, as
+either circular, or straight, or the like, but that the nature
+of motion is one and the same, simple and intire in
+it self, that is, it is meer motion, or nothing else but
+corporeal motion; and that as there are infinite divisions
+or parts of matter, so there are infinite changes and
+varieties of motions, which is the reason that I call motion
+as well infinite as matter; first that matter and motion
+are but one thing, and if matter be infinite, motion
+must be so too; and secondly, that motion is infinite in
+its changes and variations, as matter is in its parts. And
+thus much of motion for this time; I add no more, but
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_38" id="Footnote_1_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_38"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Philos. p.</i> 2. <i>Art.</i> 25.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_39" id="Footnote_2_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_39"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 40.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_40" id="Footnote_3_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_40"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Philos. part.</i> 2. <i>a.</i> 54.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_41" id="Footnote_4_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_41"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXI" id="I_XXXI">XXXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I observe your <i>Author</i> in his discourse of Place
+makes a difference<a name="FNanchor_1_42" id="FNanchor_1_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_42" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> betwixt an <i>Interior and Exterior
+place</i>, and that according to this distinction, <i>one
+body may be said to change, and not to change its place at
+the same time, and that one body may succeed into anothers
+place</i>. But I am not of this opinion, for I believe
+not that there is any more place then body; as for example,
+Water being mix'd with Earth, the water doth
+not take the Earths place, but as their parts intermix,
+so do their places, and as their parts change, so do their
+places, so that there is no more place, then there is water
+and earth; the same may be said of Air and Water,
+or Air and Earth, or did they all mix together; for as
+their bodies join, so do their places, and as they are
+separated from each other, so are their places. Say a
+man travels a hundred miles, and so a hundred thousand
+paces; but yet this man has not been in a hundred thousand
+places, for he never had any other place but his
+own, he hath joined and separated himselfe from a
+hundred thousand, nay millions of parts, but he has left
+no places behind him. You will say, if he travel the
+same way back again, then he is said to travel thorow
+the same places. I answer, It may be the vulgar way
+of expression, or the common phrase; but to speak properly,
+after a Philosophical way, and according to the
+truth in nature, he cannot be said to go back again
+thorow the same places he went, because he left none
+behind him, or els all his way would be nothing but
+place after place, all the hundred miles along; besides
+if place should be taken so, as to express the joyning to
+the neerest bodies which compass him about, certainly
+he would never find his places again; for the air being
+fluid, changes or moves continually, and perchance the
+same parts of the air, which compassed him once, will
+never come near him again. But you may say, If a
+man be hurt, or hath some mischance in his body, so as
+to have a piece of flesh cut out, and new flesh growing
+there; then we say, because the adjoyning parts do
+not change, that a new piece of flesh is grown in the
+same place where the former flesh was, and that the
+place of the former flesh cut or fallen out, is the
+same of this new grown flesh. I answer, In my opinion,
+it is not, for the parts being not the same, the places are
+not, but every one hath its own place. But if the
+wound be not filled or closed up with other new flesh,
+you will say, that according to my opinion there is no
+place then at all. I say, Yes, for the air or any thing else
+may be there, as new parts joyning to the other parts;
+nevertheless, the air, or that same body which is there,
+hath not taken the fleshes place, which was there before,
+but hath its own; but, by reason the adjoyning parts
+remain, man thinks the place remains there also which is
+no consequence. 'Tis true, a man may return to the
+same adjoining bodies, where he was before, but then he
+brings his place with him again, and as his body, so his
+place returnes also, and if a mans arm be cut off, you
+may say, there was an arm heretofore, but you cannot
+say properly, this is the place where the arm was.
+But to return to my first example of the mixture of Water,
+and Earth or Air; Suppose water is not porous,
+but onely dividable, and hath no other place but what
+is its own bodies, and that other parts of water intermix
+with it by dividing and composing; I say, there is no
+more place required, then what belongs to their own
+parts, for if some contract, others dilate, some divide,
+others joyn, the places are the same according to the
+magnitude of each part or body. The same may be
+said of all kinds or sorts of mixtures, for one body hath
+but one place; and so if many parts of the same nature
+joyn into one body and increase the bulk of the body,
+the place of that same body is accordingly; and if they
+be bodies of different natures which intermix and joyne,
+each several keeps its place; And so each body and each
+particular part of a body hath its place, for you cannot
+name body or part of a body, but you must also understand
+place to be with them, and if a point should dilate
+to a world, or a world contract to a point, the place
+would always be the same with the body. And thus
+I have declared my opinion of this subject, which I
+submit to the correction of your better judgment, and
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Friend and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_42" id="Footnote_1_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_42"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Philos. p.</i> 2. <i>a.</i> 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXII" id="I_XXXII">XXXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In my last, I hope, I have sufficiently declared my
+opinion, That to one body belongs but one place,
+and that no body can leave a place behind it, but
+wheresoever is body, there is place also. Now give
+me leave to examine this question: when a bodies
+figure is printed on snow, or any other fluid or soft
+matter, as air, water, and the like; whether it be the
+body, that prints its own figure upon the snow, or
+whether it be the snow, that patterns the figure of the
+body? My answer is, That it is not the body, which
+prints its figure upon the snow, but the snow that
+patterns out the figure of the body; for if a seal be
+printed upon wax, 'tis true, it is the figure of the seal,
+which is printed on the wax, but yet the seal doth not
+give the wax the print of its own figure, but it is the wax
+that takes the print or pattern from the seal, and patterns
+or copies it out in its own substance, just as the sensitive
+motions in the eye do pattern out the figure of an
+object, as I have declared heretofore. But you will say,
+perhaps, A body being printed upon snow, as it leaves
+its print, so it leaves also its place with the print in the
+snow. I answer, That doth not follow; For the place
+remains still the bodies place, and when the body removes
+out of the snow, it takes its place along with it:
+Just like a man, whose picture is drawn by a Painter,
+when he goes away, he leaves not his place with his
+picture, but his place goes with his body; and as the
+place of the picture is the place of the colour or paint,
+and the place of the copie of an exterior object patterned
+out by the sensitive corporeal motions is the place of
+the sensitive organ, so the place of the print in snow, is
+the snows place; or else, if the print were the bodies place
+that is printed, and not the snow's, it might as well be
+said, that the motion and shape of a watch were not the
+motion and shape of the watch, but of the hand of him
+that made it. And as it is with snow, so it is with air,
+for a mans figure is patterned out by the parts and
+motions of the air, wheresoever he moveth; the difference
+is onely, that air being a fluid body doth not retain
+the print so long, as snow or a harder body doth,
+but when the body removes, the print is presently dissolved.
+But I wonder much, your <i>Author</i> denies,
+that there can be two bodies in one place, and yet makes
+two places for one body, when all is but the motions of
+one body: Wherefore a man sailing in a Ship, cannot
+be said to keep place, and to change his place; for
+it is not place he changes, but onely the adjoyning
+parts, as leaving some, and joyning to others; and it is
+very improper, to attribute that to place which belongs
+to parts, and to make a change of place out of
+change of parts. I conclude, repeating once again,
+that figure and place are still remaining the same with
+body; For example; let a stone be beat to dust, and
+this dust be severally dispersed, nay, changed into numerous
+figures; I say, as long as the substance of the
+stone remains in the power of those dispersed and
+changed parts, and their corporeal motions, the place
+of it continues also; and as the corporeal motions
+change and vary, so doth place, magnitude and
+figure, together with their parts or bodies, for they are
+but one thing. And so I conclude, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXIII" id="I_XXXIII">XXXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am absolutely of your <i>Authors</i> opinion, when he
+sayes,<a name="FNanchor_1_43" id="FNanchor_1_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_43" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That all bodies of this Universe are of one and
+the same matter, really divided into many parts, and
+that these parts are diversly moved</i>: But that these motions
+should be circular more then of any other sort, I
+cannot believe, although he thinks that this is the most
+probable way, to find out the causes of natural effects:
+for nature is not bound to one sort of motions more
+then to another, and it is but in vain to indeavour to
+know how, and by what motions God did make the
+World, since Creation is an action of God, and
+Gods actions are incomprehensible; Wherefore his
+�thereal Whirlpools, and little particles of matter,
+which he reduceth to three sorts and calls them the
+three elements of the Universe, their circular motions,
+several figures, shavings, and many the like, which
+you may better read, then I rehearse to you, are to my
+thinking, rather Fancies, then rational or probable
+conceptions; for how can we imagine that the Universe
+was set a moving as a Top by a Whip, or a Wheele
+by the hand of a Spinster, and that the vacuities were
+fill'd up with shavings? for these violent motions would
+rather have disturbed and disordered Nature; and
+though Nature uses variety in her motions or actions,
+yet these are not extravagant, nor by force or violence,
+but orderly, temperate, free, and easie, which causes me
+to believe, the Earth turns about rather then the Sun;
+and though corporeal motions for variety make
+Whirl-winds, yet Whirl-winds are not constant,
+Neither can I believe that the swiftness of motion could
+make the matter more subtil and pure then it was by
+nature, for it is the purity and subtilty of the matter,
+that causes motion, and makes it swifter or slower,
+and not motion the subtilty and purity of matter; motion
+being onely the action of matter; and the self-moving
+part of matter is the working part of nature, which is
+wise, and knows how to move and form every creature
+without instruction; and this self-motion is as much her
+own as the other parts of her body, matter and figure,
+and is one and the same with her self, as a corporeal,
+living, knowing, and inseparable being, and a part of
+her self. As for the several parts of matter, I do believe,
+that they are not all of one and the same bigness, nor
+of one and the same figure, neither do I hold their
+figures to be unalterable; for if all parts in nature be
+corporeal, they are dividable, composable, and intermixable,
+and then they cannot be always of one and
+the same sort of figure; besides nature would not have
+so much work if there were no change of figures: and
+since her onely action is change of motion, change
+of motion must needs make change of figures: and thus
+natural parts of matter may change from lines to points,
+and from points to lines, from squares to circles, and so
+forth, infinite ways, according to the change of motions;
+but though they change their figures, yet they
+cannot change their matter; for matter as it has been, so it
+remaines constantly in each degree, as the Rational, Sensitive
+and Inanimate, none becomes purer, none grosser
+then ever it was, notwithstanding the infinite changes
+of motions, which their figures undergo; for Motion
+changes onely the figure, not the matter it self, which
+continues still the same in its nature, and cannot be altered
+without a confusion or destruction of Nature.
+And this is the constant opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_43" id="Footnote_1_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_43"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Philos. part.</i> 3. <i>a.</i> 40.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXIV" id="I_XXXIV">XXXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>That <i>Rarefaction</i> is onely a <i>change of figure</i>, according
+to your <i>Authors</i> opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_44" id="FNanchor_1_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_44" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> is in my reason
+very probable; but when he sayes, that <i>in rarified
+bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with some other
+subtil matter</i>, if he means that all rarified bodies are
+porous, I dissent from him; for it is not necessary that
+all rarified bodies should be porous, and all hard bodies
+without pores: but if there were a probability of pores,
+I am of opinion, it would be more in dense and hard,
+than in rare and soft bodies; as for example, rarifying
+and dilating motions are plaining, smoothing, spreading
+and making all parts even, which could not well be, if
+there were holes or pores; Earth is dense and hard, and
+yet is porous, and flame is rare and dilating, and yet is not
+porous; and certainly Water is not so porous as Earth.
+Wherefore pores, in my opinion, are according to the
+nature or form of the figure, and not according to the
+rarity or thinness, and density or thickness of the substance.
+As for his thin and subtil matter filling up the
+pores of porous bodies, I assent to your <i>Author</i> so far,
+that I meane, thin and thick, or rare and dense substances
+are joyned and mixed together. As for plaining,
+smoothing and spreading, I do not mean so
+much artificial plaining and spreading; as for example,
+when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate, and a
+board is made plain and smooth by a Joyners tool, or a
+napkin folded up is spread plain and even, although,
+when you observe these arts, you may judge somewhat
+of the nature of natural dilations; for a folded cloth is
+fuller of creases then when plain, and the beating of a
+thin plate is like to the motion of dilation, which is to
+spread out, and the forme of rarifying is thinning and
+extending. I add onely this, that I am not of your
+<i>Authors</i> opinion, that Rest is the Cause or Glue which
+keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together, but it
+is retentive motions. And so I conclude, resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_44" id="Footnote_1_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_44"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Philos. part.</i> 2. <i>a.</i> 6, 7.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXV" id="I_XXXV">XXXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>That the Mind</i>, according to your <i>Authors</i> opinion,
+<i>is a substance really distinct from the body, and
+may be actually separated from it and subsist without
+it</i>: If he mean the natural mind and soul of Man, not
+the supernatural or divine, I am far from his opinion;
+for though the mind moveth onely in its own parts, and
+not upon, or with the parts of inanimate matter, yet it
+cannot be separated from these parts of matter, and subsist
+by its self as being a part of one and the same matter
+the inanimate is of, (for there is but one onely matter,
+and one kind of matter, although of several degrees,)
+onely it is the self-moving part; but yet this
+cannot impower it, to quit the same natural body, whose
+part it is. Neither can I apprehend, that the Mind's
+or Soul's seat should be in the <i>Glandula</i> or kernel of the
+Brain, and there sit like a Spider in a Cobweb, to
+whom the least motion of the Cobweb gives intelligence
+of a Flye, which he is ready to assault, and that the
+Brain should get intelligence by the animal spirits as his
+servants, which run to and fro like Ants to inform it;
+or that the Mind should, according to others opinions,
+be a light, and imbroidered all with Ideas, like a Heraulds
+Coat; and that the sensitive organs should have
+no knowledg in themselves, but serve onely like peeping-holes
+for the mind, or barn-dores to receive bundles of
+pressures, like sheaves of Corn; For there being a thorow
+mixture of animate, rational and sensitive, and inanimate
+matter, we cannot assign a certain seat or place to
+the rational, another to the sensitive, and another to
+the inanimate, but they are diffused and intermixt
+throughout all the body; And this is the reason, that
+sense and knowledg cannot be bound onely to the
+head or brain; But although they are mixt together,
+nevertheless they do not lose their interior nature, by
+this mixture, nor their purity and subtilty, nor their
+proper motions or actions, but each moves according
+to its nature and substance, without confusion; The
+actions of the rational part in Man, which is the Mind
+or Soul, are called Thoughts, or thoughtful perceptions,
+which are numerous, and so are the sensitive perceptions;
+for though Man, or any other animal hath
+but five exterior sensitive organs, yet there be numerous
+perceptions made in these sensitive organs, and in
+all the body; nay, every several Pore of the flesh is a
+sensitive organ, as well as the Eye, or the Ear. But
+both sorts, as well the rational as the sensitive, are different
+from each other, although both do resemble another,
+as being both parts of animate matter, as I have
+mentioned before: Wherefore I'le add no more, onely
+let you know, that I constantly remain,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXVI" id="I_XXXVI">XXXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>That all other animals, besides man, want reason,
+your <i>Author</i> endeavours to prove in his <i>discourse
+of method</i>, where his chief argument is,
+That other animals cannot express their mind, thoughts
+or conceptions, either by speech or any other signs, as
+man can do: For, sayes he, <i>it is not for want of the organs
+belonging to the framing of words, as we may observe
+in Parrats and Pies, which are apt enough to express
+words they are taught, but understand nothing of them.</i>
+My answer is, That one man expressing his mind by
+speech or words to an other, doth not declare by it his
+excellency and supremacy above all other Creatures,
+but for the most part more folly, for a talking man is
+not so wise as a contemplating man. But by reason other
+Creatures cannot speak or discourse with each other
+as men, or make certain signs, whereby to express themselves
+as dumb and deaf men do, should we conclude,
+they have neither knowledge, sense, reason, or intelligence?
+Certainly, this is a very weak argument;
+for one part of a mans body, as one hand, is not less
+sensible then the other, nor the heel less sensible then
+the heart, nor the legg less sensible then the head, but
+each part hath its sense and reason, and so consequently
+its sensitive and rational knowledg; and although
+they cannot talk or give intelligence to each other by
+speech, nevertheless each hath its own peculiar and
+particular knowledge, just as each particular man has
+his own particular knowledge, for one man's knowledge
+is not another man's knowledge; and if there
+be such a peculiar and particular knowledg in every several
+part of one animal creature, as man, well may there
+be such in Creatures of different kinds and sorts: But
+this particular knowledg belonging to each creature,
+doth not prove that there is no intelligence at all betwixt
+them, no more then the want of humane Knowledg
+doth prove the want of Reason; for Reason is the rational
+part of matter, and makes perception, observation,
+and intelligence different in every creature, and every
+sort of creatures, according to their proper natures, but
+perception, observation and intelligence do not make
+reason, Reason being the cause, and they the effects.
+Wherefore though other Creatures have not the speech,
+nor Mathematical rules and demonstrations, with other
+Arts and Sciences, as Men; yet may their perceptions
+and observations be as wise as Men's, and they
+may have as much intelligence and commerce betwixt
+each other, after their own manner and way, as men
+have after theirs: To which I leave them, and Man to
+his conceited prerogative and excellence, resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXVII" id="I_XXXVII">XXXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning <i>Sense</i> and <i>Perception</i>, your
+<i>Authors</i> opinion is,<a name="FNanchor_1_45" id="FNanchor_1_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_45" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That it is made by a <i>motion or
+impression from the object upon the sensitive organ,
+which impression, by means of the nerves, is brought to
+the brain, and so to the mind or soul, which onely perceives
+in the brain</i>: Explaining it by the example<a name="FNanchor_2_46" id="FNanchor_2_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_46" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> of a
+Man being blind, or walking in dark, who by the help
+of his stick can perceive when he touches a Stone, a
+Tree, Water, Sand, and the like; which example he
+brings to make a comparison with the perception of
+Light; <i>For</i>, says he, <i>Light in a shining body, is nothing
+else but a quick and lively motion or action, which through
+the air and other transparent bodies tends towards the eye,
+in the same manner as the motion or resistance of the bodies,
+the blind man meets withal, tends thorow the stick towards
+the hand; wherefore it is no wonder that the Sun can display
+its rays so far in an instant, seeing that the same action,
+whereby one end of the stick is moved, goes instantly
+also to the other end, and would do the same if the stick
+were as long as Heaven is distant from Earth.</i> To which
+I answer first, That it is not onely the Mind that perceives
+in the kernel of the Brain, but that there is a double
+perception, rational and sensitive, and that the mind
+perceives by the rational, but the body and the sensitive
+organs by the sensitive perception; and as there is a double
+perception, so there is also a double knowledg, rational
+and sensitive, one belonging to the mind, the other
+to the body; for I believe that the Eye, Ear, Nose,
+Tongue, and all the Body, have knowledg as well as
+the Mind, onely the rational matter, being subtil and
+pure, is not incumbred with the grosser part of matter, to
+work upon, or with it, but leaves that to the sensitive,
+and works or moves onely in its own substance, which
+makes a difference between thoughts, and exterior
+senses. Next I say, That it is not the Motion or Reaction
+of the bodies, the blind man meets withal, which
+makes the sensitive perception of these objects, but the
+sensitive corporeal motions in the hand do pattern out
+the figure of the Stick, Stone, Tree, Sand, and the
+like. And as for comparing the perception of the hand,
+when by the help of the stick it perceives the objects,
+with the perception of light, I confess that the sensitive
+perceptions do all resemble each other, because all sensitive
+parts of matter are of one degree, as being sensible
+parts, onely there is a difference according to the figures
+of the objects presented to the senses; and there is
+no better proof for perception being made by the sensitive
+motions in the body, or sensitive organs, but that
+all these sensitive perceptions are alike, and resemble one
+another; for if they were not made in the body of the
+sentient, but by the impression of exterior objects, there
+would be so much difference betwixt them, by reason
+of the diversity of objects, as they would have no resemblance
+at all. But for a further proof of my own opinion,
+did the perception proceed meerly from the motion,
+impression and resistance of the objects, the hand
+could not perceive those objects, unless they touched
+the hand it self, as the stick doth; for it is not probable,
+that the motions of the stone, water, sand, &amp;c. should
+leave their bodies and enter into the stick, and so into
+the hand; for motion must be either something or nothing;
+if something, the stick and the hand would
+grow bigger, and the objects touched less, or else the
+touching and the touched must exchange their motions,
+which cannot be done so suddenly, especially between
+solid bodies; But if motion has no body, it is nothing,
+and how nothing can pass or enter or move some body,
+I cannot conceive. 'Tis true there is no part that can
+subsist singly by it self, without dependance upon each
+other, and so parts do always joyn and touch each other,
+which I am not against; but onely I say perception
+is not made by the exterior motions of exterior parts
+of objects, but by the interior motions of the parts of
+the body sentient. But I have discoursed hereof before,
+and so I take my leave, resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_45" id="Footnote_1_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_45"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Philos. part.</i> 4. <i>a.</i> 189.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_46" id="Footnote_2_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_46"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Diopt. c.</i> 1. <i>a.</i> 2, 3. &amp; <i>c.</i> 4. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXVIII" id="I_XXXVIII">XXXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I cannot conceive why your <i>Author</i> is so much for little
+and insensible parts, out of which the Elements
+and all other bodies are made; for though Nature is
+divideable, yet she is also composeable; and I think there
+is no need to dissect every creature into such little parts,
+to know their nature, but we can do it by another way
+as well; for we may dissect or divide them into never so
+little parts, and yet gain never the more knowledg by it.
+But according to these principles he describing amongst
+the rest the nature of Water, says,<a name="FNanchor_1_47" id="FNanchor_1_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_47" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That those little
+parts, out of which Water consists, are in figure somewhat
+long, light and slippery like little Eeles, which are never
+so closely joyned and entangled, but may easily be separated.</i>
+To which I answer, That I observe the nature
+and figure of water to be flowing, dilating, divideable
+and circular; for we may see, in Tides, overflowings,
+and breaking into parts, as in rain, it will always move
+in a round and circular figure; And I think, if its parts
+were long and entangled like a knot of Eeles, it could
+never be so easily contracted and denced into snow or
+ice. Neither do I think, That <i>Salt-water hath a mixture
+of somewhat grosser parts, not so apt to bend</i>;<a name="FNanchor_2_48" id="FNanchor_2_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_48" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> for to
+my observation and reason, the nature of salt-water consists
+herein, that its circle-lines are pointed, which sharp
+and pointed figure makes it so penetrating; yet may
+those points be separated from the circle lines of water,
+as it is seen in the making of Salt. But I am not of your
+<i>Authors</i> opinion, That those little points do stick so fast
+in flesh, as little nails, to keep it from putrefaction; for
+points do not always fasten; or else fire, which certainly
+is composed of sharp-pointed parts, would harden,
+and keep other bodies from dissolving, whereas on
+the contrary, it separates and divides them, although after
+several manners. But Putrefaction is onely a dissolving
+and separating of parts, after the manner of dilation;
+and the motion of salt is contracting as well as
+penetrating, for we may observe, what flesh soever is
+dry-salted, doth shrink and contract close together; I
+will not say, but the pointed parts of salt may fasten like
+nayls in some sorts of bodies, but not in all they work
+on. And this is the reason also, that Sea-water is of
+more weight then fresh-water, for being composed of
+points, those points stick within each other, and so become
+more strong; But yet do they not hinder the circular
+dilating motion of water, for the circle-lines are
+within, and the points without, but onely they make
+it more strong from being divided by other exterior bodies
+that swim upon it. And this is the cause that Salt-water
+is not so easily forced or turned to vapour, as
+Fresh, for the points piercing into each other, hold it
+more strongly together; but this is to be considered, that
+the points of salt are on the outside of the watery Circle,
+not on the inside, which causes it to be divideable from
+the watery Circles. I will conclude, when I have given
+the reason why water is so soon suckt up by sand,
+lime, and the like bodies, and say that it is the nature
+of all spongy, dry and porous bodies, meeting with liquid
+and pliable bodies as water, do draw and suck them
+up, like as animal Creatures being thirsty, do drink:
+And so I take my leave, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_47" id="Footnote_1_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_47"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of Meteor. c.</i> 1. <i>a.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_48" id="Footnote_2_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_48"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>C.</i> 3. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XXXIX" id="I_XXXIX">XXXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning Vapour, Clouds, Wind and Rain,
+I am of your <i>Authors</i> opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_49" id="FNanchor_1_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_49" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Water is
+changed into Vapour, and Vapour into Air, and that
+dilated Vapours make Wind, and condensed Vapours, Clouds
+and Mists</i>; But I am not for his little particles, <i>whereof</i>,
+he says, <i>Vapours are made, by the motion of a rare and subtil
+matter in the pores of terrestrial bodies</i>; which certainly
+I should conceive to be loose atoms, did he not
+make them of several figures and magnitude: for, in
+my opinion, there are no such things in nature, which
+like little Flyes or Bees do fly up into the air; and although
+I grant, that in Nature are several parts, whereof
+some are more rare, others more dense, according to
+the several degrees of matter, yet they are not single, but
+all mixt together in one body, and the change of motions
+in those joyned parts, is the cause of all changes of
+figures whatever, without the assistance of any forreign
+parts: And thus Water of it self is changed to Snow,
+Ice, or Hail, by its inherent figurative Motions; that
+is, the circular dilation of Water by contraction, changes
+into the figure of Snow, Ice, or Hail or by rarifying
+motions it turns into the figure of Vapour, and
+this Vapour again by contracting motions into the figure
+of hoar frost; and when all these motions change
+again into the former, then the figure of Ice, Snow,
+Hail, Vapour and Frost, turns again into the figure of
+Water: And this in all sense and reason is the most
+facil and probable way of making Ice, Snow, Hail, &amp;c.
+As for rarefaction and condensation, I will not say that
+they may be forced by forreign parts, but yet they are
+made by change and alteration of the inherent motions
+of their own parts, for though the motions of forreign
+parts, may be the occasion of them, yet they are not the
+immediate cause or actors thereof. And as for <i>Thunder</i>,
+that clouds of Ice and Snow, the uppermost being
+condensed by heat, and so made heavy, should fall
+upon another and produce the noise of thunder, is very
+improbable; for the breaking of a little small string, will
+make a greater noise then a huge shower of snow with
+falling, and as for Ice being hard, it may make a great
+noise, one part falling upon another, but then their
+weight would be as much as their noise, so that the clouds
+or roves of Ice would be as soon upon our heads, if not
+sooner, as the noise in our Eares; like as a bullet shot
+out of a Canon, we may feel the bullet as soon as we
+hear the noise. But to conclude, all densations are not
+made by heat, nor all noises by pressures, for sound is
+oftener made by division then pressure, and densation
+by cold then by heat: And this is all for the present,
+from,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_49" id="Footnote_1_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_49"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of Meteor., c.</i> 2, 4, 5, 6.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XL" id="I_XL">XL.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I cannot perceive the Rational Truth of your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion, concerning <i>Colours</i>, made <i>by the agitation
+of little spherical bodies of an �thereal matter,
+transmitting the action of Light</i>; for if colours were
+made after this manner, there would, in my opinion,
+not be any fixed or lasting colour, but one colour would
+be so various, and change faster then every minute; the
+truth is, there would be no certain or perfect colour at
+all: wherefore it seems altogether improbable, that
+such liquid, rare and disunited bodies should either
+keep or make inherent and fixed colours; for liquid
+and rare bodies, whose several parts are united
+into one considerable bulk of body, their colours are
+more apt to change then the colours of those bodies
+that are dry, solid and dense; the reason is, that rare
+and liquid bodies are more loose, slack, and agil, then
+solid and dry bodies, in so much, as in every alteration
+of motion their colours are apt to change: And if united
+rare and liquid bodies be so apt to alter and change,
+how is it probable, that those bodies, which are small
+and not united, should either keep or make inherent
+fixed colours? I will not say, but that such little bodies
+may range into such lines and figures, as make colours,
+but then they cannot last, being not united into
+a lasting body, that is, into a solid, substantial body,
+proper to make such figures as colours. But I desire
+you not to mistake me, <i>Madam</i>, for I do not mean, that
+the substance of colours is a gross thick substance, for the
+substance may be as thin and rare as flame or light, or
+in the next degree to it; for certainly the substance of
+light, and the substance of colours come in their degrees
+very neer each other; But according to the contraction
+of the figures, colours are paler or deeper, or more or
+less lasting. And as for the reason, why colours will
+change and rechange, it is according as the figures alter
+or recover their forms; for colours will be as animal
+Creatures, which sometimes are faint, pale, and sick,
+and yet recover; but when as a particular colour is, as
+I may say, quite dead, then there is no recovering of it.
+But colours may seem altered sometimes in our eyes, and
+yet not be altered in themselves; for our eyes, if perfect,
+see things as they are presented; and for proof, if
+any animal should be presented in an unusual posture
+or shape, we could not judg of it; also if a Picture,
+which must be viewed side-wards, should be looked
+upon forwards, we could not know what to make of it;
+so the figures of colours, if they be not placed rightly
+to the sight, but turned topsie-turvie as the Phrase is, or
+upside-down, or be moved too quick, and this quick
+motion do make a confusion with the lines of Light, we
+cannot possibly see the colour perfectly. Also several
+lights or shades may make colours appear otherwise
+then in themselves they are, for some sorts of
+lights and shades may fall upon the substantial figures
+of colours in solid bodies, in such lines and figures, as
+they may over-power the natural or artificial inherent
+colours in solid bodies, and for a time make other
+colours, and many times the lines of light or
+of shadows will meet and sympathize so with inherent
+colours, and place their lines so exactly, as they
+will make those inherent colours more splendorous
+then in their own nature they are, so that light and
+shadows will add or diminish or alter colours very
+much. Likewise some sorts of colours will be altered
+to our sight, not by all, but onely by some sorts of light,
+as for example, blew will seem green, and green blew
+by candle light, when as other colours will never appear
+changed, but shew constantly as they are; the
+reason is, because the lines of candle light fall in such
+figures upon the inherent colours, and so make them
+appear according to their own figures; Wherefore it
+is onely the alteration of the exterior figures of light and
+shadows, that make colours appear otherwise, and not a
+change of their own natures; And hence we may rationally
+conclude, that several lights and shadows by
+their spreading and dilating lines may alter the face or
+out-side of colours, but not suddenly change them, unless
+the power of heat, and continuance of time, or
+any other cause, do help and assist them in that work
+of metamorphosing or transforming of colours; but
+if the lines of light be onely, as the phrase is, Skin-deep;
+that is, but lightly spreading and not deeply penetrating,
+they may soon wear out or be rubbed off;
+for though they hurt, yet they do not kill the natural
+colour, but the colour may recover and reassume its
+former vigour and lustre: but time and other accidental
+causes will not onely alter, but destroy particular
+colours as well as other creatures, although not all
+after the same manner, for some will last longer
+then others. And thus, <i>Madam</i>, there are three
+sorts of Colours, Natural, Artificial, and Accidental;
+but I have discoursed of this subject more at large
+in my Philosophical Opinions, to which I refer you,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XLI" id="I_XLI">XLI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>My answer to your <i>Authors</i> question, <i>Why flame
+ascends in a pointed figure?</i><a name="FNanchor_1_50" id="FNanchor_1_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_50" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> is, That the figure
+of fire consists in points, and being dilated into
+a flame, it ascends in lines of points slope-wayes from
+the fired fuel; like as if you should make two or more
+sticks stand upright and put the upper ends close together,
+but let the lower ends be asunder, in which
+posture they will support each other, which, if both
+their ends were close together, they could not do.
+The second question is, <i>Why fire doth not alwayes flame?</i><a name="FNanchor_2_51" id="FNanchor_2_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_51" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+I answer, Because all fuel is not flameable, some being
+so moist, as it doth oppose the fires dryness, and
+some so hard and retentive, as fire cannot so soon dissolve
+it; and in this contest, where one dissipates, and the
+other retains, a third figure is produced, <i>viz.</i> smoak,
+between the heat of one, and the moisture of the other;
+and this smoak is forced by the fire out of the fuel, and
+is nothing else but certain parts of fuel, raised to such a
+degree of rarefaction; and if fire come near, it forces
+the smoak into flame, the smoak changing it self by its
+figurative motions into flame; but when smoak is above
+the flame, the flame cannot force the smoak to fire or enkindle
+it self, for the flame cannot so well encounter it;
+which shews, as if smoak had a swifter motion then
+flame, although flame is more rarified then smoak; and
+if moisture predominate, there is onely smoak, if fire,
+then there is flame: But there are many figures, that do
+not flame, until they are quite dissolved, as Leather,
+and many other things. Neither can fire work upon
+all bodies alike, but according to their several natures,
+like as men cannot encounter several sorts of creatures after
+one and the same manner; for not any part in nature
+hath an absolute power, although it hath self-motion;
+and this is the reason, that wax by fire is melted, and
+clay hardened. The third question is, <i>Why some few
+drops of water sprinkled upon fire, do encrease its flame?</i>
+I answer, by reason of their little quantity, which being
+over-powred by the greater quantity and force of
+fire, is by its self-motions converted into fire; for water
+being of a rare nature, and fire, for the most part, of a
+rarifying quality, it cannot suddenly convert it self into
+a more solid body then its nature is, but following its
+nature by force it turns into flame. The fourth question
+is, <i>Why the flame of spirit of Wine doth consume the
+Wine, and yet cannot burn or hurt a linnen cloth?</i> I
+answer, The Wine is the fuel that feeds the flame,
+and upon what it feeds, it devoureth, and with the
+food, the feeder; but by reason Wine is a rarer
+body then Oyle, or Wood, or any other fuel, its
+flame is also weaker. And thus much of these questions,
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_50" id="Footnote_1_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_50"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 4. <i>art.</i> 97.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_51" id="Footnote_2_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_51"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Art.</i> 107.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XLII" id="I_XLII">XLII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>To conclude my discourse upon the Opinions of
+these two famous and learned Authors, which I
+have hitherto sent you in several Letters, I could
+not chuse but repeat the ground of my own opinions in
+this present; which I desire you to observe well, lest
+you mistake any thing, whereof I have formerly discoursed.
+First I am for self-moving matter, which I
+call the sensitive and rational matter, and the perceptive
+and architectonical part of nature, which is the life and
+knowledg of nature. Next I am of an opinion, That all
+Perception is made by corporeal, figuring self-motions,
+and that the perception of forreign objects is made by patterning
+them out: as for example, The sensitive perception
+of forreign objects is by making or taking copies
+from these objects, so as the sensitive corporeal motions
+in the eyes copy out the objects of sight, and the sensitive
+corporeal motions in the ears copy out the objects
+of sound; the sensitive corporeal motions in the nostrils,
+copy out the objects of sent; the sensitive corporeal motions
+in the tongue and mouth, copy out the objects of
+taste, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the flesh and
+skin of the body copy out the forreign objects of touch;
+for when you stand by the fire, it is not that the fire, or
+the heat of the fire enters your flesh, but that the sensitive
+motions copy out the objects of fire and heat. As
+for my Book of Philosophy, I must tell you, that it
+treats more of the production and architecture of Creatures
+then of their perceptions, and more of the causes
+then the effects, more in a general then peculiar way,
+which I thought necessary to inform you of, and so I
+remain,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XLIII" id="I_XLIII">XLIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I received your questions in your last: the first was,
+<i>Whether there be more body compact together in a
+heavy then in a light thing?</i> I answer, That
+purity, rarity, little quantity, exteriour shape, as
+also motion cause lightnesse; and grossness of bulk,
+density, much quantity, exterior figure and motion
+cause heaviness, as it may be confirmed by many examples:
+but lightness and heaviness are onely conceptions
+of man, as also ascent and descent; and it may be
+questioned, whether there be such things really in nature;
+for change of motions of one and the same body will
+make lightness, and heaviness, as also rarity and density:
+besides, the several figures and compositions of
+bodies will cause them to ascend or descend, for Snow
+is a light body and yet descends from the clouds, and
+Water is a heavie body, and yet ascends in springs out
+of the Earth; Dust is a dense body and yet is apt to ascend,
+Rain or Dew is a rare body and yet is apt to
+descend; Also a Bird ascends by his shape, and a small
+worm although of less body and lighter will fall down;
+and there can be no other proof of light and heavy bodies
+but by their ascent and descent; But as really there is no
+such thing as heavie or light in nature more then words,
+and comparisons of different corporeal motions, so there
+is no such thing, as high or low, place or time, but
+onely words to make comparisons and to distinguish
+different corporeal motions. The second question
+was; <i>When a Bason with water is wasted into smoak,
+which fills up a whole Room, Whether the air in the
+room doth, as the sensitive motions of the eye, pattern
+out the figure of the smoak; or whether all the room is
+really fill'd with the vapour or smoak?</i> I answer, If it be
+onely the pattern or figure of smoak or vapour, the extension
+and dilation is not so much as man imagines; but
+why may not the air, which in my opinion hath self-motion,
+pattern out the figure of smoak as well as the eye; for
+that the eye surely doth it, may be proved; because smoak,
+if it enter the eye, makes it not onely smart and water
+much, but blinds it quite for the present; wherefore
+smoak doth not enter the eye, when the eye seeth it, but
+the eye patterns out the figure of smoak, and this is
+perception; In the same manner may the air pattern
+out the figure of smoak. The third question was,
+<i>Whether all that they name qualities of bodies, as thickness,
+thinness, hardness, softness, gravity, levity, transparentness
+and the like, be substances?</i> I answer, That
+all those, they call qualities, are nothing else but change
+of motion and figure of the same body, and several
+changes of motions are not several bodies, but several
+actions of one body; for change of motion doth not
+create new matter or multiply its quantity: for though
+corporeal motions may divide and compose, contract
+and dilate, yet they cannot create new matter, or make
+matter any otherwise then it is by nature, neither can
+they add or substract any thing from its nature. And
+therefore my opinion is, not that they are things subsisting
+by themselves without matter, but that there can
+no abstraction be made of motion and figure from matter,
+and that matter and motion being but one thing
+and inseparable, make but one substance. Wherefore
+density and rarity, gravity and levity, &amp;c. being
+nothing else but change of motions, cannot be without
+matter, but a dense or rare, heavie or light matter is but
+one substance or body; And thus having obeyed your
+commands, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XLIV" id="I_XLIV">XLIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am very ready to give you my opinion of those two
+questions you sent me, whereof the first was, <i>Whether
+that, which is rare and subtil, be not withal pure?</i>
+To which I answer, That all rare bodies are not subtil,
+nor pure, and that all which is dense is not gross and
+dull: As for example, Puddle-water, or also clear water,
+is rarer then Quicksilver, and yet not so subtil and
+pure as Quicksilver; the like of Gold; for Quicksilver
+and Gold may be rarified to a transparentness,
+and yet be so dense, as not to be easily dissolved; and
+Quicksilver is very subtil and searching, so as to be
+able to force other bodies to divide as well as it can divide
+and compose its own parts. Wherefore my opinion
+is, that the purest and subtilest degree of matter in
+nature, is that degree of matter which can dilate and
+contract, compose and divide into any figure by corporeal
+self-motion. Your second question was, <i>Why a man's
+hand cannot break a little hard body, as a little nail, whereas
+yet it is bigger then the nail?</i> I answer, It is not because the
+hand is softer then the nail, for one hard body will not
+break suddenly another hard body, and a man may
+easily break an iron nail with his hand, as I have bin informed;
+but it is some kind of motion which can easier
+do it, then another: for I have seen a strong cord
+wound about both a man's hands, who pulled his hands
+as hard and strongly asunder as he could, and yet was
+not able to break it; when as a Youth taking the same
+cord, and winding it about his hands as the former did,
+immediately broke it; the cause was, that he did it with
+another kind of motion or pulling, then the other did,
+which though he used as much force and strength, as
+he was able, yet could not break it, when the boy did
+break it with the greatest ease, and turning onely his
+hands a little, which shews, that many things may be
+done by a slight of motion, which otherwise a great
+strength and force cannot do. This is my answer and
+opinion concerning your proposed questions; if you
+have any more, I shall be ready to obey you, as,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="I_XLV" id="I_XLV">XLV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I understand by your last, that you are very desirous
+to know, <i>Whether there be not in nature such animal
+creatures both for purity and size, as we are not capable
+to perceive by our sight.</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, in my opinion
+it is very probable there may be animal creatures
+of such rare bodies as are not subject to our exterior senses,
+as well, as there are elements which are not subject
+to all our exterior senses: as for example, fire is onely
+subject to our sight and feeling, and not to any other
+sense, water is subject to our sight, taste, touch and
+hearing, but not to smelling; and earth is subject to our
+sight, taste, touch and smelling, but not to our hearing;
+and vapour is onely subject to our sight, and wind onely
+to our hearing; but pure air is not subject to any of our
+senses, but onely known by its effects: and so there may
+likewise be animal creatures which are not subject to any
+of our senses both for their purity and life; as for example,
+I have seen pumpt out of a water pump small
+worms which could hardly be discerned but by a bright
+Sun-light, for they were smaller then the smallest hair,
+some of a pure scarlet colour and some white, but
+though they were the smallest creatures that ever I did
+see, yet they were more agil and fuller of life, then many
+a creature of a bigger size, and so small they were,
+as I am confident, they were neither subject to tast,
+smell, touch nor hearing, but onely to sight, and that
+neither without difficulty, requiring both a sharp sight
+and a clear light to perceive them; and I do verily believe
+that these small animal creatures may be great in
+comparison to others which may be in nature. But if
+it be probable that there may be such small animal creatures
+in nature, as are not subject to our exterior senses,
+by reason of their littleness; it is also probable, that
+there may be such great and big animal creatures in
+nature as are beyond the reach and knowledg of our exterior
+senses; for bigness and smallness are not to be judged
+by our exterior senses, onely; but as sense and reason
+inform us, that there are different degrees in Purity
+and Rarity, so also in shapes, figures and sizes in all
+natural creatures. Next you desired to know, <i>Whether
+there can be an artificial Life, or a Life made by Art?</i>
+My answer is, Not; for although there is Life in all
+natures parts, yet not all the parts are life, for there is
+one part of natural matter which in its nature is inanimate
+or without life, and though natural Life doth produce
+Art, yet Art cannot produce natural Life, for though
+Art is the action of Life, yet it is not Life it self: not but
+that there is Life in Art, but not art in life, for Life is natural,
+and not artificial; and thus the several parts of a
+watch may have sense and reason according to the
+nature of their natural figure, which is steel, but not
+as they have an artificial shape, for Art cannot put Life
+into the watch, Life being onely natural, not artificial.
+Lastly your desire was to know, <i>Whether a part of matter
+may be so small, as it cannot be made less?</i> I answer,
+there is no such thing in nature as biggest or least, nature
+being Infinite as well in her actions as in her substance;
+and I have mentioned in my book of Philosophy, and
+in a letter, I sent you heretofore concerning Infinite,
+that there are several sorts of Infinites, as Infinite in
+quantity or bulk, Infinite in number, Infinite in quality,
+as Infinite degrees of hardness, softness, thickness,
+thinness, swiftness, slowness, &amp;c. as also Infinite compositions,
+divisions, creations, dissolutions, &amp;c. in nature;
+and my meaning is, that all these Infinite actions
+do belong to the Infinite body of nature, which being
+infinite in substance must also of necessity be infinite in
+its actions; but although these Infinite actions are
+inherent in the power of the Infinite substance of nature,
+yet they are never put in act in her parts, by reason
+there being contraries in nature, and every one of
+the aforementioned actions having its opposite, they
+do hinder and obstruct each other so, that none can
+actually run into infinite; for the Infinite degrees of
+compositions hinder the infinite degrees of divisions; and
+the infinite degrees of rarity, softness, swiftness, &amp;c.
+hinder the infinite degrees of density, hardness, slowness,
+&amp;c. all which nature has ordered with great wisdom
+and Prudence to make an amiable combination between
+her parts; for if but one of these actions should run
+into infinite, it would cause a horrid confusion between
+natures parts, nay an utter destruction of the whole
+body of nature, if I may call it whole: as for example,
+if one part should have infinite compositions, without
+the hinderance or obstruction of division, it would at
+last mount and become equal to the Infinite body of
+nature, and so from a part change to a whole, from
+being finite to infinite, which is impossible; Wherefore,
+though nature hath an Infinite natural power,
+yet she doth not put this power in act in her particulars;
+and although she has an infinite force or strength, yet
+she doth not use this force or strength in her parts.
+Moreover when I speak of Infinite divisions and compositions,
+creations and dissolutions, &amp;c. in nature, I
+do not mean so much the infinite degrees of compositions
+and divisions, as the actions themselves to be infinite
+in number; for there being infinite parts in nature,
+and every one having its compositions and divisions,
+creations and dissolutions, these actions must of necessity
+be infinite too, to wit, in number, according to
+the Infinite number of parts, for as there is an Infinite
+number of parts in nature, so there is also an infinite
+number and variety of motions which are natural actions.
+However let there be also infinite degrees of these
+natural actions, in the body or substance of infinite
+nature; yet, as I said, they are never put in act, by
+reason every action hath its contrary or opposite, which
+doth hinder and obstruct it from running actually into
+infinite. And thus I hope, you conceive cleerly now,
+what my opinion is, and that I do not contradict my self
+in my works, as some have falsly accused me, for they
+by misapprehending my meaning, judge not according
+to the truth of my sense, but according to their own
+false interpretation, which shews not onely a weakness
+in their understandings and passions, but a great injustice
+and injury to me, which I desire you to vindicate
+when ever you chance to hear such accusations and blemishes
+laid upon my works, by which you will Infinitely
+oblige,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h2><a name="Sect_II" id="Sect_II">SECT. II.</a></h2>
+
+<h3>I.</h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Being come now to the Perusal of
+the Works of that learned <i>Author</i>
+Dr. <i>Moor</i>, I find that the onely design
+of his Book called <i>Antidote</i>, is
+<i>to prove the Existence</i> of a God, and
+to refute, or rather convert Atheists;
+which I wonder very much at, considering,
+he says himself,<a name="FNanchor_1_52" id="FNanchor_1_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_52" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>there is no man
+under the cope of Heaven but believes a God</i>; which if so,
+what needs there to make so many arguments to no
+purpose? unless it be to shew Learning and wit; In my
+opinion, it were better to convert Pagans to be Christians,
+or to reform irregular Christians to a more pious
+life, then to prove that, which all men believe, which
+is the way to bring it into question. For certainly,
+according to the natural Light of Reason, there is a
+God, and no man, I believe, doth doubt it; for though
+there may be many vain words, yet I think there is no
+such atheistical belief amongst man-kind, nay, not onely
+amongst men, but also, amongst all other creatures,
+for if nature believes a God, all her parts, especially
+the sensitive and rational, which are the living and
+knowing parts, and are in all natural creatures, do the
+like, and therefore all parts and creatures in nature do
+adore and worship God, for any thing man can
+know to the contrary; for no question, but natures
+soule adores and worships God as well as man's soule;
+and why may not God be worshipped by all sorts and
+kinds of creatures as well, as by one kind or sort? I will
+not say the same way, but I believe there is a general
+worship and adoration of God; for as God is an Infinite
+Deity, so certainly he has an Infinite Worship and Adoration,
+and there is not any part of nature, but adores and
+worships the only omnipotent God, to whom belongs
+Praise and Glory from and to all eternity: For it is very
+improbable, that God should be worshipped onely in
+part, and not in whole, and that all creatures were made to
+obey man, and not to worship God, onely for man's
+sake, and not for God's worship, for man's use, and not
+God's adoration, for mans spoil and not God's blessing.
+But this Presumption, Pride, Vain-glory and Ambition
+of man, proceeds from the irregularity of nature,
+who being a servant, is apt to commit errors; and cannot
+be so absolute and exact in her devotion, adoration and
+worship, as she ought, nor so well observant of God as
+God is observing her: Nevertheless, there is not any
+of her parts or creatures, that God is not acknowledged
+by, though not so perfectly as he ought, which is
+caused by the irregularities of nature, as I said before.
+And so God of his mercy have mercy upon all Creatures;
+To whose protection I commend your Ladiship,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_52" id="Footnote_1_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_52"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antidote, Book</i> I. <i>c.</i> 10. <i>a.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_II" id="II_II">II.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since I spake in my last of the adoration and worship
+of God, you would faine know, whether we
+can have an Idea of God? I answer, That naturally
+we may, and really have a knowledge of the existence
+of God, as I proved in my former letter, to wit, that
+there is a God, and, that he is the <i>Author</i> of all things,
+who rules and governs all things, and is also the God of
+Nature: but I dare not think, that naturally we can
+have an Idea of the essence of God, so as to know what
+God is in his very nature and essence; for how can
+there be a finite Idea of an Infinite God? You may say,
+As well as of Infinite space. I answer, Space is relative,
+or has respect to body, but there is not any thing that
+can be compared to God; for the Idea of Infinite nature
+is material, as being a material creature of Infinite
+material Nature. You will say, How can a finite
+part have an Idea of infinite nature? I answer, Very
+well, by reason the Idea is part of Infinite Nature, and
+so of the same kind, as material; but God being an Eternal,
+Infinite, Immaterial, Individable Being, no
+natural creature can have an Idea of him. You will
+say, That the Idea of God in the mind is immaterial;
+I answer, I cannot conceive, that there can be any immaterial
+Idea in nature; but be it granted, yet that Immaterial
+is not a part of God, for God is individable, and
+hath no parts; wherefore the Mind cannot have an
+Idea of God, as it hath of Infinite nature, being a part
+of nature; for the Idea of God cannot be of the essence
+of God, as the Idea of nature is a corporeal part of
+nature: and though nature may be known in some parts,
+yet God being Incomprehensible, his Essence can by
+no wayes or means be naturally known; and this is
+constantly believed, by</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_III" id="II_III">III.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Although I mentioned in my last, that it is impossible
+to have an Idea of God, yet your <i>Author</i> is
+pleased to say,<a name="FNanchor_1_53" id="FNanchor_1_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_53" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>he will not stick to affirm,
+that the Idea or notion of God is as easie, as any notion else
+whatsoever, and that we may know as much of him as
+of any thing else in the world</i>. To which I answer, That
+in my opinion, God is not so easily to be known by any
+creature, as man may know himself; nor his attributes
+so well, as man can know his own natural proprieties:
+for Gods Infinite attributes are not conceivable, and
+cannot be comprehended by a finite knowledg and understanding, as
+a finite part of nature; for though nature's
+parts may be Infinite in number, and as they have a
+relation to the Infinite whole, if I may call it so, which
+is Infinite nature, yet no part is infinite in it self, and
+therefore it cannot know so much as whole nature: and
+God being an Infinite Deity, there is required an Infinite
+capacity to conceive him; nay, Nature her self although
+Infinite, yet cannot possibly have an exact notion
+of God, by reason of the disparity between God and her
+self; and therefore it is not probable, if the Infinite servant
+of God is not able to conceive him, that a finite part
+or creature of nature, of what kind or sort soever, whether
+Spiritual, as your <i>Author</i> is pleased to name it, or
+Corporeal, should comprehend God. Concerning
+my belief of God, I submit wholly to the Church,
+and believe as I have bin informed out of the <i>Athanasian</i>
+Creed, that the Father is Incomprehensible, the Sonne
+Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible;
+and that there are not three, but one Incomprehensible
+God; Wherefore if any man can prove (as I
+do verily believe he cannot) that God is not Incomprehensible,
+he must of necessity be more knowing then
+the whole Church, however he must needs dissent
+from the Church. But perchance your <i>Author</i> may
+say, I raise new and prejudicial opinions, in saying that
+matter is eternal. I answer, The Holy Writ doth not
+mention Matter to be created, but onely Particular
+Creatures, as this Visible World, with all its Parts, as
+the history or description of the Creation of the World
+in <i>Genesis</i> plainly shews; For <i>God said, Let it be
+Light, and there was Light; Let there be a Firmament
+in the midst of the Waters, and let it divide the Waters
+from the Waters; and Let the Waters under the Heaven
+be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry Land
+appear; and let the Earth bring forth Grass, the Herb
+yielding Seed, and the Fruit-tree yielding Fruit after his
+kind; and let there be Lights in the Firmament of the
+Heaven, to divide the Day from the Night,</i> &amp;c. Which
+proves, that all creatures and figures were made and produced
+out of that rude and desolate heap or chaos
+which the Scripture mentions, which is nothing else
+but matter, by the powerful Word and Command of
+God, executed by his Eternal Servant, Nature; as I
+have heretofore declared it in a Letter I sent you in the
+beginning concerning Infinite Nature. But least I
+seem to encroach too much upon Divinity, I submit this
+Interpretation to the Church; However, I think it not
+against the ground of our Faith; for I am so far from
+maintaining any thing either against Church or State,
+as I am submitting to both in all duty, and shall do so as
+long as I live, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_53" id="Footnote_1_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_53"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, pt.</i> 1., <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_IV" id="II_IV">IV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since your <i>Worthy</i> and <i>Learned Author</i> is pleased
+to mention,<a name="FNanchor_1_54" id="FNanchor_1_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_54" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That an <i>ample experience both of Men
+and Things doth enlarge our Understanding</i>, I have
+taken occasion hence to enquire, how a mans Understanding
+may be encreased or inlarged. The Understanding
+must either be in Parts, or it must be Individable
+as one; if in Parts, then there must be so many
+Understandings as there are things understood; but if
+Individable, and but one Understanding, then it must
+dilate it self upon so many several objects. I for my
+part, assent to the first, That Understanding increases
+by Parts, and not by Dilation, which Dilation must
+needs follow, if the Mind or Understanding of man be
+indivisible and without parts; but if the Mind or Soul
+be Individable, then I would fain know, how Understanding,
+Imagination, Conception, Memory, Remembrance,
+and the like, can be in the mind? You
+will say, perhaps, they are so many faculties or properties
+of the Incorporeal Mind, but, I hope, you do
+not intend to make the Mind or Soul a Deity, with so
+many attributes, Wherefore, in my opinion, it is
+safer to say, That the Mind is composed of several active
+Parts: but of these Parts I have treated in my Philosophy,
+where you will find, that all the several Parts of Nature
+are Living and Knowing, and that there is no part
+that has not Life and Knowledg, being all composed
+of rational and sensitive matter, which is the life and
+soul of Nature; and that Nature being Material, is
+composable and dividable, which is the cause of so many
+several Creatures, where every Creature is a part of
+Nature, and these Infinite parts or creatures are Nature
+her self; for though Nature is a self-moving substance,
+and by self-motion divides and composes her self several
+manners or ways into several forms and figures, yet being
+a knowing, as well as a living substance, she knows
+how to order her parts and actions wisely; for as she
+hath an Infinite body or substance, so she has an Infinite
+life and knowledg; and as she hath an Infinite life and
+knowledg, so she hath an infinite wisdom: But mistake
+me not, <i>Madam</i>; I do not mean an Infinite Divine Wisdom,
+but an Infinite Natural Wisdom, given her by
+the Infinite bounty of the Omnipotent God; but yet
+this Infinite Wisdom, Life and Knowledg in Nature
+make but one Infinite. And as Nature hath degrees
+of matter, so she has also degrees and variety of corporeal
+motions; for some parts of matter are self-moving,
+and some are moved by these self-moving parts of matter;
+and all these parts, both the moving and moved, are
+so intermixed, that none is without the other, no not in
+any the least Creature or part of Nature we can conceive;
+for there is no Creature or part of Nature, but
+has a comixture of those mentioned parts of animate and
+inanimate matter, and all the motions are so ordered by
+Natures wisdom, as not any thing in Nature can be
+otherwise, unless by a Supernatural Command and
+Power of God; for no part of corporeal matter and
+motion can either perish, or but rest; one part may
+cause another part to alter its motions, but not to quit
+motion, no more then one part of matter can annihilate
+or destroy another; and therefore matter is not meerly
+Passive, but always Active, by reason of the thorow
+mixture of animate and inanimate matter; for although
+the animate matter is onely active in its nature, and the
+inanimate passive, yet because they are so closely united
+and mixed together that they make but one body,
+the parts of the animate or self-moving matter do bear
+up and cause the inanimate parts to move and work with
+them; and thus there is an activity in all parts of matter
+moving and working as one body, without any fixation
+or rest, for all is moveable, moving and moved. All
+which, <i>Madam</i>, if it were well observed, there would
+not be so many strange opinions concerning nature and
+her actions, making the purest and subtillest part of matter
+immaterial or incorporeal, which is as much, as to
+extend her beyond nature, and to rack her quite to nothing.
+But I fear the opinion of Immaterial substances
+in Nature will at last bring in again the Heathen Religion,
+and make us believe a god <i>Pan, Bacchus, Ceres,
+Venus,</i> and the like, so as we may become worshippers
+of Groves and shadows, Beans and Onions, as our
+Forefathers. I say not this, as if I would ascribe any
+worship to Nature, or make her a Deity, for she is onely
+a servant to God, and so are all her parts or creatures,
+which parts or creatures, although they are transformed,
+yet cannot be annihilated, except Nature her self
+be annihilated, which may be, whensoever the Great
+God pleases; for her existence and resolution, or total
+destruction, depends upon Gods Will and Decree,
+whom she fears, adores, admires, praises and prayes
+unto, as being her God and Master; and as she adores
+God, so do all her parts and creatures, and amongst the
+rest Man, so that there is no Atheist in Infinite Nature,
+at least not in the opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_54" id="Footnote_1_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_54"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. Book.</i> 2. <i>Ch.</i> 2. <i>a.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_V" id="II_V">V.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I cannot well conceive what your <i>Author</i> means
+by the <i>Common Laws of Nature</i>;<a name="FNanchor_1_55" id="FNanchor_1_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_55" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> But if you desire
+my opinion how many Laws Nature hath, and what
+they are; I say Nature hath but One Law, which is a
+wise Law, to keep Infinite matter in order, and to
+keep so much Peace, as not to disturb the Foundation
+of her Government: for though Natures actions are
+various, and so many times opposite, which would seem
+to make wars between several Parts, yet those active
+Parts, being united into one Infinite body, cannot
+break Natures general Peace; for that which Man
+names War, Sickness, Sleep, Death, and the like, are
+but various particular actions of the onely matter; not,
+as your <i>Author</i> imagines, in a confusion, like Bullets,
+or such like things juggled together in a mans Hat, but
+very orderly and methodical; And the Playing motions
+of nature are the actions of Art, but her serious actions
+are the actions of Production, Generation and Transformation
+in several kinds, sorts and particulars of her
+Creatures, as also the action of ruling and governing
+these her several active Parts. Concerning the Pre-eminence
+and Prerogative of <i>Man</i>, whom your <i>Author</i>
+calls<a name="FNanchor_2_56" id="FNanchor_2_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_56" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>The flower and chief of all the products of nature
+upon this Globe of the earth</i>; I answer, That Man cannot
+well be judged of himself, because he is a Party, and
+so may be Partial; But if we observe well, we shall
+find that the Elemental Creatures are as excellent as
+Man, and as able to be a friend or foe to Man, as Man
+to them, and so the rest of all Creatures; so that I cannot
+perceive more abilities in Man then in the rest of natural
+Creatures; for though he can build a stately House,
+yet he cannot make a Honey-comb; and though he
+can plant a Slip, yet he cannot make a Tree; though
+he can make a Sword, or Knife, yet he cannot make
+the Mettal. And as Man makes use of other Creatures,
+so other Creatures make use of Man, as far as
+he is good for any thing: But Man is not so useful to
+his neighbour or fellow-creatures, as his neighbour or
+fellow-creatures to him, being not so profitable for use,
+as apt to make spoil. And so leaving him, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_55" id="Footnote_1_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_55"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. Book.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_56" id="Footnote_2_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_56"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>C.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_VI" id="II_VI">VI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> demands,<a name="FNanchor_1_57" id="FNanchor_1_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_57" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Whether there was ever any
+man, that was not mortal, and whether there be any
+mortal that had not a beginning?</i> Truly, if nature
+be eternal, all the material figures which ever were,
+are, and can be, must be also eternal in nature; for the
+figures cannot be annihilated, unless nature be destroyed;
+and although a Creature is dissolved and transformed
+into numerous different figures, yet all these
+several figures remain still in those parts of matter,
+whereof that creature was made, for matter never changes,
+but is always one and the same, and figure is nothing
+else but matter transposed or transformed by motion
+several modes or ways. But if you conceive Matter
+to be one thing, Figure another, and Motion a third,
+several, distinct and dividable from each other, it will
+produce gross errors, for, matter, motion, and figure,
+are but one thing. And as for that common question,
+whether the Egg was before the Chick, or the Chick
+before the Egg, it is but a thred-bare argument, which
+proves nothing, for there is no such thing as First in Eternity,
+neither doth Time make productions or generations,
+but Matter; and whatsoever matter can produce
+or generate, was in matter before it was produced;
+wherefore the question is, whether Matter, which is
+Nature, had a beginning, or not? I say not: for
+put the case, the figures of Earth, Air, Water, and Fire,
+Light and Colours, Heat and Cold, Animals, Vegetables
+and Minerals, &amp;c. were not produced from all
+Eternity, yet those figures have nevertheless been in
+Matter, which is Nature, from all eternity, for these
+mentioned Creatures are onely made by the corporeal
+motions of Matter, transforming Matter into
+such several figures; Neither can there be any perishing
+or dying in Nature, for that which Man
+calls so, is onely an alteration of Figure. And as
+all other productions are but a change of Matters
+sensitive motions, so all irregular and extravagant
+opinions are nothing but a change of Matters rational
+motions; onely productions by rational motions
+are interior, and those by sensitive motions exterior.
+For the Natural Mind is not less material
+then the body, onely the Matter of the Mind is
+much purer and subtiller then the Matter of the
+Body. And thus there is nothing in Nature but
+what is material; but he that thinks it absurd to
+say, the World is composed of meer self-moving
+Matter, may consider, that it is more absurd to
+believe Immaterial substances or spirits in Nature,
+as also a spirit of Nature, which is the Vicarious
+power of God upon Matter; For why should it not
+be as probable, that God did give Matter a self-moving
+power to her self, as to have made another
+Creature to govern her? For Nature is
+not a Babe, or Child, to need such a Spiritual
+Nurse, to teach her to go, or to move; neither
+is she so young a Lady as to have need of a Governess,
+for surely she can govern her self; she
+needs not a Guardian for fear she should run away
+with a younger Brother, or one that cannot make her a
+Jointure. But leaving those strange opinions to the
+fancies of their Authors, I'le add no more, but that
+I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_57" id="Footnote_1_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_57"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. l.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 15. <i>a.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_VII" id="II_VII">VII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> being very earnest in arguing against
+those that maintain the opinion of Matter
+being self-moving, amongst the rest of his arguments
+brings in this:<a name="FNanchor_1_58" id="FNanchor_1_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_58" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Suppose</i>, says he, <i>Matter could
+move it self, would meer Matter with self-motion amount
+to that admirable wise contrivance of things which we see
+in the World?&mdash;All the evasion I can imagine, our adversaries
+may use here, will be this: That Matter is capable
+of sense, and the finest and most subtil of the most refined
+sense; and consequently of Imagination too, yea happily
+of Reason and Understanding.</i> I answer, it is very
+probable, that not onely all the Matter in the World
+or Universe hath Sense, but also Reason; and that the
+sensitive part of matter is the builder, and the rational
+the designer; whereof I have spoken of before, and you
+may find more of it in my Book of Philosophy. <i>But,</i>
+says your Author, <i>Let us see, if all their heads laid
+together can contrive the anatomical Fabrick of any Creature
+that liveth?</i> I answer, all parts of Nature are not
+bound to have heads or tayls; but if they have, surely
+they are wiser then many a man's. <i>I demand</i>, says he,
+<i>Has every one of these Particles, that must have a hand
+in the framing of the body of an animal, the whole design
+of the work by the Impress of some Phantasme upon it?
+or as they have several offices, so have they several parts
+of the design?</i> I answer, All the actions of self-moving
+Matter are not Impresses, nor is every part a hand-labourer,
+but every part unites by degrees into such or
+such a Figure. Again, says he, <i>How is it conceiveable
+that any one Particle of Matter, or many together, (there
+not existing, yet in Nature an animal) can have the Idea
+Impressed of that Creature they are to frame?</i> I answer,
+all figures whatsoever have been, are, or can be in Nature,
+are existent in nature. <i>How</i>, says he, <i>can they
+in framing several parts confer notes? by what language
+or speech can they communicate their Counsels one to another?</i>
+I answer, Knowledg doth not always require
+speech, for speech is an effect and not a cause, but
+knowledg is a cause and not an effect; and nature hath
+infinite more ways to express knowledg then man can
+imagine, <i>Wherefore</i>, he concludes, <i>that they should
+mutually serve one another in such a design, is more impossible,
+then that so many men, blind and dumb from their
+nativity, should joyn their forces and wits together to build
+a Castle, or carve a statue of such a Creature, as none of
+them knew any more in several, then some one of the smallest
+parts thereof, but not the relation it bore to the whole.</i> I
+answer, Nature is neither blind nor dumb, nor any
+ways defective, but infinitely wise and knowing; for
+blindness and dumbness are but effects of some of her
+particular actions, but there is no defect in self-moving
+matter, nor in her actions in general; and it is absurd to
+conceive the Generality of wisdom according to an Irregular
+effect or defect of a particular Creature; for the
+General actions of Nature are both life and knowledg,
+which are the architects of all Creatures, and know
+better how to frame all kinds and sorts of Creatures
+then man can conceive; and the several parts of Matter
+have a more easie way of communication, then Mans
+head hath with his hand, or his hand with pen, ink, and
+paper, when he is going to write; which later example
+will make you understand my opinion the better, if you
+do but compare the rational part of Matter to the head,
+the sensitive to the hand, the inanimate to pen, ink and
+paper, their action to writing, and their framed figures
+to those figures or letters which are written; in all which
+is a mutual agreement without noise or trouble. But
+give me leave, <i>Madam</i>, to tell you, That self-moving
+Matter may sometimes erre and move irregularly, and
+in some parts not move so strong, curious, or subtil at
+sometimes, as in other parts, for Nature delights in variety;
+Nevertheless she is more wise then any Particular
+Creature or part can conceive, which is the cause that
+Man thinks Nature's wise, subtil and lively actions, are
+as his own gross actions, conceiving them to be constrained
+and turbulent, not free and easie, as well as wise
+and knowing; Whereas Nature's Creating, Generating
+and Producing actions are by an easie connexion
+of parts to parts, without Counterbuffs, Joggs and
+Jolts, producing a particular figure by degrees, and in
+order and method, as humane sense and reason may
+well perceive: And why may not the sensitive and rational
+part of Matter know better how to make a Bee,
+then a Bee doth how to make Honey and Wax? or
+have a better communication betwixt them, then Bees
+that fly several ways, meeting and joyning to make their
+Combes in their Hives? But pardon, <i>Madam</i>, for I
+think it a Crime to compare the Creating, Generating
+and producing Corporeal Life and Wisdom of Nature
+unto any particular Creature, although every particular
+Creature hath their share, being a part of Nature.
+Wherefore those, in my opinion, do grossly err, that
+bind up the sensitive matter onely to taste, touch, hearing,
+seeing, and smelling; as if the sensitive parts of
+Nature had not more variety of actions, then to make
+five senses; for we may well observe, in every Creature
+there is difference of sense and reason according
+to the several modes of self-motion; For the Sun, Stars,
+Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Plants, Animals, Minerals;
+although they have all sense and knowledg, yet
+they have not all sense and knowledg alike, because sense
+and knowledg moves not alike in every kind or sort of
+Creatures, nay many times very different in one and the
+same Creature; but yet this doth not cause a general
+Ignorance, as to be altogether Insensible or Irrational,
+neither do the erroneous and irregular actions of sense
+and reason prove an annihilation of sense and reason; as
+for example, a man may become Mad or a Fool
+through the irregular motions of sense and reason, and
+yet have still the Perception of sense and reason, onely
+the alteration is caused through the alteration of the sensitive
+and rational corporeal motions or actions, from
+regular to irregular; nevertheless he has Perceptions,
+Thoughts, Ideas, Passions, and whatsoever is made
+by sensitive and rational Matter, neither can Perception
+be divided from Motion, nor Motion from Matter;
+for all sensation is Corporeal, and so is Perception.
+I can add no more, but take my leave, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_58" id="Footnote_1_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_58"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 12.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_VIII" id="II_VIII">VIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is pleased to say,<a name="FNanchor_1_59" id="FNanchor_1_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_59" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> that <i>Matter is a Principle
+purely passive, and no otherwise moved or modified,
+then as some other thing moves and modifies
+it, but cannot move it self at all; which is most demonstrable
+to them that contend for sense and perception in it: For
+if it had any such perception, it would, by vertue of its
+self-motion withdraw its self from under the knocks of
+hammers, or fury of the fire; or of its own accord approach
+to such things as are most agreeable to it, and pleasing, and
+that without the help of muscles, it being thus immediately
+endowed with a self-moving power.</i> By his leave, <i>Madam</i>,
+I must tell you, that I see no consequence in this
+argument; Because some parts of matter cannot withdraw
+themselves from the force and power of other
+parts, therefore they have neither sense, reason, nor
+perception: For put the case, a man should be over-powr'd
+by some other men, truely he would be forced
+to suffer, and no Immaterial Spirits, I think, would
+assist him. The very same may be said of other Creatures
+or parts of Nature; for some may over-power
+others, as the fire, hammer and hand doth over-power
+a Horse-shooe, which cannot prevail over so much
+odds of power and strength; And so likewise it is with
+sickness and health, life and death; for example, some
+corporeal motions in the body turning Rebels, by moving
+contrary to the health of an animal Creature, it
+must become sick; for not every particular creature
+hath an absolute power, the power being in the Infinite
+whole, and not in single divided parts: Indeed,
+to speak properly, there is no such thing as an absolute
+power in Nature; for though Nature hath power to
+move it self, yet not beyond it self. But mistake me
+not, for I mean by an absolute Power; not a circumscribed
+and limited, but an unlimited power, no ways
+bound or confined, but absolutely or every way Infinite,
+and there is not anything that has such an absolute
+power but God alone: neither can Nature be undividable,
+being Corporeal or Material; nor rest from
+motion being naturally self-moving, and in a perpetual
+motion. Wherefore though Matter is self-moving,
+and very wise, (although your <i>Author</i> denies it, calling
+those Fools that maintain this opinion)<a name="FNanchor_2_60" id="FNanchor_2_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_60" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> yet it cannot
+go beyond the rules of its Nature, no more then
+any Art can go beyond its Rules and Principles: And
+as for what your <i>Author</i> says, That every thing would
+approach to that, which is agreeable and pleasant; I
+think I need no demonstration to prove it; for we may
+plainly see it in all effects of Nature, that there is Sympathy
+and Antipathy, and what is this else, but approaching
+to things agreeable and pleasant, and withdrawing
+it self from things disagreeable, and hurtful or
+offensive? But of this subject I shall discourse more
+hereafter, wherefore I finish here, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_59" id="Footnote_1_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_59"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 2., <i>c.</i> 1. <i>a.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_60" id="Footnote_2_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_60"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>In the Append. to the Antid. c.</i> 3. <i>a.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_IX" id="II_IX">IX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Authors</i> opinion is,<a name="FNanchor_1_61" id="FNanchor_1_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_61" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Matter being once
+actually divided as far as possibly it can, it is a perfect
+contradiction it should be divided any further.</i>
+I answer, Though Nature is Infinite, yet her actions
+are not all dilative nor separative, but some divide and
+some compose, some dilate and some contract, which
+causes a mean betwixt Natures actions or motions. Next
+your <i>Author</i> says, That <i>as Infinite Greatness has no
+Figure, so Infinite Littleness hath none also.</i> I answer,
+Whatsoever hath a body, has a figure; for it is
+impossible that <i>substance</i>, or <i>body</i>, and <i>figure</i>, should be
+separated from each other, but wheresoever is body or
+substance, there is also figure, and if there be an infinite
+substance, there must also be an infinite figure,
+although not a certain determined or circumscribed figure,
+for such a figure belongs onely to finite particulars;
+and therefore I am of your <i>Authors</i> mind, That it is a
+contradiction to say an Infinite Cube or Triangle, for
+a Cube and a Triangle is a perfect circumscribed figure,
+having its certain compass and circumference, be it never
+so great or little; wherefore to say an Infinite Cube,
+would be as much as to say a Finite Infinite. But as
+for your <i>Authors</i> example of <i>Infinite matter, space or
+duration, divided into three equal parts, all which he says
+must needs be Infinite, or else the whole will not be so, and then
+the middle part of them will seem both Finite and Infinite.</i>
+I answer, That Matter is not dividable into three equal
+parts, for three is a finite number and so are three equal
+parts; but I say that Matter being an Infinite body, is
+dividable into Infinite parts, and it doth not follow, as
+your <i>Author</i> says, That one of those infinite parts must
+be infinite also, for else there would be no difference
+betwixt the whole and its parts; I say whole for distinctions
+and better expressions sake, and do not mean
+such a whole which hath a certain number of parts,
+and is of a certain and limited figure, although never so
+great; but an Infinite whole, which expression I must
+needs use, by reason I speak of Infinite parts; and that
+each one of these Infinite parts in number may be finite
+in substance or figure, is no contradiction, but very
+probable and rational; nay, I think it rather absurd
+to say that each part is infinite; for then there would
+be no difference betwixt parts and whole, as I said before.
+Onely this is to be observed, that the Infinite
+whole is Infinite in substance or bulk, but the parts are
+Infinite in number, and not in bulk, for each part is
+circumscribed, and finite in its exterior figure and substance.
+But mistake me not, when I speak of circumscribed
+and finite single parts; for I do not mean, that each
+part doth subsist single and by it self, there being no such
+thing as an absolute single part in Nature, but Infinite
+Matter being by self-motion divided into an infinite
+number of parts, all these parts have so near a relation
+to each other, and to the infinite whole, that one cannot
+subsist without the other; for the Infinite parts in
+number do make the Infinite whole, and the Infinite
+whole consists in the Infinite number of parts; wherefore
+it is onely their figures which make a difference betwixt
+them; for each part having its proper figure different
+from the other, which is circumscribed and limited, it
+is called a finite single part; and such a part cannot be
+said Infinitely dividable, for infinite composition and
+division belong onely to the Infinite body of Nature,
+which being infinite in substance may also be infinitely
+divided, but not a finite and single part: Besides, Infinite
+composition doth hinder the Infinite division, and
+Infinite division hinders the Infinite composition; so
+that one part cannot be either infinitely composed, or
+infinitely divided; and it is one thing to be dividable,
+and another to be divided. And thus, when your <i>Author</i>
+mentions in another place,<a name="FNanchor_2_62" id="FNanchor_2_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_62" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> That <i>if a body be divisible
+into Infinite Parts, it hath an Infinite number of extended
+parts:</i> If by extension he mean corporeal dimension,
+I am of his opinion; for there is no part, be it never
+so little in Nature, but is material; and if material,
+it has a body; and if a body, it must needs have a bodily
+dimension; and so every part will be an extended
+part: but since there is no part but is finite in its self,
+it cannot be divisible into infinite parts; neither can any
+part be infinitely dilated or contracted; for as composition
+and division do hinder and obstruct each other
+from running into Infinite, so doth dilation hinder the
+Infinite contraction, and contraction the Infinite dilation,
+which, as I said before, causes a mean betwixt Nature's
+actions; nevertheless, there are Infinite dilations
+and contractions in Nature, because there are Infinite
+contracted and dilated parts, and so are infinite divisions
+because there are infinite divided parts; but contraction,
+dilation, extension, composition, division, and
+the like, are onely Nature's several actions; and as
+there can be no single part in Nature that is Infinite, so
+there can neither be any single Infinite action. But
+as for Matter, Motion and Figure, those are Individable
+and inseparable, and make but one body or substance;
+for it is as impossible to divide them, as impossible
+it is to your <i>Author</i> to separate the essential proprieties,
+which he gives, from an Immortal Spirit; And as
+Matter, Motion and Figure are inseparable; so is likewise
+Matter, Space, Place and Duration; For Parts,
+Motion, Figure, Place and Duration, are but one Infinite
+body; onely the Infinite parts are the Infinite divisions
+of the Infinite body, and the Infinite body is a
+composition of the Infinite parts; but figure, place and
+body are all one, and so is time, and duration, except
+you will call time the division of duration, and duration
+the composition of time; but infinite time, and infinite
+duration is all one in Nature: and thus Nature's Principal
+motions and actions are dividing, composing, and
+disposing or ordering, according to her Natural wisdom,
+by the Omnipotent God's leave and permission.
+Concerning the <i>Sun</i>, which your <i>Author</i> speaks of in
+the same place, and denies him to be a <i>Spectator of our
+particular affairs upon Earth</i>; saying, there is no such
+divine Principle in him, whereby he can do it. I will
+speak nothing again it, nor for it; but I may say, that
+the Sun hath such a Principle as other Creatures have,
+which is, that he has sensitive and rational corporeal
+motions, as well as animals or other Creatures, although
+not in the same manner, nor the same organs;
+and if he have sensitive and rational motions, he may also
+have sensitive and rational knowledg or perception,
+as well as man, or other animals and parts of Nature
+have, for ought any body knows; for it is plain to humane
+sense and reason, that all Creatures must needs
+have rational and sensitive knowledg, because they
+have all sensitive and rational matter and motions. But
+leaving the Sun for Astronomers to contemplate upon,
+I take my leave, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_61" id="Footnote_1_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_61"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>In the Preface before the Imm. of the Soul.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_62" id="Footnote_2_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_62"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Antid. Book.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_X" id="II_X">X.</a></h3>
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> in his arguments against <i>Motion</i>, being
+a <i>Principle of Nature</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_63" id="FNanchor_1_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_63" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> endeavours to prove,
+that Beauty, Colour, Symmetry, and the like,
+in Plants, as well as in other Creatures, are no result
+from the meer motion of the matter; and forming this
+objection, <i>It may be said</i>, says he, <i>That the regular
+motion of the matter made the first plant of every kind; but
+we demand, What regulated the motion of it, so as to guide
+it, to form it self into such a state?</i> I answer, The Wisdom
+of Nature or infinite Matter did order its own
+actions so, as to form those her Parts into such an exact
+and beautiful figure, as such a Tree, or such a Flower,
+or such a Fruit, and the like; and some of her Parts are
+pleased and delighted with other parts, but some of her
+parts are afraid or have an aversion to other parts; and
+hence is like and dislike, or sympathy and antipathy,
+hate and love, according as nature, which is infinite
+self-moving matter, pleases to move; for though Natural
+Wisdom is dividable into parts, yet these parts are
+united in one infinite Body, and make but one Being
+in it self, like as the several parts of a man make up but
+one perfect man; for though a man may be wise in several
+causes or actions, yet it is but one wisdom; and
+though a Judg may shew Justice in several causes, yet it
+is but one Justice; for Wisdom and Justice, though
+they be practised in several causes, yet it is but one Wisdom,
+and one Justice; and so, all the parts of a mans
+body, although they move differently, yet are they
+but one man's bodily actions; Just as a man, if he carve
+or cut out by art several statues, or draw several Pictures,
+those statues or pictures are but that one man's
+work. The like may be said of Natures Motions and
+Figures; all which are but one self-active or self-moving
+Material Nature. But Wise Nature's Ground
+or Fundamental actions are very Regular, as you may
+observe in the several and distinct kinds, sorts and particulars
+of her Creatures, and in their distinct Proprieties,
+Qualities, and Faculties, belonging not onely
+to each kind and sort, but to each particular Creature;
+and since man is not able to know perfectly all those proprieties
+which belong to animals, much less will he be
+able to know and judg of those that are in Vegetables,
+Minerals and Elements; and yet these Creatures, for any
+thing Man knows, may be as knowing, understanding,
+and wise as he; and each as knowing of its kind or
+sort, as man is of his; But the mixture of ignorance
+and knowledg in all Creatures proceeds from thence,
+that they are but Parts; and there is no better proof, that
+the mind of man is dividable, then that it is not perfectly
+knowing; nor no better proof that it is composeable,
+then that it knows so much: but all minds are not alike,
+but some are more composed then others, which is the
+cause, some know more then others; for if the mind in
+all men were alike, all men would have the same Imaginations,
+Fancies, Conceptions, Memories, Remembrances,
+Passions, Affections, Understanding, and so
+forth: The same may be said of their bodies; for if all
+mens sensitive parts were as one, and not dividable and
+composeable, all their Faculties, Proprieties, Constitutions,
+Complexions, Appetites, would be the same
+in every man without any difference; but humane sense
+and reason doth well perceive, that neither the mind,
+life nor body are as one piece, without division and composition.
+Concerning the divine Soul, I do not treat
+of it; onely this I may say, That all are not devout alike,
+nor those which are, are not at all times alike devout.
+But to conclude: some of our modern Philosophers
+think they do God good service, when they endeavour
+to prove Nature, as Gods good Servant, to
+be stupid, ignorant, foolish and mad, or any thing
+rather then wise, and yet they believe themselves wise,
+as if they were no part of Nature; but I cannot imagine
+any reason why they should rail on her, except
+Nature had not given them as great a share or portion,
+as she hath given to others; for children in this case do
+often rail at their Parents, for leaving their Brothers and
+Sisters more then themselves. However, Nature can
+do more then any of her Creatures: and if Man can
+Paint, Imbroider, Carve, Ingrave curiously; why
+may not Nature have more Ingenuity, Wit and Wisdom
+then any of her particular Creatures? The same
+may be said of her Government. And so leaving Wise
+Nature, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_63" id="Footnote_1_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_63"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Append. to the Antid. c.</i> 11.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XI" id="II_XI">XI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>To your <i>Authors</i> argument,<a name="FNanchor_1_64" id="FNanchor_1_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_64" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>if Motion belong
+naturally to Matter, Matter being Uniform,
+it must be alike moved in every part or particle imaginable
+of it, by reason this Motion being natural and essential
+to Matter, is alike every way.</i> I answer, That
+this is no more necessary, then that the several actions
+of one body, or of one part of a body should be alike;
+for though Matter is one and the same in its Nature,
+and never changes, yet the motions are various, which
+motions are the several actions of one and the same Natural
+Matter; and this is the cause of so many several
+Creatures; for self-moving matter by its self-moving
+power can act several ways, modes or manners; and
+had not natural matter a self-acting power, there could
+not be any variety in Nature; for Nature knows of no
+rest, there being no such thing as rest in Nature; but
+she is in a perpetual motion, I mean self-motion, given
+her from God: Neither do I think it Atheistical (as
+your <i>Author</i> deems) to maintain this opinion of self-motion,
+as long as I do not deny the Omnipotency of
+God; but I should rather think it Irreligious to make
+so many several Creatures as Immaterial Spirits, like so
+many severall Deities, to rule and govern Nature and
+all material substances in Nature; for what Atheism
+doth there lie in saying, that natural matter is naturally
+moving, and wise in her self? Doth this oppose
+the omnipotency and Infinite wisdom of God? It rather
+proves and confirms it; for all Natures free power
+of moving and wisdom is a gift of God, and proceeds
+from him; but I must confess, it destroys the power of
+Immaterial substances, for Nature will not be ruled nor
+governed by them, and to be against Natural Immaterial
+substances, I think, is no Atheisme, except we make
+them Deities; neither is Atheisme to contradict the
+opinion of those, that believe such natural incorporeal
+Spirits, unless man make himself a God. But although
+Nature is wise, as I said before, and acts methodically,
+yet the variety of motions is the cause of so many Irregularities
+in Nature, as also the cause of Irregular opinions;
+for all opinions are made by self-moving matters
+motions, or (which is all one) by corporeal self-motion,
+and some in their opinions do conceive Nature according
+to the measure of themselves, as that Nature can, nor
+could not do more, then they think, nay, some believe
+they can do as much as Nature doth; which opinions,
+whether they be probable or regular, I'le let any man
+judg; adding onely this, that to humane sense and reason
+it appears plainly, that as God has given Nature a
+power to act freely, so he doth approve of her actions,
+being wise and methodical in all her several Productions,
+Generations, Transformations and Designs: And so I
+conclude for the present, onely subscribe my self, as really
+I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_64" id="Footnote_1_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_64"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 1.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XII" id="II_XII">XII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am of your <i>Authors</i> opinion, concerning self-activity
+or self-motion,<a name="FNanchor_1_65" id="FNanchor_1_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_65" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That what is Active of it self, can
+no more cease to be active then to be</i>: And I have been
+always of this opinion, even from the first beginning of
+my conceptions in natural Philosophy, as you may see
+in my first Treatise of Natural Philosophy, which I put
+forth eleven years since; where I say, That self-moving
+Matter is in a Perpetual motion; But your <i>Author</i> endeavors
+from thence to conclude, That <i>Matter is not
+self active, because it is reducible to rest.</i> To which I
+answer, That there is no such thing as Rest in Nature:
+Not do I say, that all sorts of motions are subject to
+our senses, for those that are subject to our sensitive Perceptions,
+are but gross Motions, in comparison to those
+that are not subject to our exterior senses: as for example;
+We see some bodies dilate, others consume, others
+corrupt; yet we do not see how they dilate, nor how
+they consume, nor how they corrupt: Also we see some
+bodies contract, some attract, some condense, some
+consist, &amp;c. yet we do not see their contracting, attracting,
+condensing, consisting or retenting motions; and
+yet we cannot say, they are not corporeal motions, because
+not subject to our exterior senses; for if there were
+not contracting, attracting, retenting or consistent corporeal
+self-motions, it had been impossible that any
+creature could have been composed into one united figure,
+much less stayed and continued in the same figure
+without a general alteration. But your <i>Author</i>
+says, <i>If Matter, as Matter, had Motion, nothing would
+hold together, but Flints, Adamants, Brass, Iron, yea,
+this whole Earth, would suddenly melt into a thinner substance
+then the subtil Air, or rather it never had been condensated
+together to this consistency we find it.</i> But I
+would ask him, what reason he can give, that corporeal
+self-motion should make all matter rare and fluid,
+unless he believe there is but one kind of motion in Nature,
+but this, human sense and reason will contradict;
+for we may observe there are Infinite changes of Motion,
+and there is more variety and curiosity in corporeal
+motions, then any one single Creature can imagine,
+much less know; but I suppose he conceives all corporeal
+matter to be gross, and that not any corporeal motion
+can be subtil, penetrating, contracting and dilating;
+and that whatsoever is penetrating, contracting
+and dilating, is Individable: But by his leave, <i>Madam</i>,
+this doth not follow; for though there be gross degrees
+of Matter, and strong degrees of Corporeal Motions,
+yet there are also pure and subtil degrees of Matter and
+Motions; to wit, that degree of Matter, which I name
+sensitive and rational Matter, which is natural Life and
+Knowledg, as sensitive Life and rational Knowledg.
+Again, your <i>Author</i> askes, <i>What glue or cement holds the
+parts of hard matter in Stones and Metals together?</i>
+I answer, Consistent or retentive corporeal motions,
+by an agreeable union and conjunction in the several
+parts of Metal or Stone; and these retentive or consistent
+motions, are as strong and active, if not more,
+then some dilative or contractive motions; for I have
+mentioned heretofore, that, as sensitive and rational
+corporeal motions are in all Creatures, so also in Stone,
+Metal, and any other dense body whatsoever; so that
+not any one Creature or part of Matter is without Motion,
+and therefore not any thing is at rest. But,
+<i>Madam</i>, I dare say, I could bring more reason and
+sense to prove, that sensitive and rational Matter is fuller
+of activity, and has more variety of motion, and
+can change its own parts of self-moving Matter more
+suddenly, and into more exterior figures, then Immaterial
+Spirits can do upon natural Matter. But your
+<i>Author</i> says, That Immaterial Spirits are endued with
+Sense and Reason; I say, My sensitive and rational
+corporeal Matter is Sense and Reason it self, and is the
+Architect or Creator of all figures of Natural matter,
+for though all the parts of Matter are not self-moving,
+yet there is not any part that is not moving or moved, by
+and with the mover, which is animate matter. And thus
+I conclude, and rest constantly,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_65" id="Footnote_1_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_65"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 7.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XIII" id="II_XIII">XIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>That Matter is uncapable of Sense, your <i>Author</i>
+proves by the example of dead Carcasses;<a name="FNanchor_1_66" id="FNanchor_1_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_66" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>For,</i>
+says he, <i>Motion and Sense being really one and the
+same thing, it must needs follow, that where there is motion,
+there is also sense and perception; but on the contrary,
+there is Reaction in dead Carcasses, and yet no Sense.</i>
+I answer shortly, That it is no consequence, because
+there is no animal sense nor exterior perceptible local
+motion in a dead Carcass, therefore there is no
+sense at all in it; for though it has not animal sense, yet
+it may nevertheless have sense according to the nature of
+that figure, into which it did change from being an animal.
+Also he says, <i>If any Matter have sense, it will
+follow, that upon reaction all shall have the like; and that a
+Bell while it is ringing, and a Bow while it is bent, and every
+Jack-in-a-box, that School-boys play with, shall be
+living animals.</i> I answer, It is true, if reaction made
+sense; but reaction doth not make sense, but sense
+makes reaction; and though the Bell hath not an animal
+knowledg, yet it may have a mineral life and
+knowledg, and the Bow, and the Jack-in-a-box a vegetable
+knowledg; for the shape and form of the Bell,
+Bow, and Jack-in-a-box, is artificial; nevertheless each
+in its own kind may have as much knowledg as an animal
+in his kind; onely they are different according to
+the different proprieties of their Figures: And who
+can prove the contrary that they have not? For certainly
+Man cannot prove what he cannot know; but Mans
+nature is so, that knowing but little of other Creatures,
+he presently judges there is no more knowledg in Nature,
+then what Man, at least Animals, have; and confines
+all sense onely to Animal sense, and all knowledg
+to Animal knowledg. Again says your Author, <i>That
+Matter is utterly uncapable of such operations as we
+find in our selves, and that therefore there is something
+in us Immaterial or Incorporeal; for we find in our selves
+that one and the same thing, both hears, and sees, and
+tastes, and perceives all the variety of objects that Nature
+manifests unto us.</i> I answer, That is the reason
+there is but one matter, and that all natural perception
+is made by the animate part of matter; but although
+there is but one matter in Nature, yet there are several
+parts or degrees, and consequently several actions of
+that onely matter, which causes such a variety of perceptions,
+both sensitive and rational: the sensitive perception
+is made by the sensitive corporeal motions, copying
+out the figures of forreign objects in the sensitive organs
+of the sentient; and if those sensitive motions do pattern
+out forreign objects in each sensitive organ alike at
+one and the same time, then we hear, see, taste, touch
+and smell, at one and the same time: But Thoughts and
+Passions, as Imagination, Conception, Fancy, Memory,
+Love, Hate, Fear, Joy, and the like, are made
+by the rational corporeal motions in their own degree of
+matter, to wit, the rational. And thus all perception is
+made by one and the same matter, through the variety
+of its actions or motions, making various and several figures,
+both sensitive and rational. But all this variety
+in sense and reason, or of sensitive and rational perceptions,
+is not made by parts pressing upon parts, but by
+changing their own parts of matter into several figures
+by the power of self-motion: For example, I see
+a Man or Beast; that Man or Beast doth not touch my
+eye, in the least, neither in it self, nor by pressing the adjoyning
+parts: but the sensitive corporeal motions streight
+upon the sight of the Man or Beast make the like figure
+in the sensitive organ, the Eye, and in the eyes own substance
+or matter, as being in the eye as well as the other
+degrees of matter, to wit, the rational and inanimate,
+for they are all mixt together. But this is to be observed,
+That the rational matter can and doth move in its
+own substance, as being the purest and subtillest degree
+of matter; but the sensitive being not so pure and subtil,
+moves always with the inanimate Matter, and so
+the perceptive figures which the rational Matter, or rational
+corporeal Motions make, are made in their own
+degree of Matter; but those figures which the sensitive
+patterns out, are made in the organs or parts of the sentient
+body proper to such or such a sense or perception:
+as in an animal Creature, the perception of sight
+is made by the sensitive corporeal motions in the Eye;
+the perception of hearing, in the Ear, and so forth.
+As for what your <i>Author</i> says, <i>That we cannot conceive
+any portion of Matter, but is either hard or soft</i>; I
+answer, That these are but effects of Matters actions,
+and so is rare, and dense, and the like; but there are
+some Creatures which seem neither perfectly rare, nor
+dense, nor hard, nor soft, but of mixt qualities; as for
+example, Quicksilver seems rare, and yet is dense; soft,
+and yet is hard; for though liquid Quicksilver is soft to
+our touch, and rare to our sight, yet it is so dense and hard,
+as not to be readily dissolved from its nature; and if there
+be such contraries and mixtures in one particular creature
+made of self-moving Matter, what will there not be in
+Matter it self, according to the old saying: <i>If the Man such
+praise shall have; What the Master that keeps the knave?</i>
+So if a particular Creature hath such opposite qualities
+and mixtures of corporeal motions, what will the Creator
+have which is self-moving Matter? Wherefore
+it is impossible to affirm, that self-moving Matter is either
+all rare, or all dense, or all hard, or all soft; because
+by its self-moving power it can be either, or both,
+and so by the change and variety of motion, there may
+be soft and rare Points, and hard and sharp Points, hard
+and contracted Globes, and soft and rare Globes; also
+there may be pressures of Parts without printing, and
+printing without pressures. Concerning that part of
+Matter which is the <i>Common Sensorium</i>, your <i>Author</i> demands,
+<i>Whether some point of it receive the whole Image
+of the object, or whether it be wholly received into every
+point of it?</i> I answer, first, That all sensitive Matter
+is not in Points; Next, That not any single part can
+subsist of it self; and then that one Part doth not receive
+all parts or any part into it self; but that Parts by the
+power of self-motion can and do make several figures of
+all sizes and sorts, and can Epitomize a great object into
+a very little figure; for outward objects do not move the
+body, but the sensitive and rational matter moves according
+to the figures of outward objects: I do not say
+always, but most commonly; <i>But</i>, says your Author,
+<i>How can so smal a Point receive the Images of so vast or so
+various objects at once, without obliteration or confusion.</i>
+First, I answer, That, as I said before, sensitive Matter
+is not bound up to a Point, nor to be a single self-subsisting
+Part. Next, as for confusion, I say, that the
+sensitive matter makes no more confusion, then an Engraver,
+when he engraves several figures in a small
+stone, and a Painter draws several figures in a small
+compass; for a Carver will cut out several figures in a
+Cherry-stone, and a Lady in a little black Patch; and if
+gross and rude Art is able to do this, what may not Ingenious
+and Wise Nature do? And as Nature is ingenious
+and knowing in her self, so in her Parts, and her
+Parts in her; for neither whole nor Parts are ignorant,
+but have a knowledg, each according to the motion of
+its own Parts; for knowledg is in Motion, and Motion in
+Matter; and the diversity and variety of motion is the
+diversity and variety of knowledg, so that every particular
+figure and motion hath its particular knowledg,
+as well as its proper and peculiar parts; and as the parts
+join or divide, so doth knowledg, which many times
+causes Arts to be lost and found, and memory and remembrance
+in Particular Creatures: I do not say, they
+are utterly lost in nature, but onely in respect to particular
+Creatures, by the dissolving and dividing of their
+particular figures. For the rational matter, by reason
+it moves onely in its own parts, it can change and rechange
+into several figures without division of parts,
+which makes memory and remembrance: But men not
+considering or believing there might be such a degree of
+onely matter, namely rational, it has made them erre in
+their judgments. Nevertheless there is a difference between
+sensitive and rational parts and motions, and yet
+they are agreeable most commonly in their actions,
+though not always. Also the rational can make such
+figures as the sensitive cannot, by reason the rational has
+a greater power and subtiler faculty in making variety,
+then the sensitive; for the sensitive is bound to move
+with the inanimate, but the rational moves onely in its
+own parts; for though the sensitive and rational oftentimes
+cause each other to move, yet they are not of one
+and the same degree of matter, nor have they the same
+motions. And this rational Matter is the cause of all
+Notions, Conceptions, Imaginations, Deliberation,
+Determination, Memory, and any thing else that belongs
+to the Mind; for this matter is the mind of Nature,
+and so being dividable, the mind of all Creatures,
+as the sensitive is the life; and it can move, as I said, more
+subtilly, and more variously then the sensitive, and make
+such figures as the sensitive cannot, without outward examples
+and objects. But all diversity comes by change
+of motion, and motions are as sympathetical and agreeing,
+as antipathetical and disagreeing; And though Nature's
+artificial motions, which are her Playing motions,
+are sometimes extravagant, yet in her fundamental
+actions there is no extravagancy, as we may observe
+by her exact rules in the various generations, the distinct
+kinds and sorts, the several exact measures, times, proportions
+and motions of all her Creatures, in all which her
+wisdom is well exprest, and in the variety her wise pleasure:
+To which I leave her, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_66" id="Footnote_1_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_66"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XIV" id="II_XIV">XIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>If there be any sense and perception in Matter</i>, says
+your Author,<a name="FNanchor_1_67" id="FNanchor_1_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_67" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>it must needs be Motion or Reaction of
+one part of matter against another; and that all diversity
+of sense and perception doth necessarily arise from the
+diversity of the Magnitude, Figure, Posture, Vigour
+and Direction of Motion in Parts of the Matter; In
+which variety of perceptions, Matter hath none, but such,
+as are impressed by corporeal motions, that is to say, that
+are perceptions of some actions, or modificated Impressions
+of parts of matter bearing one against another.</i> I have
+declared, <i>Madam</i>, my opinion concerning Perception
+in my former Letters, that all Perception is not Impression
+and Reaction, like as a Seal is printed on Wax:
+For example, the corporeal rational motions in the
+mind do not print, but move figuratively; but the sensitive
+motions do carve, print, engrave, and, as it were,
+pencil out, as also move figuratively in productions, and
+do often take patterns from the rational figures, as the
+rational motions make figures according to the sensitive
+patterns; But the rational can move without patterns,
+and so the sensitive: For surely, were a man born blind,
+deaf, dumb, and had a numb palsie in his exterior
+parts, the sensitive and rational motions would nevertheless
+move both in body and mind according to the
+nature of his figure; for though no copies were taken
+from outward objects, yet he would have thoughts,
+passions, appetites, and the like; and though he could
+not see exterior objects, nor hear exterior sounds, yet no
+question but he would see and hear interiously after the
+manner of dreams, onely they might not be any thing
+like to what is perceiveable by man in the World; but
+if he sees not the Sun-light, yet he would see something
+equivalent to it; and if he hears not such a thing as
+Words, yet he would hear something equivalent to
+words; for it is impossible, that his sensitive and rational
+faculties should be lost for want of an Ear, or an
+Eye; so that Perception may be without exterior object,
+or marks, or patterns: for although the sensitive
+Motions do usually pattern out the figures of exterior
+objects, yet that doth not prove, but they can make interior
+figures without such objects. Wherefore Perception
+is not always Reaction, neither is Perception
+and Reaction really one thing; for though Perception
+and Action is one and the same, yet not always Reaction;
+but did Perception proceed from the reaction of
+outward objects, a blind and deaf man would not so
+much as dream; for he would have no interior motion
+in the head, having no other exterior sense but touch,
+which, if the body was troubled with a painful disease,
+he would neither be sensible of, but to feel pain, and
+interiously feel nothing but hunger and fulness; and his
+Mind would be as Irrational as some imagine Vegetables
+and Minerals are. To which opinion I leave
+them, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_67" id="Footnote_1_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_67"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 1. <i>a.</i> 1, 6, 7.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XV" id="II_XV">XV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is pleased, in Mirth, and to disgrace
+the opinion of those which hold, that Perception is
+made by figuring, to bring in this following example:<a name="FNanchor_1_68" id="FNanchor_1_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_68" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+<i>Suppose</i>, says he, <i>one Particle should shape it self
+into a</i> George on Horse-back <i>with a Lance in his hand,
+and another into an Inchanted Castle; this</i> George on
+Horse-back <i>must run against the Castle, to make the
+Castle receive his impress and similitude: But what then?
+Truly the Encounter will be very Unfortunate, for
+S.</i> George <i>indeed may easily break his Lance, but it is
+impossible that he should by justling against the Particle
+in the form of a Castle, conveigh the intire shape of himself
+and his Horse thereby, such as we find our selves able to
+imagine of a man on Horse-back; which is a Truth as demonstrable
+as any Theorem in Mathematicks.</i> I answer,
+first, That there is no Particle single and alone by it self;
+Next, I say, It is more easie for the rational matter to
+put it self into such figures, and to make such encounters,
+then for an Immaterial mind or substance to imagine
+it; for no imagination can be without figure, and
+how should an Immaterial created substance present such
+Figures, but by making them either in it self or upon
+matter? For S. <i>George</i> and the <i>Castle</i> are figures, and
+their encounters are real fighting actions, and how such
+figures and actions can be in the mind or memory, and
+yet not be, is impossible to conceive; for, as I said,
+those figures and actions must be either in the incorporeal
+mind, or in the corporeal parts of matter; and if
+the figures and motions may be in an incorporeal substance,
+much more is it probable for them to be in a
+corporeal; nay if the figures and their actions can be in
+gross corporeal matter, why should they not be in the
+purest part of matter, which is the rational matter? And
+as for being made known to the whole body, and every
+part thereof, it is not necessary, no more then it is necessary,
+that the private actions of every Man or Family
+should be made known to the whole Kingdom, or
+Town, or Parish: But my opinion of self-corporeal
+motion and perception, may be as demonstrable as
+that of Immaterial Natural Spirits, which, in my mind,
+is not demonstrable at all, by reason it is not corporeal
+or material; For how can that be naturally demonstrable,
+which naturally is nothing? But your <i>Author</i>
+believes the Mind or rational Soul to be individable, and
+therefore concludes, that the Parts of the same Matter,
+although at great distance, must of necessity know each
+Particular act of each several Part; but that is not necessary;
+for if there were not ignorance through the division
+of Parts, every man and other creatures would know
+alike; and there is no better proof, that matter, or any
+particular creature in nature is not governed by a created
+Immaterial Spirit, then that knowledg is in parts;
+for the hand doth not know what pain the head feels,
+which certainly it would do, if the mind were not
+dividable into parts, but an individable substance.
+But this is well to be observed, that some parts
+in some actions agree generally in one body, and
+some not; as for example, temperance and appetite
+do not agree; for the corporeal actions of
+appetite desire to join with the corporeal actions of
+such or such other parts, but the corporeal actions of
+temperance do hinder and forbid it; whereupon there
+is a faction amongst the several parts: for example, a
+Man desires to be drunk with Wine; this desire is
+made by such corporeal actions as make appetite; the
+rational corporeal motions or actions which make temperance,
+oppose those that make appetite, and that sort
+of actions which hath the better, carryes it, the hand
+and other parts of the body obeying the strongest side;
+and if there be no wine to satisfie the appetite, yet many
+times the appetite continues; that is, the parts continue
+in the same motions that make such an appetite;
+but if the appetite doth not continue, then those parts
+have changed their motions; or when by drinking, the
+appetite is satisfied, and ceases, then those parts that made
+the appetite, have altered their former motions. But
+oftentimes the rational corporeal motions may so agree
+with the sensitive, as there may be no opposition or crossing
+at all, but a sympathetical mutual agreement betwixt
+them, at least an approvement; so that the rational
+may approve what the sensitive covet or desire: Also
+some motions of the rational, as also of the sensitive matter,
+may disagree amongst themselves, as we see, that a man
+will often have a divided mind; for he will love and hate
+the same thing, desire and not desire one and the same
+thing, as to be in Heaven, and yet to be in the World:
+Moreover, this is to be observed, That all rational perceptions
+or cogitations, are not so perspicuous and clear
+as if they were Mathematical Demonstrations, but there
+is some obscurity, more or less in them, at least they are
+not so well perceivable without comparing several figures
+together, which proves, they are not made by an individable,
+immaterial Spirit, but by dividable corporeal
+parts: As for example, Man writes oftentimes false, and
+seldom so exact, but he is forced to mend his hand, and
+correct his opinions, and sometimes quite to alter them,
+according as the figures continue or are dissolved and altered
+by change of motion, and according as the actions
+are quick or slow in these alterations, the humane
+mind is setled or wavering; and as figures are made, or
+dissolved and transformed, Opinions, Conceptions, Imaginations,
+Understanding, and the like, are more
+or less; And according as these figures last, so is constancy
+or inconstancy, memory or forgetfulness, and as
+those figures are repeated, so is remembrance; but sometimes
+they are so constant and permanent, as they last
+as long as the figure of the body, and sometimes it happens
+not once in an age, that the like figures are repeated,
+and sometimes they are repeated every moment:
+As for example; a man remembers or calls to mind the
+figure of another man, his friend, with all his qualities,
+dispositions, actions, proprieties, and the like, several
+times in an hour, and sometimes not once in a year, and
+so as often as he remembers him, as often is the figure
+of that man repeated; and as oft as he forgets him, so
+often is his figure dissolved. But some imagine the rational
+motions to be so gross as the Trotting of a Horse,
+and that all the motions of Animate matter are as rude
+and course as renting or tearing asunder, or that all impressions
+must needs make dents or creases. But as Nature
+hath degrees of corporeal matter, so she hath also
+degrees of corporeal motions, Matter and Motion being
+but one substance; and it is absurd to judg of the interior
+motions of self-moving matter, by artificial or
+exterior gross motions, as that all motions must be like
+the tearing of a sheet of Paper, or that the printing and
+patterning of several figures of rational and sensitive
+matter must be like the printing of Books; nay, all artificial
+Printings are not so hard, as to make dents and
+impresses; witness Writing, Painting, and the like;
+for they do not disturb the ground whereon the letters
+are written, or the picture drawn, and so the curious
+actions of the purest rational matter are neither rude nor
+rough; but although this matter is so subtil and pure, as
+not subject to exterior human senses and organs, yet
+certainly it is dividable, not onely in several Creatures,
+but in the several parts of one and the same Creature, as
+well as the sensitive, which is the Life of Nature, as
+the other is the Soul; not the Divine, but natural Soul;
+neither is this Soul Immaterial, but Corporeal; not
+composed of raggs and shreds, but it is the purest,
+simplest and subtillest matter in Nature. But to conclude,
+I desire you to remember, <i>Madam</i>, that this
+rational and sensitive Matter in one united and finite
+Figure or particular Creature, has both common
+and particular actions, for as there are several
+kinds and sorts of Creatures, and particulars in
+every kind and sort: so the like for the actions of the
+rational and sensitive matter in one particular Creature.
+Also it is to be noted, That the Parts of
+rational matter, can more suddenly give and take Intelligence
+to and from each other, then the sensitive;
+nevertheless, all Parts in Nature, at least adjoyning
+parts, have Intelligence between each other, more
+or less, because all parts make but one body; for it is
+not with the parts of Matter, as with several Constables
+in several Hundreds, or several Parishes, which
+are a great way distant from each other, but they
+may be as close as the combs of Bees, and yet as
+partable and as active as Bees. But concerning the
+Intelligence of Natures Parts, I have sufficiently spoken
+in other places; and so I'le add no more, but that
+I unfeignedly remain;</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_68" id="Footnote_1_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_68"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>In the second Book of the Immortality of the Soul, ch.</i> 6.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XVI" id="II_XVI">XVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Sensation in corporeal motion is first, and Perception
+follows</i>, sayes your <i>Author</i>:<a name="FNanchor_1_69" id="FNanchor_1_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_69" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> to which opinion I
+give no assent, but do believe that Perception and
+Sensation are done both at one and the same time, as being
+one and the same thing without division, either in
+reason or sense, and are performed without any knocks,
+or jolts, or hitting against. But let me tell you, <i>Madam</i>,
+there arises a great mistake by many, from not
+distinguishing well, sensitive Motion, and rational Motion;
+for though all motions are in one onely matter,
+yet that matter doth not move always in the same manner,
+for then there could be no variety in Nature; and
+truly, if man, who is but a part of Nature, may move
+diversly, and put himself into numerous postures; Why
+may not Nature? But concerning Motions, and
+their variety, to avoid tedious repetitions, I must still referr
+you to my Book of <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>; I'le add
+onely this, that it is well to be observed, That all Motions
+are not Impressions, neither do all Impressions
+make such dents, as to disturb the adjoyning Parts:
+Wherefore those, in my opinion, understand <i>Nature</i>
+best, which say, that Sensation and Perception are really
+one and the same; but they are out, that say, there
+can be no communication at a distance, unless by pressing
+and crowding; for the patterning of an outward
+object, may be done without any inforcement or
+disturbance, jogging or crowding, as I have declared
+heretofore; for the sensitive and rational motions in the
+sensitive and rational parts of matter in one creature, observing
+the exterior motions in outward objects, move
+accordingly, either regularly or irregularly in patterns;
+and if they have no exterior objects, as in dreams, they
+work by rote. And so to conclude, I am absolutely
+of their opinion, who believe, that there is nothing
+existent in Nature, but what is purely Corporeal, for
+this seems most probable in sense and reason to me,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_69" id="Footnote_1_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_69"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>In the Pref. of the Imm. of the Soul.</i></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XVII" id="II_XVII">XVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Outward Objects, as I have told you before, do
+not make Sense and Reason, but Sense and
+Reason do perceive and judg of outward objects;
+For the Sun doth not make sight, nor doth sight make
+light; but sense and reason in a Man, or any other
+creature, do perceive and know there are such objects
+as Sun, and Light, or whatsoever objects are presented
+to them. Neither doth Dumbness, Deafness, Blindness,
+&amp;c. cause an Insensibility, but Sense through irregular
+actions causes them; I say, through Irregular
+actions, because those effects do not properly belong to
+the nature of that kind of Creatures; for every Creature,
+if regularly made, hath particular motions proper
+to its figure; for natural Matters wisdom makes
+distinctions by her distinct corporeal motions, giving
+every particular Creature their due Portion and Proportion
+according to the nature of their figures, and to
+the rules of her actions, but not to the rules of Arts,
+Mathematical Compasses, Lines, Figures, and the
+like. And thus the Sun, Stars, Meteors, Air, Fire,
+Water, Earth, Minerals, Vegetables and Animals,
+may all have Sense and Reason, although it doth not
+move in one kind or sort of Creatures, or in one
+particular, as in another: For the corporeal motions
+differ not onely in kinds and sorts, but also in Particulars,
+as is perceivable by human sense and reason;
+Which is the cause, that Elements have elemental sense
+and knowledg, and Animals animal sense and knowledg,
+and so of Vegetables, Minerals, and the like.
+Wherefore the Sun and Stars may have as much sensitive
+and rational life and knowledg as other Creatures,
+but such as is according to the nature of their figures, and
+not animal, or vegetable, or mineral sense and knowledg.
+And so leaving them, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XVIII" id="II_XVIII">XVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> denying that Fancy, Reason and
+Animadversion are seated in the Brain, and that
+the Brain is figured into this or that Conception:<a name="FNanchor_1_70" id="FNanchor_1_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_70" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+<i>I demand</i>, says he, <i>in what knot, loop or interval thereof
+doth this faculty of free Fancy and active Reason reside?</i>
+My answer is, that in my opinion, Fancy and Reason
+are not made in the Brain, as there is a Brain, but as
+there is sensitive and rational matter, which makes not
+onely the Brain, but all Thoughts, Conceptions, Imaginations,
+Fancy, Understanding, Memory, Remembrance,
+and whatsoever motions are in the Head,
+or Brain: neither doth this sensitive and rational matter
+remain or act in one place of the Brain, but in every
+part thereof; and not onely in every part of the Brain,
+but in every part of the Body; nay, not onely in every
+part of a Mans Body, but in every part of Nature. But,
+<i>Madam</i>, I would ask those, that say the Brain has
+neither sense, reason, nor self-motion, and therefore
+no Perception; but that all proceeds from an Immaterial
+Principle, as an Incorporeal Spirit, distinct from
+the body, which moveth and actuates corporeal matter;
+I would fain ask them, I say, where their Immaterial
+Ideas reside, in what part or place of the Body? and
+whether they be little or great? Also I would ask them,
+whether there can be many, or but one Idea of God? If
+they say many, then there must be several, distinct Deitical
+Ideas; if but one, Where doth this Idea reside?
+If they say in the head, then the heart is ignorant of
+God; if in the heart, then the head is ignorant thereof,
+and so for all parts of the body; but if they say, in every
+part, then that Idea may be disfigured by a lost member;
+if they say, it may dilate and contract, then I say
+it is not the Idea of God, for God can neither contract
+nor extend; nor can the Idea it self dilate and contract,
+being immaterial; for contraction and dilation belong
+onely to bodies, or material beings: Wherefore the
+comparisons betwixt Nature and a particular Creature,
+and between God and Nature, are improper; much
+more betwixt God and Natures particular motions and
+figures, which are various and changeable, although
+methodical. The same I may ask of the Mind of
+Man, as I do of the Idea in the Mind. Also I might
+ask them, what they conceive the natural mind of man
+to be, whether material or immaterial? If material,
+their opinion is rational, and so the mind is dividable
+and composable; if immaterial, then it is a Spirit; and
+if a Spirit, it cannot possibly dilate nor contract, having
+no dimension nor divisibility of parts, (although your
+<i>Author</i> proves it by the example of Light; but I have
+exprest my meaning heretofore, that <i>light</i> is divisible)
+and if it have no dimension, how can it be confined in
+a material body? Wherefore when your <i>Author</i> says,
+the mind is a substance, it is to my reason very probable;
+but not when he says, it is an immaterial substance,
+which will never agree with my sense and reason; for it
+must be either something, or nothing, there being no
+<i>medium</i> between, in Nature. But pray mistake me
+not, <i>Madam</i>, when I say Immaterial is nothing; for
+I mean nothing Natural, or so as to be a part of Nature;
+for God forbid, I should deny, that God is a
+Spiritual Immaterial substance, or Being; neither do I
+deny that we can have an Idea, notion, conception, or
+thought of the existence of God; for I am of your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion, That there is no Man under the cope of
+Heaven, that doth not by the light of Nature, know,
+and believe there is a God; but that we should have
+such a perfect Idea of God, as of any thing else in the
+World, or as of our selves, as your <i>Author</i> says, I cannot
+in sense and reason conceive to be true or possible.
+Neither am I against those Spirits, which the holy
+Scripture mentions, as Angels and Devils, and the divine
+Soul of Man; but I say onely, that no Immaterial
+Spirit belongs to Nature, so as to be a part thereof; for
+Nature is Material, or Corporeal; and whatsoever is
+not composed of matter or body, belongs not to Nature;
+nevertheless, Immaterial Spirits may be in Nature,
+although not parts of Nature. But there can neither
+be an Immaterial Nature, nor a Natural Immaterial;
+Nay, our very thoughts and conceptions of Immaterial
+are Material, as made of self-moving Matter.
+Wherefore to conclude, these opinions in Men proceed
+from a Vain-glory, as to have found out something
+that is not in Nature; to which I leave them, and
+their natural Immaterial Substances, like so many
+Hobgoblins to fright Children withal, resting in the
+mean time,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_70" id="Footnote_1_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_70"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. lib.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 11.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XIX" id="II_XIX">XIX.</a></h3>
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>There are various opinions concerning the seat of
+Common Sense, as your <i>Author</i> rehearseth them
+in his Treatise of the Immortality of the Soul;<a name="FNanchor_1_71" id="FNanchor_1_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_71" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+But my opinion is, That common sense hath also a
+common place; for as there is not any part of the body
+that hath not sense and reason, so sense and reason is in
+all parts of the body, as it is observable by this, that every
+part is subject to pain and pleasure, and all parts are
+moveable, moving and moved; also appetites are in every
+part of the body: As for example, if any part
+itches, it hath an appetite to be scratched, and every part
+can pattern out several objects, and so several touches;
+and though the rational part of matter is mixt in all
+parts of the body, yet it hath more liberty to make variety
+of Motions in the head, heart, liver, spleen, stomack,
+bowels, and the like, then in the other parts of
+the body; nevertheless, it is in every part, together
+with the sensitive: but they do not move in every part
+alike, but differ in each part more or less, as it may be
+observed; and although every part hath some difference
+of knowledg, yet all have life and knowledg, sense
+and reason, some more, some less, and the whole body
+moves according to each part, and so do all the bodily
+Faculties and Proprieties, and not according to one
+single part; the rational Soul being in all parts of the body:
+for if one part of the body should have a dead Palsie,
+it is not, that the Soul is gone from that part, but that
+the sensitive and rational matter has altered its motion
+and figure from animal to some other kind; for certainly,
+the rational Soul, and so life, is in every part, as well
+in the Pores of the skin, as in the ventricles of the brain,
+and as well in the heel as in the head; and every part
+of the body knows its own office, what it ought to do,
+from whence follows an agreement of all the parts:
+And since there is difference of knowledg in every
+part of one body, well may there be difference between
+several kinds and sorts, and yet there is knowledg
+in all; for difference of knowledg is no argument
+to prove they have no knowledg at all. Wherefore
+I am not of the opinion, that that which moves the
+whole body, is as a Point, or some such thing in a little
+kernel or <i>Glandula</i> of the Brain, as an Ostrich-egge is
+hung up to the roof of a Chamber; or that it is in
+the stomack like a single penny in a great Purse; neither
+is it in the midst of the heart, like a Lady in a
+Lobster; nor in the blood, like as a Menow, or Sprat
+in the Sea; nor in the fourth Ventricle of the Brain,
+as a lousie Souldier in a Watch-tower. But you may
+say, it is like a farthing Candle in a great Church: I
+answer, That Light will not enlighten the by Chappels
+of the Church, nor the Quest-house, nor the
+Belfrey; neither doth the Light move the Church,
+though it enlightens it: Wherefore the Soul after
+this manner doth not move the corporeal body, no
+more then the Candle moves the Church, or the
+Lady moves the Lobster, or the Sprat the Sea as
+to make it ebb and flow. But this I desire you to
+observe, <i>Madam</i>, that though all the body of man
+or any other Creature, hath sense and reason, which is
+life and knowledg, in all parts, yet these parts being all
+corporeal, and having their certain proportions, can
+have no more then what is belonging or proportionable
+to each figure: As for example; if a Man should
+feed, and not evacuate some ways or other, he could
+not live; and if he should evacuate and not feed, he
+could not subsist: wherefore in all Natures parts there
+is ingress and egress, although not always perceived by
+one creature, as Man; but all exterior objects do not
+enter into Man, or any other Creature, but are figured
+by the rational, and some by the sensitive parts or motions
+in the body; wherefore it is not rational to believe,
+that exterior objects take up any more room, then if
+there were none presented to the sensitive organs: Nor
+is there any thing which can better prove the mind to be
+corporeal, then that there may be several Figures in several
+parts of the body made at one time, as Sight, Hearing,
+Tasting, Smelling, and Touching, and all these
+in each several organ, as well at one, as at several times,
+either by patterns, or not; which figuring without
+Pattern, may be done as well by the sensitive motions in
+the organs, as by the rational in the mind, and is called
+remembrance. As for example: a Man may hear or
+see without an object; which is, that the sensitive and rational
+matter repeat such figurative actions, or make others
+in the sensitive organs, or in the mind: and Thoughts,
+Memory, Imagination, as also Passion, are no less corporeal
+actions then the motion of the hand or heel;
+neither hath the rational matter, being naturally wise,
+occasion to jumble and knock her parts together, by
+reason every part knows naturally their office what
+they ought to do, or what they may do. But I conclude,
+repeating onely what I have said oft before, that
+all Perceptions, Thoughts, and the like, are the Effects,
+and Life and Knowledg, the Nature and Essence of
+self-moving Matter. And so I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_71" id="Footnote_1_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_71"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Lib.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XX" id="II_XX">XX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am not able to conceive how the Mind of Man can be
+compared to a Table-book, in which nothing
+is writ;<a name="FNanchor_1_72" id="FNanchor_1_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_72" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> nor how to a Musician, who being asleep,
+doth not so much as dream of any Musick, but being
+jogg'd and awakend by another, who tells him two or
+three words of a Song, and desires him to sing it, presently
+recovers himself, and sings upon so slight an Intimation:
+For such intimations are nothing else but outward
+objects, which the interior sense consents to, and obeys;
+for interior sense and reason doth often obey outward
+objects: and in my opinion there is no rest in Nature,
+and so neither in the Mind or natural Soul of Man,
+which is in a perpetual motion, and needs therefore no
+jogging to put it into any actual motion; for it hath
+actual motion and knowledg in it self, because it is a self-moving
+substance, actually knowing, and Material or
+Corporeal, not Immaterial, as your <i>Author</i> thinks:
+and this material or corporeal Mind is nothing else
+but what I call the rational matter, and the corporeal
+life is the sensitive matter. But this is to be observed,
+that the motions of the corporeal Mind do often imitate
+the motions of the sensitive Life, and these again
+the motions of the mind: I say oftentimes; for they
+do it not always, but each one can move without
+taking any pattern from the other. And all this I understand
+of the Natural Soul of Man; not of the Divine
+Soul, and her powers and faculties, for I leave
+that to Divines to inform us of; onely this I say, that
+men not conceiving the distinction between this natural
+and divine Soul, make such a confusion betwixt
+those two Souls and their actions, which causes so
+many disputes and opinions. But if Nature hath
+power from God to produce all kinds of Vegetables,
+Minerals, Elements, Animals, and other sorts of
+Creatures, Why not also Man? Truly if all Creatures
+are natural Creatures, Man must be so too; and
+if Man is a natural Creature, he must needs have natural
+sense and reason, as well as other Creatures, being
+composed of the same matter they are of. Neither
+is it requisite, that all Creatures, being of the same
+matter, must have the same manner of sensitive and
+rational knowledg; which if so, it is not necessary
+for Corn to have Ears to hear the whistling or chirping
+of Birds, nor for Stones to have such a touch of
+feeling as animals have, and to suffer pain, as they
+do, when Carts go over them; as your <i>Author</i> is
+pleased to argue out of <i>�sopes</i> Tales; or for the Heliotrope
+to have eyes to see the Sun: for what necessity
+is there that they should have humane sense and reason?
+which is, that the rational and sensitive matter should
+act and move in them as she doth in man or animals:
+Certainly if there must be any variety in nature, it is
+requisite she should not; wherefore all Vegetables, Minerals,
+Elements, and Animals, have their proper motions
+different from each others, not onely in their
+kinds and sorts, but also in their particulars. And though
+Stones have no progressive motion to withdraw
+themselves from the Carts going over them, which
+your <i>Author</i> thinks they would do, if they had sense,
+to avoid pain: nevertheless they have motion, and consequently
+sense and reason, according to the nature and
+propriety of their figure, as well as man has according
+to his. But this is also to be observed, that not any
+humane Creature, which is accounted to have the perfectest
+sense and reason, is able always to avoid what is
+hurtful or painful, for it is subject to it by Nature: Nay,
+the Immaterial Soul it self, according to your <i>Author</i>,<a name="FNanchor_2_73" id="FNanchor_2_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_73" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+cannot by her self-contracting faculty withdraw her self
+from pain. Wherefore there is no manner of consequence
+to conclude from the sense of Animals to the
+sense of Minerals, they being as much different as their
+Figures are; And saying this, I have said enough to
+express the opinion and mind of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_72" id="Footnote_1_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_72"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. Book</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_73" id="Footnote_2_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_73"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Append. to the Antid. ch.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXI" id="II_XXI">XXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> endeavours very much to prove the
+existency of a <i>Natural Immaterial Spirit</i>, whom
+he defines to be an <i>Incorporeal substance, Indivisible,
+that can move it self, can penetrate, contract and
+dilate it self, and can also move and alter the matter.</i>
+Whereof, if you will have my opinion, I confess freely
+to you, that in my sense and reason I cannot conceive
+it to be possible, that these is any such thing in Nature;
+for all that is a substance in Nature, is a body, and what
+has a body, is corporeal; for though there be several
+degrees of matter, as in purity, rarity, subtilty, activity;
+yet there is no degree so pure, rare and subtil, that can
+go beyond its nature, and change from corporeal to
+incorporeal, except it could change from being something
+to nothing, which is impossible in Nature. Next,
+there is no substance in Nature that is not divisible; for
+all that is a body, or a bodily substance, hath extension,
+and all extension hath parts, and what has parts, is divisible.
+As for self-motion, contraction and dilation,
+these are actions onely of Natural Matter; for Matter
+by the Power of God is self-moving, and all sorts of
+motions, as contraction, dilation, alteration, penetration,
+&amp;c. do properly belong to Matter; so that natural
+Matter stands in no need to have some Immaterial or
+Incorporeal substance to move, rule, guide and govern
+her; but she is able enough to do it all her self, by the
+free Gift of the Omnipotent God; for why should we
+trouble our selves to invent or frame other unconceivable
+substances, when there is no need for it, but Matter
+can act, and move as well without them and of it self?
+Is not God able to give such power to Matter, as to an
+other Incorporeal substance? But I suppose this opinion
+of natural Immaterial Spirits doth proceed from
+Chymistry, where the extracts are vulgarly called Spirits;
+and from that degree of Matter, which by reason
+of its purity, subtilty and activity, is not subject to our
+grosser senses; However, these are not Incorporeal, be
+they never so pure and subtil. And I wonder much that
+men endeavour to prove Immaterial Spirits by corporeal
+Arts, when as Art is not able to demonstrate Nature
+and her actions; for Art is but the effect of Nature,
+and expresses rather the variety, then the truth of natural
+motions; and if Art cannot do this, much less will
+it be able to express what is not in Nature, or what is
+beyond Nature; as to <i>trace the Visible</i> (or rather Invisible)
+<i>footsteps of the divine Councel and Providence</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_74" id="FNanchor_1_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_74" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> or
+to demonstrate things supernatural, and which go beyond
+mans reach and capacity. But to return to Immaterial
+Spirits, that they should rule and govern infinite
+corporeal matter, like so many demy-Gods, by a
+dilating nod, and a contracting frown, and cause so many
+kinds and sorts of Corporeal Figures to arise, being Incorporeal
+themselves, is Impossible for me to conceive; for
+how can an Immaterial substance cause a Material corporeal
+substance, which has no motion in it self, to form
+so many several and various figures and creatures, and
+make so many alterations, and continue their kinds and
+sorts by perpetual successions of Particulars? But
+perchance the Immaterial substance gives corporeal
+matter motion. I answer, My sense and reason cannot
+understand, how it can give motion, unless motion be
+different, distinct and separable from it; nay, if
+it were, yet being no substance or body it self, according
+to your <i>Authors</i> and others opinion, the question is,
+how it can be transmitted or given away to corporeal
+matter? Your <i>Author</i> may say, That his Immaterial
+and Incorporeal spirit of Nature, having self-motion,
+doth form Matter into several Figures: I answer, Then
+that Immaterial substance must be transformed and metamorphosed
+into as many several figures as there are
+figures in Matter; or there must be as many spirits, as
+there are figures; but when the figures change, what
+doth become of the spirits? Neither can I imagine,
+that an Immaterial substance, being without body, can
+have such a great strength, as to grapple with gross, heavy,
+dull, and dead Matter; Certainly, in my opinion,
+no Angel, nor Devil, except God Impower him, would
+be able to move corporeal Matter, were it not self-moving,
+much less any Natural Spirit. But God is a
+Spirit, and Immovable; and if created natural Immaterial
+participate of that Nature, as they do of the
+Name, then they must be Immovable also. Your <i>Author,
+Madam</i>, may make many several degrees of
+Spirits; but certainly not I, nor I think any natural
+Creature else, will be able naturally to conceive them.
+He may say, perchance, There is such a close conjunction
+betwixt Body and Spirit, as I make betwixt rational,
+sensitive, and inanimate Matter. I answer, That these
+degrees are all but one Matter, and of one and the same
+Nature as meer Matter, different onely in degrees of
+purity, subtilty, and activity, whereas Spirit and Body
+are things of contrary Natures. In fine, I cannot conceive,
+how a Spirit should fill up a place or space, having
+no body, nor how it can have the effects of a body,
+being none it self; for the effects flow from the cause;
+and as the cause is, so are its effects: And so confessing
+my ignorance, I can say no more, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_74" id="Footnote_1_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_74"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. lib.</i> 2. <i>ch.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXII" id="II_XXII">XXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> having assigned Indivisibility to the
+Soul or Spirit that moves and actuates matter, I
+desire to know, how one Indivisible Spirit can be in
+so many dividable parts? For there being Infinite
+parts in Nature, they must either have one Infinite Spirit
+to move them, which must be dilated infinitely, or
+this Spirit must move severally in every part of Nature:
+If the first, then I cannot conceive, but all motion must
+be uniform, or after one and the same manner; nay, I cannot
+understand, how there can be any dilation and contraction,
+or rather any motion of the same spirit, by reason
+if it dilate, then, (being equally spread out in all the parts
+of Matter,) it must dilate beyond Matter; and if it contract,
+it must leave some parts of matter void, and without
+motion. But if the Spirit moves every part severally,
+then he is divisible; neither can I think, that there are so
+many Spirits as there are Parts in Nature; for your
+<i>Author</i> says, there is but one Spirit of Nature; I will
+give an easie and plain example: When a Worm is
+cut into two or three parts, we see there is sensitive life
+and motion in every part, for every part will strive and
+endeavour to meet and joyn again to make up the whole
+body; now if there were but one indivisible Life, Spirit,
+and Motion, I would fain know, how these severed
+parts could move all by one Spirit. Wherefore,
+Matter, in my opinion, has self-motion in it self, which
+is the onely soul and life of Nature, and is dividable
+as well as composable, and full of variety of action; for
+it is as easie for several parts to act in separation, as in
+composition, and as easie in composition as in separation;
+Neither is every part bound to one kind or sort
+of Motions; for we see in exterior local motions, that
+one man can put his body into several shapes and postures,
+much more can Nature. But is it not strange,
+<i>Madam</i>, that a man accounts it absurd, ridiculous,
+and a prejudice to Gods Omnipotency, to attribute self-motion
+to Matter, or a material Creature, when it is
+not absurd, ridiculous, or any prejudice to God, to
+attribute it to an Immaterial Creature? What reason of
+absurdity lies herein? Surely I can conceive none, except
+it be absurd and ridiculous to make that, which no
+man can know or conceive what it is, <i>viz.</i> an immaterial
+natural Spirit, (which is as much as to say, a natural
+No-thing) to have motion, and not onely motion,
+but self-motion; nay, not onely self-motion, but
+to move, actuate, rule, govern, and guide Matter,
+or corporeal Nature, and to be the cause of all the most
+curious varieties and effects in nature: Was not God
+able to give self-motion as well to a Material, as to an
+Immaterial Creature, and endow Matter with a self-moving
+power? I do not say, <i>Madam</i>, that Matter hath
+motion of it self, so, that it is the prime cause and principle
+of its own self-motion; for that were to make
+Matter a God, which I am far from believing; but my opinion
+is, That the self-motion of Matter proceeds from
+God, as well as the self-motion of an Immaterial Spirit;
+and that I am of this opinion, the last Chapter of my
+Book of Philosophy will enform you, where I treat of
+the Deitical Centre, as the Fountain from whence all
+things do flow, and which is the supream Cause, Author,
+Ruler and Governor of all. Perhaps you will
+say, it is, because I make Matter Eternal. 'Tis true,
+<i>Madam</i>, I do so: but I think Eternity doth not take off
+the dependance upon God, for God may nevertheless
+be above Matter, as I have told you before. You may
+ask me how that can be? I say, As well as any thing else
+that God can do beyond our understanding: For I do
+but tell you my opinion, that I think it most probable
+to be so, but I can give you no Mathematical Demonstrations
+for it: Onely this I am sure of, That it is not
+impossible for the Omnipotent God; and he that questions
+the truth of it, may question Gods Omnipotency.
+Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I wonder how man can say, God is
+Omnipotent, and can do beyond our Understanding,
+and yet deny all that he is not able to comprehend
+with his reason. However, as I said, it is my opinion,
+That Matter is self-moving by the power of God;
+Neither can Animadversion, and Perception, as also the
+variety of Figures, prove, that there must be another
+external Agent or Power to work all this in Matter; but
+it proves rather the contrary; for were there no self-motion
+in Matter, there would be no Perception, nor
+no variety of Creatures in their Figures, Shapes, Natures,
+Qualities, Faculties, Proprieties, as also in their
+Productions, Creations or Generations, Transformations,
+Compositions, Dissolutions, and the like, as
+Growth, Maturity, Decay, &amp;c. and for Animals, were
+not Corporeal Matter self-moving, dividable and composable;
+there could not be such variety of Passions,
+Complexions, Humors, Features, Statures, Appetites,
+Diseases, Infirmities, Youth, Age, &amp;c. Neither
+would they have any nourishing Food, healing
+Salves, soveraign Medicines, reviving Cordials, or
+deadly Poysons. In short, there is so much variety in
+Nature, proceeding from the self-motion of Matter,
+as not possible to be numbred, nor thorowly known
+by any Creature: Wherefore I should labour in vain,
+if I endeavoured to express any more thereof; and this
+is the cause that I break off here, and onely subscribe my
+self,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXIII" id="II_XXIII">XXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning the comparison, your <i>Author</i> makes
+between an Immaterial Spirit, and Light,<a name="FNanchor_1_75" id="FNanchor_1_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_75" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That,
+<i>as Light is contractive and dilative, and yet not divisible,
+so is also an Immaterial substance.</i> Give me leave
+to tell you, that in my opinion, all that is contractive
+and dilative, is also dividable, and so is light: As for example;
+when a Candle is snuff'd, the Snuffers do not
+onely clip the wick, but also the light: The like when
+a dark body is interposed, or crosses the rays of the Sun;
+it cuts those rays asunder, which by reason they cannot
+joyn together again, because of the interposed body,
+the light cut off, suddenly goeth out; that is, the matter
+of light is altered from the figure of light, to some other
+thing, but not annihilated: And since no more
+light can flow into the room from the Fountain or
+Spring of Light, the Sun, because the passage is stopt
+close, the room remaineth dark: For Light is somewhat
+of the nature of Water; so long as the Spring is open,
+the Water flows, and whatsoever is taken away, the
+Spring supplies; and if another body onely presses thorow
+it, it immediately joyns and closes its severed parts
+again, without any difficulty or loss; The same doth
+Light; onely the difference is, that the substance of
+Light is extraordinary rare, and pure; for as Air is so
+much rarer then Water, so Light is so much rarer and
+purer then Air, and its matter may be of so dilating a
+nature, as to dilate from a point into numerous rayes.
+As for ordinary Fire-light, it doth not last longer, then
+it hath fuel to feed it, and so likewise it is with the light
+of the Sun; for Light is according to the substance that
+feeds it; and though it is a substance it self, yet it increases
+and decreases, according as it hath something
+that succours or nourishes it. But some may object,
+that if Light were a body, and did contract and dilate,
+as I say, it is impossible that it could display it self in so
+great and vast a compass, and remove so suddenly and
+instantly as it doth. To which objection, I answer, first,
+That although I say, Light is a real corporeal substance,
+and doth contract and dilate it self from a point into numerous
+rayes, as also in another Letter I sent you before,<a name="FNanchor_2_76" id="FNanchor_2_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_76" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+That Light and Darkness do succeed each other;
+nevertheless, as for the perception of Light, I am not
+so eager in maintaining this opinion, as if it was an Infallible
+Truth, and impossible to be otherwise; but I
+say onely, That, to my sense and reason, it seems very
+probable, that it may be so, that the light of the Sun doth
+really dilate it self into so vast a compass as we see, and
+that light and darkness do really succeed each other, as
+all other Creatures do: But yet it seems also probable
+to mee, that the parts of the Air may onely pattern out
+the figure of light, and that the light we see in the Air
+may be onely patterns taken from the real figure of the
+light of the Sun: And therefore, if it be according to
+the former opinion, to wit, That the light of the Sun
+doth really dilate it self into so vast a compass, My answer
+is, That contraction and dilation are natural corporeal
+actions or motions, and that there is no alteration
+of motion in Nature, but is done in Time, that is,
+successively, not instantly; for Time is nothing else but
+the alteration of motion: Besides, I do not perceive
+any so sudden and swift alteration and succession of
+light, but that it is done by degrees: As for example;
+in the morning, when it begins to dawn and grow light,
+it appears clearly to our sight how light doth come
+forth, and darkness remove by degrees; and so at
+night, when it grows dark, how light removes, and
+darkness succeeds; nay, if there be any such sudden
+change of the motions of Light, I desire you to consider,
+<i>Madam</i>, that light is a very subtil, rare, piercing
+and active body, and therefore its motions are
+much quicker then those of grosser bodies, and cannot
+so well be perceived by our gross exterior senses. But
+if it be, that the Air doth pattern out the light of the
+Sun, then the framed objection can prove nothing, because
+there is not then such a real dilation or succession
+of light, but the corporeal figurative motions of the Air
+do make patterns of the light of the Sun, and dissolve
+those patterns or figures again, more suddenly and
+quickly then man can shut and open his eyes, as being
+more subtil then his gross exterior senses. But it may be
+said, that if Air did pattern out the light of the Sun, the
+light would increase by these numerous patterns. I answer,
+that cannot appear to our Eyes; for we see onely
+the pattern'd figure of light, and that a great compass
+is enlightned; also that the further the air is from the
+Sun, the darker it is; nevertheless, I do verily believe,
+that the body of the Sun is far brighter then the light
+we see, and that the substance of light, and the patterns
+taken from light, are not one and the same, but very
+different. And thus much of light. As for Penetration,
+I conceive it to be nothing else but division; as
+when some parts pierce and enter through other parts,
+as Duellers run each other thorow, or as water runs
+through a sieve. And this is the opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_75" id="Footnote_1_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_75"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>In the Append. to the Antid. c.</i> 3. and
+<i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_76" id="Footnote_2_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_76"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Sect.</i> 1. <a href="#I_XX"><i>Let.</i> 20</a>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXIV" id="II_XXIV">XXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Having given you my opinion, both of the substance
+and perception of Light, in my last Letter,
+I perceive your desire is to know how <i>Shadows</i>
+are made. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, to my sense and reason,
+it appears most probable, that shadows are made
+by the way of patterning: As for example; when a
+Man's, or Trees, or any other the like Creature's shadow
+is made upon the Ground, or Wall, or the like;
+those bodies, as the Ground, or Wall, do, in my opinion,
+pattern out the interposing body that is between
+the light and them: And the reason that the shadow
+is longer or shorter, or bigger or less, is according as
+the light is nearer or further off; for when the light is
+perpendicular, the interposing body cannot obscure the
+light, because the light surrounding the interposing
+body by its brightness, rather obscures the body, then the
+body the light; for the numerous and splendorous patterns
+of light taken from the body of the Sun, do quite
+involve the interposing body. Next, you desire to
+know, <i>Whether the light we see in the Moon, be the
+Moons own natural light, or a borrowed light from the
+Sun</i>: I answer, that in my opinion, it is a borrowed
+light; to wit, that the Moon doth pattern out the light
+of the Sun: and the proof of it is, that when the Sun
+is in an Eclipse, we do plainly perceive that so much of
+the Sun is darkned as the Moon covers; for though
+those parts of the Moon, that are next the Sun, may,
+for any thing we know, pattern out the light of the Sun,
+yet the Moon is dark on that side which is from the
+Sun. I will not say, but that part of the Moon which
+is towards the Earth, may pattern out the Earth, or
+the shadow of the Earth, which may make the Moon
+appear more dark and sullen; But when the Moon is
+in an Eclipse, then it is plainly perceived that the Moon
+patterns out the Earth, or the shadow of the Earth.
+Besides, those parts of the Moon that are farthest from
+the Sun, are dark, as we may observe when as the Moon
+is in the Wane, and enlightened when the Sun is nearer.
+But I will leave this argument to observing Astrologers,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXV" id="II_XXV">XXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>If according to your <i>Authors</i> opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_77" id="FNanchor_1_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_77" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>In every particular
+world, such as Man is especially, his own Soul</i>
+(which is a Spirit) <i>be the peculiar and most perfective
+architect of the Fabrick of his Body, as the Soul of the
+world is of it</i>: Then I cannot conceive in my reason, how
+the separation is made in death; for I see, that all animals,
+and so man-kind, have a natural desire to live,
+and that life and soul are unwilling to part; And if the
+power lies in the Soul, why doth she not continue with
+the Body, and animate, move and actuate it, as she
+did before, or order the matter so, as not to dissolve?
+But if the dissolution lies in the body, then the body has
+self-motion: Yet it is most probable, if the soul be the
+architect of the body, it must also be the dissolver of it;
+and if there come not another soul into the parts of matter,
+the body must either be annihilated, or lie immoved
+as long as the world lasts, which is improbable; for
+surely all the bodies of men, or other animals, are imployed
+by Nature to some use or other: However, it is
+requisite, that the soul must stay so long in the body,
+until it be turned into dust and ashes; otherwise, the
+body having no self-motion, would remain as it was
+when the soul left it, that is, entire and undissolved: As
+for example; when a man dies, if there be no motion
+in his body, and the soul, which was the mover, be
+gone, it cannot possibly corrupt; for certainly, that
+we call corruption, is made by motion, and the body
+requires as much motion to be dissolved or divided,
+as it doth to be framed or composed; Wherefore a
+dead body would remain in the same state continually,
+it had no self-motion in it: And if another
+soul should enter into the body, and work it to another
+figure, then certainly there must be many
+more souls then bodies, because bodies are subject to
+change into several forms; but if the animal spirits,
+which are left in the body after the soul is gone,
+are able to dissolve it without the help of the soul,
+then it is probable they could have fram'd it without
+the help of the soul; and so they being material, it
+must be granted, that matter is self-moving: But if
+corporeal matter have corporeal self-motion, a self-moving
+Immaterial Spirit, by reason of their different
+natures, would make great obstruction, and so
+a general confusion; for the corporeal and incorporeal
+motions would hinder and oppose each other,
+their natures being quite different; and though they
+might subsist together without disturbance of each other,
+yet it is not probable they should act together,
+and that in such a conjunction, as if they were one
+united body; for it is, in my opinion, more probable,
+that one material should act upon another
+material, or one immaterial upon another immaterial,
+then that an immaterial should act upon a
+material or corporeal. Thus the consideration or
+contemplation of immaterial natural Spirits puts me
+always into doubts, and raises so many contradictions
+in my sense and reason, as I know not, nor am not
+able to reconcile them: However, though I am
+doubtful of them, yet I can assure your self that I
+continue,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_77" id="Footnote_1_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_77"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXVI" id="II_XXVI">XXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>By reason the <i>Soul</i> is a <i>Spirit</i>, and therefore <i>Contractible</i>
+and <i>Dilatable</i>, your <i>Authors</i> opinion is,<a name="FNanchor_1_78" id="FNanchor_1_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_78" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+That <i>it begins within less compass at first in organising
+the fitly prepared matter, and so bears it self on in the
+same tenour of work, till the body hath attained its full
+growth; and that the Soul dilates it self in the dilating of
+the Body, and so possesses it through all the members
+thereof.</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, as for the contraction and
+dilation of an immaterial Spirit, if I heard never so many
+arguments, I should hardly be able to conceive the
+possibility of it; For in my opinion, dilating and contracting
+are motions and actions of Nature, which belong
+to natural material Creatures, and to none else; for
+dilation and contraction cannot be without extension,
+but extension belongs to parts which an immaterial Spirit
+hath not: But suppose it be so, then the Soul must contract
+and dilate, extend and shrink together, and so
+grow less and bigger, according to the extension of the
+body; and when the body dies, the soul, in my opinion,
+must contract to a very point; and if one part of the
+body die before the other, the soul must by degrees
+withdraw out of those parts: also when a part of the
+body is cut off, the soul must needs contract, and grow
+less; the like when a man is let blood. Which contracting
+of the soul, by your <i>Authors</i> leave, doth seem,
+to my imagination, just like the contracting of Hodmandod
+into her shell. Besides, if the soul be individable,
+and equally spread all over the body, then, to my
+opinion, she must necessarily be of a human shape; and
+if the body be deformed, the soul must be deformed also;
+and if the body be casually extended, as by taking
+Poyson into the body, the soul must be so too, as being
+individable and filling every part; and if a man be
+born with six fingers or toes, the soul must be so too;
+or if a dwarf, the soul must be a dwarf also; and if he be
+born deaf and dumb, the soul must be so too. But if
+two Twins, as it may fall out, should be born united
+in one body, I would fain know then, whether they
+would have two souls, or but one? As for example, if
+they should have but one body, and one stomack, liver,
+heart, spleen, lungs, bowels, and yet have four legs,
+four hands, and two heads: It seems, to my opinion,
+that then two Immaterial Souls must be joyned as into
+one; neither do I know yet how this could well be, the
+monster having but one body, nor how that Immaterial
+Soul can be divided, being inseparably double,
+when the body dies. But, <i>Madam</i>, all this I speak
+of the Natural Soul of Man, not of the Divine Soul,
+which is not subject to natural imperfections, and corporeal
+errors, being not made by Nature, but a supernatural
+and divine gift of the Omnipotent God, who
+surely will not give any thing that is not perfect. Wherefore
+it is not probable, this Divine Soul, being not subject
+to Nature, should be an architect of the body, as
+having an higher and more divine imployment, <i>viz.</i> to
+fix her self on her Creator, and being indued with supernatural
+faculties, and residing in the body in a supernatural
+manner; all which I leave to the Church: for
+I should be loth to affirm any thing contrary to their
+Doctrine, or the Information of the holy Scripture, as
+grounding my belief onely upon the sacred Word of
+God, and its true Interpretation made by the Orthodox
+Church; but not upon the opinions of particular persons:
+for particular mens opinions are not authentical,
+being so different and various, as a man would be
+puzled which to adhere to. Thus, <i>Madam</i>, I avoid,
+as much as ever I can, not to mix Divinity with
+Natural Philosophy; for I consider, that such a mixture
+would breed more confusion in the Church, then
+do any good to either; witness the doctrine of the Soul
+of Man, whereof are so many different opinions: The
+onely cause, in my opinion, is, that men do not conceive
+the difference between the Divine, and Natural
+material Soul of Man, making them both as one, and
+mixing or confounding their faculties and proprieties,
+which yet are quite different; thus they make a
+Hodg-podg, Bisk or Olio of both; proving Divinity
+by Nature, and Faith by Reason; and bringing
+Arguments for Articles of Faith, and sacred Mysteries
+out of Natural Arts and Sciences; whereas yet Faith
+and Reason are two contrary things, and cannot consist
+together; according to the Proverb, Where
+Reason ends, Faith begins. Neither is it possible that
+Divinity can be proved by Mathematical Demonstrations;
+for if Nature be not able to do it, much less is
+Art: Wherefore it is inconvenient to mix supernatural
+Spirits with Air, Fire, Light, Heat, Cold, &amp;c. and
+to apply corporeal actions and qualities to them; and the
+Divine Soul, with the Brain, Blood, Flesh, Animal
+Spirits, Muscles, Nerves, Bones, &amp;c. of Man; all
+which makes a confusion betwixt the Mind or Natural
+Soul of Man, and the Supernatural and Divine Soul
+inspired into him by God; for both their faculties and
+proprieties are different, and so are their effects, as
+proceeding from so different causes. And therefore,
+<i>Madam</i>, as for Divinity, I pray devoutly, and believe
+without disputing; but as for Natural Philosophy,
+I reason freely, and argue without believing,
+or adhering to any ones particular opinion, which I
+think is the best and safest way to choose for,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_78" id="Footnote_1_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_78"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul, l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXVII" id="II_XXVII">XXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> in the continuation of his discourse
+concerning the Immaterial Soul of Man, demonstrating,
+that her seat is not bound up in a certain
+place of the body, but that she pervades all the body and
+every part thereof, takes, amongst the rest, an argument
+from Passions and Sympathies: <i>Moreover</i>, says
+he,<a name="FNanchor_1_79" id="FNanchor_1_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_79" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Passions and Sympathies, in my judgment, are more
+easily to be resolved into this hypothesis of the Soul's pervading
+the whole Body, then in restraining its essential
+presence to one part thereof.&mdash;But it is evident that they
+arise in us against both our will and appetite; For who
+would bear the tortures of fears and jelousies, if he could
+avoid it?</i> Concerning Passions, <i>Madam</i>, I have given
+my opinion at large in my Book of Philosophy,
+and am of your <i>Authors</i> mind, that Passions are made
+in the Heart, but not by an Immaterial spirit, but by
+the Rational soul which is material; and there is no
+doubt, but that many Passions, as Fear, Jealousie &amp;c.
+arise against our will and appetite; for so may forreign
+Nations invade any Kingdom without the will or desire
+of the Inhabitants, and yet they are corporeal men: The
+same may be said of Passions; and several parts of matter
+may invade each other, whereof one may be afraid
+of the other, yet all this is but according as corporeal
+matter moves, either Generally, or Particularly: Generally,
+that is, when many parts of Matter unite or
+joyn together, having the like appetites, wills, designs;
+as we may observe, that there are general agreements
+amongst several parts, in Plagues, as well as Wars,
+which Plagues are not onely amongst Men, but amongst
+Beasts; and sometimes but in one sort of animals,
+as a general Rot amongst Sheep, a general Mange
+amongst Dogs, a general Farcy amongst Horses, a general
+Plague amongst Men; all which could not be
+without a general Infection, one part infecting another,
+or rather one part imitating the motions of the other,
+that is next adjoyning to it; for such infections come
+by the neer adhesion of parts, as is observable, which
+immaterial and individable natural Spirits could not effect;
+that is, to make such a general infection in so many
+several parts of so many several Creatures, to the
+Creatures dissolution: Also there will be several Invasions
+at one time, as Plague, and War, amongst neighbouring
+and adjoining Creatures or Parts. But this is
+to be observed, That the sensitive corporeal motions
+make all diseases, and not the Rational, although the
+Rational are many times the occasion, that the sensitive
+do move into such or such a disease; for all those that
+are sick by conceit, their sicknesses are caused by the rational
+corporeal motions. But being loth to make tedious
+repetitions hereof, having discoursed of diseases,
+and passions in my mentioned Book of <i>Philosophy</i>, I
+will refer you thither, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_79" id="Footnote_1_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_79"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Immort. of the Soul. Book</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 10</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXVIII" id="II_XXVIII">XXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning <i>Dimness</i> of <i>Sight</i>, which your <i>Author</i>
+will have to <i>proceed from the deficiency of the Animal
+Spirits</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_80" id="FNanchor_1_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_80" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> My meaning in short is, That when
+sight is dim, though the sensitive organs are perfect,
+this dimness is caused by the alteration onely of the sensitive
+motions in the organs, not moving to the nature
+of sight. And so is made Deafness, Dumbness, Lameness,
+and the like, as also Weariness; for the Relaxation
+of strength in several parts, is onely an alteration of
+such sorts of motions which make the nerves strong;
+and if a man be more dull at one time, then at another,
+it is that there are not so many changes of motions, nor
+so quick motions at that time, as at another; for
+Nature may use more or less force as she pleases: Also
+she can and doth often use opposite actions, and often
+sympathetical and agreeable actions, as she pleases; for
+Nature having a free power to move, may move as
+she will; but being wise, she moves as she thinks best,
+either in her separating or uniting motions, for continuance,
+as well as for variety. But if, according to your
+<i>Author</i>, the Immaterial Soul should determinate matter
+in motion, it would, in my opinion, make a confusion;
+for the motions of the Matter would often oppose
+and cross the motions of the Immaterial Soul,
+and so they would disagree, as a King and his Subjects,
+(except God had given the Soul an absolute power of
+command, and restrained matter to an irrisistible and
+necessitated obedience; which, in my opinion, is not
+probable:) By which disagreement, Nature, and all
+that is in Nature, would have been quite ruined at this
+time; for no kinds, sorts, or particulars, would keep
+any distinction, if Matter did not govern it self, and if
+all the parts did not know their own affairs, abilities,
+offices, and functions: Besides, it would, to my thinking,
+take up a great deal of time, to receive commands
+in every several action, at least so much, that
+for example, a man could not have so many several
+thoughts in so short a time, as he hath. But concerning
+the Animal Spirits, which your <i>Author</i> calls the
+Instruments, Organs and Engines of the Incorporeal
+Soul; I would fain know, whether they have no
+motion but what comes from the Soul, or whether
+they have their own motion of themselves? If the
+first, then the Soul must, in my opinion, be like a
+Deity, and have a divine Power, to give and impart
+Motion; if the second, then the spirits being
+material, it follows that Matter hath motion of it self,
+or is self-moving; But if the Immaterial natural Soul
+can transfer her gifts upon corporeal matter, then it
+must give numerous sorts of motions, with all their degrees;
+as also the faculty of figuring, or moving figuratively
+in all corporeal Matter: Which power,
+in my judgment, is too much for a Creature to
+give. If you say, the Immaterial Soul hath this power
+from God; I answer, Matter may have the same;
+and I cannot imagine why God should make an Immaterial
+Spirit to be the Proxy or Vice-gerent of his
+Power, or the <i>Quarter-master General of his Divine
+Providence</i>, as your <i>Author</i> is pleased to style it,<a name="FNanchor_2_81" id="FNanchor_2_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_81" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> when
+he is able to effect it without any Under-Officers,
+and in a more easie and compendious way, as to
+impart immediately such self-moving power to Natural
+Matter, which man attributes to an Incorporeal
+Spirit. But to conclude, if the Animal Spirits
+be the Instruments of the Incorporeal Soul, then
+the Spirits of Wine are more powerful then the
+Animal Spirits, nay, then the Immaterial Soul her
+self; for they can put them and all their actions quite
+out of order: the same may be done by other material
+things, Vegetables, Minerals, and the like. And so
+leaving this discourse to your better consideration, I
+take my leave for this time, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful and affectionate Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_80" id="Footnote_1_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_80"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Immort. of the Soul. Book</i> 2. <i>ch.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_81" id="Footnote_2_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_81"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Immort. of the Soul. Book</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 13.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXIX" id="II_XXIX">XXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Touching the State or Condition of the Supernatural
+and Divine Soul, both in, and after this
+life, I must crave your excuse that I can give no
+account of it; for I dare affirm nothing; not onely that
+I am no professed Divine, and think it unfit to take any
+thing upon me that belongs not to me, but also that I
+am unwilling to mingle Divinity and Natural Philosophy
+together, to the great disadvantage and prejudice
+of either; for if each one did contain himself within
+the circle of his own Profession, and no body did
+pretend to be a Divine Philosopher, many absurdities,
+confusions, contentions, and the like, would be avoided,
+which now disturb both Church and Schools,
+and will in time cause their utter ruine and destruction;
+For what is Supernatural, cannot naturally be known
+by any natural Creature; neither can any supernatural
+Creature, but the Infinite and Eternal God, know
+thorowly everything that is in Nature, she being the Infinite
+servant of the Infinite God, whom no finite Creature,
+of what degree soever, whether natural or supernatural,
+can conceive; for if no Angel nor Devil can know
+our thoughts, much less will they know Infinite
+Nature; nay, one finite supernatural Creature cannot,
+in my opinion, know perfectly another supernatural
+Creature, but God alone, who is all-knowing; And
+therefore all what is said of supernatural Spirits, I believe,
+so far as the Scripture makes mention of them; further
+I dare not presume to go; the like of the supernatural
+or divine Soul: for all that I have writ hitherto to you
+of the Soul, concerns the natural Soul of Man, which
+is material, and not the supernatural or divine Soul;
+neither do I contradict any thing concerning this divine
+soul, but I am onely against those opinions, which
+make the natural soul of man an immaterial natural
+spirit, and confound supernatural Creatures with natural,
+believing those spirits to be as well natural Creatures
+and parts of Nature, as material and corporeal
+beings are; when as there is great difference betwixt
+them, and nothing in Nature to be found, but what
+is corporeal. Upon this account I take all their relations
+of D�mons, of the Genii, and of the Souls after the
+departure from humane Bodies, their Vehicles, Shapes,
+Habitations, Converses, Conferences, Entertainments,
+Exercises, Pleasures, Pastimes, Governments, Orders,
+Laws, Magistrates, Officers, Executioners, Punishments,
+and the like, rather for Poetical Fictions, then
+Rational Probabilities; containing more Fancy, then
+Truth and Reason, whether they concern the divine
+or natural Soul: for as for the divine Soul, the Scripture
+makes no other mention of it, but that immediately
+after her departure out of this natural life, she goeth
+either to Heaven or Hell, either to enjoy Reward, or
+to suffer Punishment, according to man's actions in this
+life. But as for the Natural Soul, she being material,
+has no need of any Vehicles, neither is natural death
+any thing else but an alteration of the rational and sensitive
+motions, which from the dissolution of one figure
+go to the formation or production of another. Thus
+the natural soul is not like a Traveller, going out of one
+body into another, neither is air her lodging; for certainly,
+if the natural humane soul should travel through
+the airy regions, she would at last grow weary, it being
+so great a journey, except she did meet with the soul
+of a Horse, and so ease her self with riding on Horse-back.
+Neither can I believe Souls or D�mons in the
+Air have any Common-wealth, Magistrates, Officers
+and Executioners in their airy Kingdom; for
+wheresoever are Governments, Magistrates and Executioners,
+there are also Offences, and where there is power
+to offend, as well as to obey, there may and will be
+sometimes Rebellions and Civil Wars; for there being
+different sorts of Spirits, it is impossible they should all
+so well agree, especially the good and evil Genii, which
+certainly will fight more valiantly then <i>Hector</i> and
+<i>Achilles</i>, nay, the Spirits of one sort would have more
+Civil Wars then ever the <i>Romans</i> had; and if the Soul
+of <i>C�sar</i> and <i>Pompey</i> should meet, there would be a
+cruel fight between those two Heroical souls; the like
+between <i>Augustus's</i> and <i>Antonius's</i> Soul. But, <i>Madam</i>,
+all these, as I said, I take for fancies proceeding
+from the Religion of the Gentiles, not fit for Christians
+to embrace for any truth; for if we should, we might
+at last, by avoiding to be Atheists, become Pagans, and
+so leap out of the Frying-pan into the Fire, as turning
+from Divine Faith to Poetical Fancy; and if <i>Ovid</i> should
+revive again, he would, perhaps, be the chief head or
+pillar of the Church. By this you may plainly see,
+<i>Madam</i>, that I am no Platonick; for this opinion is
+dangerous, especially for married Women, by reason
+the conversation of the Souls may be a great temptation,
+and a means to bring Platonick Lovers to a neerer acquaintance,
+not allowable by the Laws of Marriage,
+although by the sympathy of the Souls. But I
+conclude, and desire you, not to interpret amiss this
+my discourse, as if I had been too invective against Poetical
+Fancies; for that I am a great lover of them, my
+Poetical Works will witness; onely I think it not fit
+to bring Fancies into Religion: Wherefore what I have
+writ now to you, is rather to express my zeal for God
+and his true Worship, then to prejudice any body; and
+if you be of that same Opinion, as above mentioned, I
+wish my Letter may convert you, and so I should not
+account my labour lost, but judg my self happy, that
+any good could proceed to the advancement of your
+Soul, from,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXX" id="II_XXX">XXX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I sent you word in my last, I would not meddle with
+writing any thing of the Divine Soul of Man, by
+reason it belongs to Faith and Religion, and not to
+Natural Philosophy; but since you desire my opinion
+concerning the Immortality of the Divine Soul, I cannot
+but answer you plainly, that first I did wonder
+much you made question of that, whose truth, in my
+opinion, is so clear, as hardly any rational man will
+make a doubt of it; for I think there is almost no Christian
+in the world, but believes the Immortality of the
+Soul, no not Christians onely, but Mahometans and
+Jews: But I left to wonder at you, when I saw Wise
+and Learned Men, and great Divines, take so much
+pains as to write whole volumes, and bring so many
+arguments to prove the Immortality of the Soul; for
+this was a greater Miracle to me, then if Nature had
+shewed me some of her secret and hidden effects, or if
+I had seen an Immaterial Spirit. Certainly, <i>Madam</i>,
+it seems as strange to me to prove the Immortality of the
+Soul, as to convert Atheists; for it [is] impossible, almost,
+that any Atheist should be found in the World: For
+what Man would be so senceless as to deny a God?
+Wherefore to prove either a God, or the Immortality
+of the Soul, is to make a man doubt of either: for as
+Physicians and Surgeons apply strengthening Medicines
+onely to those parts of the body which they suppose
+the weakest, so it is with proofs and arguments,
+those being for the most part used in such subjects, the
+truth of which is most questionable. But in things
+Divine, Disputes do rather weaken Faith, then prove
+Truth, and breed several strange opinions; for
+Man being naturally ambitious, and endeavouring to
+excel each other, will not content himself with what
+God has been pleased to reveal in his holy Word; but
+invents and adds something of his own; and hence
+arise so many monstrous expressions and opinions, that
+a simple man is puzzled, not knowing which to adhere
+to; which is the cause of so many schismes, sects,
+and divisions in Religion: Hence it comes also, that
+some pretend to know the very nature and essence of
+God, his divine Counsels, all his Actions, Designs,
+Rules, Decrees, Power, Attributes, nay, his Motions,
+Affections, and Passions, as if the Omnipotent
+Infinite God were of a humane shape; so that there
+are already more divisions then Religions, which disturb
+the peace and quiet both of mind and body;
+when as the ground of our belief consists but in some
+few and short Articles, which clearly explained, and
+the moral part of Divinity well pressed upon the People,
+would do more good, then unnecessary and tedious
+disputes, which rather confound Religion, then
+advance it: but if man had a mind to shew Learning,
+and exercise his Wit, certainly there are other subjects,
+wherein he can do it with more profit, and less
+danger, then by proving Christian Religion by Natural
+Philosophy, which is the way to destroy them
+both. I could wish, <i>Madam</i>, that every one would
+but observe the Command of Christ, and give to God
+what is Gods, and to <i>C�sar</i> what is <i>C�sars</i>, and so
+distinguish what belongs to the actions of Nature,
+and what to the actions of Religion; for it appears to my
+Reason, that God hath given Nature, his eternal Servant,
+a peculiar freedom of working and acting, as a
+self-moving Power from Eternity; but when the Omnipotent
+God acts, he acts supernaturally, as beyond
+Nature; of which divine actions none but the holy
+Church, as one united body, mind and soul, should discourse,
+and declare the truth of them, according to the
+Revelation made by God in his holy Word, to her Flock
+the Laity, not suffering any one single person, of what
+profession or degree soever, indifferently to comment,
+interpret, explain, and declare the meaning or sense of
+the Scripture after his own fancy. And as for Nature's
+actions, let those whom Nature hath indued with such
+a proportion of Reason, as is able to search into the hidden
+causes of natural effects, contemplate freely, without
+any restraint or confinement; for Nature acts freely,
+and so may natural Creatures, and amongst the rest
+Man, in things which are purely natural; but as for
+things supernatural, man cannot act freely, by reason
+they are beyond his sphere of conception and understanding,
+so as he is forced to set aside Reason, and
+onely to work by Faith. And thus, <i>Madam</i>, you see
+the cause why I cannot give you a full description of the
+Divine Soul of Man, as I mentioned already in my
+last, but that I do onely send you my opinion of the
+natural soul, which I call the rational soul; not that I
+dare say, the supernatural soul is without natural reason,
+but natural reason is not the divine soul; neither can
+natural reason, without Faith, advance the divine soul
+to Heaven, or beget a pious zeal, without divine and
+supernatural Grace: Wherefore Reason, or the rational
+Soul is onely the Soul of Nature, which being material,
+is dividable, and so becomes numerous in particular
+natural Creatures; like as the sensitive life being
+also material and dividable, becomes numerous, as being
+in every Creature, and in every part of every Creature;
+for as there is life in every Creature, so there is
+also a soul in every Creature; nay, not onely in every
+Creature, but in every particle of every Creature, by
+reason every Creature is made of rational and sensitive
+Matter; and as all Creatures or parts of Nature are but
+one infinite body of Nature, so all their particular souls
+and lives make but one infinite soul and life of Nature;
+and this natural soul hath onely natural actions, not
+supernatural; nor has the supernatural soul natural actions;
+for although they subsist both together in one body,
+yet each works without disturbance to the other;
+and both are Immortal; for of the supernatural soul
+there is no question, and of the natural soul, I have said
+before, that nothing is perishable or subject to annihilation
+in nature, and so no death, but what is called by
+the name of death, is onely an alteration of the corporeal
+natural motions of such a figure to another figure;
+and therefore as it is impossible, that one part of Matter
+should perish in Nature, so is it impossible, that the
+natural or rational soul can perish, being material:
+The natural humane soul may alter, so as not to move
+in an animal way, or not to have animal motions, but
+this doth not prove her destruction or annihilation, but
+onely a change of the animal figure and its motions, all
+remaining still in Nature. Thus my Faith of the Divine,
+and my opinion of the Natural Soul, is, that
+they are both Immortal; as for the immediate actions
+of the Divine Soul, I leave you to the Church, which
+are the Ministers of God, and the faithful dispensers of
+the sacred mysteries of the Gospel, the true Expounders
+of the Word of God, Reformers of mens lives, and
+Tutors of the Ignorant, to whom I submit my self in
+all that belongs to the salvation of my Soul, and the regulating
+of the actions of my life, to the honour and glory
+of God. And I hope they will not take any offence
+at the maintaining and publishing my opinions concerning
+Nature and Natural effects, for they are as
+harmless, and as little prejudicial to them, as my designs;
+for my onely and chief design is, and ever hath
+been to understand Nature rightly, obey the Church
+exactly, Believe undoubtedly, Pray zealously, Live
+vertuously, and Wish earnestly, that both Church
+and Schools may increase and flourish in the sacred
+knowledg of the true Word of God, and that each one
+may live peaceable and happily in this world, die quietly,
+and rise blessedly and gloriously to everlasting Life
+and happiness: Which happiness I pray God also to
+confer upon your Ladiship; Till then, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful and constant</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Friend, to serve you.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXXI" id="II_XXXI">XXXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I will leave the Controversie of Free-Will and Necessity,
+which your <i>Author</i> is discoursing of,<a name="FNanchor_1_82" id="FNanchor_1_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_82" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> to Divines
+to decide it, onely I say this, that Nature hath
+a natural Free-will and power of self-moving, and is
+not necessitated; but yet that this Free-will proceeds from
+God, who hath given her both will and power to act
+freely. But as for the question, whether there be nothing
+in the Universe, but meer body?<a name="FNanchor_2_83" id="FNanchor_2_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_83" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> I answer, My
+opinion is not, that there is nothing in the world but
+meer Body; but that Nature is purely material or corporeal,
+and that there is no part of Nature, or natural
+Creature, which is not Matter, or Body, or made of
+Matter; also, that there is not any thing else mixt with
+body, as a copartner in natural actions, which is distinct
+from Body or Matter; nevertheless, there may
+be supernatural spiritual beings or substances in Nature,
+without any hinderance to Matter or corporeal Nature.
+The same I may say of the natural material, and the
+divine and supernatural Soul; for though the divine
+Soul is in a natural body, and both their powers and
+actions be different, yet they cause no ruine or disturbance
+to each other, but do in many cases agree with
+each other, without incroachment upon each others
+powers or actions; for God, as he is the God of all
+things, so the God of Order. Wherefore it is not probable,
+that created Immaterial or Incorporeal beings
+should order Corporeal Nature, no more then Corporeal
+Nature orders Immaterial or Incorporeal Creatures.
+Neither can, in my opinion, Incorporeal
+Creatures be clearly conceived by Corporeals, although
+they may really exist and subsist in Nature;
+onely, as I said before, it is well to be considered, that
+there is difference betwixt being in Nature, and being a
+part of Nature; for bodiless things, and so spiritual substances,
+although they may exist in Nature, yet
+they are not natural, nor parts of Nature, but supernatural,
+Nature being meerly corporeal, and Matter
+the ground of Nature; and all that is not built upon
+this material ground, is nothing in Nature. But you
+will say, The divine Soul is a part of Man, and Man
+a part of Nature, wherefore the divine Soul must
+needs be a part of Nature. I answer, Not: For the
+divine Soul is not a part of Nature, but supernatural,
+as a supernatural Gift from God onely to Man, and
+to no other Creature: and although in this respect it
+may be called a part of Man, yet it is no natural or
+material part of Man; neither doth this supernatural
+Gift disturb Nature or natural Matter, or natural
+Matter this supernatural Gift. And so leaving them
+both, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_82" id="Footnote_1_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_82"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Of the Immortality of the Soul. l.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_83" id="Footnote_2_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_83"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Lib.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXXII" id="II_XXXII">XXXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>If you desire my opinion concerning Witches,
+whereof your Learned <i>Author</i> hath many Discourses
+and Stories:<a name="FNanchor_1_84" id="FNanchor_1_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_84" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> I will tell you really, that in my sense
+and reason, I do not believe any, except it be the witch
+of <i>Endor</i>, which the Scripture makes mention of; for
+though I believe that there is a Devil, as the Word of
+God and the Church inform me, yet I am not of the
+opinion, that God should suffer him to have such a
+familiar conjunction, and make such contracts with
+Man, as to impower him to do mischief and hurt to
+others, or to foretell things to come, and the like; for
+I believe that all things Immaterial, as Spirits, Angels,
+Devils, and the divine Soul of Man, are no parts of Nature,
+but Supernatural, Nature knowing of no Creature
+that belongs to her, but what is material; and since
+incorporeal Creatures are no parts of Nature, they neither
+have natural actions, nor are they concerned as co-partners
+or co-agents in the actions of Nature and natural
+Creatures; but as their substances, so their actions
+are supernatural, and beyond our conceivement. As
+for Faires, I will not say, but there may be such Creatures
+in Nature, and have airy bodies, and be of a humane
+shape, and have humane actions, as I have described
+in my Book of Poems; for there are many
+things, in Nature, whereof Man hath no knowledg at
+all, and it would be a great folly for any one to deny
+what he doth not see, or to ascribe all the unusual effects
+in Nature to Immaterial Spirits; for Nature is
+so full of variety, that she can and doth present sometimes
+such figures to our exterior senses, as are
+not familiar to us, so as we need not to take our refuge
+to Immaterial Spirits: nay, even those that are
+so much for Incorporeal Spirits, must confess, that
+they cannot be seen in their own natures, as being
+Invisible, and therefore have need to take vehicles
+of some grosser bodies to manifest themselves to men:
+and if Spirits cannot appear without bodies, the neerest
+way is to ascribe such unusual effects or apparitions,
+as happen sometimes, rather to matter that is
+already corporeal, and not to go so far as to draw
+Immaterial Spirits to Natural actions, and to make
+those Spirits take vehicles fit for their purposes: for
+Nature takes sometimes delight in unusual Varieties.
+Concerning those stories which your <i>Author</i> relates<a name="FNanchor_2_85" id="FNanchor_2_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_85" class="fnanchor">[2]</a>
+of the strange effects of Food received into a
+mans body, how they did work upon the Imagination,
+and change and transform the humors of those
+that did feed upon them, those, I say, seem very probable
+to me. As for example; of a <i>Wench who being
+struck into an Epilepsy, upon the seeing of a Malefactors
+Head cut off, was advised to drink Cats-blood;
+which being done, she not long after degenerated into
+the nature and property of that Animal, cried and jump'd
+like a Cat, and hunted Mice with the same silence and
+watchfulness as they do. Then of a Man, being long
+fed with Swines-blood, which took a special pleasure in
+wallowing and tumbling himself in the mire. Also of
+a Girle, which being nourished up with Goats-milk,
+would skip like a Goat, and brouze on Trees as Goats
+use to do. And of a Man, who by eating the brains of a
+Bear, became of a Bear-like disposition.</i> All these
+stories I believe to be true; for naturally the motions
+of a Man may sometimes Sympathize so much with
+the received food, as to make an alteration in his humour
+or disposition. But although it be natural, yet
+it is not regular, at least not usual, but proceeds from
+an irregular and unusual change of motions, like as
+the conception and generation of a Monster; For if
+it were ordinary, then those which drink much of the
+blood of beasts, would also degenerate into a beastly
+nature, the contrary whereof is sufficiently known:
+Likewise those that drink much of Cows-milk, would
+change into their humors and natures. But certainly,
+some kinds of meats do not onely cause sickness, but
+madness, and strange Imaginations; all which unnatural
+or unusual accidents are caused by Matter's irregular
+motions; Whereof I have declared my opinion
+in other places; and so I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+
+<p><i>Your faithful and constant</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Friend, to serve you.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_84" id="Footnote_1_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_84"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Antid. lib.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_85" id="Footnote_2_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_85"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>In his discourse of Enthusiasm.</i></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXXIII" id="II_XXXIII">XXXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You will have my opinion of the Book that treats
+of <i>the Pre-existence of Souls</i>, and the <i>Key that
+unlocks the Divine Providence</i>; but I have told
+you heretofore, that there are so many different opinions
+concerning the Soul, as I do not know which to
+embrace, for the multiplicity confounds my choice:
+and the cause of these various opinions, in my simple
+judgment, is, that most men make no difference between
+the Divine, and Natural Soul. As for the Natural
+Soul, humane sense and reason may perceive, that
+it consists of Matter, as being Material; but as for the
+Divine Soul, being not material, no humane sense and
+reason is able naturally to conceive it; for there cannot
+possibly be so much as an Idea of a natural nothing, or
+an immaterial being, neither can sense and reason naturally
+conceive the Creation of an Immaterial substance;
+for as the Creation of material Creatures, as of
+this World, belongs to Faith, and not to Reason, so
+doth also the Creation of Immaterial substances, as Spirits;
+nay, it is more difficult to understand a Natural
+Nothing to be made out of nothing, then a Natural
+Something out of nothing. And as for the <i>Progress of
+Immaterial Souls</i>, which the same <i>Author</i> mentions, I
+cannot conceive how No-thing can make a Progress,
+and therefore I suppose, it is an Improper, or Metaphorical
+expression. The truth is, what is Immaterial,
+belongs not to a Natural knowledg or understanding,
+but is Supernatural, and goes beyond a natural
+reach or capacity. Concerning <i>the Key of Divine
+Providence</i>, I believe God did never give or lend
+it to any man; for surely, God, who is infinitely Wise,
+would never intrust so frail and foolish a Creature as
+Man, with it, as to let him know his secret Counsels,
+Acts, and Decrees. But setting aside Pride and Presumption,
+Sense and Reason may easily perceive, that
+Man, though counted the best of Creatures, is not
+made with such infinite Excellence, as to pierce into
+the least secrets of God; Wherefore I am in a maze
+when I hear of such men, which pretend to know so
+much, as if they had plundered the Celestial Cabinet
+of the Omnipotent God; for certainly, had they done
+it, they could not pretend to more knowledg then they
+do. But I, <i>Madam</i>, confess my Ignorance, as having
+neither divine Inspirations, nor extraordinary Visions,
+nor any divine or humane learning, but what
+Nature has been pleased to bestow upon me; Yet in
+all this Ignorance, I know that I am, and ought
+to be,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="II_XXXIV" id="II_XXXIV">XXXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since in my former Letters I have discoursed of Immaterial
+Spirits, and declared my meaning, that
+I do not believe them to be natural Creatures, or
+parts of Nature; you are of opinion, as if I did contradict
+my self, by reason that in the first Edition of my
+Book called <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, I name the rational
+and sensitive Matter, rational and sensitive Spirits. To
+which I answer, first, That when I did write my first
+Conceptions in Natural Philosophy, I was not so experienced,
+nor had I those observations which I have
+had since; Neither did I give those first Conceptions
+time to digest, and come to a maturity or perfect
+growth, but forced them forth as soon as conceived, and
+this made the first publishing of them so full of Imperfections,
+which I am much sorry for; But since that
+time, I have not onely reviewed, but corrected and altered
+them in several places, so that the last Impression
+of my <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, you will find more perfect
+and exact then the former. Next, I pray you to
+take notice, <i>Madam</i>, that in the mentioned first Edition,
+by the word Spirits, I meant Material, not Immaterial
+Spirits; for observing, that Learned Men do
+discourse much of Animal Spirits, which are Material,
+and that also high extracts in Chymistry are called Spirits;
+I used that word purposely, thinking it most proper
+and convenient to express my sense and meaning of
+that degree of matter which I call rational and sensitive.
+But considering again, that my opinions, being new,
+would be subject to misapprehensions and mis-interpretations;
+to prevent those, I thought it fitter to leave out
+the word <i>Spirits</i> in the second, as also in the last Edition
+of my named Book of <i>Philosophy</i>, lest my Readers
+should think I meant Immaterial Spirits; for I confess
+really, that I never understood, nor cannot as yet apprehend
+Immaterial Spirits; for though I believe the
+Scripture, and the Church, that there are Spirits, and
+do not doubt the existency of them, yet I cannot conceive
+the nature of Immaterial Spirits, and what they
+are; Wherefore I do onely treat of natural material
+substances, and not of incorporeal; also my discourse is
+of the Infinite servant of the Infinite God, which servant
+is corporeal or material Nature: God is onely
+to be admired, adored, and worshipped; but not ungloriously
+to be discoursed of; Which Omnipotent
+God, I pray of his Infinite Mercy to give me Faith to
+believe in him, and not to let presumption prevail with
+me so, as to liken vain and idle conceptions to that
+Incomprehensible Deity. These, <i>Madam</i>, are my
+humble Prayers to God; and my request to you is, that
+I may continue the same in your love and affection,
+which I have been hitherto; so shall I live content, and
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h2><a name="SECT_III" id="SECT_III">SECT. III.</a></h2>
+
+<h3>I.</h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have discharged my duty thus far,
+that in obedience to your commands,
+I have given you my answers to the
+opinions of three of those famous and
+learned <i>Authors</i> you sent me, <i>viz.
+Hobbes, Des Cartes</i>, and <i>More</i>, and
+explained my own opinions by examining
+theirs; My onely task shall be now to proceed
+in the same manner with that famous Philosopher
+and Chymist, <i>Van Helmont</i>; But him I find more difficult
+to be understood then any of the forementioned,
+not onely by reason of the Art of Chymistry, which I
+confess myself not versed in, but especially, that he has
+such strange terms and unusual expressions as may puzle
+any body to apprehend the sense and meaning of
+them: Wherefore, if you receive not that full satisfaction
+you expect from me, in examining his opinions
+and arguments, I beg your pardon before-hand, and
+desire you to remember, that I sent you word in the beginning,
+I did undertake this work more out of desire
+to clear my own opinions, then a quarrelsome humor to
+contradict others; which if I do but obtain, I have my
+aim. And so to the business: When as your <i>Author</i>
+discourses of the causes and beginnings of Natural
+things, he is pleased to say,<a name="FNanchor_1_86" id="FNanchor_1_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_86" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Souls and Lives, as
+they know no Degrees, so they know no Parts</i>; which
+opinion is very different from mine: For although I
+confess, that there is but one kind of Life, and one kind
+of Soul in Nature, which is the sensitive Life, and the
+rational Soul, both consisting not onely of Matter, but
+of one kind of Matter, to wit, Animate; nevertheless
+they are of different degrees, the matter of the rational
+Soul being more agil, subtil and active, then the matter
+of the sensitive Life; which is the reason that the rational
+can act in its own substance or degree of matter, and
+make figures in it self, and its own parts; when as the
+sensitive, being of somewhat a grosser degree then the
+rational, and not so subtil and active, is confined to
+work with and upon the Inanimate matter. But mistake
+me not, <i>Madam</i>, for I make onely a difference of the degrees
+of Subtilty, Activity, Agility, Purity, betwixt
+rational and sensitive Matter; but as for the rational
+Matter it self, it has no degrees of Purity, Subtilty
+and Activity in its own Nature or Parts, but is always
+one and the same in its substance in all Creatures, and
+so is the sensitive. You will ask me, How comes then
+the difference of so many Parts and Creatures in Nature,
+if there be no degrees of Purity, Activity, and
+Subtilty in the substance of the rational, and in the substance
+of the sensitive Matter? As for example: if
+there were no such degrees of the Parts of rational Matter
+amongst themselves, as also of the Parts of the sensitive,
+there would be no difference betwixt Animals,
+Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, but all Creatures
+would be alike without distinction, and have the same
+manner of sense and reason, life and knowledg. I
+answer, That although each sort or degree of animate
+Matter, rational as well as sensitive, has in it self or its
+own substance no degrees of purity, rarity, and subtilty,
+but is one and the same in its nature or essence; nevertheless,
+each has degrees of quantity, or parts, which
+degrees of quantity do make the onely difference betwixt
+the several creatures or parts of Nature, as well in
+their general, as particular kinds; for both the rational
+and sensitive matter being corporeal, and so dividable
+into parts, some creatures do partake more, some less
+of them, which makes them to have more or less, and
+so different sense and reason, each according to the nature
+of its kind: Nay this difference of the degrees of
+quantity or parts in the substance of the rational and sensitive
+Matter, makes also the difference betwixt particulars
+in every sort of Creatures, as for example, between
+several particular Men: But as I said, the nature
+or essence of the sensitive and rational Matter is the
+same in all; for the difference consists not in the Nature
+of Matter, but onely in the degrees of quantity, and
+parts of Matter, and in the various and different actions
+or motions of this same Matter. And thus Matter
+being dividable, there are numerous lives and souls in
+Nature, according to the variousness of her several
+Parts and Creatures. Next your <i>Author</i>, mentioning
+the <i>Causes and Principles of natural Bodies</i>, assigns
+two first or chief beginnings and corporeal causes of every
+Creature, to wit, the <i>Element of Water</i>, and the
+<i>Ferment or Leaven</i>; which Ferment he calls a formal
+created being; neither a substance, nor an accident, but
+a neutral thing. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, my reason is not
+able to conceive this neutral Being; for it must either be
+something or nothing in Nature: and if he makes it any
+thing betwixt both, it is a strange Monster; and will
+produce monstrous effects: and for Water, if he
+doth make it a Principle of Natural things, I see no reason
+why he excludes the rest of the Elements: But, in
+my opinion, Water, and the rest of the Elements, are
+but effects of Nature, as other Creatures are, and so cannot
+be prime causes. The like the Ferment, which, to
+my sense and reason, is nothing else, but a natural effect
+of natural matter. Concerning his opinion, That
+<i>Causes and Beginnings</i> are all one, or that there is but
+little difference betwixt them, I do readily subscribe unto
+it; but when he speaks of those <i>things, which are produced
+without life</i>, my reason cannot find out, what, or
+where they should be; for certainly, in Nature they are
+not, Nature being Life and Soul her self, and all her
+parts being enlivened and soulified, so that there can be
+no generation or natural production without Life. Neither
+is my sense and reason capable to understand his
+meaning, when he says, That the <i>Seeds of things, and the
+Spirits, as the Dispensers thereof, are divided from the
+Material Cause</i>: For I do see no difference betwixt the
+Seed, and the material Cause, but they are all one
+thing, it being undeniable, that the seed is the matter of
+that which is produced. But your <i>Author</i> was pleased
+to say heretofore, that there are but two beginnings or
+causes of natural things, and now he makes so many
+more; for, says he, Of <i>Efficient and Seminal Causes,
+some are efficiently effecting, and others effectively effecting</i>:
+which nice distinctions, in my opinion, do but
+make a confusion in natural knowledg, setting a mans
+brain on the rack; for who is able to conceive all those
+<i>Chym�ras</i> and Fancies of the <i>Archeus, Ferment,</i> various
+<i>Ideas, Blas, Gas,</i> and many more, which are neither
+something nor no-thing in Nature, but betwixt both,
+except a man have the same Fancies, Visions and
+Dreams, your <i>Author</i> had? Nature is easie to be understood,
+and without any difficulty, so as we stand in
+no need to frame so many strange names, able to fright
+any body. Neither do natural bodies know many prime
+causes and beginnings, but there is but one onely chief
+and prime cause from which all effects and varieties
+proceed, which cause is corporeal Nature, or natural
+self-moving Matter, which forms and produces all natural
+things; and all the variety and difference of natural
+Creatures arises from her various actions, which are
+the various motions in Nature; some whereof are Regular,
+some Irregular: I mean Irregular, as to particular
+Creatures, not as to Nature her self, for Nature
+cannot be disturbed or discomposed, or else all would
+run into confusion; Wherefore Irregularities do onely
+concern particular Creatures, not Infinite Nature;
+and the Irregularities of some parts may cause the Irregularities
+of other Parts, as the Regularities of some
+parts do cause the Regularities of others: And thus according
+as Regularities and Irregularities have power,
+they cause either Peace or War, Sickness or Health,
+Delight and Pleasure, or Grief and Pain, Life or Death,
+to particular Creatures or parts of Nature; but all
+these various actions are but various Effects, and not
+prime Causes; which is well to be observed, lest we
+confound Causes with Effects. And so leaving this
+discourse for the present, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_86" id="Footnote_1_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_86"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Van Helm, <i>in his Book intituled</i>,
+Physick Refined, <i>ch.</i> 4. <i>of the Causes and
+beginning of natural things.</i></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_II" id="III_II">II.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>It is no wonder, your <i>Author</i> has so many odd and
+strange opinions in Philosophy, since they do not
+onely proceed from strange Visions, Apparitions,
+and Dreams, but are built upon so strange grounds and
+principles as <i>Ideas, Archeus, Gas, Blas, Ferment,</i> and
+the like, the names of which sound so harsh and terrifying,
+as they might put any body easily into a fright, like
+so many Hobgoblins or Immaterial spirits; but the best
+is, they can do no great harm, except it be to trouble
+the brains of them, that love to maintain those opinions;
+for though they are thought to be powerful beings,
+yet being not corporeal substances, I cannot imagine
+wherein their power should consist; for Nothing
+can do nothing. But to mention each apart; first his
+<i>Archeus</i> he calls<a name="FNanchor_1_87" id="FNanchor_1_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_87" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>the Spirit of Life; a vital gas or Light;
+the Balsam preferring from Corruption; the</i> Vulcan <i>or
+Smith of Generation; the stirrer up, and inward director
+of generation; an Air; a skiey or airy Spirit; cloathing
+himself presently with a bodily cloathing, in things
+soulified, walking through all the dens and retiring places
+of the seed, and transforming the matter according to the
+perfect act of its own Image, remaining the president and
+overseer or inward ruler of his bounds even till death; the
+Principle of Life: the Inn of Life, the onely immediate
+Witness, Executor, and Instrument of Life; the Prince
+and Center of Life; the Ruler of the Stern; the Keeper
+of Life, and promoter of Transmutations; the Porter of
+the Soul; a Fountainous being; a Flint.</i><a name="FNanchor_2_88" id="FNanchor_2_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_88" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> These, and
+many more names your <i>Author</i> attributes to his <i>Archeus</i>,
+but what properly it is, and what its Nature and its peculiar
+office, I am not able to conceive. In the next
+place, <i>Gas</i> and <i>Blas</i> are to your <i>Author</i> also true Principles
+of Natural things; for<a name="FNanchor_3_89" id="FNanchor_3_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_89" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>Gas is the Vapour into
+which Water is dissolved by Cold, but yet it is a far more
+fine and subtil thing then Vapour</i>; which he demonstrates
+by the Art of Chymistry. This <i>Gas</i> in another
+place he calls<a name="FNanchor_4_90" id="FNanchor_4_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_90" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> a <i>Wild Spirit, or Breath, unknown hitherto;
+which can neither be constrained by Vessels, nor reduced
+into a visible body; in some things it is nothing but
+Water, as for example in Salt, in Fruits, and the like.</i>
+But<a name="FNanchor_5_91" id="FNanchor_5_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_91" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> <i>Blas proceeds from the local and alterative motion of
+the Stars, and is the general beginning of motion, producing
+heat and cold, and that especially with the changing
+of the Winds.</i> There is also<a name="FNanchor_6_92" id="FNanchor_6_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_92" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> <i>Blas in all sublunary
+things</i>; witness Amulets or preserving Pomanders,
+whereby they do constrain objects to obey them; <i>Which
+Incorporeal Blas of Government acts without a Corporeal
+Efflux, even as the Moon makes the Sea to swell; but
+the fleshly generation</i><a name="FNanchor_7_93" id="FNanchor_7_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_93" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> <i>hath a Blas of its own, and it is twofold,
+one which existeth by a natural Motion, the other
+voluntary, which existeth as a mover to it self by an Internal
+Willing.</i> There is also a <i>Blas of the Heart</i>, which is
+<i>the fuel of the Vital Spirit, and consequently of its heat.</i>
+The <i>Ferment</i><a name="FNanchor_8_94" id="FNanchor_8_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_94" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> he describes to be <i>A true Principle or Original
+beginning of things, to wit, a Formal Created beginning,
+which is neither a substance, nor an accident, but a
+Neutral being, framed from the beginning of the World in
+the places of its own Monarchy, in the manner of Light,
+Fire, the magnal or sheath of the Air, Forms, &amp;c. that it
+may prepare, stir up, and go before the Seeds.</i> Lastly, his <i>Ideas</i>
+are <i>Certain formal seminal Lights,</i><a name="FNanchor_9_95" id="FNanchor_9_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_95" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> <i>mutually piercing
+each other without the adultery of Union; For</i>, says he,
+<i>although at first, that, which is imagined, is nothing, but
+a meer being of reason, yet it doth not remain such; for
+truely the Fancy is a sealifying vertue, and in this respect
+is called Imaginative, because it forms the Images of Likenesses,
+or Ideas of things conceived, and doth characterize
+them in its own Vital Spirit, and therefore that Idea is made
+a spiritual or seminal powerful being, to perform things of
+great moment.</i> And those Ideas he makes various and numerous;
+as <i>Archeal Ideas, Ideas of Diseases, Sealifying Ideas,
+Piercing Ideas, Forreign and strange Ideas, Mad
+Ideas, Irrational and Incorrigible Ideas, Staggering Ideas,</i>
+and a hundred others: the like of <i>Gas, Blas,</i> and the
+rest. Thus, <i>Madam</i>, I have made a rehearsal of
+your <i>Authors</i> strange, and hitherto unknown, Principles
+(as his Confession is) of Natural things, which,
+to my sense and reason, are so obscure, intricate and
+perplex, as is almost impossible exactly to conceive them;
+when as Principles ought to be easie, plain, and without
+any difficulty to be understood; Wherefore what
+with his Spirits, meer-beings, <i>non</i>-beings, and neutral-beings,
+he troubles Nature, and puzles the brains of
+his Readers so, that, I think, if all men were of his
+opinion, or did follow the way of his Philosophy,
+Nature would desire God she might be annihilated:
+Onely, of all other, she doth not fear his Non-beings, for
+they are the weakest of all, and can do her the least hurt, as
+not being able to obstruct real and corporeal actions of
+Nature; for Nature is a corporeal substance, and
+without a substance Motion cannot be, and without
+Motion opposition cannot be made, nor any action in
+Nature, whether Prints, Seals, Stamps, Productions,
+Generations, Thoughts, Conceptions, Imaginations,
+Passions, Appetites, or the like: and if motions cannot
+be without substance; then all Creatures, their properties,
+faculties, natures, &amp;c., being made by corporeal
+motions, cannot be <i>Non</i>-beings, no nor anything
+else that is in Nature; for <i>non</i>-beings are not in the
+number of Natural things, Nature containing nothing
+within her, but what is substantially, really, and corporeally
+existent. But your Authors <i>Ideal Entity</i>,
+(whereof he is speaking in another place of his Works,)<a name="FNanchor_10_96" id="FNanchor_10_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_96" class="fnanchor">[10]</a>
+which performs all the Works of Nature, seems to me,
+as if it were the Jack of all Offices, or like the Jack in a
+Clock, that makes every Wheel move; for it hath an
+admirable power to put off and on Corporeality and Incorporeality,
+and to make it self Something and Nothing
+as often as it has occasion; but if this <i>Proteus</i>
+have such power, it may well be named the Magick of
+Nature. Your <i>Author</i> saith, it is not the Devil, nor
+any effect thereof: but certainly, in my opinion, according
+to its description, and the effects laid to its performance,
+it must be more then the Devil; wherefore,
+in my Reason, I cannot conceive it, neither am I able to
+understand his <i>Phantastick Activity, Fancy of Forms, the
+Souls acting by an insensible way,</i> and many more such
+like expressions. But I conceive that all these can be
+nothing else but the several motions of the sensitive and
+rational matter, which is the Active, Ingenious, Distinguishing,
+Knowing, Wise and Understanding
+part of Infinite corporeal Nature; and though Infinite
+Matter hath Infinite parts in general, yet there is a finiteness
+in every part considered by it self: not that I think
+a Part can really subsist single and by it self, but it is
+onely considered so in the manner of our Conception,
+by reason of the difference and variousness of natural
+Creatures: for these being different from each other in
+their figures, and not all alike, so that we can make a
+distinction betwixt them; this difference and distinction
+causes us to conceive every part of a different figure by
+it self: but properly and according to the Truth of Nature,
+there is no part by it self subsisting; for all parts
+are to be considered, not onely as parts of the whole,
+but as parts of other parts, all parts being joyned in Infinite
+Nature, and tied by an inseparable tie one way
+or other, although we do not altogether perceive it.
+But to return to <i>Ideas</i>: I had almost forgot to tell you,
+<i>Madam</i>, of another kind of <i>Ideas</i>, by your <i>Author</i> named,
+<i>Bewitching</i> or <i>Inchanting Ideas</i>,<a name="FNanchor_11_97" id="FNanchor_11_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_97" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> which are for
+the most part found in Women, against which I cannot
+but take exception in the behalf of our Sex: For, says
+he, <i>Women stamp Ideas on themselves, whereby they,
+no otherwise then Witches driven about with a malignant
+spirit of despair, are oftentimes governed or snatched away
+unto those things, which otherwise they would not, and
+do bewail unto us their own and unvoluntary Madness:
+These Ideas are hurtful to themselves, and do, as it were,
+Inchant, Infatuate, and weaken themselves; for so (as</i> Plutarch
+<i>witnesses) a desire of death by hanging took hold
+of all the young Maids in the Island</i> Chios. By this it
+appears, that your <i>Author</i> has never been in Love, or
+else he would have found, that Men have as well bewitching
+<i>Ideas</i> as Women, and that they are as hurtful
+to Men, as to Women. Neither can I be perswaded to
+believe, that men should not have as well Mad <i>Ideas</i> as
+Women; for to mention no other example, some, (I
+will not speak of your <i>Author</i>) their Writings and
+strange Opinions in Philosophy do sufficiently witness
+it; but whence those Ideas do proceed, whether from
+the Bride-bed of the Soul, or the Splene, your <i>Author</i>
+doth not declare. As for the young Maids in <i>Chios</i>, I
+must confess, it is a very strange example; but I think
+there have been as many Men that have killed themselves,
+as Women, if not more: However, I hope, by the
+Grace of God, the young Maids in this Kingdom are
+better advised; for if they should do the like, it would
+be a sad fate for all young Men. To conclude, <i>Madam</i>,
+all these rehearsed opinions of your <i>Author</i>, concerning
+the Grounds or Principles of Natural Philosophy,
+if you desire my Unfeigned Judgment, I can
+say no more, but that they shew more Fancy, then
+Reason and Truth, and so do many others; and, perhaps,
+my opinions may be as far from Truth as his, although
+their Ground is Sense and Reason; for there is
+no single Creature in Nature, that is able to know the
+perfectest Truth: but some opinions, to humane sense
+and reason, may have more probability then others, and
+every one thinks his to be most probable, according to
+his own fancy and imagination, and so I think of mine;
+nevertheless, I leave them to the censure of those, that
+are endued with solid judgment and reason, and know
+how to discern betwixt things of fancy and reason, and
+amongst the rest, I submit them to the censure of your
+<i>Ladiship</i>, whose solid and wise Judgment is the rule of
+all the actions of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_87" id="Footnote_1_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_87"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>In his</i> ch. <i>called</i> The Fiction of
+Elementary Complexions and Mixtures.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_88" id="Footnote_2_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_88"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. of the Birth and Original of
+Forms. <i>In the</i> ch. Of the Ideas of Diseases. <i>See his</i>
+ch. <i>called</i> The Seat of Diseases in the Soul is confirmed.
+Ch. of Archeal Diseases. Ch. <i>called</i> The Subject of inhering
+of Diseases is in the point of Life, &amp;c.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_89" id="Footnote_3_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_89"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. Of the Gas of the Water.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_90" id="Footnote_4_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_90"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. of the Fiction of Elementary
+Complexions and Mixtures.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_91" id="Footnote_5_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_91"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. Of the Blas of Meteors.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_6_92" id="Footnote_6_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_92"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. Of the unknown action of Government.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_7_93" id="Footnote_7_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_93"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>In the</i> ch. Of the Blas of Man.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_8_94" id="Footnote_8_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_94"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Of the Causes and beginnings of Natural things.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_9_95" id="Footnote_9_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_95"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Of the Ideas of Diseases.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_10_96" id="Footnote_10_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_96"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Of the Magnetick cure of Wounds.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_11_97" id="Footnote_11_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_97"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> Of things Conceived, or Conceptions.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_III" id="III_III">III.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> relating how he dissents from the
+<i>false Doctrine</i>, as he terms it, <i>of the Schools</i>, concerning
+the Elements, and their Mixtures, Qualities,
+Temperaments, Discords, &amp;c. in order to Diseases,
+is pleased to say as follows:<a name="FNanchor_1_212" id="FNanchor_1_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_212" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>I have sufficiently demonstrated,
+that there are not four Elements in Nature,
+and by consequence, if there are onely three, that four
+cannot go together, or encounter; and that the fruits
+which Antiquity hath believed to be mixt bodies, and those
+composed from a concurrence of four elements, are materially
+of one onely Element; also that those three Elements
+are naturally cold; nor that native heat is any where in
+things, except from Light, Life, Motion, and an altering
+Blas: In like manner, that all actual moisture is
+of Water, but all virtual moisture from the property of
+the seeds: Likewise, that dryness is by it self in the Air
+and Earth, but in Fruits by reason of the Seeds and
+Coagulations; and that there are not Contraries in Nature.</i>
+To give you my opinion hereof, first I think it too
+great a presumption in any man, to feign himself so
+much above the rest, as to accuse all others of ignorance,
+and that none but he alone hath the true knowledg
+of all things as infallible and undeniable, and that
+so many Learned, Wise and Ingenious Men in so many
+ages have been blinded with errors; for certainly,
+no particular Creature in Nature can have any exact
+or perfect knowledg of Natural things, and therefore
+opinions cannot be infallible truths, although they may
+seem probable; for how is it possible that a single finite
+Creature should know the numberless varieties and hidden
+actions of Nature? Wherefore your <i>Author</i>
+cannot say, that he hath demonstrated any thing, which
+could not be as much contradicted, and perhaps with
+more reason, then he hath brought proofs and demonstrations:
+And thus when he speaks of Elements, that
+there are not four in Nature, and that they cannot go
+together, or encounter, it may be his opinion; but others
+have brought as many reasons to the contrary, and
+I think with more probability; so as it is unnecessary to
+make a tedious discourse thereof, and therefore I'le refer
+you to those that have treated of it more learnedly
+and solidly then I can do. But I perceive your <i>Author</i>
+is much for Art, and since he can make solid bodies liquid,
+and liquid bodies solid, he believes that all bodies
+are composed out of the Element of Water, and that
+Water therefore is the first Principle of all things; when
+as Water, in my opinion, is but an Effect, as all other
+natural Creatures, and therefore cannot be a cause or
+principle of them. Concerning the <i>Natural coldness
+of Water, Air, and Earth,</i> it may be, or not be so, for
+any thing your <i>Author</i> can truly know; but to my sense
+and reason, it seems probable that there are things naturally
+hot and moist, and hot and dry, as well as cold
+and moist, and cold and dry: But all these are but several
+effects produced by the several actions of Natural
+Matter, which Natural Matter is the onely Principle of
+all Natural Effects and Creatures whatever; and this
+Principle, I am confident your <i>Author</i> can no more
+prove to be Water, then he can prove that Heat, Light,
+Life, Motion, and <i>Blas</i>, are not material. Concerning
+what he saith, That <i>Native Heat is no where in
+things, except from Light, Life, Motion, and an altering
+Blas</i>: I believe that motion of life makes not onely heat,
+but all effects whatsoever; but this native heat is not
+produced onely from the motions of Particular lives in
+particular Creatures, but it is made by the motions of
+Natures life; which life, in all probability, is the self-moving
+Matter, which no doubt, can and doth make
+Light and Blas without Heat, and Heat without Light
+or Blas; Wherefore Light and Blas are not principles
+of native Heat, no more then native Heat is the principle
+of Light and Blas. Neither is Water the Principle
+of Actual moisture, nor the propriety of seeds the
+Principle of all Virtual moisture; but self-moving
+Matter is the Principle of all, and makes both actual
+and virtual moisture, and there is no question but there
+are many sorts of moistures. As for <i>Dryness</i>, which
+he says, <i>is by it self in the Air and Earth, and in Fruits
+by reason of the Seeds and Coagulations</i>: I cannot conceive
+how any thing can be by it self in Nature, by
+reason there is nothing alone and single in Nature, but
+all are inseparable parts of one body: perchance, he
+means, it is naturally and essentially inherent in Air and
+Earth; but neither can that be in my reason, because
+all Creatures and Effects of Nature are Intermixt, and
+there is as much dryness in other Creatures, as in Air
+and Earth. Lastly, as for his opinion, That <i>there are
+no Contraries in Nature</i>; I believe not in the essence or
+nature of Matter; but sense and reason inform us, that
+there are Contraries in Natures actions, which are Corporeal
+motions, which cause mixtures, qualities, degrees,
+discords, as also harmonious conjunctions and
+concords, compositions, divisions, and the like effects
+whatsoever. But though your <i>Author</i> seems to be an
+enemy to the mixtures of Elements, yet he makes such
+a mixture of Divinity, and natural Philosophy, that all
+his Philosophy is nothing but a meer Hotch-potch, spoiling
+one with the other. And so I will leave it to those
+that delight in it, resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_212" id="Footnote_1_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_212"><span class="label">[1]</span></a><i>In his Treatise called</i>, A passive deceiving of the
+Schools of the Humourists.</p></div>
+
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_IV" id="III_IV">IV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Water</i>, according to your <i>Authors</i> opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_98" id="FNanchor_1_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_98" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+<i>is frozen into Snow, Ice, or Hail, not by Cold,
+but by its own Gas.</i> But since I am not able
+to conceive what his Gas is, being a term invented by
+him self, I will briefly declare my own opinion, which
+is, That Snow, Ice, and Hail, in my judgment, are
+made in the like manner, as Passions or Colours are
+made and raised in Man; for a sad discourse, or a cruel
+object will make a Man pale and cold, and a fearful
+object, will make him tremble; whereas a wanton and
+obscene discourse will make some red and hot. But
+yet these discourses and objects are onely external, occasional,
+and not immediate efficient causes of such alterations.
+Also when a Man eats or drinks any thing
+that is actually hot or cold, or enters into a cold or hot
+room, bath, or air, he becomes hot or cold by the
+actions of those external agents that work upon him, or
+rather whose motions the sensitive motions of his body
+do pattern out. The like for diseases; for they may be
+caused either by hearing ill reports, or by taking either
+hurtful or superfluous food into the Body, or by Infections
+inwardly or outwardly, and many other ways.
+Likewise may Colours be made different ways; And so
+may Snow, Ice, and Hail; for all loose, rare, and
+porous Bodies are more apt to alter and change then
+close, solid, and dense bodies; and not onely to change
+from what they are, but to rechange to what they were.
+But, <i>Madam</i>, many studious persons study Nature
+more in her own substance, then in her various actions,
+which is the cause they arrive to no knowledg of Natures
+Works; for the same parts of Matter may act
+or work several ways: Like as a Man, or other animal
+creature, may put one part of his body into various and
+several postures, and move it many different ways. Your
+<i>Author</i> may say, that although several Creatures may
+be changed to our sight or perception, yet they are not
+really changed in Nature. I answer, Their Principle,
+which is a natural matter, of which all Creatures are
+made, cannot be changed, because it is one, simple, and
+unalterable in its Nature; but the figures of several
+Creatures are changed continually by the various motions
+of this matter; not from being matter, but onely
+from such or such a figure into another; and those
+figures which do change, in their room are others
+produced to keep up the certain kinds of Creatures
+by a continual successive alteration. And as there are
+changes of parts, so there are also mixtures of several
+parts, figures and motions in one and the same Matter;
+for there are not different kinds in the nature of Matter:
+But, although Matter is of several degrees, as partly animate
+and partly inanimate, and the animate Matter
+is partly rational, and partly sensitive; Nevertheless, in all
+those degrees it remains the same onely or meer Matter;
+that is, it is nothing else but Matter, and the
+onely ground in which all changes are made. And therefore
+I cannot perceive it to be impossible in Nature, as to
+your <i>Author</i> it seems, That <i>Water should not be transchangeable
+into Air</i>; for, that he says, <i>The Air would
+have increased into a huge bulk, and all Water would
+have long since failed</i>: It is no consequence, because
+there is a Mutual transmutation of all figures
+and parts of Nature, as I declared above; and
+when one part is transchanged into another, that
+part is supplied again by the change of another, so
+that there can be no total mutation of kinds or sorts
+of figures, but onely a mutual change of the particulars.
+Neither is it of any consequence, when
+your <i>Author</i> says, That <i>if Water should once be
+turned into Air, it would always remain Air, because
+a returning agent is wanting, which may turn Air
+again into Water.</i> For he might as well say, a
+Man cannot go or turn backward, being once
+gone forward. And although he brings a General
+Rule, That <i>every thing, as much as in it lies,
+doth desire to remain in it self</i>; Yet it is impossible
+to be done, by reason there is no rest in Nature,
+she being in a perpetual motion, either working
+to the consistance of a figure, or to the uniting
+of several parts, or to the dissolving or dividing
+of several parts, or any other ways. By dissolving,
+I do not mean annihilating, but such a dissolving
+of parts as is proper for the altering of
+such a figure into one or many other figures. But
+rather then your Author will consent to the transchanging
+of Water into Air, he will feign several
+grounds, soils or pavements in the Air, which he
+calls <i>Peroledes</i>, and so many Flood-gates and Folding-dores,
+and make the Planets their Key-keepers;
+which are pretty Fancies, but not able to prove any
+thing in Natural Philosophy. And so leaving them to
+their Author, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_98" id="Footnote_1_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_98"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Gas of Water.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_V" id="III_V">V.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I cannot in reason give my consent to your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_99" id="FNanchor_1_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_99" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Fishes do by the force or vertue of an
+inbred Seed transchange simple water into fat, bones,
+and their own flesh, and that materially they are nothing
+but water transchanged, and that they return into water
+by art.</i> For though my opinion is, that bodies change
+and alter from one figure into another, yet they do
+not all change into water, neither is water changed
+into all other figures; and certainly Fishes do not live
+nor subsist meerly by Water, but by several other
+meats, as other animals do; either by feeding upon
+other Fishes, the stronger devouring the weaker, or
+upon Mud, and Grass, and Weeds, in the bottom
+of Seas, Rivers and Ponds, and the like: As for example,
+put Fish into a Pool or Sluce, wherein there
+is not any thing but clear, pure water, and in a short
+time they will be starved to death for want of Food;
+and as they cannot live onely by water, so neither
+can they breed by the power of water, but by the power
+of their food, as a more solid substance: And if all
+Creatures be nourished by those things whereof they
+consist, then Fishes do not consist of water, being not
+nourished by water; for it is not the transchanging
+of water, by which Fishes live, and by which they
+produce; but it is the transchange of food, proceeding
+from other Creatures, as I mentioned above. 'Tis
+true, Water is a proper element for them to live in, but
+not to live on; and though I have neither learning, nor
+experience in <i>Chymistry</i>, yet I believe, that your <i>Author</i>,
+with all the subtilest Art he had, could not turn or convert
+all Creatures into pure and simple water, but there
+would have been dregs and several mixtures left: I will
+not say, that the Furnace may not rarifie bodies extreamly,
+but not convert them into such a substance or form as
+Nature can. And although he thinks Gold is made of
+Water, yet I do not believe he could convert it into
+Water by the help of Fire; he might make it soluble,
+fluid and rare, but all things that are supple, soluble,
+flowing and liquid, are not Water; I am confident no
+<i>Gas</i> or <i>Blas</i> will, or can transform it, nor no Art whatsoever;
+what Nature may do, I know not. But since
+your <i>Authors</i> opinion is, that Air is also a Primigenial
+Element, and in its nature a substance, Why doth he
+not make it a Principle of natural bodies, as well as Water?
+I think it had not been so improper to liken Juices
+to Water; but to make the onely Principle of the composition
+and dissolution of all Creatures to be Water, seems
+to me very improbable. Neither can I admit in reason
+that the Elements should be called, first, pure, and
+simple beings; we might as well call all other creatures,
+first, pure, and simple beings: for although the
+word Element sounds as much as Principle, yet they
+are in my reason no more Principles of Nature, then
+other Creatures are, there being but one Principle in
+Nature, out of which all things are composed, <i>viz.</i> the
+onely matter, which is a pure and simple corporeal substance;
+and what Man names impure dregs and filths,
+these are onely irregular and cross motions of that matter,
+in respect to the nature of such or such a figure;
+or such motions as are not agreeable and sympathetical
+to our Passions, Humors, Appetites, and the like. Concerning
+the Contrarieties, Differences and Wars in Nature,
+which your <i>Author</i> denies, I have spoken thereof
+already, and though he endeavours in a long discourse
+to prove, that there is no War in nature; yet, in my
+opinion, it is to little purpose, and it makes but a war
+in the thoughts of the Reader; I know not what it did
+in his own. But I observe he appeals often to Divinity
+to bear him up in Natural Philosophy; but how
+the Church doth approve his Interpretations of the
+Scripture, I know not: Wherefore I will not meddle
+with them, lest I offend the Truth of the Divine Scripture,
+wherein I desire to submit to the Judgment of the
+Church, which is much wiser then I, or any single
+Person can be. However, for all what your <i>Author</i>
+says, I do nevertheless verily believe, there is a war
+between Natural motions: For example; between the
+Regular motions of Health, and the Irregular motions
+of Sickness; and that things applied do oftentimes
+give assistance to one side or other, but many times in
+the conflict, the applied remedies are destroyed, and
+sometimes they are forced to be Neutrals: Wherefore
+though the nature of Infinite Matter is simple, and
+knows of no discord, yet her actions may be cross and
+opposite: the truth is, Nature could never make such
+variety, did her actions never oppose each other, but
+live in a constant Peace and Unity. And thus leaving
+them to agree, I am confident your <i>Ladiship</i> and I shall
+never disagree; for as long as my life doth last, I shall
+always prove,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_99" id="Footnote_1_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_99"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The Fiction of Elementary Complexions and Mixtures.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_VI" id="III_VI">VI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> condemns the <i>Schools</i> for saying,<a name="FNanchor_1_100" id="FNanchor_1_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_100" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That
+<i>Air is moist</i>, or that it may be <i>converted into Water
+by pressing it together</i>; bringing an example of
+an <i>Iron Pipe, wherein Air has been pressed together, which
+afterwards in its driving out has, like a Hand-gun discharged
+with Gun-powder, sent a bullet thorow a board or
+plank.</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, concerning the moisture of
+Air, I am against it, but the transchanging of Air
+into Water I do verily believe, <i>viz.</i> that some sorts of
+Air may be contracted or condensed into Water, and
+that Water again may be dilated into Air, but not readily,
+commonly and easily by Art, but onely by Nature.
+Wherefore your <i>Authors</i> Experiment can
+serve for no proof; for an artificial trial cannot be an
+infallible natural demonstration, the actions of Art, and
+the actions of Nature being for the most part very different,
+especially in productions and transmutations of
+natural things: Neither can an alteration of parts, cause
+an utter destruction of the whole, because when some
+parts change from their figures, other parts of matter
+change again into the like figures, by which successive
+change the continuation of the whole is kept up. Next
+your <i>Author</i> reproves the Schools for maintaining the
+opinion, that <i>Air is hot</i>; for says he, <i>Water, Air, and
+Earth, are cold by Creation, because without Light, Heat,
+and the partaking of Life.</i> He might, in my opinion,
+conclude, as well, that Man is cold by Creation, because
+a Chameleon, or a Fish is cold, being all of animal
+kind: But why may not some sorts of Air, Water
+and Earth be hot, and some be cold, as well as some
+sorts of Light are hot, and some cold; and so several other
+Creatures? His Reasons prove nothing: for Light
+doth not make Heat, nor is it the principle of Heat; and
+it is no consequence to say, all that is without Light is
+without Heat, there being many things without Light,
+which nevertheless are Hot; But to say, Water, Air,
+and Earth are cold, because they are without heat, is
+no proof, but a meer begging of the principle; for it is
+but the same thing, as if I should say, this is no Stone,
+because it is no Glass. And that Water, Air and
+Earth, do not partake of Life, must be proved first, for
+that is not granted as yet, there being, according to my
+opinion, not one Creature that wants Life in all Nature.
+Again: your <i>Author</i> is of opinion, That <i>Water is the
+first and chief Principle of all Natural things.</i> But
+this I can no more believe, then that <i>Water should never
+change or degenerate from its essence</i>: nay, if your
+<i>Author</i> means, there shall always be Water in Nature,
+it is another thing; but if he thinks that not any part
+of water doth or can change or degenerate in its nature,
+and is the principle and chief producer of all other
+Creatures; then he makes Water rather a Creator
+then a Creature; and it seems, that those Gentiles
+which did worship Water, were of the same opinion,
+whereas yet he condemns all Pagan opinions and all
+those that follow them. Moreover, I cannot subscribe
+to his opinion, That <i>Gas and Blas from the Stars
+do make heat</i>: For heat is made several ways, according
+to its several sorts; for there is a dry heat, and a
+moist heat, a burning, melting, and evaporating heat,
+and many more. But as for <i>Meteors</i>, that <i>they are
+made by Gas and Blas</i>, I can say nothing, by reason I
+am not skilled in Astrology, and the science of the
+Heavens, Stars, and Planets; wherefore if I did offer
+to meddle with them, I should rather express my
+Ignorance, then give your <i>Ladiship</i> any solid reasons;
+and so I am willing to leave this speculation to others,
+resting content with that knowledg Nature hath given
+me without the help of Learning: Which I wholly
+dedicate and offer to your <i>Ladiship</i>, as becomes,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_100" id="Footnote_1_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_100"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In the <i>ch.</i> of <i>Air.</i></p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_VII" id="III_VII">VII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Having made mention in my last of your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion, <i>That Air is in its nature Cold</i>, I thought
+it fit to take a stricter view of the temper of Air,
+and to send you withal my own opinion thereof. First
+of all, I would fain know, what sort of Air your <i>Author</i>
+means; for if he thinks there is but one sort of Air, he
+might as well say, that there is but one sort of Animals,
+or Vegetables; whereas yet there are not onely different
+sorts of animal and vegetable kind, but also different
+particulars in one and the same sort: As for example;
+what difference is not amongst Horses, as between
+a Barb, a Turk, a Ginnet, a Courser of <i>Naples</i>, a
+Flanders-horse, a Galloway, an English-horse, and so
+forth? not onely in their shapes, but also in their natures,
+tempers and dispositions? The like for Cows,
+Oxen, Sheep, Goats, Dogs, as also for Fowl and
+Fish, nay, for Men. And as for Vegetables, What
+difference is there not between Barly and Wheat, and
+between <i>French</i>-barly, <i>Pine</i>-barly, and ordinary Barly;
+as also our <i>English</i>-wheat, <i>Spanish</i>-wheat, <i>Turkish</i>-wheat,
+<i>Indian</i>-wheat, and the like? What difference
+is there not amongst Grapes, as the <i>Malago, Muscadel</i>,
+and other Grapes, and so of all the rest of Vegetables?
+The same may be said of the Elements; for
+there is as much difference amongst the Elements as
+amongst other Creatures. And so of Air: for Air
+in some places, as in the <i>Indies</i>, especially about <i>Brasilia</i>,
+is very much different from our air, or from the
+air that is in other places: Indeed, in every different
+Climate, you shall find a difference of air, wherefore
+'tis impossible to assign a certain temper of heat or cold
+to air in general. But although my sense and reason inform
+me, that air in its own nature or essence is neither
+hot nor cold, yet it may become hot or cold, by hot
+or cold motions; for the sensitive perceptive motions of
+Air may pattern out heat or cold; and hence it is, that
+in Summer, when as heat predominates, the air is hot;
+and in Winter, when as cold predominates, the air is
+cold. But, perhaps, you will say, air may be cooled
+by moving it with a Fan, or such like thing which can
+make wind; wherefore it follows, that air must needs
+be naturally cold. I answer, That doth not prove Air
+to be in its nature cold: for this moving or making of
+wind may contract or condense the air into cold motions,
+which may cause a cold wind, like as Ventiducts, where
+the air running thorow narrow Pipes makes a cold
+wind. The same may be done with a mans breath;
+for if he contract his lips close, his breath will be cold,
+but if he opens his mouth wide, his breath will be warm.
+Again: you may say, that rain is congealed by the
+coldness of the air into Snow, Hail and Ice. I answer;
+Frost, Ice, Snow and Hail, do not proceed from the
+coldness of the air, but rather the coldness of the air proceeds
+from them; for Ice, Snow, and Hail, proceed
+from cold contraction and condensation of a vaporous
+or watery substance; and, as Frost and Snow cause air
+to be cold, so Thunder and Lightning cause it to be
+hot, so long as they last. Thus, <i>Madam</i>, though
+Air may be altered either to heat or cold, yet it is
+neither hot nor Cold in it self. And this is all for the
+present that I can say concerning the Temper of Air; I
+conclude, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_VIII" id="III_VIII">VIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Having hitherto considered your <i>Authors</i> Elements
+or Principles of Natural things, you will
+give me leave to present you now with a short
+view of his Opinions concerning Wind, Vacuum,
+Rainbows, Thunder, Lightning, Earth-quakes, and
+the like; which I will do as briefly as I can, lest I betray
+my Ignorance; for I confess my self not to be well
+versed in the knowledg of Meteors, nor in those things
+which properly belong to the Mathematicks, as in Astrology,
+Geography, Opticks, and the like. But
+your <i>Author</i> says, in the first place,<a name="FNanchor_1_101" id="FNanchor_1_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_101" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Natural Wind
+is nothing but a flowing Air, moved by the Blas of the Stars.</i>
+Certainly, <i>Madam</i>, if this were so, then, in my judgment,
+when the Stars blaze, we should have constant
+Winds, and the more they blaze, the more violent
+winds there would be: But I have rather observed the
+contrary, that when the Stars blaze most apparently,
+we have the calmest weather either in Summer or Winter.
+Perchance your <i>Author</i> will say, he doth not
+mean this apparant and visible Blas, but another invisible
+Blas. I answer; I know not, nor cannot conceive
+any other Blas in the Stars, except I had seen it in
+a Vision; neither do I think that Nature her self knows
+of any other, But your <i>Author</i> doth refer himself upon
+the Authority of <i>Hypocrates</i>, who says, That <i>not
+onely the Wind is a blast, but that all Diseases are from
+blasts; and that there is in us a Spirit stirring up all things
+by its Blas; which Spirit, by a Microcosmical Analogy,
+or the proportion of a little World, he compares to the
+blasts of the world.</i> As for my particular, <i>Madam</i>,
+I dare say, I could never perceive, by my sense and reason,
+any such blazing Spirit in me; but I have found
+by experience, that when my mind and thoughts have
+been benighted with Melancholy, my Imagination hath
+been more active and subtil, then when my mind has
+been clear from dark Melancholy: Also I find that my
+thoughts and conceptions are as active, if not more,
+in the night then in the day; and though we may sometimes
+dream of several Lights, yet I cannot perceive a
+constant light in us; however Light, Blazes, and all
+those effects are no more then other effects of Nature
+are; nor can they have more power on other Creatures,
+then other Creatures have on them: Neither are they
+made otherwise then by the corporeal motions of Natural
+Matter, and are dissolved and transchanged as other
+Creatures, out of one form or figure into another.
+Next your <i>Author</i> discoursing<a name="FNanchor_2_102" id="FNanchor_2_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_102" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> whether there be any
+Vacuum in Nature, doth incline to the affirming
+party, that there is a Vacuum in the Air; to wit,
+<i>There is in the air something, that is less then a body, which fills
+up the emptinesses or little holes and pores in the air, and
+which is wholly annihilated by fire; It is actually void of
+all matter, and is a middle thing between a body and an
+Incorporeal Spirit, and almost nothing in respect of bodies;
+for it came from Nothing, and so may easily be
+reduced to nothing.</i> All this, <i>Madam</i>, surpasses my
+capacity; for I can in no ways conceive any thing between
+something and nothing, as to be less then
+something, and more then nothing; for all that is corporeal
+in Nature, is to my reason something; that is,
+some really existent thing; but what is incorporeal in
+Nature, is nothing; and if there be any absolute vacuum
+in Nature, as your <i>Author</i> endeavours to prove,
+then certainly this Vacuum cannot be any thing whatsoever;
+for a Vacuum is a pure Nothing. But many
+ingenious and learned men have brought as many arguments
+and reasons against Vacuum, as others bring
+for it, and so it is a thing which I leave to them to exercise
+their brains withal. The like is the opinion which
+many maintain concerning Place, <i>viz.</i> that there is
+a constant succession of Place and Parts, so that when
+one part removes, another doth succeed in its place;
+the truth and manner whereof I was never able to comprehend:
+for, in my opinion, there can be no place
+without body, nor no body without place, body and
+place being all but one thing. But as for the perpetual
+Creation and annihilation of your <i>Authors</i> Vacuities,
+give me leave to tell you, <i>Madam</i>, that it would be a
+more laborious work, then to make a new World, or
+then it was to make this present World; for God made
+this World in six days, and rested the seventh day; but
+this is a perpetual making of something out of nothing.
+Again: concerning Rainbows, your <i>Author</i> says,<a name="FNanchor_3_103" id="FNanchor_3_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_103" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> That
+<i>a Rainbow is not a natural effect of a natural Cause, but a
+divine Mystery in its original; and that it has no matter, but
+yet is in a place, and has its colours immediately in a place,
+but in the air mediately, and that it is of the nature of
+Light.</i> This is indeed a great mystery to my reason;
+for I cannot conceive, as I said before, a place without
+a body, nor how Light and Colours can be bodiless:
+But as for Rainbows, I have observed, when as
+water hath been blown up into the air into bubles, that
+by the reflexion of light on the watery bubles, they
+have had the like colours of the Rainbow; and I have
+heard, that there hath been often seen at the rising and
+setting of the Sun, Clouds of divers colours; Wherefore
+I cannot be perswaded to believe that a Rainbow should
+not have a natural cause, and consequently be a natural
+effect; For that God has made it a sign of the Covenant
+between him and mortal men, is no proof, that it is
+not a natural effect; Neither can I believe that it has not
+been before the Flood, and before it was made a sign by
+God, as your <i>Author</i> imagines; for though it was no
+sign before the Flood, yet it may nevertheless have had
+its being and existence before the Flood. Moreover, as
+for Thunder and Lightning, your <i>Authors</i> opinion
+is; <i>That although they may have concurring natural Causes,
+yet the mover of them is an Incorporeal Spirit, which
+is the Devil; who having obtained the Principality of
+this world, that he may be a certain executer of the judgments
+of the chief Monarch, and so the Umpire and
+Commissioner of Lightning and Thunder, stirs up a monstrous
+and sudden Blas in the Air, yet under Covenanted
+Conditions; for unless his power were bridled by
+divine Goodness, he would shake the Earth with one stroke
+so, as to destroy all mortal men: and thus the cracking noise
+or voice of Thunder is nothing but a spiritual Blas of the
+Evil Spirit.</i> I will not deny, <i>Madam</i>, that Thunder
+and Lightning do argue the Power of the most Glorious
+God, for so do all the rest of the Creatures; but that this
+is the onely and immediate cause, which your <i>Author</i>
+assigns of Thunder and Lightning, I cannot believe;
+for surely, in my opinion, Thunder and Lightning are
+as much natural effects as other Creatures in Nature;
+and are not the Devils Blas, for I think they may be
+made without the help of the Devil; nay, I believe, he
+may be as much affraid of Thunder, as those Creatures
+that live on Earth. But what the causes are, and how
+Thunder and Lightning are made, I have elsewhere
+declared more at large, especially in my <i>Philosophical
+Opinions.</i> Again your <i>Author</i> speaking<a name="FNanchor_4_104" id="FNanchor_4_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_104" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> of the <i>Trembling
+of the Earth, thinks it is nothing else but the Judgment
+of God for the sins of Impenitent men.</i> For my
+part, <i>Madam</i>, I can say little to it, either concerning
+the divine, or the natural cause of Earthquakes: As
+for the divine and supernatural Cause, which your
+<i>Author</i> gives, if it was so, then I wonder much, why
+God should command Earth-quakes in some parts of
+the World more frequent then in others. As for example;
+we here in these parts have very seldom Earthquakes,
+and those we have, which is hardly one in
+many ages, are not so furious, as to do much harm;
+and so in many other places of the World, are as few
+and as gentle Earth-quakes as here; when as in others,
+Earth-quakes are very frequent and dreadful: From
+whence it must needs follow, if Earth-quakes be onely
+a Judgment from God for the sins of Impenitent Men,
+and not a natural effect, that then those places, where
+the Earth is not so apt to tremble, are the habitations of
+the blessed, and that they, which inhabit those parts that
+are apt to tremble, are the accursed; when as yet, in those
+places where Earthquakes are not usual and frequent, or
+none at all, People are as wicked and impious, if not
+more, then in those where Earthquakes are common. But
+the question is, Whether those parts which suffer frequent
+and terrible Earthquakes, would not be so shaken
+or have such trembling fits, were they uninhabited by
+Man, or any other animal Creature? Certainly, in
+my opinion, they would. But as for the Natural
+Cause of Earthquakes, you must pardon me, <i>Madam</i>,
+that I cannot knowingly discourse thereof, by reason I
+am not so well skilled in Geography, as to know the several
+Soils, Climats, Parts, Regions, or Countries, nor
+what disposed matter may be within those parts that are
+subject to frequent Earthquakes: Onely this I may say,
+that I have observed, that the light of a small Fire or
+Candle, will dilate it self round about; or rather that the
+air round about the Fire or Candle, will pattern out both
+its light and its heat. Also I have observed, That a
+Man in a raging fit of Madness will have such an unusual
+strength, as ten strong men shall hardly be able to
+encounter or bind him, when as, this violent fit being
+past, a single man, nay a youth, may over-master him:
+Whence I conclude, that the actions, as the motions
+of Nature, are very powerful when they use their
+force, and that the ordinary actions of Nature are not
+so forcible as necessary; but the extraordinary are more
+forcible then necessary. Lastly, your <i>Author</i> takes
+great pains to prove,<a name="FNanchor_5_105" id="FNanchor_5_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_105" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> That <i>the Sun with his light rules
+the Day, and the Moon with hers the Night; and
+that the Moon has her own Native light; and that
+Bats, Mice, Dormice, Owles, and many others, as also
+Men, which rise at night, and walk in their sleep, see
+by the light and power of the Moon; also that Plants are
+more plentifully nourished by the night.</i> But lest it might
+be concluded, that all this is said without any probability
+of Truth, by reason the Moon doth not every
+night shine upon the Earth, he makes a difference between
+the Manner of the Sun's and Moon's enlightning
+the Earth; to wit, that the Sun strikes
+his beams in a right line towards the Earth, but the
+Moon doth not respect the Centre of the World,
+which is the Earth, in a right line; but her Centre is
+always excentrical, and she respects the Earth onely by
+accident, when she is concentrical with the World;
+And therefore he thinks there is another light under the
+Earth even at Midnight, whereby many Eyes do see,
+which owes also its rise to the Moon. This opinion
+of your <i>Author</i> I leave to be examined by those that
+have skill in Astronomy, and know both the Light and
+the Course of the Moon: I will onely say thus much,
+that when the Moon is concentrical, as he calls it, with
+the World, as when it is Full and New Moon, she
+doth not shine onely at night, but also in the day, and
+therefore she may rule the day as well as the night, and
+then there will be two lights for the ruling of the day,
+or at least there will be a strife betwixt the Sun and the
+Moon, which shall rule. But as for Men walking asleep
+by the light of the Moon, my opinion is, That blind
+men may walk as well by the light of the Sun, as sleeping
+men by the light of the Moon. Neither is it probable,
+that <i>the Moon or her Blas doth nourish Plants</i>; for
+in a cold Moon-shiny night they will often die; but it
+is rather the Regular motions in well tempered matter
+that cause fruitful productions and maturity. And so
+I repose my Pen, lest it trespass too much upon your
+Patience, resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_101" id="Footnote_1_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_101"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Blas of Meteors.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_102" id="Footnote_2_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_102"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of Vacuum.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_103" id="Footnote_3_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_103"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of an Irregular Meteor.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_104" id="Footnote_4_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_104"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Earthquake.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_105" id="Footnote_5_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_105"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Birth or Original of Forms.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_IX" id="III_IX">IX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In my former, when I related your <i>Authors</i> opinion,
+concerning Earthquakes, I forgot to tell you, that he
+counts the Doctrine of the Schools absurd, when
+they say that Air, or any Exhalation, is the cause of
+them: For, says he, <i>There is no place in the Pavements
+or soils of the Earth, wherein any airy body may be entertained,
+whether that body be a wind, or an airy exhalation.</i>
+But since I promised I would not offer to appoint
+or assign any natural causes of Earthquakes, I have
+only taken occasion hence to enquire, whether it may not
+be probably affirmed, that there is air in the bowels of the
+Earth: And to my reason it seems very probable; I
+mean not this Exterior air, flowing about the circumference
+of the Earth we inhabite; but such an airy
+matter as is pure, refined, and subtil, there being
+great difference in the Elements, as well as in all other
+sorts of Creatures; for what difference is there not between
+the natural heat of an animal, and the natural
+heat of the Sun? and what difference is there not between
+the natural moisture of an Animal, and the natural
+moisture of Water? And so for the Purity of
+Air, Dryness of Earth, and the like: Nay, there
+is great difference also in the production of those Effects:
+As for example; the heat of the Earth is not
+produced from the Sun, nor the natural heat in Animals,
+nor the natural heat in Vegetables; for if it
+were so, then all Creatures in one Region or place of
+the Earth would be of one temper. As for example:
+Poppy, Night-shade, Lettuce, Thyme, Sage, Parsly,
+&amp;c. would be all of one temper and degree, growing
+all in one Garden, and upon one patch of Ground,
+whereon the Sun equally casts his beams, when as
+yet they are all different in their natural tempers and
+degrees. And so certainly there is Air, Fire, and
+Water, in the bowels of the Earth, which were never
+made by the Sun, the Sea, and this Exterior elemental
+Air. Wherefore those, in my opinion, are
+in gross Errors, who imagine that these Interior Effects
+in the Earth are produced from the mentioned
+Exterior Elements, or from some other forreign and
+external Causes; for an external cause can onely produce
+an external effect, or be an occasion to the
+production of such or such an effect, but not be the
+immediate efficient or essential cause of an interior
+natural effect in another Creature, unless the Interior
+natures of different Creatures have such an active power
+and influence upon each other, as to work interiously
+at a distance, such effects as are proper and essential to
+their Natures, which is improbable; for though their
+natures and dispositions may mutually agree and sympathize,
+yet their powers cannot work upon their Interior
+Natures so, as to produce internal natural effects
+and proprieties in them. The truth is, it cannot be; for
+as the Cause is, so is the Effect; and if the Cause be an
+exterior Cause, the Effect must prove so too: As for
+example; the heat of the Sun, and the heat of the Earth,
+although they may both agree, yet one is not the cause
+of the other; for the Suns heat cannot pierce into the
+bowels of the Earth, neither can the heat of the Earth
+ascend so far as to the Center of the Sun: As for the
+heat of the Earth, it is certain enough, and needs no
+proof; but as for the heat of the Sun, our senses will
+sufficiently inform us, that although his beams are
+shot forth in direct lines upon the face of the Earth,
+yet they have not so much force, as to pierce into a low
+Celler or Vault; Wherefore it is not probable, that
+the Earth hath its natural heat from the Sun, and so neither
+its dryness from the Air, nor its moisture from
+the Sea, but these interior effects in the Earth proceed
+from some other interior causes. And thus there may
+be great difference between the heat, cold, moisture,
+and drought which is in the Elements, and between
+those which are in Vegetables, Minerals, and Animals,
+not onely in their General kinds, but also in their Particulars:
+And not onely a difference in the aforesaid
+qualities of heat, cold, moisture, and drought, but also
+in all other motions, as Dilations, Contractions, Rarefactions,
+Densations, &amp;c. nay, in their Mixtures and
+Temperaments: As for example; the temper of a
+Mineral is not the temper of an Animal, or of a Vegetable,
+neither is the temper of these the temper
+of the exterior Elements, no more then the temper
+of the Elements is the temper of them; for every
+Creature has a temper natural and peculiar to it
+self, nay, every particular Creature, has not onely
+different tempers, compositions, or mixtures, but
+also different productions; or else, if there were no
+difference in their productions, every Creature would
+be alike, when as yet there are seldom two that do
+exactly resemble each other. But I desire you to
+understand me well, <i>Madam</i>, when I speak of
+Particular heats, colds, droughts, and moistures; for
+I do not believe that all Creatures are made out
+of the four Elements, no more, then that the Elements
+are produced from other Creatures, for the
+Matter of all Creatures is but one and the same;
+but although the Matter is the same, nevertheless,
+the Tempers, compositions, Productions, Motions,
+&amp;c. of particular Creatures, may be different,
+which is the cause of their different exterior figures,
+or shapes, as also of their different Interiour
+Natures, Qualities, Properties, and the like. And
+so, to conclude, there is no impossibility or absurdity
+in affirming, that there may be Air, Fire,
+and Water, in the bowels of the Earth proper for
+those Creatures, which are in her, although not such
+an Elemental Air, Fire and Water, as is subject here
+to our senses; but another kind of Air, Fire and Water,
+different from those. But this being a subject for
+Learned and Ingenious men to work and contemplate
+upon, better, perhaps, then I can do, I will leave it to
+them, and so remain,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_X" id="III_X">X.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> mentioning in his Works, several
+Seeds of several Creatures, makes me express my
+opinion thus in short concerning this Subject: Several
+Seeds seem to me no otherwise then several Humours,
+or several Elements, or several other Creatures
+made of one and the same Matter, that produce
+one thing out of another, and the barrenness of seeds
+proceeds either from the irregularity of their natural
+motions, or from their unaptness or unactivity of producing.
+But it is to be observed, <i>Madam</i>, that not
+every thing doth produce always its like, but one and
+the same thing, or one and the same Creature, hath many
+various and different productions; for sometimes
+Vegetables do produce Animals, Animals produce Minerals,
+Minerals produce Elements, and Elements again
+Minerals, and so forth: for proof I will bring but
+a mean and common example. Do not Animals produce
+Stones, some in one, and some in another part of
+their bodies, as some in the Heart, some in the Stomack,
+some in the Head, some in the Gall, some in the Kidnies,
+and some in the Bladder? I do not say, that this
+Generation of Stone is made the same way as the natural
+generation of Animals, as, for example, Man is
+born of his Parents; but I speak of the generation or
+production of Creatures in general, for otherwise all
+Creatures would be alike, if all generations were after
+one and the same manner and way. Likewise do not
+Fruits, Roots, Flowers and Herbs, produce Worms?
+And do not Stones produce Fire? witness the Flint.
+And doth not Earth produce Metal? 'Tis true, some
+talk of the seed of Metals, but who with all his diligent
+observations could find it out as yet? Wherefore it is,
+in my opinion, not probable, that Minerals are produced
+by way of seeds. Neither can I perceive that
+any of the Elements is produced by seed, unless Fire,
+which seems, to my sense and reason, to encrease numerously
+by its seed, but not any other of the Elements.
+And thus productions are almost as various as Creatures,
+or rather parts of Creatures, are; for we see how
+many productions there are in one animal body, as the
+production of flesh, bones, marrow, brains, gristles,
+veines, sinews, blood, and the like, and all this comes
+from Food, and Food from some other Creatures, but
+all have their original from the onely matter, and the
+various motions of Nature. And thus, in my opinion,
+all things are made easily, and not by such constrained
+ways as your <i>Author</i> describes, by Gas, Blas,
+Ideas, and the like; for I am confident, Nature has
+more various ways of producing natural things then
+any Creature is able to conceive. I'le give another
+example of Vegetables, I pray you but to consider,
+<i>Madam</i>, how many several ways Vegetables are produced,
+as some by seeds, some by slips, some by
+grafts, &amp;c. The graft infuses and commixes with the
+whole stock and the branches, and these do the like
+with the graft: As for example; an Apple grafted in
+Colewort produces Apples; but those Apples will have
+a taste and sent of the Colewort, which shews that several
+parts of several Creatures mix, joyn, and act together;
+and as for seeds, they are transchanged wholly, and every
+part thereof into the produced fruit, and every
+part of the seed makes a several production by the help
+of the co-working parts of the Earth, which is the reason
+that so many seeds are produced from one single seed;
+But Producers, that waste not themselves in productions,
+do not produce so numerously as those that do dissolve;
+yet all Creatures increase more or less, according
+to their supplies or assistances; for seeds will encrease and
+multiply more in manured and fertile then in barren
+grounds; nay, if the ground be very barren, no production
+at all will be; which shews, that productions
+come not barely from the seed, but require of necessity
+some assistance, and therefore neither Archeus, nor seminal
+Ideas, nor Gas, nor Blas, would do any good
+in Vegetables, if the ground did not assist them in their
+generations or productions, no more then a house
+would be built without the assistance of labourers or
+workmen; for let the materials lie never so long, surely
+they will never joyn together of themselves to the artificial
+structure of an house. Wherefore since there is so
+much variety in the production of one kind of Creatures,
+nay of every particular in every kind, what needs
+Man to trouble his brain for the manner and way to
+describe circumstantially every particular production
+of every Creature by seminal or printing Ideas, or any
+other far-fetched termes, since it is impossible to be
+done? And as for those Creatures whose producers
+are of two different sorts, as a Mule bred of an Asse
+and a Horse, and another Creature bred of a Cony
+and a Dormouse; all which your <i>Author</i> thinks<a name="FNanchor_1_106" id="FNanchor_1_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_106" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> do
+take more after their mother then their father, more
+after the breeder then the begetter; I will not eagerly
+affirm the contrary, although it seems to me more
+probable: But this I can say, that I have observed by
+experience, that Faunes and Foales have taken more
+after the Male then after the Female; for amongst
+many several colour'd Deer, I have seen but one milk
+white Doe; and she never brought forth a white Faun,
+when as I have seen a white Buck beget white and
+speckled Faunes of black and several coloured Does.
+Also in Foals I have observed, that they have taken
+more after the Male then after the Female, both in
+shape and colour. And thus I express no more, but
+what I have observed my self, others may find out
+more examples; these are sufficient for me; so I leave
+them, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_106" id="Footnote_1_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_106"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In the <i>Ch.</i> the Position is demonstrated;
+and in the <i>ch.</i> called the Authority of the <i>Duumvirate</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XI" id="III_XI">XI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You will cease to wonder, that I am not altogether
+capable to understand your <i>Authors</i> opinions in
+Natural Philosophy, when you do but consider,
+that his expressions are for the most part so obscure, mystical
+and intricate, as may puzzle any brain that has
+not the like Genius, or the same Conceptions with your
+<i>Author</i>; wherefore I am forced oftentimes to express
+my ignorance rather, then to declare to you the true
+sense of his opinions. In the number of these is his discourse
+of a <i>Middle Life</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_107" id="FNanchor_1_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_107" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>viz.</i> That <i>the qualities of a
+middle life do remain in things that are transchanged:</i> For
+I cannot understand what he means by a middle life;
+whether it be a life that is between the strongest and
+weakest, or whether he means a life between the time
+of production and dissolution, or between the time of
+conception and production; or whether he means a life
+that is between two sorts of substances, as more then an
+Animal, and not so high and excellent as an Angel; or
+whether he means a middle life for places, as neither in
+Heaven nor in Hell, but in Purgatory, or neither in,
+nor out of the world, or any other kind of life: Wherefore
+I'le leave this Hermaphroditical or neutral life to
+better understandings then mine. Likewise I must
+confess my disability of conceiving the overshadowing
+of his <i>Archeus</i>, and <i>how it brings this middle life into its
+first life.</i> For concerning Generation, I know of none
+that is performed by overshadowing, except it be the
+miraculous conception of the blessed Virgin, as Holy
+Writ informs us; and I hope your <i>Author</i> will not
+compare his <i>Archeus</i> to the Holy Spirit; But how a
+middle life may be brought again into the first life, is
+altogether unconceivable to me: And so is that, when he
+says, that the <i>first life of the Fruit is the last of the seed</i>;
+for I cannot imagine, that the seed dies in the fruit; but,
+in my opinion, it lives rather in the fruit, and is numerously
+increased, as appears by the production of seed
+from the fruit. But the most difficult of all to be understood,
+are his <i>Ideas</i>,<a name="FNanchor_2_108" id="FNanchor_2_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_108" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> which he makes <i>certain seminal Images,
+Formal Lights, and operative means, whereby
+the soul moves and governs the body</i>; whose number and
+variety is so great, as it transcends my capacity, there being
+<i>Ideas</i> of Inclination, of Affection, of Consideration
+or Judgment, of Passion, and these either mild, or
+violent, besides a great number of Archeal and forreign
+Ideas. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I cannot admire enough
+the powerful effects of these Ideas, they themselves being
+no substances or material Creatures; For how that
+can pierce, seal, and print a figure, which hath neither
+substance nor matter, my reason is not able to comprehend,
+since there can be no figure without matter or
+substance, they being inseparably united together, so,
+that where figure is, there is also substance, and where
+substance is, there is also figure; neither can any figure
+be made without a substance. You may say, Ideas,
+though they are not material or corporeal beings themselves,
+yet they may put on figures, and take bodies
+when they please: I answer, That then they can do
+more then Immaterial Spirits; for the Learned say, That
+Immaterial Spirits are Immaterial substances; but your
+<i>Author</i> says, that Ideas are no substances; and I think it
+would be easier for a substance to take a body, then for
+that which is no substance: But your <i>Author</i> might
+have placed his Ideas as well amongst the number of
+Immaterial Spirits, to wit, amongst Angels and Devils,
+and then we should not have need to seek far for the
+causes of the different natures and dispositions of Mankind,
+but we might say, that Ill-natured men proceeded
+from Evil, and Good-natured men from Good Spirits
+or Ideas. However, <i>Madam</i>, I do not deny Ideas,
+Images, or Conceptions of things, but I deny them
+onely to be such powerful beings and Principal efficient
+Causes of Natural effects; especially they being to your
+<i>Author</i> neither bodies nor substances themselves. And
+as for the <i>Figure of a Cherry</i>, which your <i>Author</i> makes
+so frequent a repetition of, made by a longing Woman
+on her Child; I dare say that there have been millions
+of Women, which have longed for some or other thing,
+and have not been satisfied with their desires, and yet
+their Children have never had on their bodies the prints
+or marks of those things they longed for: but because
+some such figures are sometimes made by the irregular
+motions of animate Matter, would this be a sufficient
+proof, that all Conceptions, Ideas and Images have the
+like effects, after the same manner, by piercing or penetrating
+each other, and sealing or printing such or
+such a figure upon the body of the Child? Lastly, I
+cannot but smile when I read that your <i>Author</i> makes a
+<i>Disease proceed from a non-being to a substantial being</i>:
+Which if so, then a disease, according to his opinion,
+is made as the World was, that is, out of Nothing; but
+surely luxurious persons find it otherwise, who eat and
+drink more then their natural digestive motions can dispose;
+for those that have infirm bodies, caused by the
+irregular motions of animate matter, find that a disease
+proceeds from more then a <i>non</i>-being. But, <i>Madam</i>,
+I have neither such an <i>Archeus</i>, which can produce, in
+my mind, an Idea of Consent or approbation of these
+your <i>Authors</i> opinions, nor such a light that is able to
+produce a beam of Patience to tarry any longer upon
+the examination of them; Wherefore I beg your leave
+to cut off my discourse here, and onely to subscribe my
+self, as really I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_107" id="Footnote_1_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_107"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> called <i>Magnum oporter</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_108" id="Footnote_2_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_108"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Of the Ideas of Diseases.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XII" id="III_XII">XII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I cannot well apprehend your <i>Authors</i> meaning,
+when he says,<a name="FNanchor_1_109" id="FNanchor_1_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_109" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Nature doth rise from its fall</i>;
+for if he understands Nature in general, I cannot
+imagine how she should fall and rise; for though Man
+did fall, yet Nature never did, nor cannot fall, being
+Infinite: And therefore in another place,<a name="FNanchor_2_110" id="FNanchor_2_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_110" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> when he
+saith, that <i>Nature first being a beautiful Virgin, was defiled
+by sin; not by her own, but by Mans sin, for whose
+use she was created</i>; I think it too great a presumption
+and arrogancy to say that Infinite Nature was not onely
+defiled by the sin of Man, but also to make Man the
+chief over all Nature, and to believe Nature was onely
+made for his sake; when as he is but a small finite
+part of Infinite Nature, and almost Nothing in comparison
+to it. But I suppose your <i>Author</i> doth not understand
+Nature in general, but onely the nature of some
+Particulars, when he speaks of the fall and rise of Nature;
+however, this fall and rise of the nature of Particulars,
+is nothing but a change of their natural motions.
+And so likewise, I suppose, he understands the nature
+of Particulars, when he says in another place,<a name="FNanchor_3_111" id="FNanchor_3_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_111" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> That
+Nature in diseases is standing, sitting, and lying; for
+surely Nature in general has more several postures then
+sitting, standing, or lying: As also when he speaks<a name="FNanchor_4_112" id="FNanchor_4_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_112" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> of
+the <i>Vertues and Properties that stick fast in the bosom of
+Nature</i>, which I conceive to be a Metaphorical expression;
+although I think it best to avoid Metaphorical,
+similizing, and improper expressions in Natural
+Philosophy, as much as one can; for they do rather
+obscure then explain the truth of Nature; nay, your
+<i>Author</i> himself is of this opinion,<a name="FNanchor_5_113" id="FNanchor_5_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_113" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> and yet he doth nothing
+more frequent then bring in Metaphors and similitudes.
+But to speak properly, there is not any thing that sticks
+fast in the bosom of Nature, for Nature is in a perpetual
+motion: Neither can she be <i>heightened or diminished
+by Art</i>; for Nature will be Nature in despite of
+her Hand-maid. And as for your <i>Authors</i> opinion,
+That <i>there are no Contraries in Nature</i>, I am quite of
+a contrary mind, that there is a Perpetual war and
+discord amongst the parts of Nature, although not in
+the nature and substance of Infinite Matter, which is
+of a simple kind, and knows no contraries in it self, but
+lives in Peace, when as the several actions are opposing
+and crossing each other; and truly, I do not believe,
+that there is any part or Creature of Nature, that hath
+not met with opposers, let it be never so small or great.
+But as War is made by the division of Natures parts,
+and variety of natural actions, so Peace is caused by the
+unity and simplicity of the nature and essence of onely
+Matter, which Nature is peaceable, being always one
+and the same, and having nothing in it self to be crossed
+or opposed by; when as the actions of Nature, or natural
+Matter, are continually driving against each other,
+as being various and different. Again your <i>Author</i> says,
+That <i>a Specifical being cannot be altered but by Fire, and
+that Fire is the Death of other Creatures: also that Alchymy,
+as it brings many things to a degree of greater efficacy,
+and stirs up a new being, so on the other hand again,
+it by a privy filching doth enfeeble many things.</i> I,
+for my part, wonder, that Fire, being as your <i>Author</i>
+says, no substantial body, but substanceless in its nature,
+should work such effects; but however, I believe there
+are many alterations without Fire, and many things
+which cannot be altered by Fire. What your <i>Authors</i>
+meaning is of a <i>new being</i>, I know not; for, to my reason,
+there neither is; nor can be made any new being in
+Nature, except we do call the change of motions and
+figures a new Creation; but then an old suit turned or
+dressed up may be called new too. Neither can I conceive
+his <i>Filching or Stealing</i>: For Nature has or keeps
+nothing within her self, but what is her own; and surely
+she cannot steal from her self; nor can Art steal from
+Nature; she may trouble Nature, or rather make
+variety in Nature, but not take any thing from her,
+for Art is the insnarled motions of Nature: But your
+<i>Author</i>, being a Chymist, is much for the Art of Fire,
+although it is impossible for Art to work as Nature
+doth; for Art makes of natural Creatures artificial
+Monsters, and doth oftner obscure and disturb Natures
+ordinary actions, then prove any Truth in Nature.
+But Nature loving variety doth rather smile at
+Arts follies, then that she should be angry with her curiosity:
+like as for example, a Poet will smile in expressing
+the part or action of a Fool. Wherefore Pure
+natural Philosophers, shall by natural sense and reason,
+trace Natures ways, and observe her actions, more readily
+then Chymists can do by Fire and Furnaces; for
+Fire and Furnaces do often delude the Reason, blind
+the Understanding, and make the Judgment stagger.
+Nevertheless, your <i>Author</i> is so taken with Fire, that
+from thence he imagines a Formal Light, which he believes
+to be the Tip-top of Life; but certainly, he had,
+in my opinion, not so much light as to observe, that
+all sorts of light are but Creatures, and not Creators;
+for he judges of several Parts of Matter, as if they were
+several kinds of Matter, which causes him often to err,
+although he conceits himself without any Error. In
+which conceit I leave him, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_109" id="Footnote_1_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_109"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Nature is ignorant of Contraries.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_110" id="Footnote_2_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_110"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> In the Hist. of <i>Tartar</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_111" id="Footnote_3_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_111"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Disease is an unknown guest.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_112" id="Footnote_4_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_112"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Nature is ignorant of Contraries.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_113" id="Footnote_5_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_113"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The Image of the Ferment begets the Mass with Child.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XIII" id="III_XIII">XIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>The Art of Fire, as I perceive, is in greater esteem
+and respect with your <i>Author</i>, then Nature
+her self: For he says,<a name="FNanchor_1_114" id="FNanchor_1_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_114" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>some things can be
+done by Art, which Nature cannot do</i>; nay he calls<a name="FNanchor_2_115" id="FNanchor_2_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_115" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>Art</i>
+The <i>Mistress of Nature, and subjects whole Nature
+unto Chymical speculation</i>; For, <i>nothing</i>, says he,<a name="FNanchor_3_116" id="FNanchor_3_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_116" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>doth
+more fully bring a Man, that is greedy of knowing, to the
+knowledg of all things knowable, then the Fire; for the
+root or radical knowledg of natural things consists in the
+Fire:</i><a name="FNanchor_4_117" id="FNanchor_4_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_117" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>It pierces the secrets of Nature, and causes a
+further searching out in Nature, then all other Sciences,
+being put together; and pierces even into the utmost
+depths of real truth:</i><a name="FNanchor_5_118" id="FNanchor_5_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_118" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> <i>It creates things which never were
+before.</i> These, and many more the like expressions,
+he has in the praise of Chymistry. And truly, <i>Madam</i>,
+I cannot blame your <i>Author</i>, for commending
+this Art, because it was his own profession, and no
+man will be so unwise as to dispraise his own Art which
+he professes; but whether those praises and commendations
+do not exceed truth, and express more then
+the Art of Fire can perform, I will let those judg, that
+have more knowledg therein then I: But this I may
+say, That what Art or Science soever is in Nature, let it
+be the chief of all, yet it can never be call'd the Mistress
+of Nature, nor be said to perform more then Nature
+doth, except it be by a divine and supernatural
+Power; much less to create things which never were before,
+for this is an action which onely belongs to God:
+The truth is, Art is but a Particular effect of Nature,
+and as it were, Nature's Mimick or Fool, in whose playing
+actions she sometimes takes delight; nay, your <i>Author</i>
+confesses it himself, when he calls<a name="FNanchor_6_119" id="FNanchor_6_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_119" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> the <i>Art</i> of <i>Chymistry,
+Nature's emulating Ape</i>, and <i>her Chamber-maid</i>,
+and yet he says, <i>she is now and then the Mistress of
+Nature</i>; which in my opinion doth not agree: for I
+cannot conceive how it is possible to be a Chambermaid,
+and yet to be the Mistress too; I suppose your
+<i>Author</i> believes, they justle sometimes each other out,
+or take by turns one anothers place. But whatever his
+opinion be, I am sure, that the Art of Fire cannot create
+and produce so, as Nature doth, nor dissolve substances
+so, as she doth, nor transform and transchange,
+as she doth, nor do any effect like Nature: And therefore
+I cannot so much admire this Art as others do, for
+it appears to me, rather to be a troubler, then an assistant
+to Nature, producing more Monsters then perfect
+Creatures; nay, it rather doth shut the Gates of Truth,
+then unlock the Gates of Nature: For how can Art
+inform us of Nature, when as it is but an effect of Nature?
+You may say, The cause cannot be better known
+then by its effect; for the knowledg of the effect, leads
+us to the knowledg of the cause. I answer, 'Tis true:
+but you will consider, that Nature is an Infinite cause,
+and has Infinite effects; and if you knew all the Infinite
+effects in nature, then perhaps you might come to some
+knowledg of the cause; but to know nature by one single
+effect, as art is, is impossible; nay, no man knows
+this particular effect as yet perfectly; For who is he, that
+has studied the art of fire so, as to produce all that this
+art may be able to afford? witness the Philosophers-stone.
+Besides, how is it possible to find out the onely
+cause by so numerous variations of the effects? Wherefore
+it is more easie, in my opinion, to know the various
+effects in Nature by studying the Prime cause, then
+by the uncertain study of the inconstant effects to arrive
+to the true knowledg of the prime cause; truly it is
+much easier to walk in a Labyrinth without a Guide,
+then to gain a certain knowledg in any one art or natural
+effect, without Nature her self be the guide, for
+Nature is the onely Mistress and cause of all, which, as
+she has made all other effects, so she has also made arts
+for varieties sake; but most men study Chymistry more
+for imployment, then for profit; not but that I believe,
+there may be some excellent Medicines found out and
+made by that art, but the expence and labour is more
+then the benefit; neither are all those Medicines sure
+and certain, nor in all diseases safe; neither can this art
+produce so many medicines as there are several diseases
+in Nature, and for the Universal Medicine, and the
+Philosophers-stone or Elixir, which Chymists brag of
+so much; it consists rather in hope and expectation, then
+in assurance; for could Chymists find it out, they
+would not be so poor, as most commonly they are, but
+richer then <i>Solomon</i> was, or any Prince in the
+World, and might have done many famous acts with
+the supply of their vast Golden Treasures, to the eternal
+and immortal fame of their Art; nay, Gold being the
+Idol of this world, they would be worshipped as well
+for the sake of Gold, as for their splendorous Art; but
+how many have endeavored and laboured in vain and
+without any effect? <i>Gold is easier to be made, then to be
+destroyed</i>, says your <i>Author,</i><a name="FNanchor_7_120" id="FNanchor_7_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_120" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> but I believe one is as difficult
+or impossible, nay more, then the other; for
+there is more probability of dissolving or destroying a
+natural effect by Art, then of generating or producing
+one; for Art cannot go beyond her sphere of activity,
+she can but produce an artificial effect, and Gold
+is a natural Creature; neither were it Justice, that a
+particular creature of Nature should have as much
+power to act or work as Nature her self; but because
+neither Reason, nor Art has found out as yet such a
+powerful opposite to Gold, as can alter its nature; men
+therefore conclude that it cannot be done. Your <i>Author</i>
+relates<a name="FNanchor_8_121" id="FNanchor_8_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_121" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> to have seen the Gold-making stone, which
+he says, was of colour such, as Saffron is in its powder,
+but weighty and shining like unto powder'd Glass; one
+fourth part of one grain thereof, (a grain he reckons
+the six hundredth part of one ounce) being projected
+upon eight ounces of Quicksilver made hot in a Crucible,
+and straight way there were found eight ounces,
+and a little less then eleven grains of the purest Gold;
+therefore one onely grain of that powder had transchanged
+19186 parts of Quicksilver, equal to it self, into
+the best Gold. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I wish with all my
+heart, the poor Royalists had had some quantity of that
+powder; and I assure you, that if it were so, I my
+self would turn a Chymist to gain so much as to repair
+my Noble Husbands losses, that his noble family might
+flourish the better. But leaving Gold, since it is but a
+vain wish, I do verily believe, that some of the Chymical
+medicines do, in some desperate cases, many times
+produce more powerful and sudden effects then the
+medicines of Galenists, and therefore I do not absolutely
+condemn the art of Fire, as if I were an enemy to
+it; but I am of an opinion, that my Opinions in <i>Philosophy</i>,
+if well understood, will rather give a light to that art,
+then obscure its worth; for if Chymists did but study well
+the corporeal motions or actions of Natures substantial
+body; they would, by their observations, understand
+Nature better, then they do by the observation of the
+actions of their Art; and out of this consideration and respect,
+I should almost have an ambition, to become an
+Artist in Chymistry, were I not too lazie and tender for
+that imployment; but should I quit the one, and venture
+the other, I am so vain as to perswade my self, I might
+perform things worthy my labour upon the ground of
+my own Philosophy, which is substantial Life, Sense, and
+Reason; for I would not study Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury,
+but the Natural motions of every Creature, and
+observe the variety of Natures actions. But, perchance,
+you will smile at my vain conceit, and, it may be, I my
+self, should repent of my pains unsuccessfully bestowed,
+my time vainly spent, my health rashly endangered,
+and my Noble Lords Estate unprofitably wasted, in
+fruitless tryals and experiments; Wherefore you may
+be sure, that I will consider well before I act; for I would
+not lose Health, Wealth, and Fame, and do no more then
+others have done, which truly is not much, their effects
+being of less weight then their words. But in the mean
+time, my study shall be bent to your service, and how to
+express my self worthily,</p>
+
+<p>MADAM,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_114" id="Footnote_1_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_114"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Ch. <i>called</i>, The Essay of a Meteor.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_115" id="Footnote_2_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_115"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Heat doth not digest efficiently,
+but excitingly.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_116" id="Footnote_3_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_116"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The ignorant natural Philosophy of
+<i>Aristotle</i> and <i>Galen</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_117" id="Footnote_4_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_117"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> A modern Pharmacopoly and dispensatory.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_118" id="Footnote_5_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_118"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Power of Medicines.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_6_119" id="Footnote_6_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_119"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Heat doth not digest efficiently,
+but excitingly.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_7_120" id="Footnote_7_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_120"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The first Principles of the Chymists,
+not the Essences of the same are of the Army of Diseases.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_8_121" id="Footnote_8_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_121"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> In the <i>Ch.</i> Of Life Eternal, and in the
+<i>Ch.</i> Of the Tree of Life.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XIV" id="III_XIV">XIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have read your <i>Authors</i> discourse concerning <i>Sensation</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_122" id="FNanchor_1_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_122" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+but it was as difficult to me to understand it,
+ash was tedious to read it; Truly, all the business,
+might have been easily declared in a short Chapter,
+and with more clearness and perspicuity: For Sensation,
+is nothing else but the action of sense proceeding
+from the corporeal sensitive motions, which are in
+all Creatures or parts of Nature, and so all have sense
+and sensation, although not alike after one and the
+same manner, but some more, some less, each according
+to the nature and propriety of its figure. But your
+<i>Author</i> speaks of <i>Motion without Sense, and Sense without
+Motion</i>, which is a meer impossibility; for there
+is not, nor cannot be any Motion in Nature without
+Sense, nor any Sense without Motion; there being
+no Creature without self-motion, although not always
+perceptible by us, or our external senses; for all motion
+is not exteriously local, and visible. Wherefore,
+not any part of Nature, according to my opinion,
+wants Sense and Reason, Life and Knowledg; but
+not such a substanceless Life as your <i>Author</i> describes,
+but a substantial, that is a corporeal Life. Neither
+is Light the principle of Motion, but Motion, is the
+principle of Light: Neither is Heat the principle of
+Motion, but its effect as well as Cold is; for I cannot
+perceive that Heat should be more active then
+Cold. Neither is there any such thing as Unsensibleness
+in Nature, except it be in respect of some
+particular Sensation in some particular Figure: As
+for example, when an Animal dies, or its Figure is
+dissolved from the Figure of an Animal; we may say
+it hath not animal sense or motion, but we cannot
+say, it hath no sense or motion at all; for as long as
+Matter is in Nature, Sense and Motion will be; so
+that it is absurd and impossible to believe, or at least
+to think, that Matter, as a body, can be totally deprived
+of Life, Sense, and Motion, or that Life
+can perish and be corrupted, be it the smallest part of
+Matter conceivable, and the same turned or changed
+into millions of Figures; for the Life and Soul of
+Nature is self-moving Matter, which by Gods Power,
+and leave, is the onely Framer and Maker, as also
+the Dissolver and Transformer of all Creatures in Nature,
+making as well Light, Heat, and Cold, Gas,
+Blas, and Ferments, as all other natural Creatures beside,
+as also Passions, Appetites, Digestions, Nourishments,
+Inclination, Aversion, Sickness and Health;
+nay, all Particular Ideas, Thoughts, Fancies, Conceptions,
+Arts, Sciences, &amp;c. In brief, it makes all that is
+to be made in Nature. But many great Philosophers
+conceive Nature to be fuller of Intricacy, Difficulty,
+and Obscurity, then she is, puzling themselves about
+her ordinary actions, which yet are easie and free, and
+making their arguments hard, constrained, and mystical,
+many of them containing neither sense nor reason;
+when as, in my opinion, there is nothing else to be
+studied in Nature, but her substance and her actions.
+But I will leave them to their own Fancies and Humors,
+and say no more, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_122" id="Footnote_1_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_122"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the Disease of the Stone. <i>Ch.</i> 9.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XV" id="III_XV">XV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning Sympathy and Antipathy, and attractive
+or magnetick Inclinations, which some do
+ascribe to the influence of the Stars, others to an
+unknown Spirit as the Mover, others to the Instinct of
+Nature, hidden Proprieties, and certain formal Vertues;
+but your <i>Author</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_123" id="FNanchor_1_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_123" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> doth attribute to <i>directing Ideas,
+begotten by their Mother Charity, or a desire of
+Good Will</i>, and calls it<a name="FNanchor_2_124" id="FNanchor_2_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_124" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> a <i>Gift naturally inherent in the
+Archeusses of either part</i>: If you please to have my opinion
+thereof, I think they are nothing else but plain ordinary
+Passions and Appetites. As for example: I
+take Sympathy, as also Magnetisme or attractive Power,
+to be such agreeable Motions in one part or Creature,
+as do cause a Fancy, love and desire to some other part
+or Creature; and Antipathy, when these Motions are
+disagreeable, and produce contrary effects, as dislike,
+hate and aversion to some part or Creature. And as
+there are many sorts of such motions, so there are
+many sorts of Sympathyes and Antipathyes, or Attractions
+and Aversions, made several manners or ways;
+For in some subjects, Sympathy requires a certain distance;
+as for example, in Iron and the Loadstone; for
+if the Iron be too far off, the Loadstone cannot exercise
+its power, when as in other subjects, there is no need
+of any such certain distance, as betwixt the Needle and
+the North-pole, as also the Weapon-salve; for the
+Needle will turn it self towards the North, whether it
+be near or far off from the North-pole; and so, be
+the Weapon which inflicted the wound, never so far
+from the wounded Person, as they say, yet it will nevertheless
+do its effect: But yet there must withal be
+some conjunction with the blood; for as your <i>Author</i>
+mentions,<a name="FNanchor_3_125" id="FNanchor_3_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_125" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> the Weapon shall be in vain anointed
+with the Unguent, unless it be made bloody, and the
+same blood be first dried on the same Weapon. Likewise
+the sounding of two eights when one is touched,
+must be done within a certain distance: the same may
+be said of all Infectious and catching Diseases amongst
+Animals, where the Infection, be it the Infected Air,
+or a Poysonous Vapour, or any thing else, must needs
+touch the body, and enter either through the Mouth,
+or Nostrils, or Ears, or Pores of the body; for though
+the like Antipathies of Infectious Diseases, as of the
+Plague, may be in several places far distant and remote
+from each other at one and the same time, yet they
+cannot infect particular Creatures, or Animals, without
+coming near, or without the sense of Touch: For
+example; the Plague may be in the <i>East Indies</i>, and in
+this Kingdom, at one and the same time, and yet be
+strangers to each other; for although all Men are of
+Mankind, yet all have not Sympathy or Antipathy to
+each other; the like of several Plagues, although they
+be of the same kind of disease, yet, being in several places
+at one time, they may not be a kin to each other,
+nor one be produced by the other, except the Plague
+be brought over out of an infected Country, into a
+sound Country, by some means or other. And thus
+some Sympathy and Antipathy is made by a close conjunction,
+or corporeal uniting of parts, but not all;
+neither is it required, that all Sympathy and Antipathy
+must be mutual, or equally in both Parties, so that that
+part or party, which has a Sympathetical affection or
+inclination to the other, must needs receive the like
+sympathetical affection from that part again; for
+one man may have a sympathetical affection to another
+man, when as this man hath an antipathetical aversion
+to him; and the same may be, for ought we know,
+betwixt Iron and the Loadstone, as also betwixt the
+Needle and the North; for the Needle may have a
+sympathy towards the North, but not again the North
+towards the Needle; and so may the Iron have towards
+the Loadstone, but not again the Loadstone towards
+the Iron: Neither is Sympathy or Antipathy made by
+the issuing out of any invisible rayes, for then the rays
+betwixt the North and the Needle would have a great
+way to reach: But a sympathetical inclination in a
+Man towards another, is made either by sight, or
+hearing; either present, or absent: the like of infectious
+Diseases. I grant, that if both Parties do mutually
+affect each other, and their motions be equally agreeable;
+then the sympathy is the stronger, and will
+last the longer, and then there is a Union, Likeness, or
+Conformableness, of their Actions, Appetites, and
+Passions; For this kind of Sympathy works no other
+effects, but a conforming of the actions of one party, to
+the actions of the other, as by way of Imitation, proceeding
+from an internal sympathetical love and desire
+to please; for Sympathy doth not produce an effect really
+different from it self, or else the sympathy betwixt
+Iron and the Loadstone would produce a third Creature
+different from themselves, and so it would do in
+all other Creatures. But as I mentioned above, there
+are many sorts of attractions in Nature, and many several
+and various attractions onely in one sort of Creatures,
+nay, so many in one particular as not to be
+numbred; for there are many Desires, Passions, and
+Appetites, which draw or intice a man to something
+or other, as for example, to Beauty, Novelty, Luxury,
+Covetousness, and all kinds of Vertues and Vices;
+and there are many particular objects in every one
+of these, as for example, in Novelty. For there
+are so many several desires to Novelty, as there are
+Senses, and so many Novelties that satisfie those desires,
+as a Novelty to the Ear, a Novelty to the Sight, to
+Touch, Taste, and Smell; besides in every one of these,
+there are many several objects; To mention onely
+one example, for the novelty of Sight; I have seen an
+Ape, drest like a Cavalier, and riding on Horse-back
+with his sword by his side, draw a far greater multitude
+of People after him, then a Loadstone of the same bigness
+of the Ape would have drawn Iron; and as the
+Ape turn'd, so did the People, just like as the Needle
+turns to the North; and this is but one object in one
+kind of attraction, <i>viz.</i> Novelty: but there be Millions
+of objects besides. In like manner good cheer
+draws abundance of People, as is evident, and needs
+no Demonstration. Wherefore, as I said in the beginning,
+Sympathy is nothing else but natural Passions
+and Appetites, as Love, Desire, Fancy, Hunger,
+Thirst, &amp;c. and its effects are Concord, Unity,
+Nourishment, and the like: But Antipathy is Dislike,
+Hate, Fear, Anger, Revenge, Aversion, Jealousie,
+&amp;c. and its effects are Discord, Division, and the
+like. And such an Antipathy is between a Wolf and a
+Sheep, a Hound and a Hare, a Hawk and a Partridg, &amp;c.
+For this Antipathy is nothing else but fear in the
+Sheep to run away from the Wolf, in the Hare to run
+from the Hound, and in the Partridg to flie from the
+Hawk; for Life has an Antipathy to that which is
+named Death; and the Wolf's stomack hath a sympathy
+to food, which causes him to draw neer, or run
+after those Creatures he has a mind to feed on. But
+you will say, some Creatures will fight, and kill each
+other, not for Food, but onely out of an Antipathetical
+nature. I answer: When as Creatures fight, and
+endeavour to destroy each other, if it be not out of
+necessity, as to preserve and defend themselves from
+hurt or danger, then it is out of revenge, or anger, or
+ambition, or jealousie, or custom of quarrelling, or
+breeding. As for example: Cocks of the Game,
+that are bred to fight with each other, and many other
+Creatures, as Bucks, Staggs, and the like, as
+also Birds, will fight as well as Men, and seek to destroy
+each other through jealousie; when as, had they
+no Females amongst them, they would perhaps live
+quiet enough, rather as sympathetical Friends, then
+antipathetical Foes; and all such Quarrels proceed from
+a sympathy to their own interest. But you may ask me,
+what the reason is, that some Creatures, as for example,
+Mankind, some of them, will not onely like one sort of
+meat better then another of equal goodness and nourishment,
+but will like and prefer sometimes a worse sort
+of meat before the best, to wit, such as hath neither
+a good taste nor nourishment? I answer: This is nothing
+else, but a particular, and most commonly an inconstant
+Appetite; for after much eating of that they
+like best, especially if they get a surfeit, their appetite is
+chang'd to aversion; for then all their feeding motions
+and parts have as much, if not more antipathy to those
+meats, as before they had a sympathy to them. Again,
+you may ask me the reason, why a Man seeing two
+persons together, which are strangers to him, doth
+affect one better then the other; nay, if one of these
+Persons be deformed or ill-favoured, and the other
+well-shaped and handsom; yet it may chance, that the
+deformed Person shall be more acceptable in the affections
+and eyes of the beholder, then he that is handsom?
+I answer: There is no Creature so deformed, but hath
+some agreeable and attractive parts, unless it be a Monster,
+which is never loved, but for its rarity and novelty,
+and Nature is many times pleased with changes, taking
+delight in variety: and the proof that such a sympathetical
+affection proceeds from some agreeableness
+of Parts, is, that if those persons were vail'd, there would
+not proceed such a partial choice or judgment from
+any to them. You may ask me further, whether Passion
+and Appetite are also the cause of the sympathy
+which is in the Loadstone towards Iron, and in the
+Needle towards the North? I answer, Yes: for it
+is either for nourishment, or refreshment, or love and
+desire of association, or the like, that the Loadstone
+draws Iron, and the Needle turns towards the North.
+The difference onely betwixt the sympathy in the Needle
+towards the North, and betwixt the sympathy in
+the Loadstone towards the Iron is, that the Needle
+doth always turn towards the North, but the Loadstone
+doth not always draw Iron: The reason is, because
+the sympathy of the Needle towards the North
+requires no certain distance, as I said in the beginning;
+and the North-pole continuing constantly in the same
+place, the Needle knows whither to turn; when as
+the sympathy between the Loadstone and Iron requires
+a certain distance, and when the Loadstone is not within
+this compass or distance, it cannot perform its effect,
+to wit, to draw the Iron, but the effect ceases, although
+the cause remains in vigour. The same may be said of
+the Flower that turns towards the Sun; for though
+the Sun be out of sight, yet the Flower watches for the
+return of the Sun, from which it receives benefit: Like
+as faithful Servants watch and wait for their Master, or
+hungry Beggers at a Rich man's door for relief; and so
+doth the aforesaid Flower; nay, not the Flower onely,
+but any thing that has freedom and liberty of motion,
+will turn towards those Places or Creatures whence it
+expects relief. Concerning ravenous Beasts that feed
+on dead Carcasses, they, having more eager appetites
+then food, make long flights into far distant Countries
+to seek food to live on; but surely, I think, if they had
+food enough at home, although not dead Carcasses,
+they would not make such great Journies; or if a battel
+were fought, and many slain, and they upon their journey
+should meet with sufficient food, they would hardly
+travel further before they had devoured that food
+first: But many Birds travel for the temper of the Air,
+as well as for food, witness Woodcocks, Cranes,
+Swallows, Fieldfares, and the like; some for cold, some
+for hot, and some for temperate Air. And as for such
+Diseases as are produced by conceit and at distance, the
+cause is, the fearfulness of the Patient, which produces
+Irregularities in the Mind, and these occasion Irregularities
+in the Body, which produce such a disease, as the
+Mind did fearfully apprehend; when as without that
+Passion and Irregularity, the Patient would, perhaps,
+not fall sick of that disease, But to draw towards an
+end, I'le answer briefly to your <i>Authors</i> alledged example<a name="FNanchor_4_126" id="FNanchor_4_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_126" class="fnanchor">[4]</a>
+which he gives of Wine, that it is troubled
+while the Vine flowreth: The reason, in my opinion,
+may perhaps be, that the Wine being the effect of the
+Vine, and proceeding from its stock as the producer,
+has not so quite alter'd Nature, as not to be sensible at
+all of the alteration of the Vine; For many effects do
+retain the proprieties of their causes; for example, many
+Children are generated, which have the same proprieties
+of their Parents, who do often propagate some
+or other vertuous or vicious qualities with their off-spring;
+And this is rather a proof that there are sensitive
+and rational motions, and sensitive and rational
+knowledge in all Creatures, and so in Wine, according
+to the nature or propriety of its Figure; for without motion,
+sense and reason, no effect could be; nor no sympathy
+or antipathy. But it is to be observed, that many
+do mistake the true Causes, and ascribe an effect to
+some cause, which is no more the cause of that same effect,
+then a particular Creature is the cause of Nature;
+and so they are apt to take the Fiddle for the hot
+Bricks, as if the Fiddle did make the Ass dance, when as
+it was the hot Bricks that did it; for several effects may
+proceed from one cause, and one effect from several
+causes; and so in the aforesaid example, the Wine
+may perhaps be disturbed by the alteration of the
+weather at the same time of the flowring of the Vines;
+and so may Animals, as well as Vegetables, and other
+Creatures, alter alike at one and the same point of time,
+and yet none be the cause of each others alteration. And
+thus, to shut up my discourse, I repeat again, that sympathy
+and antipathy are nothing else but ordinary Passions
+and Appetites amongst several Creatures, which
+Passions are made by the rational animate Matter, and
+the Appetites by the sensitive, both giving such or
+such motions, to such or such Creatures; for cross
+motions in Appetites and passions make Antipathy, and
+agreeable motions in Appetites and Passions make Sympathy,
+although the Creatures be different, wherein
+these motions, Passions and Appetites are made; and as
+without an object a Pattern cannot be, so without inherent
+or natural Passions and Appetites there can be no
+Sympathy or Antipathy: And there being also such
+Sympathy betwixt your Ladiship and me, I think my
+self the happiest Creature for it; and shall make it my
+whole study to imitate your Ladiship, and conform all
+my actions to the rule and pattern of yours, as becomes,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Friend, and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_123" id="Footnote_1_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_123"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of Sympathetical Mediums.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_124" id="Footnote_2_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_124"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> In the Plague-Grave.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_125" id="Footnote_3_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_125"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> In the Magnetick care of Wounds.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_126" id="Footnote_4_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_126"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Magnetick Power.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XVI" id="III_XVI">XVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>My opinion of Witches and Witchcraft, (of
+whose Power and strange effects your <i>Author</i>
+is pleased to relate many stories) in brief, is this;
+My Sense and Reason doth inform me, that there is
+Natural Witchcraft, as I may call it, which is Sympathy,
+Antipathy, Magnetisme, and the like, which
+are made by the sensitive and rational motions between
+several Creatures, as by Imagination, Fancy, Love,
+Aversion, and many the like; but these Motions, being
+sometimes unusual and strange to us, we not knowing
+their causes, (For what Creature knows all motions
+in Nature, and their ways?) do stand amazed at
+their working power; and by reason we cannot assign
+any Natural cause for them, are apt to ascribe their effects
+to the Devil; but that there should be any such devillish
+Witchcraft, which is made by a Covenant and
+Agreement with the Devil, by whose power Men do
+enchaunt or bewitch other Creatures, I cannot readily
+believe. Certainly, I dare say, that many a good,
+old honest woman hath been condemned innocently,
+and suffered death wrongfully, by the sentence of some
+foolish and cruel Judges, meerly upon this suspition
+of Witchcraft, when as really there hath been no such
+thing; for many things are done by slights or juggling
+Arts, wherein neither the Devil nor Witches are
+Actors. And thus an Englishman whose name was
+<i>Banks</i>, was like to be burnt beyond the Seas for a Witch,
+as I have been inform'd, onely for making a Horse shew
+tricks by Art; There have been also several others;
+as one that could vomit up several kinds of Liquors and
+other things: and another who did make a Drum beat
+of it self. But all these were nothing but slights and
+jugling tricks; as also the talking and walking Bell; and
+the Brazen-Head which spake these words, <i>Time was,
+Time is</i>, and <i>Time is past</i>, and so fell down; Which
+may easily have been performed by speaking through a
+Pipe conveighed into the said head: But such and the
+like trifles will amaze many grave and wise men, when
+they do not know the manner or way how they are
+done, so as they are apt to judg them to be effected by
+Witchcraft or Combination with the Devil. But, as
+I said before, I believe there is Natural Magick; which
+is, that the sensitive and rational Matter oft moves such
+a way, as is unknown to us; and in the number of
+these is also the bleeding of a murdered body at the presence
+of the Murderer, which your <i>Author,</i> mentions;<a name="FNanchor_1_127" id="FNanchor_1_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_127" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+for the corporeal motions in the murthered body may
+move so, as to work such effects, which are more then
+ordinary; for the animal Figure, being not so quickly
+dissolved, the animal motions are not so soon altered,
+(for the dissolving of the Figure is nothing else but an
+alteration of its Motions;) and this dissolution is not
+done in an instant of time, but by degrees: But yet I
+must confess, it is not a common action in Nature, for
+Nature hath both common, and singular or particular
+actions: As for example, Madness, natural Folly, and
+many the like, are but in some particular persons; for
+if those actions were general, and common, then all,
+or most men would be either mad, or fools, but, though
+there are too many already, yet all men are not so; and
+so some murthered bodies may bleed or express some
+alterations at the presence of the Murtherer, but I do
+not believe, that all do so; for surely in many, not any
+alteration will be perceived, and others will have the
+same alterations without the presence of the Murtherer.
+And thus you see, <i>Madam</i>, that this is done naturally,
+without the help of the Devil; nay, your <i>Author</i> doth
+himself confess it to be so; for, says he, <i>The act of the
+Witch is plainly Natural; onely the stirring up of the
+vertue or power in the Witch comes from Satan.</i> But I
+cannot understand what your <i>Author</i> means, by the
+departing of spiritual rays from the Witch into Man,
+or any other animal, which she intends to kill or hurt;
+nor how Spirits wander about in the Air, and have
+their mansions there; for men may talk as well of impossibilities,
+as of such things which are not composed of
+Natural Matter: If man were an Incorporeal Spirit
+himself, he might, perhaps, sooner conceive the essence
+of a Spirit, as being of the same Nature; but as long as
+he is material, and composed of Natural Matter, he
+might as well pretend to know the Essence of God, as of
+an Incorporeal Spirit. Truly, I must confess, I have had
+some fancies oftentimes of such pure and subtil substances,
+purer and subtiler then the Sky or �thereal substance
+is, whereof I have spoken in my Poetical
+Works; but these substances, which I conceived within
+my fancy, were material, and had bodies, though never
+so small and subtil; for I was never able to conceive
+a substance abstracted from all Matter, for even Fancy
+it self is material, and all Thoughts and Conceptions
+are made by the rational Matter, and so are those which
+Philosophers call Animal Spirits, but a material Fancy
+cannot produce immaterial effects, that is, Ideas of Incorporeal
+Spirits: And this was the cause that in the
+first impression of my <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, I named
+the sensitive and rational Matter, sensitive and rational
+Spirits, because of its subtilty, activity and agility; not
+that I thought them to be immaterial, but material Spirits:
+but since Spirits are commonly taken to be immaterial,
+and Spirit and Body are counted opposite to one another,
+to prevent a misapprehension in the thoughts of
+my Readers, as if I meant Incorporeal Spirits, I altered this
+expression in the last Edition, and call'd it onely sensitive
+and rational Matter, or, which is all one, sensitive and
+rational corporeal motions. You will say, perhaps,
+That the divine Soul in Man is a Spirit: but I desire you
+to call to mind what I oftentimes have told you, to wit,
+that when I speak of the Soul of Man, I mean onely
+the Natural, not the Divine Soul; which as she is
+supernatural, so she acts also supernaturally; but all
+the effects of the natural Soul, of which I discourse,
+are natural, and not divine or supernatural. But to return
+to Magnetisme; I am absolutely of opinion, that
+it is naturally effected by natural means, without the concurrence
+of Immaterial Spirits either good or bad, meerly
+by natural corporeal sensitive and rational motions;
+and, for the most part, there must be a due approach
+between the Agent and the Patient, or otherwise the
+effect will hardly follow, as you may see by the Loadstone
+and Iron; Neither is the influence of the Stars
+performed beyond a certain distance, that is, such a
+distance as is beyond sight or their natural power to
+work; for if their light comes to our Eyes, I know no
+reason against it, but their effects may come to our
+bodies. And as for infectious Diseases, they come by
+a corporeal imitation, as by touch, either of the infected
+air, drawn in by breath, or entring through the pores
+of the Body, or of some things brought from infected
+places, or else by hearing; but diseases, caused by
+Conceit, have their beginning, as all alterations
+have, from the sensitive and rational Motions,
+which do not onely make the fear and conceit, but
+also the disease; for as a fright will sometimes cure
+diseases, so it will sometimes cause diseases; but as I
+said, both fright, cure, and the disease, are made by
+the rational and sensitive corporeal motions within the
+body, and not by Supernatural Magick, as Satanical
+Witchcraft, entering from without into the body by
+spiritual rays. But having discoursed hereof in my former
+Letter, I will not trouble you with an unnecessary
+repetition thereof; I conclude therefore with what I
+begun, <i>viz.</i> that I believe natural Magick to be natural
+corporeal motions in natural bodies: Not that I
+say, Nature in her self is a Magicianess, but it
+may be called natural Magick or Witchcraft, meerly
+in respect to our Ignorance; for though Nature is old,
+yet she is not a Witch, but a grave, wise, methodical
+Matron, ordering her Infinite family, which are her
+several parts, with ease and facility, without needless
+troubles and difficulties; for these are onely made
+through the ignorance of her several parts or particular
+Creatures, not understanding their Mistress,
+Nature, and her actions and government, for which
+they cannot be blamed; for how should a part understand
+the Infinite body, when it doth not understand
+it self; but Nature understands her parts better then
+they do her. And so leaving Wise Nature, and the
+Ignorance of her Particulars, I understand my self so
+far that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_127" id="Footnote_1_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_127"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XVII" id="III_XVII">XVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am not of your <i>Authors</i><a name="FNanchor_1_128" id="FNanchor_1_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_128" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> opinion, That <i>Time
+hath no relation to Motion, but that Time and Motion
+are as unlike and different from each other as Finite
+from Infinite, and that it hath its own essence or being Immoveable,
+Unchangeable, Individable, and unmixed with
+things, nay, that Time is plainly the same with Eternity.</i>
+For, in my opinion, there can be no such thing as
+Time in Nature, but what Man calls Time, is onely
+the variation of natural motions; wherefore Time,
+and the alteration of motion, is one and the same thing
+under two different names; and as Matter, Figure,
+and Motion, are inseparable, so is Time inseparably
+united, or rather the same thing with them, and not
+a thing subsisting by it self; and as long as Matter,
+Motion and Figure have been existent, so long hath
+Time; and as long as they last, so long doth Time.
+But when I say, Time is the variation of motion, I
+do not mean the motion of the Sun or Moon, which
+makes Days, Months, Years, but the general motions
+or actions of Nature, which are the ground of
+Time; for were there no Motion, there would be
+no Time; and since Matter is dividable, and in parts,
+Time is so too; neither hath Time any other Relation
+to Duration, then what Nature her self hath. Wherefore
+your <i>Author</i> is mistaken, when he says, Motion
+is made in Time, for Motion makes Time, or
+rather is one and the same with Time; and Succession
+is no more a stranger to Motion, then Motion
+is to Nature, as being the action of Nature, which
+is the Eternal servant of God. <i>But</i>, says he, <i>Certain
+Fluxes of Formerlinesses and Laternesses, have respect
+unto frail moveable things in their motions, wherewith
+they hasten unto the appointed ends of their period,
+and so unto their own death or destruction; but what
+relation hath all that to Time: for therefore also
+ought Time to run with all and every motion? Verily
+so there should be as many times and durations as
+there are motions.</i> I answer: To my Reason, there
+are as many times and durations as there are motions;
+for neither time nor duration can be separated
+from motion, no more then motion can be separated
+from them, being all one. But Time is not
+Eternity, for Eternity hath no change, although
+your <i>Author</i> makes Time and Eternity all one, and a
+being or substance by it self: Yet I will rather believe
+<i>Solomon</i>, then him, who says, that there is a
+time to be merry, and a time to be sad; a time to
+mourn, and a time to rejoyce, and so forth: making
+so many divisions of Time as there are natural actions;
+whenas your <i>Author</i> makes natural actions strangers to
+Nature, dividing them from their substances: Which
+seemeth very improbable in the opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Friend, and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_128" id="Footnote_1_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_128"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In his Treatise of Time.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XVIII" id="III_XVIII">XVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Authors</i><a name="FNanchor_1_129" id="FNanchor_1_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_129" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> opinion is, That <i>a bright burning
+Iron doth not burn a dead Carcass after an equal
+manner as it doth a live one; For in live bodies</i>, saith
+he, <i>it primarily hurts the sensitive Soul, the which therefore
+being impatient, rages after a wonderful manner, doth
+by degrees resolve and exasperate its own and vital liquors
+into a sharp poyson, and then contracts the fibres of the
+flesh, and turns them into an escharre, yea, into the way
+of a coal; but a dead Carcass is burnt by bright burning
+Iron, no otherwise, then if Wood, or if any other unsensitive
+thing should be; that is, it burns by a proper action
+of the fire, but not of the life.</i> To which opinion, I answer:
+That my Reason cannot conceive any thing to
+be without life, and so neither without sense; for whatsoever
+hath self-motion, has sense and life; and that
+self-motion is in every Creature, is sufficiently discoursed
+of in my former Letters, and in my <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>;
+for self-motion, sense, life, and reason,
+are the grounds and principles of Nature, without
+which no Creature could subsist. I do not say, That
+there is no difference between the life of a dead Carcass,
+and a live one, for there is a difference between the
+lives of every Creature; but to differ in the manner of
+life, and to have neither life nor sense at all, are quite
+different things: But your <i>Author</i> affirms himself, that
+all things have a certain sense of feeling, when he speaks
+of Sympathy and Magnetisme, and yet he denies that
+they have life: And others again, do grant life to some
+Creatures, as to Vegetables, and not sense. Thus
+they vary in their Opinions, and divide sense, life, and
+motion, when all is but one and the same thing; for no
+life is without sense and motion, nor no motion without
+sense and life; nay, not without Reason; for the
+chief Architect of all Creatures, is sensitive and rational
+Matter. But the mistake is, that most men, do
+not, or will not conceive, that there is a difference and
+variety of the corporeal sensitive and rational motions
+in every Creature; but they imagine, that if all Creatures
+should have life, sense, and reason, they must of
+necessity have all alike the same motions, without any
+difference; and because they do not perceive the animal
+motions in a Stone or Tree, they are apt to deny to
+them all life, sense, and motion. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I
+think no man will be so mad, or irrational, as to say a
+Stone is an Animal, or an Animal is a Tree, because a
+Stone and Tree have sense, life, and motion; for every
+body knows, that their Natural figures are different,
+and if their Natures be different, then they cannot
+have the same Motions, for the corporeal motions
+do make the nature of every particular Creature, and
+their differences; and as the corporeal motions act, work,
+or move, so is the nature of every figure, Wherefore,
+nobody, I hope, will count me so senseless, that I believe
+sense and life to be after the like manner in every
+particular Creature or part of Nature; as for example,
+that a Stone or Tree has animal motions, and doth see,
+touch, taste, smell and hear by such sensitive organs as
+an Animal doth; but, my opinion is, that all Sense is
+not bound up to the sensitive organs of an Animal, nor
+Reason to the kernel of a man's brain, or the orifice of
+the stomack, or the fourth ventricle of the brain, or
+onely to a mans body; for though we do not see all
+Creatures move in that manner as Man or Animals do,
+as to walk, run, leap, ride, &amp;c. and perform exterior
+acts by various local motions; nevertheless, we cannot
+in reason say, they are void and destitute of all motion;
+For what man knows the variety of motions in Nature:
+Do not we see, that Nature is active in every thing, yea,
+the least of her Creatures. For example; how some
+things do unanimously conspire and agree, others antipathetically
+flee from each other; and how some do
+increase, others decrease; some dissolve, some consist,
+and how all things are subject to perpetual changes
+and alterations; and do you think all this is done without
+motion, life, sense, and reason? I pray you consider,
+<i>Madam</i>, that there are internal motions as well
+as external, alterative as well as constitutive; and several
+other sorts of motions not perceptible by our senses,
+and therefore it is impossible that all Creatures should
+move after one sort of motions. But you will say, Motion
+may be granted, but not Life, Sense, and Reason. I
+answer, I would fain know the reason why not; for I am
+confident that no man can in truth affirm the contrary:
+What is Life, but sensitive Motion? what is Reason,
+but rational motion? and do you think, <i>Madam</i>, that
+any thing can move it self without life, sense and reason?
+I, for my part, cannot imagine it should; for it would
+neither know why, whither, nor what way, or how
+to move. But you may reply, Motion may be granted,
+but not self-motion; and life, sense, and reason, do
+consist in self-motion. I answer: this is impossible;
+for not any thing in Nature can move naturally without
+natural motion, and all natural motion is self-motion. If
+you say it may be moved by another; My answer is,
+first, that if a thing has no motion in it self, but is moved
+by another which has self-motion, then it must give that
+immovable body motion of its own, or else it could not
+move, having no motion at all; for it must move by the
+power of motion, which is certain; and then it must
+move either by its own motion, or by a communicated
+or imparted motion; if by a communicated motion,
+then the self-moveable thing or body must transfer its
+own motion into the immoveable, and lose so much of
+its own motion as it gives away, which is impossible, as I
+have declared heretofore at large, unless it do also transfer
+its moving parts together with it, for motion cannot
+be transfered without substance. But experience
+and observation witnesseth the contrary. Next, I say, if it
+were possible that one body did move another, then
+most part of natural Creatures, which are counted immoveable
+of themselves, or inanimate, and destitute of
+self-motion, must be moved by a forced or violent, and
+not by a natural motion; for all motion that proceeds
+from an external agent or moving power, is not natural,
+but forced, onely self-motion is natural; and
+then one thing moving another in this manner, we must
+at last proceed to such a thing which is not moved by
+another, but hath motion in it self, and moves all others;
+and, perhaps, since man, and the rest of animals
+have self-motion, it might be said, that the motions of
+all other inanimate Creatures, as they call them, doth
+proceed from them; but man being so proud, ambitious,
+and self-conceited, would soon exclude all other
+animals, and adscribe this power onely to himself, especially
+since he thinks himself onely endued with Reason,
+and to have this prerogative above all the rest,
+as to be the sole rational Creature in the World. Thus
+you see, <i>Madam</i>, what confusion, absurdity, and
+constrained work will follow from the opinion of denying
+self-motion, and so consequently, life and sense
+to natural Creatures. But I, having made too long a
+digression, will return to your <i>Authors</i> discourse: And
+as for that he says, <i>A dead Carcass burns by the proper
+action of the fire</i>, I answer, That if the dissolving motions
+of the fire be too strong for the consistent motions
+of that body which fire works upon, then fire is the
+cause of its alteration; but if the consistent motions of
+the body be too strong for the dissolving motions of the
+fire, then the fire can make no alteration in it. Again:
+he says, <i>Calx vive, at long as it remains dry, it gnaws not
+a dead Carcass; but it presently gnaws live flesh, and
+makes an escharre; and a dead carcass is by lime wholly
+resolved into a liquor, and is combibed, except the bone
+and gristle thereof; but it doth not consume live flesh into a
+liquor, but translates it into an escharre</i>. I will say no
+more to this, but that I have fully enough declared
+my opinion before, that the actions or motions of life
+alter in that which is named a dead Carcass, from what
+they were in that which is called a Living body; but
+although the actions of Life alter, yet life is not gone or
+annihilated; for life is life, and remains full the same,
+but the actions or motions of life change and differ in
+every figure; and this is the cause that the actions of
+Fire, Time, and <i>Calx-vive</i>, have not the same effects
+in a dead Carcass, as in a living Body; for the difference
+of their figures, and their different motions, produce
+different effects in them; and this is the cause, that one
+and the same fire doth not burn or act upon all bodies
+alike: for some it dissolves, and some not; and some it
+hardens, and some it consumes; and some later, some
+sooner: For put things of several natures into the same
+Fire, and you will see how they will burn, or how
+fire will act upon them after several manners; so that
+fire cannot alter the actions of several bodies to its own
+blas; and therefore, since a living and a dead Body (as
+they call them) are not the same, (for the actions or
+motions of life, by their change or alteration, have altered
+the nature or figure of the body) the effects cannot
+be the same; for a Carcass has neither the interior
+nor exterior motions of that figure which it was before
+it was a Carcass, and so the figure is quite alter'd
+from what it was, by the change and alteration of the
+motions. But to conclude, the motions of the exterior
+Agent, and the motions of the Patient, do sometimes
+joyn and unite, as in one action, or to one effect,
+and sometimes the motions of the Agent are onely an
+occasion, but not a co-workman in the production of
+such or such an effect, as the motions of the Patient do
+work; neither can the motions of the Agent work totally
+and meerly of themselves, such or such effects,
+without the assistance or concurrence of the motions of
+the Patient, but the motions of the Patient can; and
+there is nothing that can prove more evidently that
+Matter moves it self, and that exterior agents or bodies
+are onely an occasion to such or such a motion in another
+body, then to see how several things put into one
+and the same fire, do alter after several modes; which
+shews, it is not the onely action of fire, but the interior
+motions of the body thrown into the fire, which do alter
+its exterior form or figure. And thus, I think I
+have said enough to make my opinions clear, that they
+may be the better understood: which is the onely aim
+and desire of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your humble and</i></p>
+
+<p><i>faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_129" id="Footnote_1_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_129"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the disease of the Stone, <i>Ch.</i> 9.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XIX" id="III_XIX">XIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is not a Natural, but a Divine Philosopher,
+for in many places he undertakes to
+interpret the Scripture; wherein, to my judgment,
+he expresseth very strange opinions; you will give me
+leave at this present to note some few. First, in
+one place,<a name="FNanchor_1_130" id="FNanchor_1_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_130" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> interpreting that passage of Scripture,
+where it is said,<a name="FNanchor_2_131" id="FNanchor_2_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_131" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> That the <i>sons of God took to wives the
+daughters of men</i>: He understands by the Sons of God,
+those which came from the Posterity of <i>Adam</i>, begotten
+of a Man and a Woman, having the true Image
+of God: But by the Daughters of Men, he understands
+Monsters; that is, those which through the
+Devils mediation, were conceived in the womb of a
+Junior Witch or Sorceress: For when Satan could
+find no other ways to deprive all the race of Men of
+the Image of God, and extinguish the Immortal mind
+out of the flock of <i>Adams</i> Posterity, he stirr'd up detestable
+copulations, from whence proceeded savage
+Monsters, as Faunes, Satyrs, Sylphs, Gnomes,
+Nymphs, Driades, Najades, Nereides, &amp;c. which
+generated their off-springs amongst themselves, and
+their posterities again contracted their copulations amongst
+themselves, and at length began Wedlocks
+with Men; and from this copulation of Monsters and
+Nymphs, they generated strong Gyants. Which Interpretation,
+how it agrees with the Truth of Scripture,
+I will leave to Divines to judg: But, for my part, I
+cannot conceive, how, or by what means or ways,
+those Monsters and Nymphs were produced or generated.
+Next, his opinion is, That <i>Adam</i> did ravish
+<i>Eve</i>, and defloured her by force, calling him the first
+infringer of modesty, and deflourer of a Virgin; and
+that therefore God let hair grow upon his chin, cheeks,
+and lips, that he might be a Compere, Companion,
+and like unto many four-footed Beasts, and might
+bear before him the signature of the same; and that, as
+he was lecherous after their manner, he might also
+shew a rough countenance by his hairs; which whether
+it be so, or not, I cannot tell, neither do I think
+your <i>Author</i> can certainly know it himself; for the
+Scripture makes no mention of it: But this I dare say,
+that <i>Eves</i> Daughters prove rather the contrary, <i>viz.</i>
+that their Grandmother did freely consent to their
+Grandfather. Also he says, That God had purposed
+to generate Man by the overshadowing of the Holy
+Spirit, but Man perverted the Intent of God; for
+had <i>Adam</i> not sinned, there had been no generation
+by the copulation of a Man and Woman, but all the
+off-springs had appear'd out of <i>Eve</i>, a Virgin, from
+the Holy Spirit, as conceived from God, and born of
+a woman, a virgin, To which, I answer, first, That
+it is impossible to know the Designs and secret purposes
+of God: Next, to make the Holy Spirit the common
+Generator of all Man-kind, is more then the
+Scripture expresses, and any man ought to say: Lastly,
+it is absurd, in my opinion, to say, that frail and
+mortal Men, can pervert the intent and designs of the
+Great God; or that the Devil is able to prevent God's
+Intent, (as his expression is in the same place.) But
+your <i>Author</i> shews a great affection to the Female Sex,
+when he says, that God doth love Women before
+Men, and that he has given them a free gift of devotion
+before men; when as others do lay all the fault
+upon the Woman, that she did seduce the Man; however
+in expressing his affection for Women, your
+<i>Author</i> expresses a partiality in God. And, as for his
+opinion, that God creates more Daughters then Males,
+and that more Males are extinguished by Diseases,
+Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, and the like:
+Truly, I am of the same mind, that more Men are
+kill'd by Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, &amp;c. then
+Women; for Women never undergo these dangers,
+neither do so many kill themselves with intemperate
+Drinking, as Men do; but yet I believe, that Death
+is as general, and not more favourable to Women, then
+he is to Men; for though Women be not slain in Wars
+like Men, (although many are, by the cruelty of Men,
+who not regarding the weakness of their sex, do inhumanely
+kill them,) yet many do die in Child-bed, which
+is a Punishment onely concerning the Female sex. But
+to go on in your <i>Authors</i> Interpretations: His knowledg
+of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, reaches
+so far, as he doth not stick to describe exactly,
+not onely how the blessed Virgin conceiv'd in the
+womb, but first in the heart, or the sheath of the heart;
+and then how the conception removed from the heart,
+into the womb, and in what manner it was performed.
+Certainly, <i>Madam</i>, I am amazed, when I see men so
+conceited with their own perfections and abilities, (I
+may rather say, with their imperfections and weaknesses)
+as to make themselves God's privy Councilors,
+and his Companions, and partakers of all the sacred
+Mysteries, Designs, and hidden secrets of the Incomprehensible
+and Infinite God. O the vain Presumption,
+Pride, and Ambition of wretched Men! There are many
+more such expressions in your <i>Authors</i> works, which, in
+my opinion, do rather detract from the Greatness of the
+Omnipotent God, then manifest his Glory: As for
+example; That Man is the clothing of the Deity, and
+the sheath of the Kingdom of God, and many the like:
+which do not belong to God; for God is beyond all
+expression, because he is Infinite; and when we name
+God, we name an Unexpressible, and Incomprehensible
+Being; and yet we think we honour God, when
+we express him after the manner of corporeal Creatures.
+Surely, the noblest Creature that ever is in
+the World, is not able to be compared to the most
+Glorious God, but whatsoever comparison is made, detracts
+from his Glory: And this, in my opinion, is the
+reason, that God forbad any likeness to be made of him,
+either in Heaven, or upon Earth, because he exceeds
+all that we might compare or liken to him. And as
+men ought to have a care of such similizing expressions,
+so they ought to be careful in making Interpretations of
+the Scripture, and expressing more then the Scripture
+informs; for what is beyond the Scripture, is Man's
+own fancy; and to regulate the Word of God after
+Man's fancy, at least to make his fancy equal with the
+Word of God, is Irreligious. Wherefore, men ought
+to submit, and not to pretend to the knowledg of God's
+Counsels and Designs, above what he himself hath
+been pleased to reveal: as for example, to describe of
+what Figure God is, and to comment and descant upon
+the Articles of Faith; as how Man was Created; and
+what he did in the state of Innocence; how he did fall;
+and what he did after his fall: and so upon the rest of
+the Articles of our Creed, more then the Scripture expresses,
+or is conformable to it. For if we do this, we
+shall make a Romance of the holy Scripture, with our
+Paraphrastical descriptions: which alas! is too common
+already. The truth is, Natural Philosophers, should
+onely contain themselves within the sphere of Nature,
+and not trespass upon the Revelation of the Scripture,
+but leave this Profession to those to whom it properly
+belongs. I am confident, a Physician, or any other
+man of a certain Profession, would not take it well, if
+others, who are not professed in that Art, should take
+upon them to practise the same: And I do wonder, why
+every body is so forward to encroach upon the holy
+Profession of Divines, which yet is a greater presumption,
+then if they did it upon any other; for it contains
+not onely a most hidden and mystical knowledg, as
+treating of the Highest Subject, which is the most Glorious,
+and Incomprehensible God, and the salvation of
+our Souls; but it is also most dangerous, if not interpreted
+according to the Holy Spirit, but to the byass of
+man's fancy. Wherefore, <i>Madam</i>, I am afraid to
+meddle with Divinity in the least thing, lest I incur the
+hazard of offending the divine Truth, and spoil the excellent
+Art of Philosophying; for a Philosophical Liberty,
+and a Supernatural Faith, are two different
+things, and suffer no co-mixture; as I have declared
+sufficiently heretofore. And this you will find as much
+truth, as that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_130" id="Footnote_1_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_130"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The Position is demonstrated.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_131" id="Footnote_2_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_131"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Gen.</i> 6. 2.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XX" id="III_XX">XX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Although your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_1_132" id="FNanchor_1_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_132" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> is of the opinion of <i>Plato</i>,
+in making <i>Three sorts of Atheists: One that believes
+no Gods; Another, which indeed admits of
+Gods, yet such as are uncarefull of us, and despisers of
+small matters, and therefore also ignorant of us: And lastly,
+a third sort, which although they believe the Gods to be
+expert in the least matters, yet do suppose that they are
+flexible and indulgent toward the smallest cold Prayers or
+Petitions</i>: Yet I cannot approve of this distinction, for
+I do understand but one sort of Atheists; that is, those
+which believe no God at all; but those which believe
+that there is a God, although they do not worship him
+truly, nor live piously and religiously as they ought,
+cannot, in truth, be called Atheists, or else there would
+be innumerous sorts of Atheists; to wit, all those, that
+are either no Christians, or not of this or that opinion
+in Christian Religion, besides all them that live wickedly,
+impiously and irreligiously; for to know, and be
+convinced in his reason, that there is a God, and to
+worship him truly, according to his holy Precepts and
+Commands, are two several things: And as for the
+first, that is, for the Rational knowledg of the Existence
+of God, I cannot be perswaded to believe, there
+is any man which has sense and reason, that doth not
+acknowledg a God; nay, I am sure, there is no part of
+Nature which is void and destitute of this knowledg of
+the existence of an Infinite, Eternal, Immortal, and
+Incomprehensible Deity; for every Creature, being
+indued with sense and reason, and with sensitive and
+rational knowledg, there can no knowledg be more
+Universal then the knowledg of a God, as being the
+root of all knowledg: And as all Creatures have a natural
+knowledg of the Infinite God, so, it is probable,
+they Worship, Adore, and Praise his Infinite Power
+and Bounty, each after its own manner, and according
+to its nature; for I cannot believe, God should
+make so many kinds of Creatures, and not be worshipped
+and adored but onely by Man: Nature is
+God's Servant, and she knows God better then any
+Particular Creature; but Nature is an Infinite Body,
+consisting of Infinite Parts, and if she adores and
+worships God, her Infinite Parts, which are Natural
+Creatures, must of necessity do the like, each according
+to the knowledg it hath: but Man in this particular
+goes beyond others, as having not onely a natural,
+but also a revealed knowledg of the most Holy
+God; for he knows Gods Will, not onely by the light
+of Nature, but also by revelation, and so more then
+other Creatures do, whose knowledg of God is meerly
+Natural. But this Revealed Knowledg makes most
+men so presumptuous, that they will not be content
+with it, but search more and more into the hidden
+mysteries of the Incomprehensible Deity, and pretend
+to know God as perfectly, almost, as themselves;
+describing his Nature and Essence, his Attributes,
+his Counsels, his Actions, according to the
+revelation of God, (as they pretend) when as it is
+according to their own Fancies. So proud and presumptuous
+are many: But they shew thereby rather their
+weaknesses and follies, then any truth; and all their
+strict and narrow pryings into the secrets of God, are
+rather unprofitable, vain and impious, then that they
+should benefit either themselves, or their neighbour;
+for do all we can, God will not be perfectly known
+by any Creature: The truth is, it is a meer impossibility
+for a finite Creature, to have a perfect Idea of
+an Infinite Being, as God is; be his Reason never so
+acute or sharp, yet he cannot penetrate what is Impenetrable,
+nor comprehend what is Incomprehensible:
+Wherefore, in my opinion, the best way is
+humbly to adore what we cannot conceive, and believe
+as much as God has been pleased to reveal, without
+any further search; lest we diving too deep, be
+swallowed up in the bottomless depth of his Infiniteness:
+Which I wish every one may observe, for the
+benefit of his own self, and of others, to spend his time
+in more profitable Studies, then vainly to seek for what
+cannot be found. And with this hearty wish I conclude,
+resting,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_132" id="Footnote_1_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_132"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Image of the Mind.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXI" id="III_XXI">XXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is so much for Spirits, that he doth
+not stick to affirm,<a name="FNanchor_1_133" id="FNanchor_1_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_133" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That Bodies scarce make up
+a moity or half part of the world; but Spirits, even
+by themselves, have or possess their moity, and indeed the
+whole world.</i> If he mean bodiless and incorporeal Spirits,
+I cannot conceive how Spirits can take up any
+place, for place belongs onely to body, or a corporeal
+substance, and millions of immaterial Spirits, nay,
+were their number infinite, cannot possess so much
+place as a small Pins point, for Incorporeal Spirits possess
+no place at all: which is the reason, that an Immaterial
+and a Material Infinite cannot hinder, oppose,
+or obstruct each other; and such an Infinite, Immaterial
+Spirit is God alone. But as for Created Immaterial
+Spirits, as they call them, it may be questioned whether
+they be Immaterial, or not; for there may be material
+Spirits as well as immaterial, that is, such pure, subtil
+and agil substances as cannot be subject to any humane
+sense, which may be purer and subtiller then the most
+refined air, or purest light; I call them material spirits,
+onely for distinctions sake, although it is more proper,
+to call them material substances: But be it, that there
+are Immaterial Spirits, yet they are not natural, but supernatural;
+that is, not substantial parts of Nature; for
+Nature is material, or corporeal, and so are all her
+Creatures, and whatsoever is not material is no part of
+Nature, neither doth it belong any ways to Nature:
+Wherefore, all that is called Immaterial, is a Natural
+Nothing, and an Immaterial Natural substance, in
+my opinion, is <i>non</i>-sense: And if you contend with
+me, that Created Spirits, as good and bad Angels,
+as also the Immortal Mind of Man, are Immaterial,
+then I say they are Supernatural; but if you say, they
+are Natural, then I answer they are Material: and
+thus I do not deny the existence of Immaterial Spirits,
+but onely that they are not parts of Nature, but supernatural;
+for there may be many things above Nature,
+and so above a natural Understanding, and Knowledg,
+which may nevertheless have their being and existence,
+although they be not Natural, that is, parts
+of Nature: Neither do I deny that those supernatural
+Creatures may be amongst natural Creatures, that is,
+have their subsistence amongst them, and in Nature;
+but they are not so commixed with them, as the several
+parts of Matter are, that is, they do not joyn to
+the constitution of a material Creature; for no Immaterial
+can make a Material, or contribute any thing to
+the making or production of it; but such a co-mixture
+would breed a meer confusion in Nature: wherefore,
+it is quite another thing, to be in Nature, or to have
+its subsistence amongst natural Creatures in a supernatural
+manner or way, and to be a part of Nature.
+I allow the first to Immaterial Spirits, but not the second,
+<i>viz.</i> to be parts of Nature. But what Immaterial
+Spirits are, both in their Essence or Nature, and
+their Essential Properties, it being supernatural, and above
+natural Reason, I cannot determine any thing
+thereof. Neither dare I say, they are Spirits like as
+God is, that is, of the same Essence or Nature, no
+more then I dare say or think that God is of a humane
+shape or figure, or that the Nature of God is as easie
+to be known as any notion else whatsoever, and that we
+may know as much of him as of any thing else in the
+world. For if this were so, man would know God
+as well as he knows himself, but God and his Attributes
+are not so easily known as man may know himself
+and his own natural Proprieties; for God and his Attributes
+are not conceiveable or comprehensible by any
+humane understanding, which is not onely material,
+but also finite; for though the parts of Nature be infinite
+in number, yet each is finite in it self, that is, in
+its figure, and therefore no natural Creature is capable
+to conceive what God is; for he being infinite, there
+is also required an infinite capacity to conceive him;
+Nay, Nature her self, although she is Infinite, yet
+cannot possibly have an exact notion of God, by reason
+she is Material, and God is Immaterial; and if the Infinite
+servant of God is not able to conceive God, much
+less will a finite part of Nature do it. Besides, the holy
+Church doth openly confess and declare the Incomprehensibility
+of God, when in the <i>Athanasian</i> Creed,
+she expresses, that the Father is Incomprehensible, the
+Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible,
+and that there are not three, but one Incomprehensible
+God: Therefore, if any one will prove the
+contrary, to wit, that God is Comprehensible, or
+(which is all one) that God is as easie to be known as
+any Creature whatsoever, he surely is more then the
+Church: But I shall never say or believe so, but rather
+confess my ignorance, then betray my folly; and leave
+things Divine to the Church; to which I submit, as I
+ought, in all Duty: and as I do not meddle with any
+Divine Mysteries, but subject my self, concerning my
+Faith or Belief, and the regulating of my actions
+for the obtaining of Eternal Life, wholly under the government
+and doctrine of the Church, so, I hope, they
+will also grant me leave to have my liberty concerning
+the contemplation of Nature and natural things, that I
+may discourse of them, with such freedom, as meer natural
+Philosophers use, or at least ought, to do; and
+thus I shall be both a good Christian, and a good Natural
+Philosopher: Unto which, to make the number
+perfect, I will add a third, which is, I shall be,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your real and faithful</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Friend and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_133" id="Footnote_1_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_133"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXII" id="III_XXII">XXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Though I am loth (as I have often told you) to
+imbarque my self in the discourse of such a subject,
+as no body is able naturally to know, which
+is the supernatural and divine Soul in Man; yet your
+<i>Author</i> having, in my judgment, strange opinions, both
+of the Essence, Figure, Seat and Production of the
+Soul, and discoursing thereof, with such liberty and
+freedom, as of any other natural Creature, I cannot
+chuse but take some notice of his discourse, and make
+some reflections upon it; which yet, shall rather express
+my ignorance of the same subject, then in a positive answer,
+declare my opinion thereof; for, in things divine,
+I refer my self wholly to the Church, and submit onely
+to their instructions, without any further search of natural
+reason; and if I should chance to express more
+then I ought to do, and commit some error, it being
+out of ignorance rather then set purpose, I shall be ready
+upon better information, to mend it, and willingly
+subject my self under the censure and correction of the
+holy Church, as counting it no disgrace to be ignorant
+in the mysteries of Faith, since Faith is of things unknown,
+but rather a duty required from every Layman
+to believe simply the Word of God, as it is explained
+and declared by the Orthodox Church, without
+making Interpretations out of his own brain, and
+according to his own fancy, which breeds but Schismes,
+Heresies, Sects, and Confusions. But concerning
+your <i>Author</i>, I perceive by him, first, that he makes
+no distinction between the Natural or Rational Soul
+or Mind of Man, and between the Divine or Supernatural
+Soul, but takes them both as one, and distinguishes
+onely the Immortal Soul from the sensitive Life
+of Man, which he calls the Frail, Mortal, Sensitive
+Soul. Next, all his knowledg of this Immortal Soul is
+grounded upon Dreams and Visions, and therefore it
+is no wonder, if his opinions be somewhat strange and
+irregular. <i>I saw, in a Vision,</i> says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_134" id="FNanchor_1_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_134" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>my Mind in a
+humane shape; but there was a light, whose whole homogeneal
+body was actively seeing, a spiritual substance,
+Chrystalline, shining with a proper splendor, or a splendor
+of its own, but in another cloudy part it was rouled up as
+it were in the husk of it self; which whether it had any
+splendor of it self, I could not discern, by reason of the superlative
+brightness of the Chrystal Spirit contain'd within.</i>
+Whereupon he defines <i>the Soul</i> to be <i>a Spirit, beloved
+of God, homogeneal, simple, immortal, created into
+the Image of God, one onely Being, whereto death adds
+nothing, or takes nothing from it, which may be natural
+or proper to it in the Essence of its simplicity.</i> As for this
+definition of the Soul, it may be true, for any thing I
+know: but when your <i>Author</i> makes the divine Soul to
+be a Light, I cannot conceive how that can agree; for
+Light is a Natural and Visible Creature, and, in my
+opinion, a corporeal substance; whereas the Soul is
+immaterial and incorporeal: But be it, that Light is
+not a substance, but a neutral Creature, according to
+your <i>Author</i>; then, nevertheless the Immortal Soul
+cannot be said to be a light, because she is a substance.
+He may say,<a name="FNanchor_2_135" id="FNanchor_2_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_135" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> The Soul is an Incomprehensible Light.
+But if the Soul be Incomprehensible, how then doth he
+know that she is a light, and not onely a light, but a
+glorious and splendorous light? You will say, By a
+Dream, or Vision. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, to judg any thing
+by a Dream, is a sign of a weak judgment. Nay, since
+your <i>Author</i> calls the soul constantly a light; if it were
+so, and that it were such a splendorous, bright and
+shining light, as he says; then when the body dies, and
+the soul leaves its Mansion, it would certainly be seen,
+when it issues out of the body. But your <i>Author</i> calls
+the Soul a <i>Spiritual Substance</i>, and yet he says, she has
+<i>an homogeneal body, actively seeing and shining with a
+proper splendor of her own</i>; which how it can agree, I
+leave to you to judg; for I thought, an Immaterial spirit
+and a body were too opposite things, and now I see,
+your <i>Author</i> makes Material and Immaterial, Spiritual
+and Corporeal, all one. But this is not enough, but
+he allows it a Figure too, and that of a humane shape;
+for says he, I <i>could never consider the Thingliness of the
+Immortal Mind with an Individual existence, deprived
+of all figure, neither but that it at least would answer to a
+humane shape</i>; but the Scripture, as much as is known
+to me, never doth express any such thing of the Immortal
+Soul, and I should be loth to believe any more thereof
+then it declares. The Apostles, although they
+were conversant with Christ, and might have known
+it better, yet were never so inquisitive into the nature
+of the Soul, as our Modern divine Philosophers are;
+for our Saviour, and they, regarded more the salvation
+of Man's Soul, and gave holy and wise Instructions
+rather, how to live piously and conformably to God's
+Will, to gain eternal Life, then that they should discourse
+either of the Essence or Figure, or Proprieties
+of the Soul, and whether it was a light, or any thing
+else, and such like needless questions, raised in after-times
+onely by the curiosity of divine Philosophers, or
+Philosophying Divines; For though Light is a glorious
+Creature, yet Darkness is as well a Creature as
+Light, and ought not therefore to be despised; for if it
+be not so bright, and shining as Light, yet it is a grave
+Matron-like Creature, and very useful: Neither is
+the Earth, which is inwardly dark, to be despised, because
+the Sun is bright. The like may be said of the
+soul, and of the body; for the body is very useful to
+the soul, how dark soever your <i>Author</i> believes it to be;
+and if he had not seen light with his bodily eyes, he
+could never have conceived the Soul to be a Light:
+Wherefore your <i>Author</i> can have no more knowledg
+of the divine soul then other men have, although he
+has had more Dreams and Visions; nay, he himself
+confesses, that the Soul is an Incomprehensible Light;
+which if so, she cannot, be perfectly known, nor confined
+to any certain figure; for a figure or shape belongs
+onely to a corporeal substance, and not to an incorporeal:
+and so, God being an Incomprehensible
+Being, is excluded from all figure, when as yet your
+<i>Author</i> doth not stick to affirm, that God is of a humane
+figure too, as well as the humane Soul is; <i>For</i>,
+says he, <i>Since God hath been pleased to adopt the Mind
+alone into his own Image, it also seems to follow, that the
+vast and unutterable God is of a humane Figure, and that
+from an argument from the effect, if there be any force of
+arguments in this subject.</i> Oh! the audacious curiosity
+of Man! Is it not blasphemy to make the Infinite God
+of a frail and humane shape, and to compare the most
+Holy to a sinful Creature? Nay, is it not an absurdity,
+to confine and inclose that Incomprehensible Being in a
+finite figure? I dare not insist longer upon this discourse,
+lest I defile my thoughts with the entertaining
+of such a subject that derogates from the glory of the
+Omnipotent Creator; Wherefore, I will hasten, as
+much as I can, to the seat of the Soul, which, after relating
+several opinions, your <i>Author</i> concludes to be the
+orifice of the stomack, where the Immortal Soul is involved
+and entertained in the radical Inn or Bride-bed
+of the sensitive Soul or vital Light; which part of the
+body is surely more honoured then all the rest: But I,
+for my part, cannot conceive why the Soul should
+not dwell in the parts of conception, as well, as
+in the parts of digestion, except it be to prove her
+a good Huswife; however, your <i>Author</i> allows her
+to slide down sometimes: For, <i>The action of the
+Mind</i>, says he, <i>being imprisoned in the Body, doth
+always tend downwards</i>; but whether the Soul tend
+more downwards then upwards, Contemplative Persons,
+especially Scholars, and grave States-men, do
+know best; certainly, I believe, they find the soul
+more in their heads then in their heels, at least her
+operations. But, to conclude, if the Soul be pure
+and single of her self, she cannot mix with the Body,
+because she needs no assistance; nor joyn with
+the Body, though she lives in the Body, for she
+needs no support; and if she be individable, she
+cannot divide her self into several Parts of the Body;
+but if the Soul spread over all the Body, then
+she is bigger, or less, according as the Body is; and
+if she be onely placed in some particular part, then
+onely that one part is indued with a Soul, and the
+rest is Soul-less; and if she move from place to
+place, then some parts of the Body will be sometimes
+indued with a Soul, sometimes not; and if any
+one part requires not the subsistence of the Soul
+within it, then perhaps all the Body might have
+been able to spare her; neither might the Soul,
+being able to subsist without the body, have had
+need of it. Thus useless questions will trouble men's
+brains, if they give their fancies leave to work.
+I should add something of the Production of the
+Soul; but being tyred with so tedious a discourse of
+your <i>Author</i>, I am not able to write any more,
+but repose my Pen, and in the mean while rest affectionately,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_134" id="Footnote_1_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_134"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Image of the Mind.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_135" id="Footnote_2_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_135"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Of the Spirit of Life.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXIII" id="III_XXIII">XXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Authors</i> comparison<a name="FNanchor_1_136" id="FNanchor_1_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_136" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> of the Sun, with the
+immaterial or divine Soul in Man, makes me almost
+of opinion, that the Sun is the Soul of this
+World we inhabit, and that the fixed Stars, which are
+counted Suns by some, may be souls to some other
+worlds; for every one man has but one immaterial or
+divine soul, which is said to be individable and simple
+in its essence, and therefore unchangeable; and if the
+Sun be like this immaterial soul, then the Moon may be
+like the material soul. But as for the Production of this
+immaterial and divine Soul in Man, whether it come
+by an immediate Creation from God, or be derived by
+a successive propagation from Parents upon their Children,
+I cannot determine any thing, being supernatural,
+and not belonging to my study; nevertheless, the
+Propagation from Parents seems improbable to my
+reason; for I am not capable to imagine, how an immaterial
+soul, being individable, should beget another.
+Some may say, by imprinting or sealing, <i>viz.</i>
+that the soul doth print the Image of its own figure upon
+the spirit of the seed; which if so, then first there will
+onely be a production of the figure of the soul, but not
+of the substance, and so the Child will have but the Image
+of the soul, and not a real and substantial soul.
+Secondly, Every Child of the same Parents would be
+just alike, without any distinguishment; if not in body,
+yet in the Faculties and Proprieties of their Minds or
+Souls. Thirdly, There must be two prints of the two
+souls of both Parents upon one Creature, to wit, the
+Child; for both Parents do contribute alike to the Production
+of the Child, and then the Child would either
+have two souls, or both must be joyned as into one;
+which how it can be, I am not able to conceive. Fourthly,
+If the Parents print the Image of their souls upon
+the Child, then the Childs soul bears not the Image of
+God, but the Image of Man, to wit, his Parents. Lastly,
+I cannot understand, how an immaterial substance
+should make a print upon a corporeal substance, for
+Printing is a corporeal action, and belongs onely to
+bodies. Others may say, that the soul is from the Parents
+transmitted into the Child, like as a beam of Light;
+but then the souls of the Parents must part with some of
+their own substance; for light is a substance dividable,
+in my opinion; and if it were not, yet the soul is a substance,
+and cannot be communicated without losing some
+of his own substance, but that is impossible; for the
+immaterial soul being individable, cannot be diminished
+nor increased in its substance or Nature. Others again,
+will have the soul produced by certain Ideas; but Ideas
+being corporeal, cannot produce a substance Incorporeal
+or Spiritual. Wherefore I cannot conceive how
+the souls of the Parents, being individable in themselves,
+and not immoveable out of their bodies until the
+time of death, should commix so, as to produce a third
+immaterial soul, like to their own. You will say, As
+the Sun, which is the fountain of heat and light, heats
+and enlightens, and produces other Creatures. But I
+answer, The Sun doth not produce other Suns, at least
+not to our knowledg. 'Tis true, there are various and
+several manners and ways of Productions, but they are
+all natural, that is, material, or corporeal; to wit,
+Productions of some material beings, or corporeal substances;
+but the immaterial soul not being in the number
+of these, it is not probable, that she is produced by
+the way of corporeal productions, but created and infused
+from God, according to her nature, which is supernatural
+and divine: But being the Image of God,
+how she can be defiled with the impurity of sin, and suffer
+eternal damnation for her wickedness, without any
+prejudice to her Creator, I leave to the Church to inform
+us thereof. Onely one question I will add,
+Whether the Soul be subject to Sickness and Pain? To
+which I answer: As for the supernatural and divine
+Soul, although she be a substance, yet being not corporeal,
+but spiritual, she can never suffer pain, sickness,
+nor death; but as for the natural soul, to speak properly,
+there is no such thing in Nature as pain, sickness,
+or death; unless in respect to some Particular
+Creatures composed of natural Matter; for what Man
+calls Sickness, Pain, and Death, are nothing else but
+the Motions of Nature; for though there is but one
+onely Matter, that is, nothing but meer Matter in
+Nature, without any co-mixture of either a spiritual
+substance, or any thing else that is not Matter; yet this
+meer Matter is of several degrees and parts, and is the
+body of Nature; Besides, as there is but one onely
+Matter, so there is also but one onely Motion in Nature,
+as I may call it, that is, meer corporeal Motion, without
+any rest or cessation, which is the soul of that Natural
+body, both being infinite; but yet this onely corporeal
+Motion is infinitely various in its degrees or manners,
+and ways of moving; for it is nothing else but the action
+of natural Matter, which action must needs be infinite,
+being the action of an infinite body, making infinite
+figures and parts. These motions and actions of
+Nature, since they are so infinitely various, when men
+chance to observe some of their variety, they call them
+by some proper name, to make a distinguishment, especially
+those motions which belong to the figure of their
+own kind; and therefore when they will express the
+motions of dissolution of their own figure, they call
+them Death; when they will express the motions of
+Production of their figure, they call them Conception
+and Generation; when they will express the motions
+proper for the Consistence, Continuance and Perfection
+of their Figure, they call them Health; but when
+they will express the motions contrary to these, they call
+them Sickness, Pain, Death, and the like: and hence
+comes also the difference between regular and irregular
+motions; for all those Motions that belong to the particular
+nature and consistence of any figure, they call
+regular, and those which are contrary to them, they
+call irregular. And thus you see, <i>Madam</i>, that there
+is no such thing in Nature, as Death, Sickness, Pain,
+Health, &amp;c. but onely a variety and change of the
+corporeal motions, and that those words express nothing
+else but the variety of motions in Nature; for
+men are apt to make more distinctions then Nature
+doth: Nature knows of nothing else but of corporeal
+figurative Motions, when as men make a thousand
+distinctions of one thing, and confound and
+entangle themselves so, with Beings, Non-beings,
+and Neutral-beings, Corporeals and Incorporeals,
+Substances and Accidents, or manners and modes of
+Substances, new Creations, and Annihilations, and
+the like, as neither they themselves, nor any body
+else, is able to make any sense thereof; for
+they are like the tricks and slights of Juglers, 'tis here,
+'tis gone; and amongst those <i>Authors</i> which I have
+read as yet, the most difficult to be understood is
+this <i>Author</i> which I am now perusing, who runs
+such divisions, and cuts Nature into so small Parts,
+as the sight of my Reason is not sharp enough to
+discern them. Wherefore I will leave them to those
+that are more quick-sighted then I, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_136" id="Footnote_1_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_136"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the seat of the Soul. <i>It.</i> Of the
+Image of the Mind.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXIV" id="III_XXIV">XXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> relates,<a name="FNanchor_1_137" id="FNanchor_1_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_137" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> how by some the <i>Immortal Soul
+is divided into two distinct parts; the Inferior or
+more outward, which by a peculiar name is called the
+Soul, and the other the Superior, the more inward, the
+which is called the bottom of the Soul or Spirit, in which
+Part the Image of God is specially contained; unto which
+is no access for the Devil, because there is the Kingdom
+of God</i>: and each part has distinct Acts, Proprieties,
+and Faculties. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I wonder, how
+some men dare discourse so boldly of the Soul, without
+any ground either of Scripture or Reason, nay, with
+such contradiction to themselves, or their own opinions;
+For how can that be severed into parts, which
+in its nature is Individable? and how can the Image
+of God concern but one Part of the Soul, and not the
+other? Certainly, if the Soul is the Image of God,
+it is his Image wholly, and not partially, or in parts.
+But your <i>Author</i> has other as strange and odd opinions
+as these, some whereof I have mentioned in my former
+Letters, the Souls being a Light, her Figure, her
+Residence, and many the like: Amongst the rest, there
+is one thing which your <i>Author</i> frequently makes mention
+of;<a name="FNanchor_2_138" id="FNanchor_2_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_138" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> I know not what to call it, whether a thing,
+or a being, or no-thing; for it is neither of them; not
+a substance, nor an accident; neither a body, nor a
+spirit; and this Monster (for I think this is its proper
+name, since none other will fit it) is the Lacquey of the
+Soul, to run upon all errands; for the Soul sitting in
+her Princely Throne or Residence, which is the orifice
+of the stomack, cannot be every where her self; neither
+is it fit she should, as being a disgrace to her, to
+perform all offices her self for want of servants, therefore
+she sends out this most faithful and trusty officer,
+(your <i>Author</i> calls him <i>Ideal Entity</i>) who being prepared
+for his journey, readily performs all her commands,
+as being not tied up to no commands of places,
+times or dimensions, especially in Women with
+Child he operates most powerfully; for sometime he
+printed a Cherry on a Child, by a strong Idea of the
+Mother; but this Ideal Entity or servant of the Soul,
+hath troubled my brain more, then his Mistress the
+Soul her self; for I could not, nor cannot as yet conceive,
+how he might be able to be the Jack of all offices,
+and do Journies and travel from one part of the
+body to another, being no body nor substance himself,
+nor tyed to any place, time, and dimension, and therefore
+I will leave him. Your <i>Author</i> also speaks much
+of the Inward and Outward Man; but since that belongs
+to Divinity, I will declare nothing of it; onely this
+I say, that, in my opinion, the Inward and Outward
+man do not make a double Creature, neither properly,
+nor improperly; properly, as to make two different
+men; improperly, as we use to call that man
+double, whose heart doth not agree with his words.
+But by the Outward man I understand the sinful actions
+of flesh and blood, and by the Inward man the
+reformed actions of the Spirit, according to the Word
+of God; and therefore the Outward and Inward man
+make but one Man. Concerning the Natural Soul,
+your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_3_139" id="FNanchor_3_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_139" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> speaks of her more to her disgrace then
+to her honor; for he scorns to call her a substance, neither
+doth he call her the Rational Soul, but he calls
+her the Sensitive Soul, and makes the Divine Soul to
+be the Rational Natural Soul, and the cause of all
+natural actions; for he being a Divine Philosopher,
+mixes Divine and Natural things together: But of the
+Frail, Mortal, Sensitive Soul, as he names her, which
+is onely the sensitive Life, his opinions are, that she is
+neither a substance, nor an accident, but a Neutral
+Creature, and a Vital Light, which hath not its like
+in the whole World, but the light of a Candle; for
+it is extinguished, and goes out like the flame of a Candle;
+it is locally present, and entertained in a place, and
+yet not comprehended in a place. Nevertheless, although
+this sensitive soul is no substance, yet it has
+the honor to be the Inn or Lodging-place of the Immortal
+Soul or Mind; and these two souls being both
+lights, do pierce each other; but the Mortal soul blunts
+the Immortal soul with its cogitation of the corruption
+of <i>Adam</i>. These opinions, <i>Madam</i>, I confess
+really, I do not know what to make of them; for I
+cannot imagine, how this Mortal soul, being no
+substance, can contain the Immortal soul, which is a
+substance; nor how they can pierce each other, and
+the Mortal soul being substanceless, get the better
+over an Immortal substance, and vitiate, corrupt, and
+infect it; neither can I conceive, how that, which
+in a manner is nothing already, can be made less
+and annihilated. Wherefore, my opinion is, that
+the Natural Soul, Life, and Body, are all substantial
+parts of Infinite Nature, not subsisting by themselves
+each apart, but inseparably united and co-mixed
+both in their actions and substances; for not any
+thing can and doth subsist of it self in Nature, but
+God alone; and things supernatural may, for ought
+I know: 'Tis true, there are several Degrees, several
+particular Natures, several Actions or Motions,
+and several Parts in Nature, but none subsists
+single, and by it self, without reference to the
+whole, and to one another. Your <i>Author</i> says,
+the Vital Spirit sits in the Throne of the Outward
+man as Vice Roy of the Soul, and acts by Commission
+of the Soul; but it is impossible, that one
+single part should be King of the whole Creature,
+since Rational and sensitive Matter is divided into so
+many parts, which have equal power and force of
+action in their turns and severall imployments; for
+though Nature is a Monarchess over all her Creatures,
+yet in every particular Creature is a Republick,
+and not a Monarchy; for no part of any
+Creature has a sole supreme Power over the rest.
+Moreover, your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_4_140" id="FNanchor_4_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_140" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> says, That an <i>Angel is
+not a Light himself, nor has an Internal Light, natural
+and proper to himself, but is the Glass of an uncreated
+Light</i>: Which, to my apprehension, seems to
+affirm, That Angels are the Looking-glasses of God;
+a pretty Poetical Fancy, but not grounded on the Scripture:
+for the Scripture doth not express any such thing
+of them, but onely that they are<a name="FNanchor_5_141" id="FNanchor_5_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_141" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> <i>Ministring Spirits
+sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation</i>:
+Which, I think, is enough for us to know here, and
+leave the rest until we come to enjoy their company in
+Heaven. But it is not to be admired, that those, which
+pretend to know the Nature and Secrets of God, should
+not have likewise knowledg of Supernatural Creatures;
+In which conceit I leave them, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your real and faithful</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Friend and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_137" id="Footnote_1_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_137"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Image of the Soul.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_138" id="Footnote_2_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_138"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_139" id="Footnote_3_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_139"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Of the seat of the Soul.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_140" id="Footnote_4_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_140"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the Image of the Mind.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_141" id="Footnote_5_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_141"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Heb.</i> 11. 14.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXV" id="III_XXV">XXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Reason and Intellect are two different things to
+your <i>Author</i>;<a name="FNanchor_1_142" id="FNanchor_1_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_142" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> for <i>Intellect</i>, says he, <i>doth properly
+belong to the Immortal Soul, as being a Formal
+Light, and the very substance of the Soul it self, wherein
+the Image of God onely consists; But Reason is an uncertain,
+frail faculty of the Mortal Soul, and doth in
+no ways belong, nor has any communion with the Intellect
+of the Mind.</i> Which seems to me, as if your <i>Author</i>
+did make some difference between the Divine, and the
+Natural Soul in Man, although he doth not plainly
+declare it in the same Terms; for that which I name
+the Divine Soul, is to him the Immortal Mind, Intellect,
+or Understanding, and the Seat of the Image
+of God; but the Natural Soul he calls the Frail, Mortal,
+and Rational Soul; and as Understanding is the
+Essence of the Immortal, so Reason is to him the Essence
+of the Mortal Soul; which Reason he attributes not only
+to Man, but also to Brutes: For <i>Reason and Discourse</i>,
+says he, <i>do not obscurely flourish and grow in brute
+Beasts, for an aged Fox is more crafty then a younger one
+by rational discourse</i>; and again, <i>That the Rational Part
+of the Soul doth belong to brutes, is without doubt</i>: Wherein
+he rightly dissents from those, which onely do attribute
+a sensitive Soul to brutes; and Reason to none but
+Man, whom therefore they call a Rational Creature,
+and by this Rational Faculty do distinguish him from
+the rest of Animals. And thus I perceive the difference
+betwixt your <i>Authors</i> opinion, and theirs, is, That
+other Philosophers commonly do make the Rational
+soul, to be partly that which I call the supernatural and
+divine Soul, as onely belonging to man, and bearing
+the Image of God, not acknowledging any other Natural,
+but a Sensitive soul in the rest of Animals, and
+a Vegetative soul in Vegetables; and these three souls,
+or faculties, operations, or degrees, (call them what
+you will, for we shall not fall out about names,) concurr
+and joyn together in Man; but the rest of all Creatures,
+are void and destitute of Life, as well as of Soul,
+and therefore called Unanimate; and thus they make
+the natural rational soul, and the divine soul in man to
+be all one thing, without any distinguishment; but your
+<i>Author</i> makes a difference between the Mortal and Immortal
+soul in Man; the Immortal he calls the Intellect
+or Understanding, and the Mortal soul he calls Reason:
+but to my judgment he also attributes to the immortal
+soul, actions which are both natural, and supernatural,
+adscribing that to the divine soul, which onely
+belongs to the natural, and taking that from the natural,
+which properly belongs to her. Besides, he slights and
+despises the Rational soul so, as if she were almost of no
+value with Man, making her no substance, but a mental
+intricate and obscure Being, and so far from Truth,
+as if there were no affinity betwixt Truth and Reason, but
+that they disagree in their very roots, and that the most
+refined Reason may be deceitful. But your <i>Author</i>, by
+his leave, confounds Reason, and Reasoning, which
+are two several and distinct things; for reasoning and
+arguing differs as much from Reason, as doubtfulness
+from certainty of knowledg, or a wavering mind
+from a constant mind; for Reasoning is the discoursive,
+and Reason the understanding part in Man, and therefore
+I can find no great difference between Understanding
+and Reason: Neither can I be perswaded, that
+Reason should not remain with Man after this life, and
+enter with him into Heaven, although your <i>Author</i>
+speaks much against it; for if Man shall be the same
+then, which he is now, in body, why not in soul also?
+'Tis true, the Scripture says, he shall have a more glorious
+body; but it doth not say, that some parts of the
+body shall be cast away, or remain behind; and if not
+of the body, why of the soul? Why shall Reason,
+which is the chief part of the natural Soul, be wanting?
+Your <i>Author</i> is much for Intellect or Understanding;
+but I cannot imagine how Understanding can be without
+Reason. Certainly, when he saw the Immortal
+Soul in a Vision, to be a formal Light, how could
+he discern what he saw, without Reason? How could
+he distinguish between Light and Darkness, without
+Reason? How could he know the Image of the
+Mind to be the Image of God, without the distinguishment
+of Reason? You will say, Truth informed him,
+and not Reason. I answer, Reason shews the Truth.
+You may reply, Truth requires no distinguishment or
+judgment. I grant, that perfect Truth requires not
+reasoning or arguing, as whether it be so, or not; but
+yet it requires reason, as to confirm it to be so, or not
+so; for Reason is the confirmation of Truth, and Reasoning
+is but the Inquisition into Truth: Wherefore,
+when our Souls shall be in the fulness of blessedness,
+certainly, they shall not be so dull and stupid, but observe
+distinctions between God, Angels, and sanctified
+Souls; as also, that our glory is above our merit, and
+that there is great difference between the Damned, and
+the Blessed, and that God is an Eternal and Infinite Being,
+and onely to be adored, admired, and loved, and
+that we enjoy as much as can be enjoyed: All which
+the Soul cannot know without the distinguishment of
+Reason; otherwise we might say, the Souls in Heaven,
+love, joy, admire and adore, but know not what, why,
+or wherefore; For, shall the blessed Souls present continual
+Praises without reason? Have they not reason to
+praise God for their happiness, and shall they not remember
+the Mercies of God, and the Merits of his
+Son? For without remembrance of them, they cannot
+give a true acknowledgment, although your <i>Author</i>
+says there is no use of Memory or remembrance in
+Heaven: but surely, I believe there is; for if there were
+not memory in Heaven, the Penitent Thief upon the
+Cross his Prayers had been in vain; for he desired our
+Saviour to remember him when he did come into his
+Kingdom: Wherefore if there be Understanding in
+Heaven, there is also Reason; and if there be Reason,
+there is Memory also: for all Souls in Heaven, as
+well as on Earth, have reason to adore, love, and
+praise God. But, <i>Madam</i>, my study is in natural Philosophy,
+not in Theology; and therefore I'le refer you
+to Divines, and leave your <i>Author</i> to his own fancy,
+who by his singular Visions tells us more news of our
+Souls, then our Saviour did after his Death and Resurrection:
+Resting in the mean time,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_142" id="Footnote_1_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_142"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The hunting or searching out of Sciences.
+<i>It.</i> Of the Image of the Mind.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXVI" id="III_XXVI">XXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning those parts and chapters of your <i>Authors</i>
+Works, which treat of Physick; before I
+begin to examine them, I beg leave of you in this
+present, to make some reflections first upon his Opinions
+concerning the Nature of Health and Diseases: As
+for <i>Health</i>, he is pleased to say,<a name="FNanchor_1_143" id="FNanchor_1_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_143" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>it consists not in a
+just Temperature of the body, but in a sound and intire
+Life; for otherwise, a Temperature of body is as yet in a
+dead Carcass newly kill'd, where notwithstanding there is
+now death, but not life, not health</i>: Also he says,<a name="FNanchor_2_144" id="FNanchor_2_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_144" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>That
+no disease is in a dead carcass.</i> To which I answer,
+That, in my opinion, Life is in a dead Carcass, as well
+as in a living Animal, although not such a Life as that
+Creature had before it became a Carcass, and the
+Temperature of that Creature is altered with the alteration
+of its particular life; for the temperature of that
+particular life, which was before in the Animal, doth
+not remain in the Carcass, in such a manner as it was
+when it had the life of such or such an Animal; nevertheless,
+a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature
+of life, as is proper, and belonging to its own figure:
+for there are as many different lives, as there be different
+creatures, and each creature has its particular life
+and soul, as partaking of sensitive and rational Matter.
+And if a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature
+of motions as belong to its own life, then there is no
+question, but these motions may move sometimes irregularly
+in a dead Carcass as well, as in any other Creature;
+and since health and diseases are nothing else but
+the regularity or irregularity of sensitive corporeal Motions,
+a dead Carcass having Irregular motions, may
+be said as well to have diseases, as a living body, as they
+name it, although it is no proper or usual term for other
+Creatures, but onely for Animals. However, if there
+were no such thing as a disease (or term it what you
+will, I will call it Irregularity of sensitive motions) in a
+dead Carcass, How comes it that the infection of a disease
+proceeds often from dead Carcasses into living Animals?
+For, certainly, it is not meerly the odour or
+stink of a dead body, for then all stinking Carcasses
+would produce an Infection; wherefore this Infection
+must necessarily be inherent in the Carcass, and proceed
+from the Irregularity of its motions. Next I'le ask
+you, Whether a Consumption be a disease, or not?
+If it be, then a dead Carcass might be said to have a
+disease, as well as a living body; and the �gyptians
+knew a soveraign remedy against this disease, which
+would keep a dead Carcass intire and undissolved many
+ages; but as I said above, a dead Carcass is not
+that which it was being a living Animal, wherefore their
+effects cannot be the same, having not the same causes.
+Next, your <i>Author</i> is pleased to call, with <i>Hippocrates,
+Nature the onely Physicianess of Diseases.</i>
+I affirm it; and say moreover, that as she is the onely
+Physicianess, so she is also the onely Destroyeress and
+Murtheress of all particular Creatures, and their particular
+lives; for she dissolves and transforms as well
+as she frames and creates; and acts according to her
+pleasure, either for the increase or decrease, augmentation
+or destruction, sickness or health, life or death
+of Particular Creatures. But concerning Diseases,
+your <i>Authors</i> opinion is, That <i>a Disease is as Natural
+as Health.</i> I answer; 'tis true, Diseases are natural;
+but if we could find out the art of healing, as well as the
+art of killing and destroying; and the art of uniting and
+composing, as well as the art of separating and dividing,
+it would be very beneficial to man; but this may
+easier be wished for, then obtained; for Nature being
+a corporeal substance, has infinite parts, as well as
+an infinite body; and Art, which is onely the playing
+action of Nature, and a particular Creature, can easier
+divide and separate parts, then unite and make
+parts; for Art cannot match, unite, and joyn parts so
+as Nature doth; for Nature is not onely dividable
+and composeable, being a corporeal substance, but
+she is also full of curiosity and variety, being partly
+self-moving: and there is great difference between
+forced actions, and natural actions; for the one sort is
+regular, the other irregular. But you may say, Irregularities
+are as natural as Regularities. I grant it; but
+Nature leaves the irregular part most commonly to
+her daughter or creature Art, that is, she makes irregularities
+for varieties sake, but she her self orders the regular
+part, that is, she is more careful of her regular
+actions; and thus Nature taking delight in variety suffers
+irregularities; for otherwise, if there were onely
+regularities, there could not be so much variety. Again
+your <i>Author</i> says,<a name="FNanchor_3_145" id="FNanchor_3_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_145" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> That <i>a disease doth not consist but
+in living bodies.</i> I answer, there is not any body that
+has not life; for if life is general, then all figures or parts
+have life; but though all bodies have life, yet all bodies
+have not diseases; for diseases are but accidental to
+bodies, and are nothing else but irregular motions in particular
+Creatures, which may be not onely in Animals,
+but generally in all Creatures; for there may be Irregularities
+in all sorts of Creatures, which may cause untimely
+dissolutions; but yet all dissolutions are not made
+by irregular motions, for many creatures dissolve regularly,
+but onely those which are untimely. In the same
+place your <i>Author</i> mentions, That <i>a Disease consists
+immediately in Life it self, but not in the dregs and filthinesses,
+which are erroneous forreigners and strangers to the
+life.</i> I grant, that a Disease is made by the motions of
+Life, but not such a life as your <i>Author</i> describes, which
+doth go out like the snuff of a Candle, or as one of <i>Lucian's</i>
+Poetical Lights; but by the life of Nature, which
+cannot go out without the destruction of Infinite Nature:
+and as the Motions of Nature's life make diseases
+or irregularities, so they make that which man names
+dregs and filths; which dregs, filths, sickness, and
+death, are nothing but changes of corporeal motions,
+different from those motions or actions that are proper
+to the health, perfection and consistence of such or
+such a figure or creature. But, to conclude, there is
+no such thing as corruption, sickness, or death, properly
+in Nature, for they are made by natural actions,
+and are onely varieties in Nature, but not obstructions
+or destructions of Nature, or annihilations
+of particular Creatures; and so is that we name Superfluities,
+which bear onely a relation to a particular
+Creature, which hath more Motion and Matter then
+is proper for the nature of its figure. And thus much
+of this subject for the present, from,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_143" id="Footnote_1_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_143"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Call'd the Authors answers.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_144" id="Footnote_2_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_144"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the subject of inhering of diseases.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_145" id="Footnote_3_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_145"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> The subject of inhering of diseases is in
+the point of life. <i>It. Ch.</i> Of the knowledg of diseases.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXVII" id="III_XXVII">XXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In my last, I remember, I told you of your <i>Authors</i>
+opinion concerning the seat of Diseases, <i>viz.</i>
+that Diseases are properly in living bodies, and
+consist in the life it self; but when I consider his definition
+of Life, and of a Disease, I cannot conceive
+how they should consist together; for he describes<a name="FNanchor_1_146" id="FNanchor_1_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_146" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>a
+Disease to be a real, material and substantial being, truly
+subsisting in a body; but life to be a meer nothing, and</i>
+<i>yet the immediate mansion of a disease, the inward subject,
+yea, and workman of the same; and that with the life all
+diseases depart into nothing.</i> Surely, <i>Madam</i>, it exceedeth
+my understanding; for, first, I cannot conceive
+how life, which is a meer Nothing, can be a
+lodging to something? Next, how Nothing can depart
+and die? and thirdly how Something can become
+Nothing? I think your <i>Author</i> might call a dead
+Carcass as well No-thing, as Life; and since he names
+Diseases the Thieves of Life, they must needs be but
+poor Thieves, because they steal No-thing. But your
+<i>Author</i> compares Life to Light, and calls it an Extinguishable
+Light, like the light of a Candle; which if so,
+then the old saying is verified, That life goes out like the
+snuff of a Candle. But I wonder, <i>Madam</i>, that grave
+and wise men will seriously make use of a similising
+old Proverb, or of a Poetical Fancy, in matter of natural
+Philosophy; for I have observed, that <i>Homer, Lucian,
+Ovid, Virgil, Horace,</i> &amp;c. have been very serviceable
+to great Philosophers, who have taken the
+ground of their Fictions, and transferred them into Natural
+Philosophy, as Immaterial substances, Non-beings,
+and many the like; but they can neither do any
+good nor hurt to Nature, but onely spoil Philosophical
+Knowledg; and as Nature is ignorant of Immaterials
+and Non-beings, so Art is ignorant of Nature; for
+Mathematical Rules, Measures, and Demonstrations,
+cannot rule, measure nor demonstrate Nature, no more,
+then Chymical Divisions, Dissolutions and Extractions
+(or rather distractions, nay, I may say destructions)
+can divide, dissolve, extract, compose, and unite,
+as Nature doth; Wherefore their Instruments,
+Figures, Furnaces, Limbecks, and Engines, cannot
+instruct them of the truth of Natures Principles; but
+the best and readiest way to find out Nature, or rather
+some truth of Nature, is sense and reason, which are
+Parts of Natures active substance, and therefore the
+truest informers of Nature; but the Ignorance of Nature
+has caused Ignorance amongst Philosophers, and
+the Ignorance of Philosophers hath caused numerous
+Opinions, and numerous Opinions have caused various
+Discourses and Disputes; which Discourses and
+Disputes, are not Sense and Reason, but proceed from
+Irregular Motions; and Truth is not found in Irregularities.
+But to return to Life: it seems your <i>Author</i>
+hath taken his opinion from <i>Lucian's</i> Kingdom of
+Lights, the Lights being the Inhabitants thereof; and
+when any was adjudged to die, his Light was put out,
+which was his punishment: And thus this Heathenish
+Fiction is become a Christian Verity; when as yet your
+<i>Author</i> rayls much at those, that insist upon the Opinions
+and Doctrine of Pagan Philosophers. Wherefore
+I will leave this Poetical Fancy of Life, and turn to
+Death, and see what opinion your <i>Author</i> hath of that.
+First, concerning the cause or original of Death; <i>Neither
+God</i>, says he,<a name="FNanchor_2_147" id="FNanchor_2_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_147" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> <i>nor the Evil Spirit, is the Creator of
+Death, but Man onely, who made Death for himself;
+Neither did Nature make death, but Man made death
+natural.</i> Which if it be so, then Death being, to my opinion,
+a natural Creature, as well as Life, Sickness, and
+Health; Man, certainly, had great Power, as to be
+the Creator of a natural Creature. But, I would fain
+know the reason, why your <i>Author</i> is so unwilling to
+make God the Author of Death, and Sickness, as well
+as of Damnation? Doth it imply any Impiety or Irreligiousness?
+Doth not God punish, as well as reward?
+and is not death a punishment for our sin? You may
+say, Death came from sin, but sin did not come from
+God. Then some might ask from whence came sin?
+You will say, From the Transgression of the Command
+of God, as the eating of the Forbidden Fruit. But
+from whence came this Transgression? It might be answer'd,
+From the Perswasion of the Serpent. From
+whence came this Perswasion? From his ill and malitious
+nature to oppose God, and ruine the race of Mankind.
+From whence came this ill Nature? From
+his Fall. Whence came his Fall? From his Pride
+and Ambition to be equal with God. From whence
+came this Pride? From his Free-will. From whence
+came his Free-will? From God. Thus, <i>Madam</i>,
+if we should be too inquisitive into the actions of God,
+we should commit Blasphemy, and make God Cruel,
+as to be the Cause of Sin, and consequently of Damnation.
+But although God is not the Author of Sin, yet
+we may not stick to say, that he is the Author of the
+Punishment of Sin, as an Act of his Divine Justice;
+which Punishment, is Sickness, and Death; nay, I see
+no reason, why not of Damnation too, as it is a due
+punishment for the sins of the wicked; for though Man
+effectively works his own punishment, yet Gods Justice
+inflicts it: Like as a just Judg may be call'd the cause of
+a Thief being hang'd. But these questions are too curious;
+and some men will be as presumptuous as the Devil,
+to enquire into Gods secret actions, although they
+be sure that they cannot be known by any Creature.
+Wherefore let us banish such vain thoughts, and onely
+admire, adore, love, and praise God, and implore his
+Mercy, to give us grace to shun the punishments for
+our sins by the righteousness of our actions, and not endeavour
+to know his secret designs. Next, I dissent
+from your <i>Author</i>,<a name="FNanchor_3_148" id="FNanchor_3_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_148" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> That <i>Death and all dead things
+do want roots whereby they may produce</i>: For death,
+and dead things, in my opinion, are the most active
+producers, at least they produce more numerously and
+variously then those we name living things; for example,
+a dead Horse will produce more several Animals,
+besides other Creatures, then a living Horse can
+do; but what <i>Archeus</i> and <i>Ideas</i> a dead Carcass hath,
+I can tell no more, then what <i>Blas</i> or <i>Gas</i> it hath; onely
+this I say, that it has animate Matter, which is the
+onely <i>Archeus</i> or Master-workman, that produces all
+things, creates all things, dissolves all things, and transforms
+all things in Nature; but not out of Nothing, or
+into Nothing, as to create new Creatures which were
+not before in Nature, or to annihilate Creatures, and
+to reduce them to nothing; but it creates and transforms
+out of, and in the same Matter which has been from all
+Eternity. Lastly, your <i>Author</i> is pleased to say, That
+<i>he doth not behold a disease as an abstracted Quality; and
+that Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, as
+they are Qualities in the abstract, are not diseases.</i> I
+am of his mind, that a disease is a real and corporeal being,
+and do not understand what he and others mean
+by abstracted qualities; for Nature knows of no abstraction
+of qualities from substances, and I doubt Man
+can do no more then Nature doth: Besides, those abstractions
+are needless, and to no purpose; for no Immaterial
+quality will do any hurt, if it be no substance;
+wherefore Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness,
+are Corporeal beings, as well as the rest of Diseases,
+and not abstracted Qualities; and I am sure, Persons
+that are affected with those diseases will tell the same.
+Wherefore leaving needless abstractions to fancies abstracted
+from right sense and reason, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_146" id="Footnote_1_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_146"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the knowledg of diseases.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_147" id="Footnote_2_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_147"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Called the Position.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_148" id="Footnote_3_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_148"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the knowledg of diseases.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXVIII" id="III_XXVIII">XXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am very much troubled to see your <i>Authors</i> Works
+fill'd with so many spiteful reproaches and bitter
+taunts against the Schools of Physicians, condemning
+both their Theory and Practice; nay, that not
+onely the Modern Schools of Physicians, but also
+the two ancient and famous Physicians, <i>Galen</i>, and
+<i>Paracelsus</i>, must sufficiently suffer by him; especially
+<i>Galen</i>; for there is hardly a Chapter in all his Works,
+which has not some accusations of blind errors, sloth,
+and sluggishness, Ignorance, Covetousness, Cruelty,
+and the like: Which I am very sorry for; not onely for
+the sake of your <i>Author</i> himself, who herein doth betray
+both his rashness, and weakness, in not bridling
+his passions, and his too great presumption, reliance and
+confidence in his own abilities, and extraordinary Gifts;
+but also for the sake of the Fame and Repute of our
+Modern Physicians; for without making now any difference
+betwixt the <i>Galenists</i> and <i>Paracelsians</i>, and examining
+which are the best, (for I think them both
+excellent in their kinds, especially when joyned together)
+I will onely say this in general, that the Art of
+Physick has never flourish'd better then now, neither
+has any age had more skilful, learned, and experienced
+Physicians, then this present; because they have not
+onely the knowledg and practise of those in ages Past,
+but also their own experience joyned with it, which
+cannot but add perfection to their Art; and I, for
+my part, am so much for the old way of Practice, that
+if I should be sick, I would desire rather such Physicians
+which follow the same way, then those, that by
+their new Inventions, perchance, cure one, and kill a
+hundred. But your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_1_149" id="FNanchor_1_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_149" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> will have a Physician
+to be like a Handycrafts man, who being call'd to a
+work, promises that work, and stands to his promise;
+and therefore, <i>It is a shame</i>, says he, <i>in a Physician,
+being call'd to a sick man in the beginning of the disease,
+and when his strength is yet remaining, to suffer the
+same man to die.</i> This, in my opinion, is a very unreasonable
+comparison, to liken a Handicrafts man to
+a Physician, and the art of Curing to the art of Building,
+or any the like, without regard of so many great
+differences that are between them, which I am loth to
+rehearse, for brevities sake, and are apparant enough
+to every one that will consider them: but this I may
+say, that it is not always for want of skill and industry
+in a Physician, that the cure is not effected, but it lies
+either in the Incureableness of the disease, or any other
+external accidents that do hinder the success: Not but
+that the best Physicians may err in a disease, or mistake
+the Patients inward distemper by his outward temper,
+or the interior temper by his outward distemper, or any
+other ways; for they may easily err through the variation
+of the disease, which may vary so suddenly and oft,
+as it is impossible to apply so fast, and so many Medicines,
+as the alteration requires, without certain death;
+for the body is not able, oftentimes, to dispose and digest
+several Medicines so fast, as the disease may vary,
+and therefore what was good in this temper, may, perhaps,
+be bad in the variation; insomuch, that one medicine
+may in a minute prove a Cordial, and Poyson.
+Nay, it may be that some Physicians do err through
+their own ignorance and mistake, must we therefore condemn
+all the skill, and accuse all the Schools of Negligence,
+Cruelty, and Ignorance? God forbid: for
+it would be a great Injustice. Let us rather praise them
+for the good they do, and not rashly condemn them for
+the evil they could not help: For we may as well condemn
+those holy and industrious Divines, that cannot reform
+wicked and perverse Sinners, as Physicians, because
+they cannot restore every Patient to his former
+health, the Profession of a Physician being very difficult;
+for they can have but outward signs of inward
+distempers. Besides, all men are not dissected after
+they are dead, to inform Physicians of the true cause of
+their death; nay, if they were, perchance they would
+not give always a true information to the Physician, as
+is evident by many examples; but oftentimes the blame
+is laid upon the Physician, when as the fault is either
+in Nature, or any other cause, which Art could not
+mend. And if your <i>Author</i> had had such an extraordinary
+Gift from God as to know more then all the rest
+of Physicians, why did he not accordingly, and as
+the Scripture speaks of Faith, shew his skill by his
+Works and Cures? certainly, could he have restored
+those that were born blind, lame, deaf and dumb, or
+cured the spotted Plague, or Apoplexy after the third fit,
+or the Consumption of Vital parts, or a Fever in the
+Arteries, or dissolved a Stone too big to go through
+the passage, and many the like; he would not onely
+have been cried up for a rare Physician, but for a miracle
+of the World, and worshipped as a Saint: But if
+he could not effect more then the Schools can do, why
+doth he inveigh so bitterly against them? Wherefore I
+cannot commend him in so doing; but as I respect the
+Art of Physick, as a singular Gift from God to Mankind,
+so I respect and esteem also learned and skilful
+Physicians, for their various Knowledg, industrious
+Studies, careful Practice, and great Experiences, and
+think every one is bound to do the like, they being
+the onely supporters and restorers of humane life and
+health: For though I must confess, with your <i>Author</i>,
+that God is the onely giver of Good, yet God is not
+pleased to work Miracles ordinarily, but has ordained
+means for the restoring of health, which
+the Art of Physick doth apply; and therefore those
+Persons that are sick, do wisely to send for a Physician;
+for Art, although it is but a particular Creature, and
+the handmaid of Nature, yet she doth Nature oftentimes
+very good service; and so do Physicians often
+prolong their Patients lives. The like do Chirurgeons;
+for if those Persons that have been wounded, had been
+left to be cured onely by the Magnetick Medicine, I
+believe, numbers that are alive would have been
+dead, and numbers would die that are alive; insomuch,
+as none would escape, but by miracle, especially
+if dangerously hurt. Concerning the Coveteousness
+of Physicians, although sickness is chargeable,
+yet I think it is not Charitable to say or to think,
+that Physitians regard more their Profit, then their Patients
+health; for we might as well condemn Divines
+for taking their Tithes and Stipends, as Physicians
+for taking their Fees: but the holy Writ tells us,
+that a Labourer is Worthy of his hire or reward; and,
+for my part, I think those commit a great sin, which
+repine at giving Rewards in any kind; for those that
+deserve well by their endeavours, ought to have their
+rewards; and such Meritorious Persons, I wish with
+all my Soul, may prosper and thrive. Nevertheless,
+as for those persons, which for want of means are not
+able to reward their Physicians, I think Physicians will
+not deal so unconscionably, as to neglect their health
+and lives for want of their Fees, but expect the reward
+from God, and be recompenced the better by those
+that have Wealth enough to spare. And this good
+opinion I have of them. So leaving them, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_149" id="Footnote_1_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_149"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In his Promises, <i>Column.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXIX" id="III_XXIX">XXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM</i></p>
+
+<p>I am of your <i>Authors</i> mind, That <i>heat is not the
+cause of digestion</i>; but I dissent from him, when he
+says, That it is <i>the Ferment of the stomach that doth
+cause it</i>: For, in my opinion, Digestion is onely made
+by regular digestive motions, and ill digestion is caused
+by irregular motions, and when those motions are weak,
+then there is no digestion at all, but what was received,
+remains unaltered; but when they are strong and
+quick, then they make a speedy digestion. You may
+ask me, what are digestive motions? I answer, They
+are transchanging, or transforming motions: but since
+there be many sorts of transchanging motions, digestive
+motions are those, which transchange food into the
+nourishment of the body, and dispose properly, fitly
+and usefully of all the Parts of the food, as well of
+those which are converted into nourishment, as of
+those which are cast forth. For give me leave to tell
+you, <i>Madam</i>, that some parts of natural Matter, do
+force or cause other parts of Matter to move and work
+according to their will, without any change or alteration
+of their parts; as for example, Fire and Metal;
+for Fire will cause Metal to flow, but it doth not readily
+alter it from its nature of being Metal; neither doth Fire
+alter its nature from being Fire. And again, some
+parts of Matter will cause other parts to work and act to
+their own will, by forcing these over-powred parts to
+alter their own natural motions into the motions of the
+victorious Party, and so transforming them wholly into
+their own Figure; as for example, Fire will cause
+Wood to move so as to take its figure, to wit, the
+figure of Fire, that is, to change its own figurative motions
+into the motions of Fire: and this latter kind of
+moving or working is found in digestion; for the regular
+digestive motions do turn all food received from
+its own nature or figure, into the nourishment, figure,
+or nature of the body, as into flesh, blood, bones, and
+the like. But when several parts of Matter meet or joyn
+with equal force and power, then their several natural
+motions are either quite altered, or partly mixt: As for
+example; some received things not agreeing with the
+natural constitution of the body, the corporeal motions
+of the received, and those of the receiver, do dispute or
+oppose each other: for the motions of the received, not
+willing to change their nature conformable to the desire
+of the digestive motions, do resist, and then a War
+begins, whereby the body suffers most; for it causes either
+a sickness in the stomack, or a pain in the head, or
+in the heart, or in the bowels, or the like: Nay, if the
+received food gets an absolute victory, it dissolves and
+alters oftentimes the whole body, it self remaining entire
+and unaltered, as is evident in those that die of surfeits.
+But most commonly these strifes and quarrels, if
+violent, do alter and dissolve each others forms or natures.
+And many times it is not the fault of the Received,
+but of the Receiver; as for example, when the
+digestive and transforming motions are either irregular,
+or weak; for they being too weak, or too few, the
+meat or food received is digested onely by halves; and
+being irregular, it causes that which we call corruption.
+But it may be observed, that the Received food is either
+agreeable, or disagreeable, to the Receiver; if agreeable,
+then there is a united consent of Parts, to act regularly
+and perfectly in digestion; if disagreeable, then
+the Received acts to the Ruine, that is, to the alteration
+or dissolution of the Nature of the Receiver; but
+if it be neutral, that is, neither perfectly agreeable, nor
+perfectly disagreeable, but between both, then the receiver,
+or rather the digestive Motions of the receiver,
+use a double strength to alter and transform the received.
+But you may ask me, <i>Madam</i>, what the reason
+is, that many things received, after they are dissolved
+into small parts, those parts will keep their former colour
+and savour? I answer; The cause is, that either
+the retentive Motions in the Parts of the received, are
+too strong for the digestive and alterative Motions of
+the receiver, or perchance, this colour and savour
+is so proper to them, as not to be transchanged: but
+you must observe, that those digestive, alterative and
+transchanging motions, do not act or move all after one
+and the same manner; for some do dissolve the natural
+figure of the received, some disperse its dissolved parts
+into the parts of the body, some place the dispersed
+parts fitly and properly for the use, benefit, and consistence
+of the body; for there is so much variety in this
+one act of digestion, as no man is able to conceive;
+and if there be such variety in one Particular natural
+action, what variety will there not be in all Nature?
+Wherefore, it is not, as I mentioned in the beginning,
+either Ferment, or Heat, or any other thing,
+that causes digestion; for if all the constitution and
+nature of our body was grounded or did depend upon
+Ferment, then Brewers and Bakers, and those that
+deal with Ferments, would be the best Physicians. But
+I would fain know the cause which makes Ferment?
+You may say, saltness, and sowreness. But then I
+ask, From whence comes saltness and sowreness? You
+may say, From the Ferment. But then I shall be
+as wise as before. The best way, perhaps, may be to
+say, with your <i>Author</i>, that Ferment is a Primitive
+Cause, and a beginning or Principle of other things,
+and it self proceeds from nothing. But then it is beyond
+my imagination, how that can be a Principle
+of material things, which it self is nothing; that is,
+neither a substance, nor an accident. Good Lord!
+what a stir do men make about nothing! I am amazed
+to see their strange Fancies and Conceptions
+vented for the Truest Reasons: Wherefore I will
+return to my simple opinion; and as I cannot conceive
+any thing that is beyond Matter, or a Body;
+so I believe, according to my reason, that there is
+not any part in Nature, be it never so subtil or small,
+but is a self-moving substance, or endued with self-motion;
+and according to the regularity and irregularity
+of these motions, all natural effects are produced,
+either perfect, or imperfect; timely births, or untimely
+and monstrous births; death, health, and diseases,
+good and ill dispositions, natural and extravagant
+Appetites and Passions, (I say natural, that is,
+according to the nature of their figures;) Sympathy
+and Antipathy, Peace and War, Rational and Phantastical
+opinions. Nevertheless, all these motions,
+whether regular or irregular, are natural; for regularity
+and irregularity hath but a respect to particulars,
+and to our conceptions, because those motions
+which move not after the ordinary, common or usual
+way or manner, we call Irregular. But the curiosity
+and variety in Nature is unconceiveable by any particular
+Creature; and so leaving it, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXX" id="III_XXX">XXX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> says,<a name="FNanchor_1_150" id="FNanchor_1_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_150" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> it is an ancient Truth, <i>That
+whatsoever things, meats being digested and cast out
+by vomit, are of a sowre taste and smell, yea, although
+they were seasoned with much sugar.</i> But I do not assent
+to this opinion; for I think that some Vomits have
+no more taste then pure Water hath. Neither am I of
+his mind, That <i>Digestion is hastened by sharpness or
+tartness:</i> For do but try it by one simple experiment;
+take any kind of flesh-meat, boyl or stew it with Vinegar,
+or sowre wine, or with much salt; and you will
+find, that it doth require a longer time, or rather more
+motions to dissolve, then if you boyl it in fair water,
+without such ingredients as are sowre, sharp, or salt;
+also if you do but observe, you will find the dregs more
+sandy, stony and hard, being drest with much salt, and
+sharp wine, or vinegar, then when they are not mixt
+with such contracting and fixing Ingredients. Wherefore,
+if the Ferment of the stomack hath such a restringent
+and contracting quality, certainly digestions will
+be but slow and unprofitable; but Nature requires
+expulsion as much as attraction, and dilation as much
+as contraction, and digestion is a kind of dilation.
+Wherefore, in my judgment; contracting tartness
+and sharpness doth rather hinder digestion then further
+it. Next I perceive, your <i>Author</i> inclines to the
+opinion, <i>That Choler is not made by meat</i>:<a name="FNanchor_2_151" id="FNanchor_2_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_151" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> But I
+would ask him, whether any humor be made of meat,
+or whether blood, flesh, &amp;c. are made and nourished
+by meat? If they be not, then my answer is, That
+we eat to no purpose; but if they be, then Choler is
+made so too. But if he says, That some are made, and
+some not; then I would ask, what that humor is made
+of, that is not made by meat or food received into the
+body? But we find that humors, blood, flesh, &amp;c.
+will be sometimes more, sometimes less, according either
+to feeding, or to digestion, which digestion is a
+contribution of food to every several part of the body
+for its nourishment; and when there is a decay of those
+parts, then it is caused either by fasting, or by irregular
+digestion, or by extraordinary evacuation, or
+by distempered matter, &amp;c. all which, causes sickness,
+paleness, leanness, weakness, and the like. Again:
+your <i>Author</i> is against the opinion of the Schools,
+<i>That the Gall is a receptacle of superfluous humors and
+dregs</i>: for he says, <i>it has rather the constitution of a necessary
+and vital bowel, and is the balsom of the liver and
+blood.</i> Truly, it may be so, for any thing I know, or
+it may be not; for your <i>Author</i> could but guess, not
+assuredly know, unless he had been in a man as big as
+the Whale in whose belly <i>Jonas</i> was three days, and
+had observed the interior parts and motions of every
+part for three years time, and yet he might perchance
+have been as ignorant at the coming forth, as if
+he never had been there; for Natures actions are not
+onely curious, but very various; and not onely various,
+but very obscure; in so much, as the most ingenious
+Artists cannot trace her ways, or imitate her
+actions; for Art being but a Creature, can do or know
+no more then a Creature; and although she is an ingenious
+Creature, which can and hath found out some
+things profitable and useful for the life of others, yet
+she is but a handmaid to Nature, and not her Mistress;
+which your <i>Author</i>, in my opinion, too rashly affirms,
+when he says,<a name="FNanchor_3_152" id="FNanchor_3_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_152" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> That <i>the Art of Chymistry is not
+onely the Chambermaid and emulating Ape, but now and
+then the Mistress of Nature</i>: For Art is an effect of
+Nature, and to prefer the effect before the cause, is absurd.
+But concerning Chymistry, I have spoken in another
+place; I'le return to my former Discourse: and
+I wonder much why your <i>Author</i> is so opposite to the
+Schools, concerning the doctrine of the Gall's being a
+receptacle for superfluities and dregs; for I think there
+is not any Creature that has not places or receptacles for
+superfluous matter, such as we call dregs; for even the
+purest and hardest Mineral, as Gold, has its dross, although
+in a less proportion then some other Creatures;
+nay, I am perswaded, that even Light, which your
+<i>Author</i> doth so much worship, may have some superfluous
+matter, which may be named dregs; and since
+Nature has made parts in all Creatures to receive and
+discharge superfluous matter, (which receiving and discharging
+is nothing else but a joyning and dividing of
+parts to and from parts,) why may not the Gall be as
+well for that use as any other part? But I pray mistake
+me not, when I say <i>superfluous matter or dregs</i>; for I understand
+by it, that which is not useful to the nourishment
+or consistence of such or such a Creature; but to
+speak properly, there is neither superfluity of matter nor
+dregs in Nature. Moreover, your <i>Author</i> mentions
+a <i>six-fold digestion</i>, and makes every digestion to be performed
+by inbreathing or inspiration; For <i>in the first digestion</i>,
+he says, <i>The spleen doth inspire a sowre Ferment
+into the Meat: In the second, The Gall doth inspire a ferment,
+or fermental blas into the slender entrails: In the
+third, The Liver doth inspire a bloody ferment into the
+veins of the Mensentery</i>, &amp;c. I answer, first, I am confident
+Nature has more ways then to work onely by Inspirations,
+not onely in General, but in every Particular. Next,
+I believe there are not onely six, but many more digestions
+in an animal Creature; for not onely every sort of
+food, but every bit that is eaten, may require a several
+digestion, and every several part of the body works either
+to expel, or preserve, or for both; so that there are
+numerous several Motions in every Creature, and many
+changes of motions in each particular part; but Nature
+is in them all. And so leaving her, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_150" id="Footnote_1_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_150"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of a Six-fold digestion.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_151" id="Footnote_2_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_151"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> See <i>The passive deceiving of the Schools,
+the humorists,</i> c. 1.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_152" id="Footnote_3_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_152"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Heat doth not digest efficiently.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXI" id="III_XXXI">XXXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i>, in opposition to the Schools, endeavouring
+to prove that there are no humors in an
+animal body, except blood, proves many humors
+in himself. But I can see no reason, why Nature
+should not make several humors, as well as several
+Elements, Vegetables, Minerals, Animals, and
+other Creatures; and that in several parts of the body,
+and many several ways; for to mention but one sort of
+other Creatures, <i>viz.</i> Vegetables, they are, as we
+see, not onely produced many several ways, but in
+many several grounds; either by sowing, setting, or
+grafting, either in clayie, limy, sandy, chalky, dry,
+or wet grounds: And why may not several humors be
+produced as well of other Creatures and parts, as others
+are produced of them? for all parts of Nature
+are produced one from another, as being all of one and
+the same Matter, onely the variation of corporeal motions
+makes all the difference and variety between
+them, which variety of motions is impossible to be
+known by any particular Creature; for Nature can
+do more then any Creature can conceive. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I should not be of such a mind, as to oppose
+the Schools herein so eagerly as your <i>Author</i>
+doth; but artificial actions make men to have erroneous
+opinions of the actions of Nature, judging them
+all according to the rule and measure of Art, when as
+Art oft deludes men under the cover of truth, and makes
+them many times believe falshood for truth; for Nature
+is pleased with variety, and so doth make numerous
+absurdities, doubts, opinions, disputations, objections,
+and the like. Moreover, your <i>Author</i> is as
+much against the radical moisture, as he is against the
+four humors; saying, that according to this opinion of
+the Schools, a fat belly, through much grease affording
+more fuel to the radical moisture, must of necessity live
+longer. But this, in my opinion, is onely a wilful
+mistake; for I am confident, that the Schools do not understand
+radical moisture to be gross, fat radical oyl, but
+a thin oylie substance. Neither do they believe radical
+heat to be a burning, fiery and consuming heat, but
+such a degree of natural heat, as is comfortable, nourishing,
+refreshing, and proper for the life of the animal
+Creature: Wherefore radical heat and moisture
+doth not onely consist in the Grease of the body; for a
+lean body may have as much, and some of them more
+Radical moisture, then fat bodies. But your <i>Author</i>
+instead of this radical moisture, makes a nourishable
+moisture, onely, as I suppose, out of a mind to contradict
+the Schools; when as I do not perceive, that the
+Schools mean by Radical moisture, any other then a
+nourishable moisture, and therefore this distinction is
+needless. Lastly, he condemns the Schools, for making
+an affinity betwixt the bowels and the brain. But
+he might as will condemn Politicians, for saying there
+is an affinity betwixt Governors and Subjects, or betwixt
+command and obedience; but as the actions of
+Particulars, even from the meanest in a Commonwealth,
+may chance to make a Publick disturbance, so
+likewise in the Common-wealth of the body, one single
+action in a particular part may cause a disturbance
+of the whole Body, nay, a total ruine and dissolution
+of the composed; which dissolution is called Death; and
+yet these causes are neither Light, nor Blas, nor Gas,
+no more then men are shining Suns, or flaming
+Torches, or blazing Meteors, or azure Skies. Wherefore
+leaving your <i>Author</i> to his contradicting humor, I
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXII" id="III_XXXII">XXXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I do verily believe, with the Schools, the <i>Purging of
+the Brain</i>, against your <i>Author</i>;<a name="FNanchor_1_153" id="FNanchor_1_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_153" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> For I know no
+reason, why all the parts of a man's body should not
+stand in need of evacuation and Purging, as well as
+some. 'Tis true, if the substance or nourishment received
+were all useful, and onely enough for the maintenance,
+subsistance and continuance of the Creature,
+and no more, then there would be no need of such sort
+of evacuation; but I believe the corporeal self-motions
+in a body, discharge the superfluous matter out of every
+part of the body, if the motions of the superfluous matter
+be not too strong, and over-power the motions in
+the parts of the body; but some parts do produce more
+superfluities then others, by reason their property is more
+to dilate, then to contract, and more to attract, then to retain
+or fix; which parts are the brain, stomack, bowels,
+bladder, gall, and the like: wherefore, as there
+is nourishment in all parts of the body, so there are also
+excrements in all parts, for there is no nourishment
+without excrement. Next your <i>Author</i> says, That
+<i>the nourishment of the solid parts is made with the transmutation
+of the whole venal blood into nourishment, without
+a separation of the pure from the impure.</i> But I pray
+give me leave to ask, <i>Madam</i>, whether the solid Parts
+are not Instruments for the nourishment of the Venal
+blood? Truly, I cannot conceive, how blood should
+be nourished, wanting those solid parts, and their particular
+motions and imployments. Again: his opinion
+is, <i>That the brain is nourished by a few and slender veins;
+neither doth a passage or channel appear whereby a moist excrement
+may derive, or a vapour enter.</i> And by reason
+of the want of such a passage, in another place<a name="FNanchor_2_154" id="FNanchor_2_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_154" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> he is
+pleased to affirm, <i>That nothing can fume up from the
+stomack into the brain</i>, and therefore <i>Wine doth not make
+drunk with fuming from the stomach into the head, but the
+Winie spirit is immediately snatched into the arteries out of
+the stomach without digestion, and so into the head, and there
+breeds a confusion.</i> First, I am not of the opinion, that
+all nourishment comes from the veins, or from one particular
+part of the body, no more do Excrements; neither
+do I believe that every passage in the body is visible
+to Anatomists, for Natures works are too curious and
+intricate for any particular Creature to find them out,
+which is the cause that Anatomists and Chymists are so
+oft mistaken in natural causes and effects; for certainly,
+they sometimes believe great Errors for great Truths.
+Next, as for Drunkenness, I believe that many, who
+drink much Wine, are drunk before such time as the
+Wine spirit can get into the Arteries; but if there be
+Pores to the Brain, as it is most probable, the spirit of
+Wine may more easily ascend and enter those Pores,
+then the Pores of the Arteries, or the Mouth-veins,
+and so make a circular journey to the Head. But as for
+Excrements, whereof I spake in the beginning, as they
+are made several manners or ways, and in several parts
+of the body, so they are also discharged several ways
+from several parts, and several ways from each particular
+part, indeed so many several ways and manners, as
+would puzzle the wisest man in the world, nay your <i>Authors
+Interior keeper of the Brain</i>, to find them out.
+Wherefore, to conclude, he is the best Physician, that
+can tell how to discharge superfluity, and to retain useful
+nourishments; or to restore by the application of proper
+Medicines, decaying parts, or to put in order Irregular
+motions; and not those that have Irregular opinions
+of Immaterial causes: To which, I leave them,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_153" id="Footnote_1_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_153"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Call'd <i>The Erring Watchman, or
+Wandring Keeper</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_154" id="Footnote_2_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_154"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> call'd <i>The Spirit of Life</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXIII" id="III_XXXIII">XXXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I do not approve of your <i>Authors</i> Doctrine, forbidding
+Phlebotomy or blood-letting in Fevers, opposite
+to the received Practice of the Schools; his
+reason is, that he believes there can be no corruption
+in the blood. <i>Corrupted blood</i>, says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_155" id="FNanchor_1_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_155" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>cannot be in the
+veins, neither doth a state of ill juice consist in the veins; for
+Gangrenes do teach, that nothing of Putrified matter can
+long persist without a further contagion of it self.</i> Also he
+says, <i>That the blood of the Veins is no otherwise distinguished
+by its several colours and signs, then as wine is
+troubled when the vine flourisheth.</i> To which I answer,
+first, That I can see no reason why there should not be
+as well corrupt blood, or an ill state of juice in the
+veins, as ill humors in the body. Perchance he
+will say, There is no corruption in the body. But
+Ulcers do teach the contrary. He may reply, Ulcers
+are not parts of the body. I answer, 'Tis true;
+but yet they are evil Inhabitants in the body, and the
+like may be in the Veins. But surely some men may
+have corrupted parts of their bodies, and yet live a
+great while; witness Ulcers in the Lungs, and other
+parts. But your <i>Author</i> may say, When a part of the
+body is corrupted, it is no longer an animal Part. I
+grant it: but yet, as I said, that transformed part may
+remain in the body some time without destruction of
+the whole body; and so likewise, when some of the
+blood, is transchanged from being blood, so as not to
+be capable to be reduced again, it may nevertheless remain
+in the veins without definition of the veins, or of
+the whole body: Neither do I conceive any reason,
+why corrupt blood should Gangrene in the veins, and
+infect the adjoyning parts more then corrupted lungs
+do. Next, as for the comparison of the various colours
+and signs of the blood, with Wine being troubled
+when the Vine is flourishing; I answer, That it doth
+not prove any thing; for we speak of such colours, as
+are signs of corrupted, and not such as are signs of troubled
+blood: Besides, it is an unlike comparison; for
+though Wine may become thick by much fermentation,
+yet it doth not turn into water, as blood in some sick
+and diseased persons will do. But corrupted blood may
+be, not onely in the veins of sick, but also of healthy persons;
+and the story says, that <i>Seneca</i>, when his veins
+were cut, they would not bleed, although in a hot
+Bath, by reason that which was in the veins, was rather
+like a white jelly, then blood, and yet he was healthy,
+though old; which proves, that it is not necessary for
+the blood to be so pure and fluid as your <i>Author</i> will
+have it. The truth is, the more fluid the blood is, the
+weaker it is; like balsam, the more gummy it is, the
+stronger it is: but veins, which are the mouth, to receive
+or suck in juices, as also the stomack which digests
+the meat that after is turned into blood, may
+be defective either through weakness, superfluity, obstruction,
+corruption, or evil and hurtful diet, or
+through the disorders of other particular parts, which
+may disturb all the parts in general, as skilful Physicians
+have observed, and therefore apply remedies accordingly;
+for if the defect proceeds from weakness, they
+give strengthening remedies; if from superfluities, they
+give evacuating remedies; if from evil diets, they prescribe
+such a course of diet as shall be beneficial, and conducing
+for the restoring of health to the whole body.
+But your <i>Author</i>, as I perceive, believes the blood to
+be the chief vital part of the body; which surely it is
+not: for if it were, the least disturbance of the blood
+would endanger the life of the whole body, and the
+least diminution would cause a total dissolution of that
+animal Creature which has blood: Not but that blood
+is as necessary as breath for respiration, and food for
+nourishment of the body; but too much blood is as
+dangerous to the life of the animal body, as too great a
+piece of food, which cannot be swallowed down, but
+doth stick in the throat, and stop the breath, or so much
+quantity as cannot be digested, for too great a fulness or
+abounding makes a stoppage of the blood, or which is
+worse, causes the veins to break, and an evil digestion,
+makes a corruption, or at least such disorder as to
+indanger the whole animal Figure. But some veins
+breed more blood, and some less, and some better, and
+some worse blood, some hotter, and some colder, some
+grosser, and some purer, some thicker, and some thinner;
+and some veins breed rather an evil juice or corrupt
+matter then pure blood; the truth is, blood is bred somewhat
+after the manner of Excrements, for the veins are
+somewhat like the guts, wherein the excrements are digested.
+But you will say, A man may live without excrements,
+but not without blood. I answer: a man
+can live no more without excrements and excremental
+humors, then he can without blood: but yet I am not
+of your <i>Authors</i> mind, that bleeding and purging are
+destructive; for superfluities are as dangerous as scarcities,
+nay more; like as an house filled with rubbish is
+in more danger to sink or fall, then that which is empty;
+and when a house is on fire, it is wisdom to take out
+the Moveables, but a folly to let them increase the flame.
+But your <i>Author</i> says, Blood-letting takes not onely
+away the bad, but also the good blood, by which it diminishes
+and impairs much the strength of the body. I
+will answer by way of question, Whether in War men
+would not venture the loss of some few friends, to gain
+the victory, or save the whole body of the Army: or
+whether the destroying of the enemies Army be not
+more advantageous, then the loss of some few friends?
+For although some good blood may issue out with the
+bad, yet the veins have more time, room, and some
+more power to get friendly juices from the several parts
+of the body, which will be more obedient, trusty, and
+true to the life and service of the whole body. But neither
+Fevers, nor any other distempers, will be more afraid
+of your <i>Authors</i> words, Stones, Spirits, as also
+Rings, Beads, Bracelets, and the like toys, fitter for
+Children to play withal, then for Physicians to use; then
+an Army of men will be of their enemies Colours, Ensigns,
+Feathers, Scarfs, and the like; knowing it must
+be Swords, Pistols, Guns, Powder and Bullets, that
+must do the business to destroy the enemy, and to gain
+the victory: Wherefore in Diseases it must be Bleeding,
+Purging, Vomiting, using of Clysters, and
+the like, if any good shall be done. 'Tis true, they
+must well be ordered, otherwise they will do more hurt
+then good; for Diseases are like Enemies, which sometimes
+take away our Armes for their own uses. But
+your <i>Author</i> says again, <i>That the Matter of a Fever
+floats not in the veins, nor sits nigh the heart.</i> I answer:
+There are several sorts of Fevers; for all Fevers are not
+produced after one and the same manner, or from
+one and the same cause, as is very well known to wise
+and experienced Physicians; but although some Fevers
+are not in the blood, yet that doth not prove, that
+the blood is never in a Fever; for sometimes the blood
+is in a Fever, and not the solid parts; and sometimes
+the fluid and moveable humors, and not the blood, or
+solid parts; and sometimes the solid parts, and not
+the blood, nor the liquid and moveable humors; and
+sometimes they are all in a Fever; and sometimes onely
+the radical parts, and neither the blood, humors,
+nor solid parts: and this last kind of Fever, which is a
+hectick Fever, in my opinion, is incureable; but the
+others may be cureable, if there be not too many varieties
+of distempers, or irregular motions. And as
+for a Fever in the solid parts, Letting of blood, and
+taking away the humor, may cure it; for the veins
+being empty, suck the heat out of the solid parts, which
+solid parts cannot draw out a distempered heat in the
+veins, and the opening of the veins gives vent to some
+of the interior heat to issue forth: Wherefore it is very
+requisite, that in all sorts of Fevers, except Hectick-Fevers,
+blood-letting should be used, not onely once,
+but often; for 'tis better to live with a little blood, and
+a little strength, which will soon be recovered, then
+to die with too much, or too hot and distempered
+blood. Also Purging, but especially Vomiting is
+very good; for if the humors be in a Feaver, they
+may infect the vital parts, as also the blood; but if they
+be not in a Fever, yet the solid parts or blood may do
+the same, and so make the contagion greater; for the
+humors are as the moveables in a house, which ought
+to be cast out if either they or the house should be on
+fire; and if a disorder proceeds from the error of a particular
+part, then care must be taken to rectifie that
+part for the health of the whole: Wherefore Physicians
+use in some cases Blood-letting, in some Purging, in
+some Vomiting, in some Bathing, in some Sweating, in
+some Cordials, especially after much evacuation, in
+some they prescribe a good diet, and in some they mix
+and prescribe partly one and partly the other, and in
+some cases they are forced to use all these remedies; for
+though great evacuations may cause weakness, yet
+they often save the life; and there is no Patient, but had
+rather lose some strength, then life; for life can gather
+strength again; but all strong men are not always long
+lived, nor all long-lived men very strong; for many
+that are but weak, will live to a very old age. Lastly,
+concerning what your <i>Author</i> says, that there is but one
+Choler and Phlegme in Nature; I answer, That is
+more then he knows: for all that is in Nature, is not
+nor cannot be known by any Particular Creature; and
+he might say, as well, the same of particular Metals, as
+that there is but one sort of Gold or Silver, when as there
+is great difference in the weight, purity, colour, and
+gloss, of several parts of Gold and Silver; Neither is
+all Gold found in one place; but some is found in Rocks,
+some in Sand, some in Mines, some in Stones; and so
+Silver, some is found in the bowels of the Earth, some in
+the veins of Stones, and some in other Metals, as Lead,
+and Iron, and some in Coals. And the like may be
+said of Choler and Phlegme; for they may be several in
+several places or parts of the body, and be of different
+colours, tastes, odours, and degrees of heat or cold,
+thinness or thickness, or the like; for though there is
+but one Matter in Nature, yet this onely Matter by its
+several actions or motions changes into several figures,
+and so makes several sorts of Creatures, and different
+particulars in every sort. And thus, <i>Madam</i>, I have
+delivered unto you my opinion concerning the cure of
+Fevers by Blood-letting: Which I submit to the correction
+of your better judgment, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_155" id="Footnote_1_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_155"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In his Treatise of Fevers, <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXIV" id="III_XXXIV">XXXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is not onely against Phlebotomy or
+Blood-letting, but against all Purging Medicines,
+which he condemns to <i>carry a hidden poyson
+in them, and to be a cruel and stupid invention.</i> But certainly
+he shall not have my assent; for if they be Poyson,
+they are a very beneficial Poyson; and Physical Purgations,
+in my opinion, are very necessary and profitable
+for the prolonging of life, and taking away of diseases,
+provided they be proper for those diseases in which they
+are used; and so is Phlebotomy, Vomits, and the like:
+but Medicines are often wrong applyed, and many
+times the disease is so various, that it is as hard for a Physician
+to hit right with several Medicines, as for a Gunner
+or Shooter to kill with Powder and small Shot a Bird
+flying in the Air; not that it is not possible to be done,
+but it is not ordinary, or frequent: neither doth the
+fault onely lie in the Gun, Powder, or Shot, but in
+the swiftness of the flight of the Bird, or in the various
+motion of the air, or in a hidden wind, or mist, or the
+like; for the same Gunner may perhaps easily kill a Bird
+sitting in a bush, or hopping upon the ground. The
+like may be said of Diseases, Physicians, and Medicines;
+for some diseases have such hidden alterations, by
+the sudden changes of motions, that a wise Physician will
+not, nor cannot venture to apply so many several medicines
+so suddenly as the alteration requires; and shall
+therefore Physicians be condemned? and not onely
+condemned for what cannot be helped by reason of the
+variety of irregular motions, but what cannot be helped
+in Nature? For some diseases are so deadly, as no art can
+cure them, when as otherwise Physicians with good
+and proper medicines, have, and do as yet rescue more
+people from death, then the Laws do from ruine. Nay,
+I have known many that have been great enemies to
+Physick, die in the flower of their age, when as others
+which used themselves to Physick, have lived a very
+long time. But you may say, Country-people and
+Labourers, take little or no Physick, and yet grow
+most commonly old, whereas on the contrary, Great
+and rich Persons take much Physick, and do not live so
+long as the common sort of men doth. I answer: It is
+to be observed, first, that there are more Commons,
+then Nobles, or Great and rich persons; and there is
+not so much notice taken of the death of a mean, as
+of a noble, great, or rich person; so that for want of
+information or knowledg, one may easily be deceived
+in the number of each sort of persons. Next, the Vulgar
+sort use laborious exercises, and spare diet; when
+as noble and rich persons are most commonly lazie and
+luxurious, which breeds superfluities of humors, and
+these again breed many distempers: For example, you
+shall find few poor men troubled with the Gout, Stone,
+Pox, and the like diseases, nor their Children with
+Rickets; for all this cometh by luxury, and no doubt
+but all other diseases are sooner bred with luxury, then
+temperance; but whatsoever is superfluous, may, if not
+be taken away, yet mediated with lenitive and laxative
+medicines. But as for Physicians, surely never age
+knew any better, in my opinion, then this present, and
+yet most of them follow the rules of the Schools, which
+are such as have been grounded upon Reason, Practice,
+and Experience, for many ages: Wherefore those that
+will wander from the Schools, and follow new and unknown
+ways, are, in my opinion, not Orthodoxes,
+but Hereticks in the Art of Physick. But to return to
+your <i>Author</i>, give me leave, <i>Madam</i>, to consider what his
+opinions are concerning the Purging of Choler; <i>Come
+on</i>, says he to the Schools,<a name="FNanchor_1_156" id="FNanchor_1_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_156" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Why doth that, your Choler
+following with so swift an efflux, stink so horribly,
+which but for one quarter of an hour before did not stink?</i>
+To which it may be answered, That though humors
+may not stink in themselves, yet the excrements mixt
+with the humors may stink; also the very passing thorow
+the excrements will cause a strong savour. But
+your <i>Author</i> thinks, That <i>by passing through so suddenly,
+the humors cannot borrow such a smell of stinking dung from
+the Intestines.</i> Truly, 'tis easily said, but hardly proved,
+and the contrary is manifest by putting clear, pure
+water into a stinking vessel, which straightway is corrupted
+with an ill smell. He talks also of <i>Vitriol dissolved in
+Wine, which if it be taken, presently provokes vomit; but
+if after drinking it, any one shall drink thereupon a draught
+of Ale or Beer, or Water, &amp;c. he indeed shall suffer many
+stools, yet wholly without stink.</i> I answer: This expresses
+Vitriol to be more poysonous, by taking away
+the natural savour of the bowels, then Scammony, Coloquintida,
+Manna, Cassia, Sena, Rhubarb, &amp;c.
+to all which your <i>Author</i> is a great enemy; and it is
+well known to experienced Physicians, that Medicines
+prepared by the art of fire are more poysonous and dangerous
+then natural drugs; nay, I dare say, that many
+Chymical Medicines, which are thought to be Cordials,
+and have been given to Patients for that purpose,
+have proved more poysonous then any Purging Physick.
+Again your <i>Author</i> says, <i>It is worthy of Lamentation,
+that Physicians would have loosening things draw
+out one humor, and not another, by selection or choyce.</i> My
+answer is, That natural drugs and simples are as wise in
+their several operations, as Chymists in their artificial
+distillations, extractions, sublimations, and the like;
+but it has long been observed by Physicians, that one
+simple will work more upon one part of the body, then
+upon another; the like may be said of humors. But
+give me leave to tell you, <i>Madam</i>, that if your <i>Author</i>
+believes magnetick or attractive cures (as he doth, and
+in whose behalf he makes very long discourses) he
+doth in this opinion contradict himself. He may say,
+perhaps, There is no such thing as what Physicians
+name humors. But grant there be none, yet he cannot
+deny that there are offensive juices, or moveable substances
+made by evil, as irregular digestions, which
+may be troublesom and hurtful to the nature of the body.
+Or perchance he will say, There are such humors,
+but they are beneficial and not offensive to the
+nature of the body. I answer: Then he must make
+an agreement with every part of the body, not to make
+more of these humors then is useful for the body. Also he
+mentions some few that took Purging Physick, and died.
+Truly so they might have done without taking it: but
+he doth not tell, how many have died for want of proper
+and timely Purges. In truth, <i>Madam</i>, 'tis an easie
+thing to find fault, but not so easie to mend it. And as
+for what he speaks of the weighing of those humors and
+excrements, which by purging were brought out of
+some Princes body, and how much by the Schools rules
+remained, and of the place which should maintain the
+remainder; I onely say this, that all the several sorts of
+juices, humors, or moveable substances in a body, do
+not lie in one place, but are dispersed, and spread all
+about and in several parts and places in the body; so
+that the several Laxative medicines do but draw them
+together, or open several parts, that they may have
+freedom to travel with their chief Commanders, which
+are the Purging medicines. But your <i>Author</i> says,
+the Loadstone doth not draw rust. And I say, no
+more do Purging drugs draw out pure Matter: for
+it may be as natural for such medicines to draw or work
+onely upon superfluities, that is, corrupted, or evil-affected
+humors, juices or moveable substances, as for the
+Loadstone to draw Iron; and so it may be the property
+of Purges to draw onely the rust of the body, and not
+the pure metal, which are good humors. But few do
+consider or observe sufficiently the variety of Natures
+actions, and the motions of particular natural Creatures,
+which is the cause they have no better success in their
+cures. And so leaving them to a more diligent inquisition
+and search into Nature, and her actions, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_156" id="Footnote_1_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_156"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In his Treatise of Fevers, <i>c.</i> 5.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXV" id="III_XXXV">XXXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I find your <i>Author</i> to be as great an enemy to Issues,
+Cauteries, Clysters, and the like, as he is to Blood-letting
+and Purging; especially to Issues, which he
+counts to be blasphemous against the Creator, and
+blames much the Schools for prescribing them. But
+concerning Blood-letting and Purging, I have declared
+my opinion in my former Letters; and if you desire
+my judgment of Clysters and Issues, I must needs tell
+you, that it is well known these many ages, that in such
+diseases which lie in the guts, and cause pain in the head,
+and stop the ureteres, Clysters have been very beneficial,
+but wise Physicians do not prescribe them, unless
+upon necessity: As for example; if the disease in the
+Guts proceed from cold or wind, they prescribe a Sack-Clyster,
+with oyl of Walnuts; and if the disease in the
+guts proceed from a sharp or bitter humor, then they
+prescribe Milk, or Posset, sweetned with Sugar: the
+same if the guts be too full of excrements or slime. But
+in case of diseases in the head or stomack, they prescribe
+attractive Clysters, to wit, such as draw down from the
+upper into the lower parts, wherein the Physical drugs
+are; and if the guts be too dry, or dryer then their nature
+requires, they prescribe moistening Clysters, such
+as have not onely wetting, but slimy qualities. And
+surely Clysters properly and timely applyed, are a safe,
+speedy, easie and profitable medicine, and far more
+safe then Chymical Salts, Tartars, Spirits, or the like.
+Next concerning Issues and Cauteries, your <i>Author</i>,
+I say, is so much against them, as he counts them a blasphemy;
+for says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_157" id="FNanchor_1_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_157" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>I have beheld always an implicite
+blasphemy in a Cautery, whereby they openly accuse the Creator
+of insufficiency in framing the emunctories; for I have
+bidden above a thousand Issues to be filled up with flesh.</i>
+Also, <i>That which God hath made whole and entire, that
+it might be very good, seems to the Schools, that it should be
+better if it be kept wounded.</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, in my
+opinion, it is no blasphemy at all, neither directly nor
+indirectly, to make Issues, but a meer superstition to believe
+the contrary, <i>viz.</i> that they are blasphemy, and
+a great folly not to make them when need requires it to
+the preservation of ones health. <i>God has made our body
+whole and intire</i>, says your <i>Author</i>: by which he will
+prove that no holes must be made in the body to let out
+excrementious matter, and therefore he thinks that body
+to be whole and intire which is without an Issue,
+when as yet our bodies have numerous issues, which are
+the pores of the skin, to let out sweat; and therefore if
+he counts that body not to be whole and intire that has
+Issues, then no humane body is intire. Certainly, no
+Artificial Issue will make the body maimed, but it will
+nevertheless continue whole and intire although it has
+Issues. He says it is Blasphemy; But how will he
+prove it? Surely not by the Scripture; and if not by
+the Scripture, then it is a blasphemy according to his
+own brain and fancy. 'Tis true, God gave no express
+Command to make Issues; but according to your <i>Author</i>,
+God did never create Diseases, and so there was
+no need either to make such Issues in bodies as to let out
+distempered Matter, or to give any command for them;
+but we might as well say, we must not use any Physick,
+because it is not so natural to man as food, and serves
+not for the nourishment of the body, but onely to keep
+off, or drive out diseases: Also no stone must be cut,
+but man must rather indure torment and death. But
+setting aside this superstitious doctrine of your <i>Author</i>,
+it is evident enough, and needs no proof, that Cancers,
+Fistulas, Wenns, Eating-evils, Madness, Fevers,
+Consumptions, Rheumes, Pleurisies, and numerous
+other diseases, are not better cured then by Issues, or
+making of wounds, either by Lancets, Pen-knifes,
+Scissers, Rasors, Corrosives, Causticks, Leeches, or the
+like. And although your <i>Author</i> says, That <i>that Matter
+which proceeds from, or out of an Issue, is made in the lips
+of the wound, and not in the body; for it cannot possibly
+drain or draw out any moisture, either from within or
+between the skin and the flesh, having no passages</i>: Yet if
+this were so, how come Fistulas, Cancers, and the
+like diseases, to have passages from within the body
+to the exterior parts, so, as to make a wound, out
+of which much sharp and salt humor issues? which humor
+certainly is not made in the lips of the wound, but
+in the body: Also whence comes the humor that makes
+the Gout? For though the swelling and inflammation
+will sometimes appear exteriously, yet after some time
+those tumors and humors retire back into the body from
+whence they did flow; but he might as well say that
+Pit-falls or Sluces do not drain Land from a superfluity
+of Water, as that Issues do not drain the body of superfluous
+humors. Wherefore I am absolutely of opinion,
+that the Practice of the Schools is the best and
+wisest Practice, as well in making Issues, letting blood,
+Purging by Siege or Vomits, as any other means used
+by them; for by Issues I have seen many cured, when
+no other medicines would do any good with them; and
+letting blood, I am confident, hath rescued more lives,
+then the Universal Medicine, could Chymists find it
+out, perchance would do. So also Clysters and Vomits,
+skilfully applied, have done great benefits to the
+life of men; for every part and member hath its peculiar
+way to be purged and cleansed; for example, Clysters
+principally cleanse the Guts, Purges the Stomack,
+Vomits the Chest, Sneezing the Head, Bleeding the
+Veins, and Issues drain the whole body of naughty humors:
+All which remedies, properly and timely used,
+keep the body from being choak'd with superfluities.
+There are several other ways of cures besides for several
+diseases, but I leave those to learned and skilful Physicians,
+who know best how and when to use them to
+the benefit and health of their Patients, although
+your <i>Author</i> finds much fault with them, and blames
+them for suffering men to die miserably; but God has
+given power to Nature to make certain dissolutions, although
+uncertain diseases, and uncertain remedies.
+Neither hath she in her power to give Immortal Life
+to particular Creatures, for this belongs to God alone,
+and therefore no Universal Medicine will keep out
+death, or prolong life further then its thread is spun,
+which I doubt is but a Chym�ra, and an impossible
+thing, by reason there are not onely so many different
+varieties in several diseases, but in one and the same
+disease, as no Universal remedy would do any good.
+But your <i>Author</i> is much pleased with Paradoxes, and
+Paradoxes are not certain Truths: Wherefore it is
+better, in my judgment, to follow the old approved
+and practised way of the Schools, grounded upon Experience
+and Reason, then his Paradoxical Opinions.
+To which Schools, as your <i>Author</i> is a great Enemy, so
+I am a great Friend, as well as,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_157" id="Footnote_1_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_157"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of Cauteries.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXVI" id="III_XXXVI">XXXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I approve well of your <i>Authors</i> opinion,<a name="FNanchor_1_158" id="FNanchor_1_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_158" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> That <i>Drink
+ought not to be forbidden in Fevers</i>; but yet I would
+not allow so much as to drown and oppress the Patients
+life, but onely so much as to refresh and moisten
+him; and therefore the best way is to drink little and
+often. But as for Wine, which your <i>Author</i> commends
+in Fevers, I am utterly against it, unless the Fever
+proceed from a cold or crude cause, otherwise cooling
+Ptisans are most beneficial to those that are sick of a
+continual Fever, which for the most part is a general
+Fever throughout the whole body, one part infecting
+the other, until they be all infected, like as in the Plague.
+And to let you know the proof of it; when I was once
+sick beyond the Seas, I sent for a Doctor of Physick
+who was an Irish-man: and hearing of some that knew
+him, and his practice, that he was not successful in his
+Cures, but that his Patients most commonly died, I
+asked him what he used to prescribe in such or such diseases?
+where amongst the rest, as I remember, he told
+me, That he allowed his Patients to drink Wine in a
+Fever. I thought he was in a great error, and told
+him my opinion, that though Wine might be profitable,
+perhaps, to some few, yet for the most part it was
+very hurtful and destructive, alledging another famous
+Physician in <i>France</i>, Dr. <i>Davison</i>, who used in continual
+Fevers, to prescribe onely cooling Ptisan, made
+of a little Barley, and a great quantity of Water, so thin
+as the Barley was hardly perceived, and a spoonfull of
+syrup of Limmon put into a quart of the said Ptisan;
+but in case of a Flux, he ordered some few seeds of
+Pomegranats to be put into it, and this cold Ptisan was
+to be the Patients onely drink: Besides, once in Twenty
+four hours he prescribed a couple of potched Eggs, with
+a little Verjuice, and to let the Patient blood, if he was
+dry and hot; I mean dry exteriously, as from sweat;
+and that either often or seldom, according as occasion
+was found: Also he prescribed two grains of Laudanum
+every night, but neither to give the Patient meat
+nor drink two hours before and after: Which advice
+and Practice of the mentioned Physician concerning
+Fevers, with several others, I declared to this Irish
+Doctor, and he observing this rule, cured many, and
+so recovered his lost esteem and repute. But your <i>Author</i>
+being all for Wine, and against cooling drinks, or
+Julips, in hot Fevers, says, <i>That cooling means are more
+like to death, to cessation from motion, and to defect; but
+heat from moderate Wine is a mean like unto life.</i> To
+which I answer, first, That cold, or cooling things,
+are as active as hot or heating things; neither is death
+more cold then hot, nor life more hot then cold; for
+we see that Frost is as active and strong as burning heat;
+and Water, Air, and Earth, are as full of life, as Fire;
+and Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, have life as
+well as Animals: But we, feeling a Man's flesh cold
+when he is dissolving from an Animal, think death is
+cold; and seeing he was hot before the same alteration,
+say, Life is hot: Also finding an animal, when it is dissolving,
+to be without external local Motion, we say it
+is dead; and when it hath as yet this local motion
+before its alteration, we call it alive; which certainly
+is not proper. Next I say, that a wise Man when
+his house is fired, will fling or squirt water upon it,
+to quench it, and take out all moveables lest they
+should increase the flame; likewise he will make vent
+for the flame to issue forth. But perchance your
+<i>Author</i> may say, that Fevers are not hot. Truly,
+in my opinion, he might say as well that Fire is
+cold. Again, he may say, That although the effect
+be hot, yet the cause is cold. I answer: That
+in some diseases, the effects become so firmly rooted,
+and so powerfull, that they must be more look'd
+upon then the cause: for such variety there is in
+Nature, that oftentimes, that which was now an
+effect, turns to be a cause, and again a cause an effect:
+For example; A cold cause often produces a
+hot effect, and this hot effect becomes again a cause
+of a cold effect: Which variation is not onely a
+trouble, but a great obstruction to wise Physicians;
+for Nature hath more varieties in diseases, then
+Physicians have remedies, And as for drink, if Fevers
+be neither hot, nor dry, nor require drink for
+want of moisture; then I see no reason why drink
+should be urged, and those Physicians blamed that
+forbid it; for if thirst proceed from an evil digestion,
+drink will rather weaken the stomack; for
+heat and driness draw soon away the drink in the
+stomack, and putting much into a weak stomack
+doth rather hurt then good. But if necessity require
+it, then I approve rather of raw and crude
+Water, then of hot inflaming Wine. And so taking
+my leave, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_158" id="Footnote_1_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_158"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of Fevers, <i>Ch.</i> 12.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXVII" id="III_XXXVII">XXXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In your <i>Authors</i> Treatise of Fevers, I find one
+Chapter<a name="FNanchor_1_159" id="FNanchor_1_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_159" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> whose Inscription is, <i>A Perfect Curing of
+all Fevers</i>, wherein he declares the secrets of the
+Cures of Fevers, consisting all in Chymical Medicines.
+But considering, that if all Fevers could be cured
+by such Medicines, then all Physicians would strive
+to obtain them; I can hardly believe (by your <i>Authors</i>
+favour) that any such perfect curing of all Fevers
+can be effected, but that your <i>Authors</i> prescriptions, if
+they should come to the tryal, might fail as well as any
+other. Likewise he mentions a Medicine of <i>Paracelsus</i>,
+Named <i>Diaceltesson</i>, or the <i>Coraline Secret</i>; which,
+he says, cures radically the Gout no less then Fevers:
+Which if so, I wonder why so many Great, Noble
+and Rich Persons, groan so much under the pains of the
+Gout; certainly it is not for want of cost to have them
+prepared, nor for want of an ingenious and experienced
+Chymist; for this age doth not want skilful workmen in
+that Art, nor worthy and wise Physicians, which if
+they knew such soveraign medicines, would soon apply
+them to their Patients; but I suppose that they
+finding their effects to be less then the cost and labour
+bestowed upon them, forbear to use them. Moreover,
+he mentions<a name="FNanchor_2_160" id="FNanchor_2_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_160" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> another remedy for most diseases,
+by him call'd <i>Driff</i>, prepared also by the Art of
+Chymistry; but I believe all those remedies will
+not so often cure, as fail of cure, like as the Sympathetical
+Powder; for if there were such soveraign
+medicines that did never fail of a successful effect, certainly
+men being curious, inquisitive, and searching,
+would never leave till they had found them out. Also
+amongst Vegetables, the herb <i>Chameleon</i> and <i>Arsmart</i>
+are in great request with your <i>Author</i>; For, says he,
+<i>they by their touching alone, do presently take away cruel
+diseases, or at leastwise ease them.</i> Which if so, I wonder
+that there is not more use made of them, and they
+held in greater esteem then they are; Also that your
+<i>Author</i> doth not declare the vertue of them, and the
+manner and way how, and in what diseases to use
+them, for the benefit of his neighbour, to which end,
+he says, all his labours and actions are directed? But
+again, your <i>Author</i> confirms, as an Eye-witness, <i>That
+the bone of the arm of a Toad presently has taken away
+the Tooth-ach at the first co-touching.</i> Which remedy, if
+it was constant, few, in my opinion, would suffer such
+cruel pains, and cause their teeth to be drawn out, especially
+if sound. Likewise of the mineral <i>Electrum
+or Amber</i> of <i>Paracelsus</i>, he affirms<a name="FNanchor_3_161" id="FNanchor_3_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_161" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> to have seen, that
+<i>hung about the neck, it has freed those that were persecuted
+by unclean spirits</i>, and that many simples have
+done the like effects; but surely, <i>Madam</i>, I cannot be
+perswaded that the Devil should be put away so easily;
+for he being a Spirit, will not be chased by corporeal
+means, but by spiritual, which is Faith, and Prayer;
+and the cure of dispossessing the Devil belongs to Divines,
+and not to Natural Philosophers or Physicians.
+But though exterior remedies, as Amulets, Pomanders,
+and the like, may perform sometimes such effects
+as to cure or preserve from some diseases, yet they are
+not ordinary and constant, but meerly by chance. But
+there are more false remedies then true ones, and if one
+remedy chance to work successfully with one distempered
+person, it may fail of its success applyed to others
+in the same kind of distemper; nay, it may cure perhaps
+one and the same person of a distemper once, and in the
+return of the same disease effect little or nothing; witness
+those remedies that are applyed in Agues, Tooth-aches,
+and the like, especially Amulets; for one
+and the same disease in several persons, or in one and
+the same person at several times, may vary and change
+so often, and proceed from so different causes, and be
+of so different tempers, and have such different motions,
+as one and the same medicine can do no good: And
+what would the skill of Physicians be, if one remedy
+should cure all diseases? Why should they take so
+much pains in studying the various causes, motions, and
+tempers of diseases, if one medicine had a general power
+over all? Nay, for what use should God have created
+such a number of different simples, Vegetables, and
+Minerals, if one could do all the business? Lastly,
+your <i>Author</i> rehearses<a name="FNanchor_4_162" id="FNanchor_4_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_162" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> some strange examples of Child-bearing
+Women, who having seen terrible and cruel
+sights, as Executions of Malefactors, and dismembring
+of their bodies, have brought forth monstrous births,
+without heads, hands, arms, leggs, &amp;c. according to the
+objects they had seen. I must confess, <i>Madam</i>, that all
+Creatures are not always formed perfect; for Nature
+works irregularly sometimes, wherefore a Child may
+be born defective in some member or other, or have
+double members instead of one, and so may other animal
+Creatures; but this is nevertheless natural, although
+irregular to us: but to have a Child born perfect in the
+womb, and the lost member to be taken off there, and
+so brought forth defective, as your <i>Author</i> mentions,
+cannot enter my belief; neither can your <i>Author</i>
+himself give any reason, but he makes onely a bare relation
+of it; for certainly, if it was true, that the member
+was chopt, rent or pluckt off from the whole body of
+the Child, it could not have been done without a violent
+shock or motion of the Mother, which I am confident
+would never have been able to endure it; for such a
+great alteration in her body, would of necessity, besides
+the death of the Child, have caused a total dissolution of
+her own animal parts, by altering the natural animal
+motions: But, as I said above, those births are caused
+by irregular motions, and are not frequent and ordinary;
+for if upon every strange sight, or cruel object, a Child-bearing-woman
+should produce such effects, Monsters
+would be more frequent then they are. In short, Nature
+loves variety, and this is the cause of all strange and
+unusual natural effects; and so leaving Nature to her
+will and pleasure, my onely delight and pleasure is to be,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>[Your] faithful Friend, and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_159" id="Footnote_1_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_159"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_160" id="Footnote_2_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_160"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> In the <i>Ch.</i> named <i>Butler</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_161" id="Footnote_3_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_161"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Ch. Of the manner of entrance of things darted
+into the body.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_162" id="Footnote_4_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_162"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of things injected into the body.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXVIII" id="III_XXXVIII">XXXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> reproving the Schools, that they
+forbid Salt to some diseased persons, as pernicious
+to their health: <i>Good God</i>, says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_163" id="FNanchor_1_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_163" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>how unsavoury
+are the Schools, and how unsavoury do they bid us to
+be!</i> But I suppose the Schools do not absolutely forbid
+all diseased persons to abstein from salt, but onely
+not to use it excessively, or too frequently; for experience
+proves, that salt meats have not onely increased,
+but caused diseases, as the Stone, the Gout, Sciatica,
+Fistula's, Cancers, sore Eyes, sore Throats,
+and the like: I do not say, that those diseases are always
+bred with the excess of salt diets; for diseases of
+one and the same kind, may be bred variously; but
+this hath been observed, that whosoever is affected
+with such diseases, shall after a salt meal find himself
+in more pain then before; wherefore a constant or
+common salt diet cannot but be hurtful. Neither are
+those persons that feed much on salt meats, or use strong
+drinks, take number for number, so healthful or long-lived,
+as those that are temperate and abstaining. Next,
+your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_2_164" id="FNanchor_2_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_164" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> bewails <i>The shameful simplicity of those,
+that give their Patients Leaf-Gold, Pearls, and bruised
+or powder'd pretious Stones, as Cordials, in fainting fits,
+and other distempers: For</i>, says he, <i>they may be dissolved,
+but not altered; wherefore they cannot produce any
+powerful effect to the health of the Patient.</i> Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I am not of his mind; for were it that those
+remedies or cordials could not be transchanged, yet
+their vertues may nevertheless be very beneficial to the
+sick: For example; a man that is assaulted by enemies,
+or by chance is fallen into a deep Pit, or is ready to be
+strangled, and in all not able to help himself, yet by
+the help of another man, may be rescued and freed
+from his danger, and from death, using such means
+as are able to release him, which either by drawing his
+Sword against his enemies, or by throwing a rope down
+into the Pit, and haling him out, or by cutting the
+rope by which he hung, may save him, and yet neither
+the man, nor any of his Instruments, as Sword, Rope,
+Knife, and the like, need to be transchanged. The
+like may be said of the aforementioned medicines or remedies;
+which if they be not transchangeable, yet
+they may nevertheless do such operations, as by their
+natural active qualities and proprieties to over-power the
+irregular motions in the natural parts of the body of the
+Patient; for many diseases proceed more from irregular
+motions then irregular parts: and although there is no
+motion without matter, yet one and the same matter
+may have divers and various changes of motions, and
+moving parts will either oppose or assist each other
+without transchanging. And truly, <i>Madam</i>, I wonder
+that your <i>Author</i> doth condemn such Cordials made
+of Leaf-gold, Pearls, powdered precious Stones, or
+the like, and yet verily believe, that Amber, Saphires,
+Emeraulds, Beads, Bracelets, &amp;c. outwardly applied
+or worn, can cure more then when inwardly taken;
+surely, if this be so, they cure more by Faith, then by
+Reason. But it seems your <i>Author</i> regulates the actions
+of Nature to the artificial actions of his Furnace, which
+although sometimes they produce wonderful effects, yet
+not such as Nature doth; for if they cure one, they
+commonly kill ten; nay, the best of their Medicine is so
+dangerous, as it ought not to be applied but in desperate
+cases: Wherefore Wise Physicians must needs be
+Provident and Cautious when they use them. And so
+leaving them, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_163" id="Footnote_1_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_163"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the disease of the Stone, <i>c.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_164" id="Footnote_2_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_164"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Of the reason or consideration of diet.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XXXIX" id="III_XXXIX">XXXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I will not dispute your <i>Authors</i> opinion concerning
+the Plague of Men, which he says,<a name="FNanchor_1_165" id="FNanchor_1_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_165" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>doth not infect
+Beasts, neither doth the plague of Beasts infect Men</i>;
+but rather believe it to be so: for I have observed that
+Beasts infect onely each other, to wit, those of their own
+kind, as Men do infect other Men. For example: the
+Plague amongst Horses continues in their own kind, and
+so doth the Plague amongst Sheep; and for any thing
+we know, there may be a plague amongst Vegetables,
+as well as amongst Animals, and they may not onely
+infect each other but also those Animals that do feed
+on those infectious Vegetables: so that Infections may
+be caused several ways; either by inbreathing and attracting
+or sucking in the Poyson of the Plague, or by eating
+and converting it into the substance of the body; for
+some kinds of poyson are so powerful, as to work onely
+by way of inbreathing. Also some sorts of Air may be
+full of infection, and infect many Men, Beasts, Birds,
+Vegetables, and the like; for Infections are variously
+produced, Internally as well as Externally, amongst
+several particular Creatures; for as the Plague may be
+made internally, or within the body of a particular
+Creature, without any exterior infection entring from
+without into the body, so an external Infection again
+may enter many several ways into the body. And
+thus there be many contagious diseases caused meerly
+by the internal motions of the body, as by fright, terror,
+conceit, fancy, imagination, and the like, and
+many by the taking of poysonous matter from without
+into the body; but all are made by the natural motions or
+actions of animate matter, by which all is made that is
+in Nature, and nothing is new, as <i>Solomon</i> says; but
+what is thought or seems to be new, is onely the variation
+of the Motions of this old Matter, which is Nature.
+And this is the reason that not every Age, Nation,
+or Creature, has always the like diseases; for as
+all the actions of Nature vary, so also do diseases. But
+to speak of the Plague, although I am of opinion, that
+the Plague of Beasts doth not infect Men, unless they
+be eaten; nor the plague of Men, Beasts; yet Magistrates
+do wisely in some places, that in the beginning of
+the plague of Men, they command Dogs and Cats to
+be kill'd, by reason, as your <i>Author</i> saith, <i>The skins and
+flesh of Brutes may be defiled with our Plague, and they
+may be pestiferous contagions unto us.</i> I will add one
+thing more, which doth concern the Poyson of Measels,
+whereof your <i>Author</i> is saying,<a name="FNanchor_2_166" id="FNanchor_2_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_166" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> That <i>it is onely proper
+to humane kind.</i> What kind of Measles he means, I
+know not; but certainly Hogs are often affected with
+that disease, as is vulgarly known; but whether they
+be different diseases in their kinds, and proceed from
+different motions, I will let others inquire. And so I
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_165" id="Footnote_1_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_165"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In the Plague-grave, <i>ch.</i> 17.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_166" id="Footnote_2_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_166"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> Call'd, <i>The Lunar Tribute</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XL" id="III_XL">XL.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning the disease of the Stone, your <i>Author</i>
+seems to be of an opinion, That the stone in the
+Bladder, and the stone in the Kidnies, are not
+made after one and the same manner: For, says he,<a name="FNanchor_1_167" id="FNanchor_1_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_167" class="fnanchor">[1]</a>
+<i>The Bladder and the same Urine in number procreates a
+duelech of another condition, then that which is made in
+the Kidney.</i> And truly, <i>Madam</i>, it may be so; for
+there are several ways or modes in irregularities, as
+well as regularities, and not every kind is alike, no not
+every Particular, but there is some difference between
+them: Wherefore, it may very well be, that the corporeal
+motions that make the stone in the Kidneys, are
+not just alike to those that make the stone in the Bladder;
+and as each sort of stone is different, so their particular
+causes ought to be different; but this is to be observed,
+that generally all diseases which produce hardness, are
+made by contracting, condensing and retenting motions,
+and therefore the remedies of them must be dilating,
+rarifying and dissolving. Next your <i>Author</i> says,
+<i>The Stone is not bred by heat, but heat is rather an effect
+of the stone; neither is a certain muscilage, or a slimy, snivelly
+Phlegme the cause or matter of the stone, but the
+stone is the cause of the phlegme.</i> But, in my judgment,
+it seems more probable, that a slimy matter is more proper
+for a stone to be made of, then that a stone should
+make slime, except it be in its dissolution; that is, when
+the stone, as in its generation or production it did change
+from a slimy or liquid substance to a stone by condensing
+and contracting motions, doth, by dilating and
+rarifying motions, dissolve again into such a liquid and
+slimy body. I will not say always, to wit, that the
+stone must needs be resolved into a slimy matter, but
+oftentimes it may be so. Neither can I absolutely affirm
+that either heat or cold onely is the cause of a
+stone; for some may be produced by hot, and some by
+cold contractions and densations, there being as many
+several sorts of stones as there are of other Creatures:
+But this is to be well noted, that as some sorts of hot
+contractions do make stones, so some sorts of hot dilations
+do dissolve them: The like of cold contractions
+and dilations. Again: your <i>Author</i> speaking of the
+womb wherein the stone is made; <i>Every generated
+thing or being</i>, says he, <i>must of necessity have a certain
+place or womb where it is produced; for there must needs
+be places wherein things may be made before they are bred.</i>
+I answer: As there is not any body without place, nor
+any place without body, so the womb is not the place
+of the body generated, neither before nor after its generation,
+no more then a man can be said to be in
+a room when he is not there, but every body carries
+its place along with it. Moreover, concerning the
+voiding of bloody Urine, which happens sometimes
+in the disease of the Stone, my opinion is, That it
+doth not always proceed from the Stone, but many
+times from the breaking or voluntary opening of some
+Veins. But as for the cure of the disease of the Stone
+your <i>Author,</i><a name="FNanchor_2_168" id="FNanchor_2_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_168" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> is pleased to affirm, <i>That no disease is incurable</i>,
+and so neither the disease of the Stone, <i>For he
+himself has cured many of the Stone to which they had
+been obedient for some years.</i> Indeed, <i>Madam</i>, I fear
+his words are more cheerful then effectual; however
+it may be possible, if the Kidneys be no ways impaired,
+or the Bladder hurt; but if there be some such imperfection
+in either or both, then it is as much, in my
+opinion, as to say, Man can do more then Nature
+doth: Neither can I believe, that then any of your <i>Authors</i>
+Chymical preparations, as <i>Aroph, Ludus, Alkahest</i>,
+and the like, if they were to be had, would do
+any good, no nor <i>Daucus</i>, or wild Carrot-seed, if
+the disease be as yet curable, will prove an effectual
+remedy for it, although your <i>Author</i> is pleased to relate
+an example of a man, to whom it did much good; for
+I can affirm the contrary by other the like Examples,
+that it never did any good to those that used it; nor the
+liquor of the Birch-tree, whose venue and efficacy I
+do not believe to be so great as your <i>Author</i> describes:<a name="FNanchor_3_169" id="FNanchor_3_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_169" class="fnanchor">[3]</a>
+But for the stoppage of Urine, Marsh-mallow and oyl
+of Almonds, which he despises, I approve to be good,
+and better then any of his Unknown, Chymical Secrets;
+for those Chymical Medicines, as he himself confesses,
+are hard to be had, especially <i>Alkahest</i>, which
+is onely to be obtained by a Particular favour from
+Heaven, and is rather a supernatural Gift, then a natural
+remedy. But your <i>Author</i> doth wisely, to commend
+such remedies as can never, or with great difficulty be
+obtained, and then to say that no disease is incurable.
+And so leaving him to his unknown secrets, and those
+to them that will use them, I am resolved to adhere to
+the Practice of the Schools, which I am confident will
+be more beneficial to the health of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your real and faithful</i></p>
+
+<p><i>Friend and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_167" id="Footnote_1_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_167"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the Stone, <i>ch.</i> 6. See the <i>ch.</i>
+called, <i>A Numero-Critical Paradox of supplies</i>.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_168" id="Footnote_2_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_168"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 7.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_169" id="Footnote_3_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_169"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XLI" id="III_XLI">XLI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> speaking of the <i>Gout</i>, and of that kind
+of Gout which is called <i>Hereditary</i>, says, <i>It consists
+immediately in the Spirit of Life.</i> First, as for
+that which is called an Hereditary Disease, propagated
+from Parents upon their Children; my opinion is, That
+it is nothing else but the same actions of the animate
+matter, producing the same effect in the Child as they
+did in the Parent: For example; the same motions
+which made the Gout in the Parent, may make the
+same disease in the Child; but every Child has not his
+Parents diseases, and many Children have such diseases
+as their Parents never had; neither is any disease tied
+to a particular Family by Generation, but they proceed
+from irregular motions, and are generally in all Mankind;
+and therefore properly there is no such thing as
+an hereditary propagation of diseases; for one and the
+same kind of disease may be made in different persons,
+never a kin to one another, by the like motions; but because
+Children have such a neer relation to their Parents
+by Generation, if they chance to have the same diseases
+with their Parents, men are apt to conclude it comes
+by inheritance; but we may as well say, that all diseases
+are hereditary; for there is not any disease in Nature
+but is produced by the actions of Nature's substance;
+and if we receive life and all our bodily substance
+by Generation from our Parents, we may be said to receive
+diseases too; for diseases are inherent in the matter
+or substance of Nature, which every Creature is a
+part of, and are real beings made by the corporeal motions
+of the animate matter, although irregular to us;
+for as this matter moves, so is Life or Death, Sickness
+or Health, and all natural effects; and we consisting of
+the same natural matter, are naturally subject as well to
+diseases as to health, according as the Matter moves.
+Thus all diseases are hereditary in Nature; nay, the
+Scripture it self confirms it, informing us, that diseases,
+as well as death, are by an hereditary propagation derived
+from <i>Adam</i> upon all Posterity. But as for the
+Gout, your <i>Authors</i> doctrine is,<a name="FNanchor_1_170" id="FNanchor_1_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_170" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That Life is not
+a body, nor proper to a body, nor the off-spring of corporeal
+Proprieties</i>,<a name="FNanchor_2_171" id="FNanchor_2_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_171" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> but a <i>meer No-thing</i>; and that <i>the
+Spirit of Life is a real being, to wit, the arterial blood
+resolved by the Ferment of the heart into salt air, and enlightned
+by life</i>,<a name="FNanchor_3_172" id="FNanchor_3_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_172" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> and that the Gout doth immediately
+consist in this spirit of life. All which how it doth agree,
+I cannot conceive; for that a real being should
+be enlightned by Nothing, and be a spirit of Nothing,
+is not imaginable, nor how the Gout should inhabit
+in the spirit of life; for then it would follow, that a
+Child, as soon as it is brought forth into the world,
+would be troubled with the Gout, if it be as natural to
+him as life, or have its habitation in the Spirit of Life.
+Also your <i>Author</i> is speaking of <i>an Appoplexy in the
+head, which takes away all sense and motion.</i> But surely,
+in my opinion, it is impossible that all sense and motion
+should be out of the head; onely that sense and
+motion, which is proper to the head, and to the nature
+of that Creature, is altered to some other sensitive
+and rational motions, which are proper to some other
+figure; for there is no part or particle of matter that has
+not motion and sense. I pray consider, <i>Madam</i>, is
+there any thing in Nature that is without motion? Perchance
+you will say, Minerals; but that is proved otherwise;
+as for example, by the sympathetical motion between
+the Loadstone and Iron, and between the Needle
+and the North, as also by the operation of Mercury,
+and several others; Wherefore there is no doubt,
+but all kinds, sorts and particulars of Creatures have
+their natural motions, although they are not all visible
+to us, but not such motions as are made by Gas, or Blas,
+or Ideas, &amp;c. but corporeal sensitive and rational motions,
+which are the actions of Natural Matter. You
+may say, Some are of opinion, that Sympathy and Antipathy
+are not Corporeal motions. Truly, whosoever
+says so, speaks no reason; for Sympathy and Antipathy
+are nothing else but the actions of bodies, and
+are made in bodies; the Sympathy betwixt Iron and
+the Loadstone is in bodies; the Sympathy between the
+Needle and the North is in bodies; the Sympathy of
+the Magnetic powder is in bodies. The truth is,
+there is no motion without a body, nor no body
+without motion. Neither doth Sympathy and Antipathy
+work at distance by the power of Immaterial
+Spirits, or rays, issuing out of their bodies, but by
+agreeable or disagreeable corporeal motions; for if
+the motions be agreeable, there is Sympathy; if disagreeable,
+there is Antipathy; and if they be equally
+found in two bodies, then there is a mutual Sympathy
+or Antipathy; but if in one body onely, and not
+in the other, there is but Sympathy or Antipathy
+on one side, or in one Creature. Lastly, concerning
+<i>swoonings or fainting fits</i>, your <i>Authors</i> opinion is, that
+they <i>proceed from the stomack</i>: Which I can hardly
+believe; for many will swoon upon the sight of some
+object, others at a sound, or report, others at the
+smell of some disagreeable odour, others at the taste of
+some or other thing that is not agreeable to their nature,
+and so forth: also some will swoon at the apprehension
+or conceit of something, and some by a
+disorder or irregularity of motions in exterior parts.
+Wherefore, my opinion is, that swoonings may proceed
+from any part of the body, and not onely from
+the stomack. But, <i>Madam</i>, I being no Physicianess
+may perhaps be in an error, and therefore I
+will leave this discourse to those that are thorowly
+learned and practised in this Art, and rest satisfied
+that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_170" id="Footnote_1_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_170"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Of the disease of the Stone, <i>c.</i> 9.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_171" id="Footnote_2_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_171"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Of the subject of inhering of diseases in the point of life.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_172" id="Footnote_3_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_172"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> Of the Spirit of Life.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XLII" id="III_XLII">XLII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i><a name="FNanchor_1_173" id="FNanchor_1_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_173" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> is inquiring whether some cures of
+diseases may be effected by bare co-touchings; and
+I am of his opinion, they may; for co-touchings
+of some exterior objects may cause alterations of some
+particular motions in some particular parts of matter,
+without either transferring their own motions into those
+parts, (for that this is impossible, I have heretofore declared)
+or without any corporeal departing from their
+own parts of matter into them, and alterations may be
+produced both in the motions and figures of the affected
+parts: but these cures are not so frequent as those that
+are made by the entring of medicines into the diseased
+parts, and either expel the malignant matter, or rectifie
+the irregular and disordered motions, or strengthen
+the weak, or reduce the straying, or work any other
+ways according to the nature and propriety of their
+own substance, and the disposition of the distempered
+parts: Nevertheless, those cures which are performed exteriously,
+as to heal inward affects by an outward bare
+co-touching, are all made by natural motions in natural
+substances, and not by <i>Non</i>-beings, substancelesse Ideas,
+or spiritual Rays; for those that will cure diseases
+by <i>Non</i>-beings, will effect little or nothing; for a disease
+is corporeal or material, and so must the remedies
+be, there being no cure made but by a conflict of the remedy
+with the disease; and certainly, if a <i>non</i>-being
+fight against a being, or a corporeal disease, I doubt it
+will do no great effect; for the being will be too
+strong for the <i>non</i>-being: Wherefore my constant opinion
+is, that all cures whatsoever, are perfected by the
+power of corporeal motions, working upon the affected
+parts either interiously or exteriously, either by applying
+external remedies to external wounds, or by curing
+internal distempers, either by medicines taken internally,
+or by bare external co-touchings. And such a remedy,
+I suppose, has been that which your <i>Author</i> speaks
+of, a stone of a certain Irish-man, which by a
+meer external contact hath cured all kinds of diseases,
+either by touching outwardly the affected parts, or by
+licking it but with the tip of the Tongue, if the disease
+was Internal: But if the vertue of the Stone was such, as
+your <i>Author</i> describes, certainly, what man soever
+he was that possessed such a jewel, I say, he was rather
+of the nature of the Devil, then of man, that would not
+divulge it to the general benefit of all mankind; and I
+wonder much, that your <i>Author</i>, who otherwise pretends
+such extraordinary Devotion, Piety, and Religiousness,
+as also Charity, <i>viz.</i> that all his works he
+has written, are for the benefit of his neighbour, and to
+detect the errors of the Schools meerly for the good of
+man, doth yet plead his cause, saying, That <i>secrets,
+as they are most difficultly prepared, so they ought to remain
+in secret forever in the possession of the Privy Councel</i>,
+what Privy Counsels he means, I know not; but
+certainly some are more difficult to be spoken to, or any
+thing to be obtained from, then the preparation of a
+Physical Arcanum. However, a general good or benefit
+ought not to be concealed or kept in privy Councels,
+but to be divulged and publickly made known, that
+all sorts of People, of what condition, degree, or Nation
+soever, might partake of the general blessing and
+bounty of God. But, <i>Madam</i>, you may be sure, that
+many, who pretend to know Physical secrets, most
+commonly know the least, as being for the most part of
+the rank of them that deceive the simple with strange
+tales which exceed truth; and to make themselves more
+authentical, they use to rail at others, and to condemn
+their skill, onely to magnifie their own: I say, many,
+<i>Madam</i>, as I have observed, are of that nature, especially
+those, that have but a superficial knowledg in the
+Art of Physick; for those that are thorowly learned, and
+sufficiently practised in it, scorn to do the like; which
+I wish may prosper and thrive by their skill. And so
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_173" id="Footnote_1_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_173"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> In the <i>ch.</i> call'd <i>Butler</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XLIII" id="III_XLIII">XLIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your <i>Author</i> is pleased to relate a story<a name="FNanchor_1_174" id="FNanchor_1_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_174" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> of one that
+died suddenly, and being dissected, there was not
+the least sign of decay or disorder found in his body.
+But I cannot add to those that wonder, when no
+sign of distemper is found in a man's body after he is
+dead; because I do not believe, that the subtillest, learnedst,
+and most practised Anatomist, can exactly tell
+all the Interior Government or motions, or can find out
+all obscure and invisible passages in a mans body; for
+concerning the motions, they are all altered in death,
+or rather in the dissolution of the animal figure; and although
+the exterior animal figure or shape doth not alter
+so soon, yet the animal motions may alter in a moment
+of time; which sudden alteration may cause a sudden
+death, and so the motions being invisible, the cause
+of death cannot be perceived; for no body can find
+that which is not to be found, to wit, animal motions
+in a dead man; for Nature hath altered these motions
+from being animal motions to some other kind of motions,
+she being as various in dissolutions, as in productions,
+indeed so various, that her ways cannot be traced
+or known thorowly and perfectly, but onely by piece-meals,
+as the saying is, that is, but partly: Wherefore
+man can onely know that which is visible, or subject
+to his senses; and yet our senses do not always inform
+us truly, but the alterations of grosser parts are
+more easily known, then the alterations of subtil corporeal
+motions, either in general, or in particular; neither
+are the invisible passages to be known in a dead
+Carcass, much less in a living body. But, I pray,
+mistake me not, when I say, that the animal motions
+are not subject to our exterior senses; for I do not mean
+all exterior animal motions, nor all interior animal motions;
+for though you do see no interior motion in an
+animal body, yet you may feel some, as the motion of
+the Heart, the motion of the Pulse, the motion of
+the Lungs, and the like; but the most part of the interior
+animal motions are not subject to our exterior senses;
+nay, no man, he may be as observing as he will,
+can possibly know by his exterior senses all the several
+and various interior motions in his own body, nor all the
+exterior motions of his exterior parts: and thus it remains
+still, that neither the subtillest motions and parts
+of matter, nor the obscure passages in several Creatures,
+can be known but by several parts; for what one part is
+ignorant of, another part is knowing, and what one
+part is knowing, another part is ignorant thereof; so
+that unless all the Parts of Infinite Matter were joyned
+into one Creature, there can never be in one particular
+Creature a perfect knowledg of all things in Nature.
+Wherefore I shall never aspire to any such knowledg,
+but be content with that little particular knowledg, Nature
+has been pleased to give me, the chief of which is,
+that I know my self, and especially that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_174" id="Footnote_1_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_174"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 61. called, <i>The Preface</i>.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XLIV" id="III_XLIV">XLIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I perceive you are desirous to know the cause, <i>Why
+a man is more weak at the latter end of a disease then at
+the beginning, and is a longer time recovering health,
+then loosing health</i>; as also <i>the reason of relapses and intermissions?</i>
+First, as for weakness and strength, my
+opinion is, they are caused by the regular and irregular
+motions in several parts, each striving to over-power
+the other in their conflict; and when a man recovers
+from a disease, although the regular motions
+have conquered the irregular, and subdued them to
+their obedience, yet they are not so quite obedient as
+they ought, which causes weakness: Neither do the
+regular motions use so much force in Peace, as in
+War; for though animate matter cannot lose force,
+yet it doth not always use force; neither can the parts
+of Nature act beyond their natural power, but they
+do act within their natural power; neither do they
+commonly act to the utmost of their power. And as
+for Health, why it is sooner lost then recovered; I
+answer, That it is easier to make disorders then to
+rectifie them: as for example, in a Common-wealth,
+the ruines of War are not so suddenly repaired, as
+made. But concerning Relapses and Intermissions of
+diseases, Intermissions are like truces or cessations from
+War for a time; and Relapses are like new stirs or tumults
+of Rebellion; for Rebels are not so apt to settle in
+peace as to renew the war upon slight occasions; and if
+the regular motions of the body be stronger, they reduce
+them again unto obedience. But diseases are
+occasioned many several ways; for some are made by
+a home Rebellion, and others by forreign enemies, and
+some by natural and regular dissolutions, and their
+cures are as different; but the chief Magistrates or Governors
+of the animal body, which are the regular motions
+of the parts of the body, want most commonly
+the assistance of forreign Parts, which are Medicines,
+Diets, and the like; and if there be factions amongst
+these chief Magistrates, or motions of the parts of the
+body, then the whole body suffers a ruine. But since
+there would be no variety in Nature, nor no difference
+between Natures several parts or Creatures, if her
+actions were never different, but always agreeing and
+constant, a war or rebellion in Nature cannot be avoided:
+But, mistake me not, for I do not mean a
+war or rebellion in the nature or substance of Matter,
+but between the several parts of Matter, which are the
+several Creatures, and their several Motions; for
+Matter being always one and the same in its nature, has
+nothing to war withal; and surely it will not quarrel
+with its own Nature. Next you desire to know, that
+if Nature be in a Perpetual motion, <i>Whence comes a duration
+of some things, and a Tiredness, Weariness, Sluggishness,
+or Faintness?</i> I answer, first, That in some
+bodies, the Retentive motions are stronger then the
+dissolving motions; as for example, Gold, and Quicksilver
+or Mercury; the separating and dissolving motions
+of Fire have onely power to melt and rarifie them
+for a time, but cannot alter their nature: so a Hammer,
+or such like instrument, when used, may beat Gold,
+and make it thin as a Cobweb, or as dust, but cannot
+alter its interior nature: But yet this doth not prove it
+to be either without motion, or to be altogether unalterable,
+and not subject to any dissolution; but onely
+that its retentive motions are too strong for the dissolving
+motions of the Fire, which by force work upon
+the Gold; and we might as well say, that Sand, or an
+Earthen Vessel, or Glass, or Stone, or any thing else,
+is unalterable, and will last eternally, if not disturbed. But
+some of Natures actions are as industrious to keep their
+figures, as others are to dissolve, or alter them; and
+therefore Retentive motions are more strong and active
+in some figures, then dissolving motions are in others,
+or producing motions in other Figures. Next, as for
+Tiredness, or Faintness of motions, there is no such
+thing as tiredness or faintness in Nature, for Nature
+cannot be tired, nor grow faint, or sick, nor be pained,
+nor die, nor be any ways defective; for all this is onely
+caused through the change and variety of the corporeal
+motions of Nature, and her several parts; neither
+do irregular motions prove any defect in Nature, but
+a prudence in Natures actions, in making varieties and
+alterations of Figures; for without such motions or
+actions, there could not be such varieties and alterations
+in Nature as there are: neither is slackness of some motions
+a defect, for Nature is too wise to use her utmost
+force in her ordinary works; and though Nature is infinite,
+yet it is not necessary she should use an infinite
+force and power in any particular act. Lastly, you
+desire my opinion, <i>Whether there be motion in a dead
+animal Creature.</i> To which, I answer: I have declared
+heretofore, that there is no such thing as death
+in Nature, but what is commonly named death, is
+but an alteration or change of corporeal motions, and
+the death of an animal is nothing else but the dissolving
+motions of its figure; for when a man is dying, the
+motions which did formerly work to the consistence
+of his figure do now work to the dissolution of his figure,
+and to the production of some other figures,
+changing and transforming every part thereof; but
+though the figure of that dead animal is dissolved, yet
+the parts of that dissolved figure remain still in Nature
+although they be infinitely changed, and will do so
+eternally, as long as Nature lasts by the Will of God;
+for nothing can be lost or annihilated in Nature. And
+this is all, <i>Madam</i>, that I can answer to your questions,
+wherein, I hope, I have obeyed your commands,
+according to the duty of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="III_XLV" id="III_XLV">XLV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have thus far discharged my duty, that according
+to your commands, I have given you my judgment
+of the works of those four famous Philosophers of
+our age, which you did send me to peruse, and have
+withal made reflexions upon some of their opinions in
+Natural Philosophy, especially those, wherein I did
+find them dissent from the Ground and Principles of
+my own Philosophy. And since by your leave I am
+now publishing all those Letters which I have hitherto
+written to you concerning those aforesaid Authors, and
+their Works, I am confident I shall not escape the censures
+of their followers; But, I shall desire them,
+that they will be pleased to do me this Justice, and to
+examine first my opinions well, without any partiality
+or wilful misinterpretation of my sence, before they pass
+their censure: Next, I desire them to consider, That
+I have no skill in School-learning, and therefore for
+want of terms of Art may easily chance to slip, or at
+least, not express my opinions so clearly as my readers
+expected; However, I have done my endeavour, and
+to my sense and reason they seem clear and plain enough,
+especially as I have expressed them in those
+Letters I have sent you; for concerning my other Work,
+called <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, I must confess, that it
+might have been done more exactly and perspicuously,
+had I been better skilled in such words and expressions
+as are usual in the Schools of Philosophers; and therefore,
+if I be but capable to learn names and terms of Art,
+(although I find my self very untoward to learn, and
+do despair of proving a Scholar) I will yet endeavour
+to rectifie that work, and make it more intelligible; for
+my greatest ambition is to express my conceptions so,
+that my Readers may understand them: For which I
+would not spare any labour or pains, but be as industrious
+as those that gain their living by their work;
+and I pray to God, that Nature may give me a capacity
+to do it. But as for those that will censure my
+works out of spite and malice, rather then according to
+justice, let them do their worst; for if God do but bless
+them, I need not to fear the power of Nature, much
+less of a part of Nature, as Man. Nay, if I have
+but your Ladiships approbation, it will satisfie me; for
+I know you are so wise and just in your judgment, that
+I may safely rely upon it: For which I shall constantly
+and unfeignedly remain as long as I live,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships most faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h2><a name="SECT_IV" id="SECT_IV">SECT. IV.</a></h2>
+
+
+<h3>I.</h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I perceive, you take great delight in
+the study of Natural Philosophy,
+since you have not onely sent me
+some Authors to peruse, and give
+my judgment of their opinions, but
+are very studious your self in the
+reading of Philosophical Works:
+and truly, I think you cannot spend your time more
+honourably, profitably, and delightfully, then in the
+study of Nature, as to consider how Variously,
+Curiously, and Wisely, she acts in her Creatures;
+for if the particular knowledg of a mans self be commendable,
+much more is the knowledg of the general
+actions of Nature, which doth lead us to the knowledg
+of our selves. The truth is, by the help of Philosophy
+our minds are raised above our selves, into the
+knowledg of the Causes of all natural effects. But
+leaving the commending of this noble study, you are
+pleased to desire my opinion of a very difficult and intricate
+argument in Natural Philosophy, to wit, of
+Generation, or Natural Production. I must beg leave to
+tell you, first, that some (though foolishly) believe, it is not
+fit for Women to argue upon so subtil a Mystery: Next,
+there have been so many learned and experienced Philosophers,
+Physicians, and Anatomists, which have
+treated of this subject, that it might be thought a great
+presumption for me, to argue with them, having neither
+the learning nor experience by practice which they
+had: Lastly, There are so many several ways and
+manners of Productions in Nature, as it is impossible
+for a single Creature to know them all: For there
+are Infinite variations made by self-motion in Infinite
+Matter, producing several Figures, which are several
+Creatures in that same Matter. But you would fain
+know, how Nature, which is Infinite Matter, acts
+by self-motion? Truly, <i>Madam</i>, you may as well
+ask any one part of your body, how every other part
+of your body acts, as to ask me, who am but a small
+part of Infinite Matter, how Nature works. But yet,
+I cannot say, that Nature is so obscure, as her Creatures
+are utterly ignorant; for as there are two of the
+outward sensitive organs in animal bodies, which are
+more intelligible then the rest, to wit, the Ear, and the
+Eye; so in Infinite Matter, which is the body of Nature,
+there are two parts, which are more understanding
+or knowing then the rest, to wit, the Rational and
+Sensitive part of Infinite Matter; for though it be true,
+That Nature, by self-division, made by self-motion into
+self-figures, which are self-parts, causes a self-obscurity to
+each part, motion, and figure; nevertheless, Nature
+being infinitely wise and knowing, its infinite natural
+wisdom and knowledg is divided amongst those infinite
+parts of the infinite body: and the two most intelligible
+parts, as I said, are the sensitive and rational
+parts in Nature, which are divided, being infinite,
+into every Figure or Creature; I cannot say equally
+divided, no more, then I can say, all creatures are of
+equal shapes, sizes, properties, strengths, quantities,
+qualities, constitutions, semblances, appetites, passions,
+capacities, forms, natures, and the like; for Nature
+delights in variety, as humane sense and reason
+may well perceive: for seldom any two creatures are
+just alike, although of one kind or sort, but every
+creature doth vary more or less. Wherefore it is not
+probable, that the production or generation of all or
+most Creatures, should be after one and the same manner
+or way, for else all Creatures would be just alike
+without any difference. But this is to be observed,
+that though Nature delights in variety, yet she doth
+not delight in confusion, but, as it is the propriety of
+Nature to work variously, so she works also wisely;
+which is the reason, that the rational and sensitive parts
+of Nature, which are the designing and architectonical
+parts, keep the species of every kind of Creatures
+by the way of Translation in Generation, or natural
+Production; for whatsoever is transferred, works according
+to the nature of that figure or figures from
+whence it was transferred, But mistake me not; for I
+do not mean always according to their exterior Figure,
+but according to their interior Nature; for different
+motions in one and the same parts of matter, make different
+figures, wherefore much more in several parts
+of matter and changes of motion; But, as I said,
+Translation is the chief means to keep or maintain the
+species of every kind of Creatures, which Translation
+in natural production or generation, is of the
+purest and subtilest substances, to wit, the sensitive
+and rational, which are the designing and architectonical
+parts of Nature. You may ask me, <i>Madam</i>,
+what this wise and ingenious Matter is. I answer:
+It is so pure, subtil, and self-active, as our humane
+shares of sense and reason cannot readily or perfectly
+perceive it; for by that little part of knowledg that a humane
+creature hath, it may more readily perceive the
+strong action then the purer substance; for the strongest
+action of the purest substance is more perceivable
+then the matter or substance it self; which is the cause,
+that most men are apt to believe the motion, and
+to deny the matter, by reason of its subtilty; for
+surely the sensitive and rational matter is so pure and
+subtil, as not to be expressed by humane sense and reason.
+As for the rational matter, it is so pure, fine,
+and subtil, that it may be as far beyond lucent matter, as
+lucent matter is beyond gross vapours, or thick clouds;
+and the sensitive matter seems not much less pure: also
+there is very pure inanimate matter, but not subtil and
+active of it self; for as there are degrees in the animate,
+so there are also degrees in the inanimate matter; so
+that the purest degree of inanimate matter comes next
+to the animate, not in motion, but in the purity of its
+own degree; for it cannot change its nature so, as to
+become animate, yet it may be so pure in its own nature,
+as not to be perceptible by our grosser senses.
+But concerning the two degrees of animate Matter, to
+wit, the sensitive and rational, I say that the sensitive
+is much more acute then Vitriol, Aqua-fortis, Fire,
+or the like; and the rational much more subtil and
+active then Quicksilver, or Light, so as I cannot find a
+comparison fit to express them, onely that this sensitive
+and rational self-moving Matter is the life and soul of
+Nature; But by reason this Matter is not subject to our
+gross senses, although our senses are subject to it, as being
+made, subsisting and acting through the power of
+its actions, we are not apt to believe it, no more then a
+simple Country-wench will believe, that Air is a substance,
+if she neither hear, see, smell, taste, or touch it,
+although Air touches and surrounds her: But yet the
+effects of this animate matter prove that there is such a
+matter; onely, as I said before, this self-moving matter
+causing a self-division as well as a general action, is the
+cause of a self-obscurity, which obscurity causes doubts,
+disputes, and inconstancies in humane opinions, although
+not so much obscurity, as to make all Creatures blind-fold,
+for surely there is no Creature but perceives more
+or less. But to conclude, The Rational degree of Matter
+is the most intelligible, and the wisest part of Nature,
+and the Sensitive is the most laborious and provident
+part in Nature, both which are the Creators of all
+Creatures in Infinite Matter; and if you intend to know
+more of this Rational and Sensitive Matter, you may
+consult my Book of Philosophy, to which I refer you.
+And so taking my leave for the present, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_II" id="IV_II">II.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I understand by your last, that you have read the Book
+of that most learned and famous Physician and Anatomist,
+Dr. <i>Harvey</i>, which treats of Generation; and
+in the reading of it, you have mark'd several scruples,
+which you have framed into several questions concerning
+that subject, to which you desire my answer. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I am loth to imbarque my self in this difficult
+argument, not onely for the reasons I have given
+you heretofore, but also that I do not find my self able
+enough to give you such a satisfactory answer as perhaps
+you do expect. But since your Commands are
+so powerful with me, that I can hardly resist them, and
+your Nature so good that you easily pardon any thing
+that is amiss, I will venture upon it according to the
+strength of my Natural Reason, and endeavour to give
+you my opinion as well and as clearly as I can. Your
+first question is; <i>Whether the action of one or more producers
+be the onely cause of Natural Production or Generation,
+without imparting or transferring any of their
+own substance or Matter.</i> I answer: The sole co-action
+of the Producers may make a change of exterior forms
+or figures, but not produce another Creature; for if
+there were not substance or matter, as well as action,
+both transferred together, there would not be new
+Creatures made out of old Matter, but every production
+would require new Matter, which is impossible, if
+there be but one Matter, and that infinite; and certainly,
+humane sense and reason may well perceive, that
+there can be but one Matter, for several kinds of Matter
+would make a confusion; and thus if new Creatures
+were made onely by substanceless motion, it would not
+onely be an infinite trouble to Nature, to create something
+out of nothing perpetually, but, as I said, it
+would make a confusion amongst all Nature's works,
+which are her several Parts or Creatures. But by reason
+there is but one Matter, which is Infinite and Eternal,
+and this Matter has self-motion in it, both Matter
+and Motion must of necessity transmigrate, or be transferred
+together without any separation, as being but one
+thing, to wit, Corporeal Motion. 'Tis true, one
+part of animate or self-moving Matter, may without
+Translation move, or rather occasion other parts to
+move; but one Creature cannot naturally produce another
+without the transferring of its corporeal motions.
+But it is well to be observed, that there is great
+difference between the actions of Nature; for all actions
+are not generating, but some are patterning, and
+some transforming, and the like; and as for the transforming
+action, that may be without translation, as
+being nothing else but a change of motions in one and
+the same part or parts of Matter, to wit, when the same
+parts of Matter do change into several figures, and return
+into the same figures again. Also the action of
+Patterning is without Translation; for to pattern out,
+is nothing else but to imitate, and to make a figure in
+its own substance or parts of Matter like another figure.
+But in generation every producer doth transfer
+both Matter and Motion, that is, Corporeal Motion
+into the produced; and if there be more producers then
+one, they all do contribute to the produced; and if one
+Creature produces many Creatures, those many Creatures
+do partake more or less of their producer. But
+you may say, If the producer transfers its own Matter,
+or rather its own corporeal motions into the produced,
+many productions will soon dissolve the producer, and
+he will become a sacrifice to his off-spring. I answer;
+That doth not follow: for as one or more Creatures
+contribute to one or more other Creatures, so other
+Creatures do contribute to them, although not after
+one and the same manner or way, but after divers manners
+or ways; but all manners and ways must be by
+translation to repair and assist; for no Creature can subsist
+alone and of it self, but all Creatures traffick and
+commerce from and to each other, and must of necessity
+do so, since they are all parts of the same Matter:
+Neither can Motion subsist without Matter, nor quit
+Matter, nor act without Matter, no more, then an
+Artificer can work without materials, and without self-motion
+Matter would be dead and useless; Wherefore
+Matter and Motion must upon necessity not onely be
+inseparable, but be one body, to wit, corporeal motion;
+which motion by dividing and composing its several
+parts, and acting variously, is the cause of all Production,
+Generation, Metamorphosing, or any other
+thing that is done in Nature. But if, according to your
+<i>Author</i>, the sole action be the cause of Generation
+without transferring of substance, then Matter is useless,
+and of none or little effect; which, in my opinion,
+is not probable.</p>
+
+<p>Your second question is, <i>Whether the Production or
+Generation of animals is as the Conceptions of the Brain,
+which the Learned say are Immaterial?</i> I answer: The
+Conceptions of the Brain, in my opinion, are not Immaterial,
+but Corporeal; for though the corporeal
+motions of the brain, or the matter of its conceptions,
+is invisible to humane Creatures, and that when the
+brain is dissected, there is no such matter found, yet that
+doth not prove, that there is no Matter, because it is
+not so gross a substance as to be perceptible by our exterior
+senses: Neither will your <i>Authors</i> example hold,
+that as a builder erects a house according to his conception
+in the brain, the same happens in all other natural
+productions or generations; for, in my opinion, the
+house is materially made in the brain, which is the conception
+of the builder, although not of such gross materials,
+as Stone, Brick, Wood, and the like, yet of
+such matter as is the Rational Matter, that is, the house
+when it is conceived in the brain, is made by the rational
+corporeal figurative motions of their own substance
+or degree of Matter; But if all Animals should
+be produced by meer fancies, and a Man and a
+Woman should beget by fancying themselves together
+in copulation, then the produced would be a true Platonick
+Child; But if a Woman being from her Husband
+should be so got with Child, the question is, whether
+the Husband would own the Child; and if amorous
+Lovers (which are more contagious for appetite
+and fancy then Married persons) should produce
+Children by Immaterial contagions, there would be
+more Children then Parents to own them.</p>
+
+<p>Your third question is, <i>Whether Animals may not be
+produced, as many Diseases are, by contagion?</i> I answer:
+Although contagions may be made at a distance, by
+perception; yet those diseases are not begotten by immaterial
+motions, but by the rational and sensitive corporeal
+motions, which work such diseases in the body of a
+Creature, by the association of parts, like as the same
+disease is made in another body: Neither are diseases
+always produced after one and the same manner, but
+after divers manners; whereas animals are produced
+as animals, that is, after one natural and proper way;
+for although all the effects in particular be not alike, yet
+the general way or manner to produce those effects is the
+same: As for example; there is no other way to produce
+a fruitful Egg, but by a Cock and a Hen; But a
+Contagious disease, as the small-Pox, or the like, may be
+produced by the way of Surfeits or by Conceit, which
+may cause the sensitive corporeal parts, through the
+irregular motions of the rational corporeal parts, to work
+and produce such a disease, or any other ways. But
+neither a disease, nor no creature else can be produced
+without matter, by substanceless motion; for wheresoever
+is motion, there is also matter, matter and motion
+being but one thing.</p>
+
+<p>Your fourth question is, <i>Whether an Animal Creature
+is perfectly shaped or formed at the first Conception?</i>
+I answer: If the Creature be composed of many and
+different parts, my opinion is, it cannot be. You
+may say, That if it hath not all his parts produced at
+there will be required many acts of generation
+to beget or produce every part, otherwise the producers
+would not be the Parents of the produced in whole,
+but in part. I answer: The Producer is the designer,
+architect, and founder of the whole Creature produced;
+for the sensitive and rational corporeal motions, which
+are transferred from the producer or producers, joyn to
+build the produced like to the producer in specie, but
+the transferred parts may be invisible and insensible to
+humane Creatures, both through their purity and little
+quantity, until the produced is framed to some visible
+degree; for a stately building may proceed from
+a small beginning, neither can humane sense tell what
+manner of building is designed at the first foundation.
+But you may say, That many Eggs may be made by
+one act of the producers, to wit, the Cock and the Hen,
+and those many Eggs may be laid at several times, as also
+hatched at several times, and become Chickens at several
+times. I answer; It may well and easily be so: for
+the rational and sensitive parts or corporeal motions
+which were transferred in one act, designed many produced
+through that one act; for those transferred corporeal
+motions, although they have not a sufficient
+quantity of themselves to make all the produced in their
+perfect shapes at once, yet they are the chief designer,
+architect and founder of all that are to be produced; for
+the corporeal motions which are transferred, joyn with
+those they are transferred to, and being associates, work
+to one design, the sensitive being the architect, the rational
+the designer, which together with the inanimate
+parts of matter, can never want materials, neither
+can the materials want labourers; for the degrees of
+matter are inseparable, and do make but one body or
+substance. Again you may say, That some parts of
+Matter may produce another Creature not like to the
+producer in its species, as for example, Monsters. I
+answer, That is possible to be done, but yet it is not
+usual; for Monsters are not commonly born, but
+those corporeal motions which dwell in one species,
+work according to the nature of the same species;
+and when the parts of Matter are transferred from
+Creature to Creature, that is, are separated from some
+parts, and joyned to other parts of the same species, and
+the same nature; those transferred parts of matter, although
+invisible in quantity, by reason of their purity
+and subtilty, begin the work of the produced according
+to its natural species, and the labourers in other parts of
+matter work to the same end; just as it is in the artificial
+building of a house, where the house is first designed by
+the Architect, or Master, and then the labourers work
+not after their own fancy, (else it would not be the
+same house that was designed, nor any uniformity in it)
+but according to the architects or surveyors design; so
+those parts of matter or corporeal motions that are transferred
+from the producer, are like the architect, but the
+labourers or workmen are the assisting and adjoyning
+parts of matter. But you will say, How comes it, that many
+creatures may be made by one or two? I answer: As
+one owner or two partners may be the cause of many
+buildings, so few or more transferred rational and sensitive
+corporeal motions may make and produce as many
+creatures as they can get materials and labourers;
+for if they get one, they get the other, by reason the
+degrees of matter, <i>viz.</i> animate and inanimate, are inseparably
+mixt, and make but one body or substance;
+and the proof of it is, that all animals are not constant in
+the number of their off-spring, but sometimes produce
+more, and sometimes fewer, and sometimes their off-spring
+is less, and sometimes larger, according to the
+quantity of matter. Again you may say, That in some
+Creatures there is no passage to receive the transferred
+matter into the place of the architecture. I answer:
+That all passages are not visible to humane sense; and
+some humane Creatures have not a sufficient humane
+reason to conceive, that most of Natures works are not
+so gross as to be subject to their exterior senses; but as for
+such parts and passages, whether exterior or interior,
+visible or invisible, as also for copulation, conception,
+formation, nourishment, and the like in Generation,
+I leave you to Physicians and Anatomists. And to
+conclude this question, we may observe, that not any
+animal Creatures shape dissolveth in one instant of
+time, but by degrees; why should we believe then,
+that Animals are generated or produced in their perfect
+shape in one instant of time, and by one act of Nature?
+But sense and reason knows by observation, that an
+animal Creature requires more time to be generated,
+then to be dissolved, like as an house is sooner and with
+less pains pull'd down, then built up.</p>
+
+<p>Your Fifth question is, <i>Whether Animals are not
+generated by the way of Metamorphosing?</i> To which
+I answer, That it is not possible that a third Creature
+can be made without translation of corporeal motions;
+and since Metamorphosing is onely a change of motions
+in the same parts of Matter, without any translation
+of corporeal motions, no animal Creature can be produced
+or generated by the way of Metamorphosing.</p>
+
+<p>Your Sixth question is, <i>Whether a whole may be made
+out of a part?</i> I answer: There is no whole in Nature,
+except you will call Nature her self a whole; for
+all Creatures are but parts of Infinite Matter.</p>
+
+<p>Your Seventh question is, <i>Whether all Animals, as
+also Vegetables, are made or generated by the way of Eggs?</i>
+I have said heretofore, That it is not probable, that different
+sorts, nay, different kinds of Creatures, should
+all have but one manner or way of production; for
+why should not Nature make different ways of productions,
+as well as different Creatures? And as for
+Vegetables, if all their Seeds be likened unto Eggs, then
+Eggs may very well be likened to Seeds; which if so,
+then a Peas-cod is the Hen, and the Peas in the Cod
+is the cluster of Eggs: the like of ears of Corn. And
+those animals that produce but one creature or seed at a
+time, may be like the kernel of a Nut, when the shell is
+broke, the creature comes forth. But how this will agree
+with your <i>Author</i>, who says, that the creature in
+the shell must make its own passage, I cannot tell; for
+if the Nut be not broken by some external means or occasion,
+the kernel is not like to get forth. And as for
+humane Eggs, I know not what to answer; for it is
+said, that the first Woman was made of a mans ribb; but
+whether that ribb was an egg, I cannot tell. And why
+may not Minerals and Elements be produced by the
+way of Eggs as well as Vegetables and Animals? Nay,
+why may not the whole World be likened unto an
+Egg? Which if so, the two Poles are the two ends
+the Egg; and for the Elements, the Yolk is the Fire,
+the White, the Water; the Film, the Air; and the
+Shell it self will very well serve for the Earth: But then
+it must first be broken, and pounded into one lump or
+solid mass, and so sink or swim into the midst of the
+liquid parts, as to the Center; and as for the several
+foetuses in this great Egg, they are the several Creatures
+in it. Or it might be said, that the Chaos was an Egg,
+and the Universe, the Chicken. But leaving this similizing, it
+is like, that some studious Men may by long
+study upon one part of the body, conceive and believe
+that all other parts are like that one part; like as those
+that have gazed long upon the Sun, all they see for a
+time, are Suns to them; or like as those which having
+heard much of Hobgoblins, all they see are Hobgoblins,
+their fancies making such things. But, <i>Madam</i>,
+to make a conclusion also of this question, I repeat
+what I said before, that all Creatures have
+not one way of production; and as they have not all
+one way of production, so they have neither one instant
+of time either for perfection or dissolution, but
+their perfection and dissolution is made by degrees.</p>
+
+<p>Your Eighth question is, <i>Whether it may not be,
+that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions in an
+Egg do pattern out the figure of the Hen and Cock, whilest
+the Hen sits upon the Egg, and so bring forth Chickens by
+the way of patterning?</i> I answer: The action of patterning,
+is not the action of Generation; for as I said
+heretofore, the actions of Nature are different, and
+Generation must needs be performed by the way of
+translation, which translation is not required in the
+action of Patterning; but according as the Producers
+are, which transfer their own matter into the produced,
+so is the produced concerning its species; which
+is plainly proved by common examples; for if Pheasants,
+or Turky, or Goose-eggs, be laid under an ordinary
+Hen, or an ordinary Hens-egg be laid under
+a Pheasant, Turky, or Goose, the Chickens of those
+Eggs will never be of any other species then of those
+that produced the Egg; for an ordinary Hen, if she
+sit upon Pheasants, Turky, or Goose-eggs, doth not
+hatch Chickens of her own species, but the Chickens
+will be of the species either of the Pheasant, or Turky,
+or Goose, which did at first produce the Egg; which
+proves, that in Generation, or Natural production,
+there is not onely required the action of the Producers,
+but also a Transferring of some of their own parts to
+form the produced. But you may say, What doth
+the sitting Hen contribute then to the production of
+the Chicken? I answer: The sitting Hen doth onely
+assist the Egg in the production of the Chicken, as
+the Ground doth the Seed.</p>
+
+<p>Your Ninth question is, <i>Concerning the Soul of a
+particular Animal Creature, as whether it be wholly of it
+self and subsists wholly in and by it self?</i> But you must
+give me leave first to ask you what Soul you mean, whether
+the Divine, or the Natural Soul, for there is great
+difference betwixt them, although not the least that
+ever I heard, rightly examined and distinguished; and
+if you mean the Divine Soul, I shall desire you to excuse
+me, for that belongs to Divines, and not to Natural
+Philosophers; neither am I so presumptuous as to intrench
+upon their sacred order. But as for the Natural
+Soul, the Learned have divided it into three parts,
+to wit, the Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational Soul;
+and according to these three Souls, made three kinds of
+lives, as the Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational Life.
+But they might as well say, there are infinite bodies,
+lives, and souls, as three; for in Nature there is but
+one life, soul, and body, consisting all of one Matter,
+which is corporeal Nature. But yet by reason this life
+and soul is material, it is divided into numerous parts,
+which make numerous lives and souls in every particular
+Creature; for each particular part of the rational
+self-moving Matter, is each particular soul in each particular
+Creature, but all those parts considered in general,
+make but one soul of Nature; and as this self-moving
+Rational Matter hath power to unite its parts,
+so it hath ability or power to divide its united parts. And
+thus the rational soul of every particular Creature is
+composed of parts, (I mean parts of a material substance;
+for whatsoever is substanceless and incorporeal,
+belongs not to Nature, but is Supernatural;) for by
+reason the Infinite and Onely matter is by self-motion
+divided into self-parts, not any Creature can have a
+soul without parts; neither can the souls of Creatures
+subsist without commerce of other rational parts, no
+more then one body can subsist without the assistance of
+other bodies; for all parts belong to one body, which
+is Nature: nay, if any thing could subsist of it self, it
+were a God, and not a Creature: Wherefore not any
+Creature can challenge a soul absolutely to himself, unless
+Man, who hath a divine soul, which no other
+Creature hath. But that which makes so many confusions
+and disputes amongst learned men is, that they
+conceive, first, there is no rational soul but onely in
+man; next, that this rational soul in every man is
+individable. But if the rational soul is material, as
+certainly to all sense and reason it is, then it must not
+onely be in all material Creatures, but be dividable too;
+for all that is material or corporeal hath parts, and is dividable,
+and therefore there is no such thing in any one
+Creature as one intire soul; nay, we might as well say,
+there is but one Creature in Nature, as say, there is but
+one individable natural soul in one Creature.</p>
+
+<p>Your Tenth question is, <i>Whether Souls are producible,
+or can be produced?</i> I answer: in my opinion,
+they are producible, by reason all parts in Nature are
+so. But mistake me not; for I do not mean that any
+one part is produced out of Nothing, or out of new
+matter; but one Creature is produced by another, by
+the dividing and uniting, joyning and disjoyning of the
+several parts of Matter, and not by substanceless Motion
+out of new Matter. And because there is not any
+thing in Nature, that has an absolute subsistence of it self,
+each Creature is a producer, as well as a produced,
+in some kind or other; for no part of Nature can subsist
+single, and without reference and assistance of each
+other, or else every single part would not onely be a
+whole of it self, but be as a God without controle; and
+though one part is not another part, yet one part belongs
+to another part, and all parts to one whole, and
+that whole to all the parts, which whole is one corporeal
+Nature. And thus, as I said before, productions
+of one or more creatures, by one or more producers,
+without matter, meerly by immaterial motions, are impossible,
+to wit, that something should be made or
+produced out of nothing; for if this were so, there would
+consequently be an annihilation or turning into nothing,
+and those creatures, which produce others by the way
+of immaterial motions, would rather be as a God, then
+a part of Nature, or Natural Matter. Besides, it
+would be an endless labour, and more trouble to create
+particular Creatures out of nothing, then a World
+at once; whereas now it is easie for Nature to create
+by production and transmigration; and therefore
+it is not probable, that any one Creature hath a
+particular life, soul, or body to it self, as subsisting
+by it self, and as it were precised from the rest, having
+its own subsistence without the assistance of
+any other; nor is it probable, that any one Creature
+is new, for all that is, was, and shall be, till the
+Omnipotent God disposes Nature otherwise.</p>
+
+<p>As for the rest of your questions, as whether the Sun
+be the cause of all motions, and of all natural productions;
+and whether the life of a Creature be onely in the
+blood, or whether it have its beginning from the
+blood, or whether the blood be the chief architect of an
+animal, or be the seat of the soul; sense and reason, in my
+opinion, doth plainly contradict them; for concerning
+the blood, if it were the seat of the Soul, then in the
+circulation of the blood, if the Soul hath a brain, it
+would become very dizzie by its turning round; but
+perchance some may think the Soul to be a Sun, and the
+Blood the Zodiack, and the body the Globe of the
+Earth, which the Soul surrounds in such time as the
+Blood is flowing about. And so leaving those similizing
+Fancies, I'le add no more, but repeat what I said in the
+beginning, that I rely upon the goodness of your
+Nature, from which I hope for pardon, if I have not
+so exactly and solidly answered your desire; for the argument
+of this discourse being so difficult, may easily
+lead me into an error, which your better judgment will
+soon correct; and in so doing you will add to those favours
+for which I am already,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships most obliged Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_III" id="IV_III">III.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You thought verily, I had mistaken my self in my
+last, concerning the Rational Souls of every
+particular Creature, because I said, all Creatures
+had numerous Souls; and not onely so, but every particular
+Creature had numerous Souls. Truly, <i>Madam</i>,
+I did not mistake my self, for I am of the same
+opinion still; for though there is but one Soul in infinite
+Nature, yet that soul being dividable into parts,
+every part is a soul in every single creature, were the
+parts no bigger in quantity then an atome. But you
+ask whether Nature hath Infinite souls? I answer:
+That Infinite Nature is but one Infinite body, divided
+into Infinite parts, which we call Creatures; and
+therefore it may as well be said, That Nature is composed
+of Infinite Creatures or Parts, as she is divided
+into Infinite Creatures or Parts; for Nature being
+Material, is dividable, and composable. The same
+may be said of Nature's Soul, which is the Rational
+part of the onely infinite Matter, as also of Nature's
+Life, which is the sensitive part of the onely Infinite
+self-moving Matter; and of the Inanimate part of the
+onely Infinite Matter, which I call the body for distinction
+sake, as having no self-motion in its own
+nature, for Infinite Material Nature hath an Infinite
+Material Soul, Life, and Body. But, <i>Madam</i>,
+I desire you to observe what I said already, <i>viz.</i>
+that the parts of Nature are as apt to divide, as to unite;
+for the chief actions of Nature are to divide, and to
+unite; which division is the cause, that it may well be
+said, every particular Creature hath numerous souls;
+for every part of rational Matter is a particular Soul,
+and every part of the sensitive Matter is a particular Life;
+all which, mixed with the Inanimate Matter, though
+they be Infinite in parts, yet they make but one Infinite
+whole, which is Infinite Nature; and thus the
+Infinite division into Infinite parts is the cause, that every
+particular Creature hath numerous Souls, and the
+transmigration of parts from, and to parts, is the reason,
+that not any Creature can challenge a single soul, or
+souls to it self; the same for life. But most men are unwilling
+to believe, that Rational Souls are material,
+and that this rational Matter is dividable in Nature;
+when as humane sense and reason may well perceive,
+that Nature is active, and full of variety; and action,
+and variety cannot be without motion, division, and
+composition: but the reason that variety, division, and
+composition, runs not into confusion, is, that first there
+is but one kind of Matter; next, that the division and
+composition of parts doth ballance each other into a union
+in the whole. But, to conclude, those Creatures
+which have their rational parts most united, are
+the wisest; and those that have their rational parts most
+divided, are the wittiest; and those that have much
+of this rational matter, are much knowing; and those
+which have less of this rational matter, are less knowing; and
+there is no Creature that hath not some; for
+like as all the parts of a humane body are indued with
+life, and soul; so are all the parts of Infinite Nature;
+and though some parts of Matter are not animate in
+themselves, yet there is no part that is not mixt with the
+animate matter; so that all parts of Nature are moving,
+and moved. And thus, hoping I have cleared my
+self in this point, to your better understanding, I take
+my leave, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_IV" id="IV_IV">IV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In the Works of that most famous Philosopher
+and Mathematician of our age <i>Gal.</i> which you
+thought worth my reading, I find, he discourses
+much of upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards;
+but to tell you really, I do not understand what
+he means by those words, for, in my opinion, there is
+properly no such thing as upwards, downwards, backwards,
+or forwards in Nature, for all this is nothing
+else but natural corporeal motions, to which in respect
+of some particulars we do attribute such or such names;
+for if we conceive a Circle, I pray where is upwards
+and downwards, backwards and forwards? Certainly,
+it is, in my opinion, just like that, they name Rest,
+Place, Space, Time, &amp;c. when as Nature her self
+knows of no such things, but all these are onely
+the several and various motions of the onely Matter.
+You will say, How can Rest be a motion? I answer:
+Rest is a word which expresses rather mans ignorance
+then his knowledg; for when he sees, that a particular
+Creature has not any external local motion perceptible
+by his sight, he says it resteth, and this rest he calls a
+cessation from motion, when as yet there is no such
+thing as cessation from motion in Nature; for motion
+is the action of natural Matter, and its Nature is to
+move perpetually; so that it is more probable for motion
+to be annihilated, then to cease. But you may say,
+It is a cessation from some particular motion. I answer:
+You may rather call it an alteration of a particular motion,
+then a cessation; for though a particular motion
+doth not move in that same manner as it did before,
+nevertheless it is still there, and not onely there,
+but still moving; onely it is not moving after the same
+manner as it did move heretofore, but has changed
+from such a kind of motion to another kind of motion,
+and being still moving it cannot be said to cease:
+Wherefore what is commonly called cessation from motion,
+is onely a change of some particular motion, and
+is a mistake of change for rest. Next, I find in the
+same <i>Author</i> a long discourse of circular and strait motions;
+to wit, <i>That they are simple motions, and that
+all others are composed out of them, and are mixt motions;
+Also, That the Circular Motion is perfect, and the Right
+imperfect; and that all the parts of the world, if moveable
+of their own nature, it is impossible, that their motions
+should be Right, or any other then Circular: That
+a Circular motion is never to be gotten naturally, without
+a preceding right motion: That a Right motion cannot
+naturally be perpetual: That a Right motion is impossible
+in the World well ordered:</i> and the like. First,
+I cannot conceive why natural Matter should use the
+Circle-figure more then any other in the motions of
+her Creatures; for Nature, which is Infinite Matter,
+is not bound to one particular motion, or to move in a
+Circle more then any other figure, but she moves
+more variously then any one part of hers can conceive;
+Wherefore it is not requisite that the natural motions
+of natural bodies should be onely Circular. Next,
+I do not understand, why a Circular Motion cannot
+be gotten naturally without a precedent right motion;
+for, in my opinion, corporeal motions may be round
+or circular, without being or moving straight before;
+and if a straight line doth make a circle, then an imperfect
+figure makes a perfect; but, in my opinion, a circle
+may as well make a straight line, as a strait line a circle;
+except it be like a Gordian knot, that it cannot be dissolved,
+or that Nature may make some corporeal motions
+as constant as she makes others inconstant, for her
+motions are not alike in continuance and alteration. And
+as for right motion, that naturally it cannot be perpetual;
+my opinion is, that it cannot be, if Nature be finite;
+but if Nature be infinite, it may be: But the circular
+motion is more proper for a finite, then an infinite,
+because a circle-figure is perfect and circumscribed, and
+a straight line is infinite, or at least producible in infinite;
+and there may be other worlds in infinite Nature,
+besides these round Globes perceptible by our sight,
+which may have other figures; for though it be proper
+for Globes or Spherical bodies to move round,
+yet that doth not prove, that Infinite Matter moves
+round, or that all worlds must be of a Globous figure;
+for there may be as different Worlds, as other
+Creatures. He says, That a Right motion is impossible
+in the World well ordered; But I cannot conceive
+a Right motion to be less orderly then a Circular in
+Nature, except it be in some Particulars; but oftentimes
+that, which is well ordered in some cases, seems
+to some mens understandings and perceptions ill ordered
+in other cases; for man, as a part, most commonly
+considers but the Particulars, not the Generals, like as
+every one in a Commonwealth considers more himself
+and his Family, then the Publick. Lastly, Concerning
+the simplicity of Motions, as that onely circular
+and straight motions are simple motions, because they
+are made by simple Lines; I know not what they mean
+by simple Lines; for the same Lines which make straight
+and circular figures, may make as well other figures as
+those; but, in my opinion, all motions may be called
+simple, in regard of their own nature; for they are nothing
+else but the sensitive and rational part of Matter,
+which in its own nature is pure, and simple, and moves
+according to the Nature of each Figure, either swiftly
+or slowly, or in this or that sort of motion; but the
+most simple, purest and subtillest part is the rational
+part of matter, which though it be mixed with the sensitive
+and inanimate in one body, yet it can and doth
+move figuratively in its own matter, without the help
+or assistance of any other. But I desire you to remember,
+<i>Madam</i>, that in the compositions and divisions of
+the parts of Nature, there is as much unity and agreement
+as there is discord and disagreement; for in Infinite,
+there is no such thing, as most, and least; neither is there
+any such thing as more perfect, or less perfect in
+Matter. And as for Irregularities, properly there
+is none in Nature, for Nature is Regular; but that,
+which Man (who is but a small part of Nature,
+and therefore but partly knowing) names Irregularities,
+or Imperfections, is onely a change and alteration
+of motions; for a part can know the variety
+of motions in Nature no more, then Finite can know
+Infinite, or the bare exterior shape and figure of a
+mans body can know the whole body, or the head
+can know the mind; for Infinite natural knowledg
+is incorporeal; and being corporeal, it is dividable; and
+being dividable, it cannot be confined to one part
+onely; for there is no such thing as an absolute determination
+or subsistence in parts without relation or
+dependance upon one another. And since Matter is
+Infinite, and acts wisely, and all for the best, it may
+be as well for the best of Nature, when parts are divided
+antipathetically, as when they are united
+sympathetically: Also Matter being Infinite, it cannot
+be perfect, neither can a part be called perfect, as
+being a part. But mistake me not, <i>Madam;</i> for
+when I say, there is no perfection in Nature, as I
+do in my <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>,<a name="FNanchor_1_175" id="FNanchor_1_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_175" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> I mean by Perfection,
+a finiteness, absoluteness, or compleatness of
+figure; and in this sense I say Nature has no perfection
+by reason it is Infinite; but yet I do not deny,
+but that there is a perfection in the nature or
+essence of Infinite Matter; for Matter is perfect Matter;
+that is, pure and simple in its own substance or
+nature, as meer Matter, without any mixture or addition
+of some thing that is not Matter, or that is
+between Matter and no Matter; and material motions
+are perfect motions although Infinite: just as a
+line may be called a perfect line, although it be endless,
+and Gold, or other Mettal, may be called perfect
+Gold, or perfect Metal, although it be but apart,
+And thus it may be said of Infinite Nature, or Infinite
+Matter, without any contradiction, that it is both
+perfect, and not perfect; perfect in its nature or substance,
+not perfect in its exterior figure. But you
+may say, If Infinite Matter be not perfect, it is imperfect,
+and what is imperfect, wants something. I
+answer, That doth not follow: for we cannot say,
+that what is not perfect, must of necessity be imperfect,
+because there is something else, which it may
+be, to wit, Infinite; for as imperfection is beneath
+perfection, so perfection is beneath Infinite; and
+though Infinite Matter be not perfect in its figure, yet
+it is not imperfect, but Infinite; for Perfection and
+Imperfection belongs onely to Particulars, and not to Infinite.
+And thus much for the present. I conclude,
+and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>most obliged Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_175" id="Footnote_1_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_175"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 14.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_V" id="IV_V">V.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>The <i>Author</i>, mentioned in my former Letter,
+says, <i>That Quietness is the degree of Infinite
+slowness, and that a moveable body passing
+from quietness, passes through all the degrees of slowness
+without staying in any.</i> But I cannot conceive that all
+the Parts of Matter should be necessitated to move by
+degrees; for though there be degrees in Nature, yet
+Nature doth not in all her actions move by degrees.
+You may say, for example, from one to twenty, there
+are eighteen degrees between One, and Twenty; and all
+these degrees are included in the last degree, which
+is twenty. I answer; That may be: but yet there is
+no progress made through all those degrees; for when
+a body doth move strong at one time, and the next
+time after moves weak; I cannot conceive how any
+degrees should really be made between. You may
+say, by Imagination. But this Imagination of degrees,
+is like the conception of Space and Place, when
+as yet there is no such thing as Place or Space by it self;
+for all is but one body, and Motion is the action of
+this same body, which is corporeal Nature; and because
+a particular body can and doth move after various
+manners, according to the change of its corporeal
+motion, this variety of motions man call's Place, Space,
+Time, Degrees, &amp;c. considering them by themselves,
+and giving them peculiar names, as if they could
+be parted from body, or at least be conceived without
+body; for the Conception or Imagination it self is
+corporeal, and so are they nothing else but corporeal
+motions. But it seems as if this same <i>Author</i> conceived
+also motion to be a thing by it self, and that motion
+begets motion, when he says, That a body by moving
+grows stronger in motion by degrees, when as yet
+the strength was in the matter of the body eternally;
+for Nature was always a grave Matron, never a sucking
+Infant: and though parts by dissolving and composing
+may lose and get acquaintance of each other, yet
+no part can be otherwise in its nature, then ever it was;
+Wherefore change of corporeal motions is not losing
+nor getting strength or swiftness; for Nature doth
+not lose force, although she doth not use force in all
+her various actions; neither can any natural body get
+more strength than by nature it hath, although it may
+get the assistance of other bodies joyned to it. But
+swiftness and slowness are according to the several figurative
+actions of self-moving matter; which several actions
+or motions of Nature, and their alterations, cannot
+be found out by any particular Creature: as for example,
+the motions of Lead, and the motions of Wood,
+unless Man knew their several causes; for Wood, in
+some cases, may move slower then Lead; and Lead, in
+other cases, slower then Wood. Again: the same
+<i>Author</i> says, <i>That an heavy moveable body descending,
+gets force enough to bring it back again to as much height.</i>
+But I think, it might as well be said, That a Man walking
+a mile, gets as much strength as to walk back that mile;
+when 'tis likely, that having walked ten miles, he may
+not have so much strength as to walk back again one
+mile; neither is he necessitated to walk back, except some
+other more powerful body do force him back: for
+though Nature is self-moving, yet every part has not an
+absolute power, for many parts may over-power fewer;
+also several corporeal motions may cross and oppose as
+well as assist each other; for if there were not opposition,
+as well as agreement and assistance amongst Nature's
+parts, there would not be such variety in Nature as
+there is. Moreover, he makes mention of a <i>Line, with a
+weight hung to its end, which being removed from the perpendicular,
+presently falls to the same again.</i> To which, I
+answer: That it is the appetite and desire of the Line, not
+to move by constraint, or any forced exterior motion;
+but that which forces the Line to move from the Perpendicular,
+doth not give it motion, but is onely an
+occasion that it moves in such a way; neither doth the
+line get that motion from any other exterior body, but
+it is the lines own motion; for if the motion of the hand,
+or any other exterior body, should give the line that
+motion, I pray, from which doth it receive the motion
+to tend to its former state? Wherefore, when the Line
+moves backwards or forwards, it is not, that the Line
+gets what it had not before, that is, a new corporeal
+motion, but it uses its own motion; onely, as I said,
+that exterior body is the occasion that it moves after such
+a manner or way, and therefore this motion of the line,
+although it is the lines own motion, yet in respect of the
+exterior body that causes it to move that way, it may
+be called a forced, or rather an occasioned motion. And
+thus no body can get motion from another body, except
+it get matter too; for all that motion that a body has,
+proceeds from the self-moving part of matter, and motion
+and matter are but one thing; neither is there any
+inanimate part of matter in Nature, which is not co-mixed
+with the animate, and consequently, there is no
+part which is not moving, or moved; the Animate
+part of matter is the onely self-moving part, and the
+Inanimate the moved: not that the animate matter doth
+give away its own motion to the inanimate, and that
+the inanimate becomes self-moving; but the animate,
+by reason of the close conjunction and commixture,
+works together with the inanimate, or causes the inanimate
+to work with it; and thus the inanimate remains
+as simple in its own nature, as the animate doth in its
+nature, although they are mixt; for those mixtures
+do not alter the simplicity of each others Nature. But
+having discoursed of this subject in my former Letters,
+I take my leave, and rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_VI" id="IV_VI">VI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>It seems, my former Letter concerning Motion, has
+given you occasion to propound this following question
+to me, to wit, <i>When I throw a bowl, or strike a
+ball with my hand; whether the motion, by which the
+bowl or ball is moved, be the hands, or the balls own
+motion? or whether it be transferred out of my hand into
+the ball?</i> To which I return this short answer: That
+the motion by which (for example) the bowl is moved,
+is the bowls own motion, and not the hands that threw
+it: for the hand cannot transfer its own motion, which
+hath a material being, out of it self into the bowl, or
+any other thing it handles, touches, or moves; or else
+if it did, the hand would in a short time become weak
+and useless, by losing so much substance, unless new
+motions were as fast created, as expended. You'll say,
+perhaps, that the hand and the bowl may exchange
+motions, as that the bowls own motion doth enter into
+the hand, and supply that motion which went out
+of the hand into the bowl, by a close joyning or touch,
+for in all things moving and moved, must be a joyning
+of the mover to the moved, either immediate, or
+by the means of another body. I answer: That this
+is more probable, then that the hand should give out,
+or impart motion to the bowl, and receive none from
+the bowl; but by reason motion cannot be transferred
+without matter, as being both inseparably united, and
+but one thing; I cannot think it probable, that any of
+the animate or self-moving matter in the hand, quits the
+hand, and enters into the bowl; nor that the animate
+matter, which is in the bowl, leaves the bowl, and enters
+into the hand, because that self-moving substance
+is not readily prepared for so sudden a Translation or
+Transmigration. You may say, It may as easily be
+done as food is received into an animal body and excrement
+discharged, or as air is taken in, and breath
+sent out, by the way of respiration; and that all Creatures
+are not onely produced from each other, but
+do subsist by each other, and act by each others assistance.
+I answer: It is very true, that all Creatures
+have more power and strength by a joyned assistance,
+then if every part were single, and subsisted of it self. But
+as some parts do assist each other, so on the other side,
+some parts do resist each other; for though there be a
+unity in the nature of Infinite Matter, yet there are
+divisions also in the Infinite parts of Infinite Matter,
+which causes Antipathy as much as Sympathy; but
+they being equal in assistance as well as in resistance, it
+causes a conformity in the whole nature of Infinite Matter;
+for if there were not contrary, or rather, I may
+say, different effects proceeding from the onely cause,
+which is the onely matter, there could not possibly be
+any, or at least, so much variety in Nature, as humane
+sense and reason perceives there is. But to return
+to our first argument: You may say, that motion may
+be transferred out of one body into another, without
+transferring any of the Matter. I answer: That is
+impossible, unless motion were that which some call
+No-thing, but how No-thing can be transferred, I
+cannot imagine: Indeed no sense and reason in Nature
+can conceive that which is No-thing; for how should it
+conceive that which is not in Nature to be found. You'll
+say, perhaps, It is a substanceless thing, or an incorporeal,
+immaterial being or form. I answer: In my
+opinion, it is a meer contradiction, to say, a substanceless
+thing, form, or being, for surely in Nature it cannot
+be. But if it be not possible that motion can be
+divided from matter, you may say, that body from
+whence the motion is transferred, would become less in
+bulk and weight, and weaker with every act of motion;
+and those bodies into which corporeal motion or self-moving
+matter was received, would grow bigger, heavier,
+and stronger. To which, I answer: That this
+is the reason, which denies that there can be a translation
+of motion out of the moving body into the moved; for
+questionless, the one would grow less, and the other
+bigger, that by loosing so much substance, this by receiving.
+Nay if it were possible, as it is not, that
+motion could be transferred without matter, the body
+out of which it goes, would nevertheless grow weaker;
+for the strength lies in the motion, unless you believe,
+this motion which is transferred to have been useless in
+the mover, and onely useful to the moved; or else it
+would be superfluous in the moved, except you say, it
+became to be annihilated after it was transferr'd and had
+done its effect; but if so, then there would be a perpetual
+and infinite creation and annihilation of substanceless
+motion, and how there could be a creation and annihilation
+of nothing, my reason cannot conceive, neither
+is it possible, unless Nature had more power then
+God, to create Nothing, and to annihilate Nothing.
+The truth is, it is more probable for sense and reason to
+believe a Creation of Something out of Nothing, then
+a Creation of Nothing out of Nothing. Wherefore
+it cannot in sense and reason be, that the motion of the
+hand is transferr'd into the bowl. But yet I do not say,
+that the motion of the hand doth not contribute to the
+motion of the bowl; for though the bowl hath its own
+natural motion in itself, (for Nature and her creatures
+know of no rest, but are in a perpetual motion, though
+not always exterior and local, yet they have their proper
+and certain motions, which are not so easily perceived
+by our grosser senses) nevertheless the motion of
+the bowl would not move by such an exterior local motion,
+did not the motion of the hand, or any other exterior
+moving body give it occasion to move that way;
+Wherefore the motion of the hand may very well be
+said to be the cause of that exterior local motion of the
+bowl, but not to be the same motion by which the bowl
+moves. Neither is it requisite, that the hand should
+quit its own motion, because it uses it in stirring up, or
+putting on the motion of the bowl; for it is one thing
+to use, and another to quit; as for example, it is one
+thing to offer his life for his friends service, another to
+imploy it, and another to quit or lose it. But, <i>Madam</i>,
+there may be infinite questions or exceptions, and
+infinite answers made upon one truth; but the wisest
+and most probable way is, to rely upon sense and reason,
+and not to trouble the mind, thoughts, and actions
+of life, with improbabilities, or rather impossibilities,
+which sense and reason knows not of, nor cannot
+conceive. You may say, A Man hath sometimes improbable,
+or impossible Fancies, Imaginations, or Chym�ra's,
+in his mind, which are No-things. I answer, That
+those Fancies and Imaginations are not No-things, but
+as perfectly imbodied as any other Creatures; but by
+reason, they are not so grossly imbodied, as those creatures
+that are composed of more sensitive and inanimate
+matter, man thinks or believes them to be no bodies;
+but were they substanceless figures, he could not have
+them in his mind or thoughts: The truth is, the purity
+of reason is not so perspicuous and plain to sense, as
+sense is to reason, the sensitive matter being a grosser
+substance then the rational. And thus, <i>Madam</i>,
+I have answered your proposed question, according to
+the ability of my Reason, which I leave to your better
+examination, and rest in the mean while,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_VII" id="IV_VII">VII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Having made some mention in my former Letter
+of the Receiving of Food, and discharging of
+Excrements, as also of Respiration, which consists
+in the sucking in of air, and sending out of breath
+in an animal body; you desire to know, <i>Whether Respiration
+be common to all animal Creatures?</i> Truly, I
+have not the experience, as to tell you really, whether
+all animals respire, or not; for my life being, for the
+most part, solitary and contemplative, but not active, I
+please my self more with the motions of my thoughts,
+then of my senses; and therefore I shall give you an
+answer according to the conceivement of my reason
+onely, which is, That I believe, all animals require Respiration;
+not onely those, which live in the air, but
+those also, which live in waters, and within the earth;
+but they do not respire all after one and the same manner;
+for the matter which they imbreath, is not every
+where the same, nor have they all the same organs, or
+parts, nor the same motions. As for example: Some
+Creatures require a more thin and rarer substance for
+their imbreathing or inspiring, then others, and some
+a more thick and grosser substance then others, according
+to their several Natures; for as there are several
+kinds of Creatures, according to their several habitations
+or places they live in, so they have each a distinct
+and several sort of matter or substance for their inspiration.
+As for example: Some live in the Air, some
+upon the face of the Earth, some in the bowels
+Earth, and some in Waters. There is some report of
+a Salamander, who lives in the Fire; but it being not
+certainly known, deserves not our speculation. And,
+as in my opinion, all animal Creatures require Respiration,
+so I do verily believe, that also all other kinds
+of Creatures, besides animals, have some certain manner
+of imbreathing and transpiring, <i>viz.</i> Vegetables,
+Minerals, and Elements, although not after the same
+way as Animals, yet in a way peculiar and proper to
+the nature of their own kind. For example: Take away
+the earth from Vegetables, and they will die, as
+being, in my opinion, stifled or smothered, in the same
+manner, as when the Air is taken away from some Animals.
+Also, take Minerals out of the bowels of the
+Earth, and though we cannot say, they die, or are
+dead, because we have not as yet found out the alterative
+motions of Minerals, as well as of Vegetables, or
+Animals, yet we know that they are dead from production
+and increase, for not any Metal increases being
+out of the Earth. And as for Elements, it is manifest
+that Fire will die for want of vent; but the rest of the
+Elements, if we could come to know the matter, manner,
+and ways of their Vital Breathing, we might
+kill or revive them as we do Fire. And therefore all
+Creatures, to my Reason, require a certain matter and
+manner of inspiration and expiration, which is nothing
+else but an adjoyning and disjoyning of parts to
+and from parts; for not any natural part or creature
+can subsist single, and by it self, but requires assistance
+from others, as this, and the rest of my opinions in
+Natural Philosophy, desire the assistance of your favour,
+or else they will die, to the grief of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_VIII" id="IV_VIII">VIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Th'other day I met with the Work of that Learned
+<i>Author</i> Dr. <i>Ch.</i> which treats of Natural Philosophy;
+and amongst the rest, in the Chapter
+of Place, I found that he blames <i>Aristotle</i> for saying,
+there are none but corporeal dimensions, Length,
+Breadth, and Depth in Nature, making besides these
+corporeal, other incorporeal dimensions which he attributes
+to <i>Vacuum</i>. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, an incorporeal
+dimension or extension, seems, in my opinion, a meer
+contradiction; for I cannot conceive how nothing can
+have a dimension or extension, having nothing to be
+extended or measured. His words are these: <i>Imagine
+we therefore, that God should please to annihilate the
+whole stock or mass of Elements, and all concretions resulting
+therefrom, that is, all corporeal substances now
+contained within the ambit or concave of the lowest Heaven,
+or Lunar sphear; and having thus imagined, can
+we conceive that all the vast space or region circumscribed
+by the concave superfice of the Lunar sphere, would not
+remain the same in all its dimensions, after as before the
+reduction of all bodies included therein to nothing?</i> To
+which, I answer: That, in my opinion, he makes
+Nature Supernatural; for although God's Power may
+make Vacuum, yet Nature cannot; for God's and Nature's
+Power are not to be compared, neither is God's invisible
+Power perceptible by Natures parts; but according
+to Natural Perception, it is impossible to conceive a
+Vacuum, for we cannot imagine a Vacuum, but we
+must think of a body, as your <i>Author</i> of the Circle of
+the Moon; neither could he think of space but from
+one side of the Circle to the other, so that in his mind he
+brings two sides together, and yet will have them distant;
+but the motions of his thoughts being subtiler and
+swifter then his senses, skip from side to side without
+touching the middle parts, like as a Squirrel from bough
+to bough, or an Ape from one table to another; without
+touching the ground, onely cutting the air. Next,
+he says, That an absolute Vacuum, is neither an Accident,
+nor a Body, nor yet Nothing, but Something, because
+it has a being; which opinion seems to me like that
+of the divine Soul; but I suppose Vacuum is not the
+divine Soul, nor the divine Soul, Vacuum; or else
+it could not be sensible of the blessed happiness in
+Heaven, or the Torments in Hell. Again he says,
+<i>Let us screw our supposition one pin higher, and farther
+imagine, that God, after the annihilation of this
+vast machine, the Universe, should create another in
+all respects equal to this, and in the same part of space
+wherein this now consists: First, we must conceive, that
+as the spaces were immense before God created the
+world, so also must they eternally persist of infinite extent,
+if he shall please at any time to destroy it; next,
+that these immense spaces are absolutely immoveable.</i>
+By this opinion, it seems, that Gods Power cannot so
+easily make or annihilate Vacuum, as a substance;
+because he believes it to be before all Matter, and
+to remain after all Matter, which is to be eternal;
+but I cannot conceive, why Matter, or fulness of body,
+should not as well be Infinite and Eternal, as his
+Conceived Vacuum; for if Vacuum can have an eternal
+and infinite being, why may not fulness of body, or
+Matter? But he calls Vacuum Immovable, which in
+my opinion is to make it a God; for God is onely Immoveable
+and Unalterable, and this is more Glorious
+then to be dependant upon God; wherefore to believe
+Matter to be Eternal, but yet dependent upon God, is
+a more humble opinion, then his opinion of Vacuum;
+for if Vacuum be not created, and shall not be
+annihilated, but is Uncreated, Immaterial, Immoveable,
+Infinite, and Eternal, it is a God; but if it
+be created, God being not a Creator of Nothing,
+nor an annihilator of Nothing, but of Something,
+he cannot be a Creator of Vacuum; for Vacuum is
+a pure Nothing. But leaving Nothing to those that
+can make something of it, I will add no more, but
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_IX" id="IV_IX">IX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>That Learned <i>Author</i>, of whom I made mention
+in my last, is pleased to say in his Chapter of
+Time, that Time is the <i>Twin-brother to Space</i>;
+but if Space be as much as Vacuum, then I say, they
+are Twin-nothings; for there can be no such thing as an
+empty or immaterial space, but that which man calls
+space, is onely a distance betwixt several corporeal
+parts, and time is onely the variation of corporeal motions;
+for were there no body, there could not be any
+space, and were there no corporeal motion, there
+could not be any time. As for Time, considered in
+General, it is nothing else but the corporeal motions
+in Nature, and Particular times are the Particular
+corporeal motions; but Duration is onely a continuance,
+or continued subsistence of the same parts, caused
+by the consistent motions of those parts; Neither are
+Time, Duration, Place, Space, Magnitude, &amp;c. dependents
+upon corporeal motions, but they are all one
+and the same thing; Neither was Time before, nor
+can be after corporeal motion, for none can be without
+the other, being all one: And as for Eternity, it
+is one fixed instant, without a flux, or motion. Concerning
+his argument of Divisibility of Parts, my opinion
+is, That there is no Part in Nature Individable, no
+not that so small a part, which the Epicureans name an
+Atome; neither is Matter separable from Matter, nor
+Parts from Parts in General, but onely in Particulars;
+for though parts can be separated from parts, by self-motion,
+yet upon necessity they must joyn to parts, so
+as there can never be a single part by it self. But
+hereof, as also of Place, Space, Time, Motion, Figure,
+Magnitude, &amp;c. I have sufficiently discoursed in
+my former Letters, as also in my Book of Philosophy;
+and as for my opinion of Atoms, their figures and motions,
+(if any such things there be) I will refer you to
+my Book of Poems, out of which give me leave to repeat
+these following lines, containing the ground of my
+opinion of Atomes:<a name="FNanchor_1_176" id="FNanchor_1_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_176" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>
+
+
+<p>
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>All Creatures, howsoe're they may be nam'd,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Are of</i> long, square, flat, <i>or</i> sharp <i>Atoms fram'd.</i></span><br />
+<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Thus several figures several tempers make,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>But what is mixt, doth of the four partake.</i></span><br />
+<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>The onely cause, why things do live and die,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>'S according as the mixed Atomes lie.</i></span><br />
+<br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Thus life, and death, and young, and old,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Are as the several Atoms hold:</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Wit, understanding in the brain</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Are as the several atomes reign:</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>And dispositions, good, or ill,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Are as the several atomes still;</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>And every Passion, which doth rise,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Is as each several atome lies.</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Thus sickness, health, and peace, and war,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>Are as the several atomes are.</i></span><br />
+</p>
+
+<p>If you desire to know more, you may read my mentioned
+Book of Poems whose first Edition was printed
+in the year, 1653. And so taking my leave of you, I
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_176" id="Footnote_1_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_176"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Pag.</i> 7. in the second Impression. <i>Pag.</i> 9.
+<i>Pag.</i> 22. <i>Pag.</i> 24.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_X" id="IV_X">X.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I received the Book of your new <i>Author</i> that treats of
+Natural Philosophy, which I perceive is but lately
+come forth; but although it be new, yet there are no
+new opinions in it; for the <i>Author</i> doth follow the opinions
+of some old Philosophers, and argues after the accustomed
+Scholastical way, with hard, intricate, and nonsensical
+words: Wherefore I shall not take so much
+pains as to read it quite over, but onely pick out here
+and there some few discourses, which I shall think most
+convenient for the clearing of my own opinion; in the
+number of which, is, first, that of Matter, whereof the
+<i>Author</i> is pleased to proclaim the opinion that holds
+Matter to be Infinite, not onely absurd, but also impious.
+Truly, <i>Madam</i>, it is easily said, but hardly
+proved; and not to trouble you with unnecessary repetitions,
+I hope you do remember as yet what I have
+written to you in the beginning concerning the infiniteness
+of Nature, or natural Matter, where I have proved
+that it implies no impiety, absurdity, or contradiction
+at all, to believe that Matter is Infinite; for your
+<i>Authors</i> argument, concluding from the finiteness of particular
+Creatures to Nature her self, is of no force; for
+though no part of Nature is Infinite in bulk, figure, or
+quantity, nevertheless, all the parts of Infinite Nature
+are Infinite in number, which infinite number of parts
+must needs make up one Infinite body in bulk, or quantity;
+for as a finite body or substance is dividable into
+finite parts, so an Infinite body, as Nature, or natural
+Matter, must of necessity be dividable into infinite
+parts in number, and yet each part must also be finite in
+its exterior figure, as I have proved in the beginning by
+the example of a heap of grains of corn. Certainly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I see no reason, but since, according to your
+<i>Author</i>, God, as the prime Cause, Agent, and Producer
+of all things, and the action by which he produced
+all things, is Infinite; the Matter out of which he
+produced all particular Creatures may be Infinite also.
+Neither doth it, to my sense and reason, imply any contradiction
+or impiety; for it derogates nothing from
+the Glory and Omnipotency of God, but God is still
+the God of Nature, and Nature is his Servant, although
+Infinite, depending wholly upon the will and pleasure
+of the All-powerful God: Neither do these two Infinites
+obstruct each other; for Nature is corporeal, and
+God is a supernatural and spiritual Infinite Being, and
+although Nature has an Infinite power, yet she has
+but an Infinite Natural power, whereas Gods Omnipotency
+is infinitely extended beyond Nature. But
+your <i>Author</i> is pleased to refute that argument, which
+concludes from the effect to the cause, and proves Matter
+to be infinite, because God as the Cause is Infinite,
+saying, that this Rule doth onely hold in Univocal
+things, (by which, I suppose, he understands things of
+the same kind and nature) and not in opposites. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, by this he limits God's power, as if
+God were not able to work beyond Nature, and Natural
+Reason or Understanding; and measures Gods
+actions according to the rules of Logick; which whether
+it be not more impious, you may judg your self.
+And as for opposites, God and Nature are not opposites,
+except you will call opposites those which bear a
+certain relation to one another, as a Cause, and its Effect;
+a Parent, and a Child; a Master, and a Servant; and
+the like. Nay, I wonder how your <i>Author</i> can limit
+Gods action, when as he confesses himself, that
+the Creation of the World is an Infinite action. God
+acted finitely, says he, by an Infinite action; which,
+in my opinion, is meer non-sense, and as much as to say,
+a man can act weakly by a strong action, basely by an
+honest action, cowardly by a stout action. The truth
+is, God being Infinite, cannot work finitely; for, as
+his Essence, so his Actions cannot have any limitation,
+and therefore it is most probable, that God made Nature
+Infinite; for though each part of Nature is finite
+in its own figure, yet considered in general, they are
+Infinite, as well in number, as duration, except God
+be pleased to destroy them; nay, every particular may
+in a certain sense be said Infinite, to wit, Infinite in time
+or duration; for if Nature be Infinite and Eternal, and
+there be no annihilation or perishing in Nature, but a
+perpetual successive change and alteration of natural
+figures, then no part of Nature can perish or be annihilated;
+and if no part of Nature perishes, then it lasts
+infinitely in Nature, that is, in the substance of natural
+Matter; for though the corporeal motions, which
+make the figures, do change, yet the ground of the
+figure, which is natural matter, never changes. The
+same may be said of corporeal motions: for though
+motions change and vary infinite ways, yet none is lost
+in Nature, but some motions are repeated again: As
+for example; the natural motions in an Animal Creature,
+although they are altered in the dissolution of the
+figure, yet they may be repeated again by piece-meals
+in other Creatures; like as a Commonwealth, or
+united body in society, if it should be dissolved or
+dispersed, the particulars which did constitute this
+Commonwealth or society, may joyn to the making of
+another society; and thus the natural motions of a body
+do not perish when the figure of the body dissolves,
+but joyn with other motions to the forming and producing
+of some other figures. But to return to your
+<i>Author</i>. I perceive his discourse is grounded upon a false
+supposition, which appears by his way of arguing from
+the course of the Starrs and Planets, to prove the finiteness
+of Nature; for by reason the Stars and Planets
+rowl about, and turn to the same point again, each
+within a certain compass of time, he concludes Nature
+or Natural Matter to be finite too. And so he
+takes a part for the whole, to wit, this visible World
+for all Nature, when as this World is onely a part of
+Nature, or Natural Matter, and there may be more,
+and Infinite worlds besides; Wherefore his conclusion
+must needs be false, since it is built upon a false
+ground. Moreover, he is as much against the Eternity
+of Matter, as he is against Infiniteness; concluding
+likewise from the parts to the whole; For, <i>says
+he</i>, since the parts of Nature are subject to a beginning
+and ending, the whole must be so too. But he
+is much mistaken, when he attributes a beginning
+and ending to parts, for there is no such thing as a beginning
+and ending in Nature, neither in the whole,
+nor in the parts, by reason there is no new creation or
+production of Creatures out of new Matter, nor any
+total destruction or annihilation of any part in Nature,
+but onely a change, alteration and transmigration
+of one figure into another; which change and alteration
+proves rather the contrary, to wit, that Matter
+is Eternal and Incorruptible; for if particular figures
+change, they must of necessity change in the Infinite
+Matter, which it self, and in its nature, is not subject
+to any change or alteration: besides, though particulars
+have a finite and limited figure, and do change,
+yet their species do not; for Mankind never changes,
+nor ceases to be, though <i>Peter</i> and <i>Paul</i> die, or rather
+their figures dissolve and divide; for to die is nothing
+else, but that the parts of that figure divide and
+unite into some other figures by the change of motion
+in those parts. Concerning the Inanimate Matter,
+which of it self is a dead, dull, and idle matter, your
+<i>Author</i> denies it to be a co-agent or assistant to the animate
+matter: For, says he, how can dead and idle
+things act? To which, I answer: That your <i>Author</i>
+being, or pretending to be a Philosopher, should consider
+that there is difference betwixt a Principal and Instrumental
+cause or agent; and although this inanimate,
+or dull matter, doth not act of it self as a principal
+agent, yet it can and doth act as an Instrument, according
+as it is imploy'd by the animate matter: for by reason
+there is so close a conjunction and commixture of
+animate and inanimate Matter in Nature, as they do
+make but one body, it is impossible that the animate part
+of matter should move without the inanimate; not that
+the inanimate hath motion in her self, but the animate
+bears up the inanimate in the action of her own substance,
+and makes the inanimate work, act, and move
+with her, by reason of the aforesaid union and commixture.
+Lastly, your <i>Author</i> speaks much of Minima's,
+<i>viz.</i> That all things may be resolved into their
+minima's, and what is beyond them, is nothing, and
+that there is one maximum, or biggest, which is the
+world, and what is beyond that, is Infinite. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I must ingeniously confess, I am not so
+high learned, as to penetrate into the true sense of these
+words; for he says, they are both divisible, and indivisible,
+and yet no atomes, which surpasses my Understanding;
+for there is no such thing, as biggest and
+smallest in Nature, or in the Infinite matter; for who
+can know how far this World goes, or what is beyond
+it? There may be Infinite Worlds, as I said before,
+for ought we know; for God and Nature cannot be
+comprehended, nor their works measured, if we cannot
+find out the nature of particular things, which are
+subject to our exterior senses, how shall we be able to
+judg of things not subject to our senses. But your <i>Author</i>
+doth speak so presumptuously of Gods Actions,
+Designs, Decrees, Laws, Attributes, Power, and secret
+Counsels, and describes the manner, how God created
+all things, and the mixture of the Elements to an hair, as
+if he had been Gods Counsellor and assistant in the
+work of Creation; which whether it be not more impiety,
+then to say, Matter is Infinite, I'le let others judg.
+Neither do I think this expression to be against the holy
+Scripture; for though I speak as a natural Philosopher,
+and am unwilling to cite the Scripture, which onely
+treats of things belonging to Faith, and not to Reason;
+yet I think there is not any passage which plainly
+denies Matter to be Infinite, and Eternal, unless it be
+drawn by force to that sense: <i>Solomon</i> says, <i>That there
+is not any thing new</i>: and in another place it is said,
+<i>That God is all fulfilling</i>; that is, that the Will of God is
+the fulfilling of the actions of Nature: also the Scripture
+says, <i>That Gods ways are unsearchable, and past
+finding out.</i> Wherefore, it is easier to treat of Nature,
+then the God of Nature; neither should God be treated
+of by vain Philosophers, but by holy Divines, which
+are to deliver and interpret the Word of God without
+sophistry, and to inform us as much of Gods Works,
+as he hath been pleased to declare and make known.
+And this is the safest way, in the opinion of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XI" id="IV_XI">XI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your new <i>Author</i> endeavours to prove, that Water
+in its own proper nature is thicker then Earth;
+which, to my sense and reason, seems not probable;
+for although water is less porous then earth in
+its exterior figure, yet 'tis not so thick as earth in its interior
+nature: Neither can I conceive it to be true, that
+water in its own nature, and as long as it remains water,
+should be as hard as Crystal, or stone, as his opinion
+is; for though Elements are so pliant (being not
+composed of many different parts and figures) as they
+can change and rechange their exterior figures, yet
+they do not alter their interior nature without a total dissolution;
+but your <i>Author</i> may as well say, that the interior
+nature of man is dust and ashes, as that water in
+its interior nature is as thick as earth, and as hard as
+Christal, or stone; whereas yet a man, when he becomes
+dust and ashes, is not a man; and therefore, when
+water is become so thick as earth, or so hard as stone, it
+is not water; I mean when it is so in its interior nature,
+not in its exterior figure; for the exterior figure may
+be contracted, when yet the interior nature is dilative;
+and so the exterior may be thick or hard, when the interior
+is soft and rare. But you may say, that water is
+a close, and heavy, as also a smooth and glossy body.
+I answer: That doth not prove its interior nature to
+be hard, dense, thick, or contracted; for the interior
+nature and parts of a body may be different from the exterior
+figure or parts; neither doth the close joyning of
+parts hinder dilatation; for if so, a line or circle could
+not dilate or extend: But this close uniting of the parts
+of water is caused through its wet and glutinous quality,
+which wet and sticking quality is caused by a watery dilatation;
+for though water hath not interiously so rare
+a dilatation as Air, Fire, and Light, yet it hath not so
+close a contraction as Earth, Stone, or Metal; neither
+are all bodies that are smooth and shining, more solid
+and dense, then those that are rough and dark; for light
+is more smooth, glossy, and shining, then Water, Metal,
+Earth, or Transparent-stones, and yet is of a dilative
+nature. But because some bodies and figures
+which are transparent and smooth, are dense, hard, and
+thick, we cannot in reason, or sense, say, that all bodies
+and figures are so. As for Transparency, it is
+caused through a purity of substance, and an evenness
+of parts: the like is glossiness, onely glossiness requires
+not so much regularity, as transparency. But to
+return to Water; its exterior Circle-figure may
+dilate beyond the degree of the propriety or nature of
+water, or contract beneath the propriety or nature of
+water. Your <i>Author</i> may say, Water is a globous
+body, and all globous bodies tend to a Center. I answer:
+That my sense and reason cannot perceive, but
+that Circles and Globes do as easily dilate, as contract:
+for if all Globes and Circles should endeavour to draw
+or fall from the circumference to the Center, the Center
+of the whole World, or at least of some parts of the
+World, would be as a Chaos: besides, it is against
+sense and reason, that all Matter should strive to a
+Center; for humane sense and reason may observe, that
+all Creatures, and so Matter, desire liberty, and a
+Center is but a Prison in comparison to the Circumference;
+wherefore if Matter crowds, it is rather
+by force, then a voluntary action. You will say, All
+Creatures desire rest, and in a Center there's rest. I
+answer; Humane sense and reason cannot perceive any
+rest in Nature: for all things, as I have proved heretofore,
+are in a perpetual motion. But concerning
+Water, you may ask me, <i>Madam</i>, Whether congeal'd
+Water, as Ice, if it never thaw, remains Water?
+To which, I answer: That the interior nature of
+Water remains as long as the Ice remains, although the
+outward form is changed; but if Ice be contracted into
+the firmness and density of Crystal, or Diamond, or
+the like, so as to be beyond the nature of Water, and
+not capable to be that Water again, then it is transformed
+into another Creature, or thing, which is neither
+Water, nor Ice, but a Stone; for the Icy contraction
+doth no more alter the interior nature of Water, which
+is dilating, then the binding of a man with Chains alters
+his nature from being a man; and it might be said
+as well, that the nature of Air is not dilating, when
+inclosed in a bladder, as that Water doth not remain
+Water in its interior nature, when it is contracted into
+Ice. But you may ask, Whether one extreme can
+change into another? I answer: To my sense and reason
+it were possible, if extremes were in Nature; but I
+do not perceive that in Nature there be any, although
+my sense and reason doth perceive alterations in the effects
+of Nature; for though one and the same part
+may alter from contraction to dilation, and from dilation
+to contraction; yet this contraction and dilation
+are not extremes, neither are they performed at one and
+the same time, but at different times. But having sufficiently
+declared my opinion hereof in my former Letters,
+I'l add no more, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XII" id="IV_XII">XII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>My discourse of Water in my last Letter has given
+you occasion to enquire after the reason, <i>Why
+the weight of a great body of water doth not press
+so hard and heavily as to bruise or crush a body, when it is
+sunk down to the bottom?</i> As for example: If a man
+should be drowned, and afterwards cast out from the
+bottom of a great Sea, or River, upon the shore; he
+would onely be found smother'd or choak'd to death,
+and not press'd, crush'd, or bruised, by the weight of water.
+I answer; The reasons are plain: for, first, the
+nature of a mans respiration requires such a temperature
+of breath to suck in, as is neither too thick, nor
+too thin for his lungs, and the rest of his interior parts,
+as also for the organs and passages of his exterior senses,
+but fit, proper, and proportionable to those mentioned
+parts of his body: As for example; in a too thin and
+rarified air, man will be as apt to die for want of breath,
+as in a too gross and thick air he is apt to die with a superfluity
+of the substance he imbreaths; for thick smoak, or
+thick vapour, as also too gross air, will soon smother a
+man to death; and as for choaking, if a man takes more
+into his throat then he can swallow, he will die; and if
+his stomack be filled with more food then it is able to digest,
+if it cannot discharge it self, he will die with the
+excess of food; and if there be no food, or too little put
+into it, he will also die for want of food. So the eye,
+if it receives too many, or too gross, or too bright objects,
+it will be dazled or blinded, and some objects
+through their purity are not to be seen at all: The
+same for Hearing, and the rest of the exterior senses: And
+this is the reason, why man, or some animal Creatures
+are smother'd and choak'd with water; because
+water is thicker then the grossest air or vapour; for if
+smoak, which is rarer then water, will smother and
+choak a man, well may water, being so much thicker.
+But yet this smothering or choaking doth not prove,
+that water hath an interior or innate density (as your
+<i>Authors</i> opinion is) no more then smoak, or thick and
+gross air hath; but the density of water is caused more
+through the wet and moist exterior parts, joyning and
+uniting closely together; and the interior nature of
+smoak being more moist or glutinous then thin air, and
+so more apt to unite its exterior parts, it makes it to come
+in effect nearer to water; for though water and smoak
+are both of rare natures, yet not so rare as clear and pure
+air; neither is water or smoak so porous as pure air, by
+reason the exterior parts of water and smoak are more
+moist or glutinous then pure air. But the thickness of
+water and smoak is the onely cause of the smothering
+of men, or some animals, as by stopping their breath,
+for a man can no more live without air, then he can
+without food; and a well tempered or middle degree of
+air is the most proper for animal Respiration; for if the
+air be too thick, it may soon smother or choak him;
+and if too thin, it is not sufficient to give him breath:
+And this is the reason that a man being drown'd, is not
+onely smother'd, but choak'd by water; because there
+enters more through the exterior passages into his body
+then can be digested; for water is apt to flow more
+forcibly and with greater strength then air; not that
+it is more dilating then air, but by reason it is thicker,
+and so stronger, or of more force; for the denser a body
+is, the stronger it is; and a heavy body, when moved,
+is more forcible then a light body. But I pray
+by this expression mistake not the nature of water; for
+the interior nature of water hath not that gravity,
+which heavy or dense bodies have, its nature being
+rare and light, as air, or fire; but the weight of water,
+as I said before, proceeds onely from the closeness and
+compactness of its exterior parts, not through a contraction
+in its interior nature; and there is no argument,
+which proves better, that water in its interior nature
+is dilating, then that its weight is not apt to press
+to a point; for though water is apt to descend, through
+the union of its parts, yet it cannot press hard, by
+reason of its dilating nature, which hinders that heavy
+pressing quality; for a dilating body cannot have a
+contracted weight, I mean, so as to press to a Center,
+which is to a point; and this is the reason, that when
+a grave or heavy body sinks down to the bottom of
+water, it is not opprest, hurt, crusht, or bruised by the
+weight of water; for, as I said, the nature of water being
+dilating, it can no more press hard to a center, then
+vapour, air, or fire: The truth is, water would be as
+apt to ascend as descend, if it were not for the wet, glutinous
+and sticking, cleaving quality of its exterior parts;
+but as the quantity and quality of the exterior parts
+makes water apt to sink, or descend, so the dilating nature
+makes it apt to flow, if no hinderance stop its course;
+also the quantity and quality of its exterior parts is the
+cause, that some heavy bodies do swim without sinking:
+as for example; a great heavy Ship will not readily
+sink, unless its weight be so contracted as to break
+asunder the united parts of water; for the wet quality
+of water causing its exterior parts to joyn close, gives
+it such an united strength, as to be able to bear a heavy
+burden, if the weight be dilated, or level, and not piercing
+or penetrating; for those bodies that are most compact,
+will sink sooner, although of less weight then
+those that are more dilated although of greater weight:
+Also the exterior and outward shape or form makes
+some bodies more apt to sink then others; Indeed, the
+outward form and shape of Creatures is one of the
+chief causes of either sinking or swimming. But to
+conclude, water in its interior nature is of a mean or
+middle degree, as neither too rare, nor too grave a body;
+and for its exterior quality, it is in as high a degree
+for wetness, as fire is for heat; and being apt both to
+divide, and to unite, it can bear a burden, and devour
+a burden, so that some bodies may swim, and others
+sink; and the cause, that a sunk body is not opprest,
+crush'd, or squeesed, is the dilating nature and quality
+of water, which hinders its parts from pressing or crowding
+towards a point or center; for although water is heavy,
+and apt to descend, yet its weight is not caused by
+a contraction of its substance, but by a union of its parts.
+Thus, <i>Madam</i>, I have obeyed your commands, in
+giving you my reasons to your propounded question,
+which if you approve, I have my aim; if not, I submit
+to your better judgment: for you know I am in all
+respects,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>to serve you.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XIII" id="IV_XIII">XIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am glad, you are pleased with my reasons I gave
+to your propounded question concerning the weight
+of Water; and since you have been pleased to send
+me some more of that subject, I shall be ready also to
+give my answer to them, according to the capacity of
+my judgment. First, you desire to know, <i>How it
+comes, that Water will by degrees ascend through a narrow
+pipe, when the pipe is placed straight upright; or perpendicular?</i>
+The reason, in my opinion is, that Water,
+having a dilative nature, when it finds an obstruction
+to descend or flow even, will dilate it self ascendingly,
+according as it hath liberty, or freedom, and
+strength, or quantity; the truth is, water would be
+more apt to ascend then to descend, were it not for the
+close uniting of its liquid Parts, which causes its exterior
+density, and this density makes it of more weight then
+its nature is; and the proof that water is apt in its nature
+to ascend, is, that some sorts of vapours are made onely
+by the dilation and rarefaction of ascending Water.
+Your second question is, <i>Why the surface of water seems
+to be concave in its middle, and higher on every side?</i> I
+answer, The interior figure of water is a circular figure,
+which being a round figure, is both concave, and convex;
+for where one is, the other must be; and the motions
+of ebbing and flowing, and ascending or descending,
+are partly of that figure; and so according to the
+exterior dilating strength or weakness, the exterior parts
+of water become either concave or convex; for in a
+full strength, as a full stream, the exterior parts of water
+flow in a convex figure, but when they want strength,
+they ebb in a concave figure. Your third question is,
+<i>What makes frozen water apt to break those Vessels wherein
+it is contained, in the act of freezing or congealing?</i> I
+answer: The same cause that makes water clear, as also
+more swell'd then usually it is: which cause is the inherent
+dilative nature of water; for water being naturally
+dilative, when as cold attractions do assault it, the moist
+dilations of water in the conflict use more then their ordinary
+strength to resist those cold contracting motions,
+by which the body of water dilates it self into a larger
+compass, according as it hath liberty or freedom, or
+quantity of parts; and the cold parts not being able to
+drive the water back to its natural compass, bind it as
+it is extended, like as if a beast should be bound when
+his legs and neck are thrust out at the largest extent, in
+striving to kick or thrust away his enemies and imprisoners:
+And so the reason why water breaks these vessels
+wherein it is inclosed, in the act of its freezing or
+congealing is, that when the cold contractions are
+so strong as they endeavour to extinguish the dilating
+nature of water, the water refilling, forces its
+parts so, as they break the vessel which incloses them:
+The same reason makes Ice clear and transparent; for it
+is not the rarefaction of water that doth it, but the dilation,
+which causes the parts of water to be not onely
+more loose and porous, but also more smooth and even,
+by resisting the cold contractions; for every part endeavours
+to defend their borders with a well ordered and
+regular flowing or streaming, and not onely to defend,
+but to enlarge their compass against their enemies. Your
+fourth question is, How it comes <i>that Snow and Salt
+mixt together doth make Ice?</i> The reason, in my judgment,
+is, that Salt being very active, and partly of the
+nature of fire, doth sometimes preserve, and sometimes
+destroy other bodies, according to its power, or rather
+according to the nature of those bodies it works on; and
+salt being mixt with snow, endeavours to destroy it; but
+having not so much force, melts it onely by its heat, and
+reduces it into its first principle, which is water, altering
+the figure of snow; but the cold contractions remaining
+in the water, and endeavouring to maintain and
+keep their power, straight draw the water or melted
+snow into the figure of ice, so as neither the salts heat,
+nor the waters dilative nature, are able to resist or destroy
+those cold contractions; for although they destroy'd
+the first figure, which is snow, yet they cannot hinder
+the second, which is Ice. Your last question is, <i>How
+the Clouds can hang so long in the Skie without falling
+down?</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I do not perceive that Clouds,
+being come to their full weight and gravity, do keep
+up in the air, but some of them fall down in showres of
+rain, others in great and numerous flakes of snow; some
+are turned into wind, and some fall down in thick mists,
+so that they onely keep up so long, until they are of a
+full weight for descent, or till their figure is altered
+into some other body, as into air, wind, rain, lightning,
+thunder, snow, hail, mist, and the like. But
+many times their dilating motions keep or hinder them
+from descending, to which contracting motions are required.
+In my opinion, it is more to be admired, that
+the Sea doth not rise, then that Clouds do not fall; for,
+as we see, Clouds fall very often, as also change from
+being Clouds, to some other figure: Wherefore it is
+neither the Sun, nor Stars, nor the Vapours, which
+arise from the Earth, and cause the Clouds, nor the
+porosity of their bodies, nor the Air, that can keep
+or hinder them from falling or changing to some other
+body; but they being come to their full weight, fall
+or change according as is fittest for them. And these
+are all the reasons I can give you for the present; if they
+do not satisfie you, I will study for others, and in all
+occasions endeavour to express my self,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XIV" id="IV_XIV">XIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since in my last, I made mention of the Congealing
+of Water into Ice and Snow, I cannot choose,
+but by the way tell you, that I did lately meet with
+an <i>Author</i>, who is of opinion, That Snow is nothing else
+but Ice broken or ground into small pieces. To
+which, I answer: That this opinion may serve very
+well for a Fancy, but not for a Rational Truth, or at
+least for a Probable Reason; For why may not the cold
+motions make snow without beating or grinding, as well
+as they make Ice? Surely Nature is wiser then to
+trouble her self with unnecessary labour, and to make
+an easie work difficult, as Art her Creature doth, or as
+some dull humane capacities conceive; for it is more easie
+for Nature to make Snow by some sorts of cold contractions,
+as she makes Ice by other sorts of cold contractions,
+then to force Air and Wind to beat, grinde,
+or pound Ice into Snow, which would cause a confusion
+and disturbance through the Irregularity of several
+parts, being jumbled in a confused manner together.
+The truth is, it would rather cause a War in Nature,
+then a natural production, alteration, or transformation:
+Neither can I conceive, in what region this turbulent
+and laborious work should be acted; certainly
+not in the caverns of the Earth, for snow descends
+from the upper Region. But, perchance, this <i>Author</i>
+believes, that Nature imploys Wind as a Hand, and
+the Cold air as a Spoon, to beat Ice like the white of an
+Egg into a froth of Snow. But the great quantity of
+Snow, in many places, doth prove, that Snow is not
+made of the fragments of Ice, but that some sorts of
+cold contractions on a watery body, make the figure of
+snow in the substance of water, as other sorts of cold
+contractions make the figure of ice; which motions and
+figures I have treated of in my Book of Philosophy, according
+to that Judgment and Reason which Nature
+has bestowed upon me. The Author of this Fancy,
+gives the same reason for Snow being white: <i>For Ice</i>,
+says he, <i>is a transparent body, and all transparent bodies,
+when beaten into powder, appear white; and since Snow
+is nothing else but Ice powder'd small, it must of necessity
+shew white.</i> Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I am not so experienced,
+as to know that all transparent bodies, being beaten
+small, shew white; but grant it be so, yet that doth
+not prove, that the whiteness of snow proceeds from the
+broken parts of Ice, unless it be proved that the whiteness
+of all bodies proceeds from the powdering of transparent
+bodies, which I am sure he cannot do; for Silver,
+and millions of other things are white, which
+were never produced from the powder of transparent
+bodies: Neither do I know any reason against it, but
+that which makes a Lilly white, may also be the cause of
+the whiteness of Snow, that is, such a figure as makes
+a white colour; for different figures, in my opinion,
+are the cause of different colours, as you will find in my
+Book of Philosophy, where I say, that Nature by contraction
+of lines draws such or such a Figure, which is
+such or such a Colour; as such a Figure is red, and such
+a Figure is green, and so of all the rest: But the Palest
+colours, and so white, are the loosest and slackest figures;
+Indeed, white, which is the nearest colour to
+light, is the smoothest, evenest and straightest figure,
+and composed of the smallest lines: As for example;
+suppose the figure of 8. were the colour of Red, and the
+figure of 1. the colour of White; or suppose the figure
+of Red to be a <i>z.</i> and the figure of an <i>r.</i> to be the figure
+of Green, and a straight <i>l.</i> the figure of White; And
+mixt figures make mixt colours: The like examples
+may be brought of other Figures, as of a Harpsichord
+and its strings, a Lute and its strings, a Harp and its
+strings, &amp;c. By which your Reason shall judg, whether
+it be not easier for Nature, to make Snow and its
+whiteness by the way of contraction, then by the way
+of dissolution: As for example; Nature in making
+Snow, contracts or congeals the exterior figure of
+Water into the figure of a Harp, which is a Triangular
+figure with the figure of straight strings within it; for
+the exterior figure of the Harp represents the exterior
+figure of Snow, and the figure of the strings extended
+in straight lines represent the figure of its whiteness. And
+thus it is easier to make Snow and its whiteness at one act,
+then first to contract or congeal water into Ice, and then
+to cause wind and cold air to beat and break that Ice into
+powder, and lastly to contract or congeal that powder
+into flakes of Snow. Which would be a very troublesom
+work for Nature, <i>viz.</i> to produce one effect by
+so many violent actions and several labours, when the
+making of two figures by one action will serve the turn.
+But Nature is wiser then any of her Creatures can conceive;
+for she knows how to make, and how to dissolve,
+form; and transform, with facility and ease,
+without any difficulty; for her actions are all easie
+and free, yet so subtil, curious and various, as not any
+part or creature of Nature can exactly or throughly
+trace her ways, or know her wisdom. And thus leaving
+her, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XV" id="IV_XV">XV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have taken several questions out of your new <i>Author</i>,
+which I intend to answer in this present Letter
+according to the conceptions of my own sense and
+reason, and to submit them to your censure; which if
+you vouchsafe to grant me without partiality, I shall
+acknowledg my self much obliged to you for this
+favour. The first question is, <i>Why wet Linnen is dried
+in the Air?</i> I answer; That, according to my sense
+and reason, the water which is spred upon the linnen,
+being not united in a full and close body, dilates beyond
+the Circle-degree of water and wetness, and so
+doth easily change from water to vapour, and from
+vapour to air, whereby the linnen becomes as dry, as
+it was before it became wet. The second question is,
+<i>Why Water and Wine intermix so easily and suddenly together?</i>
+I answer: All wet liquors, although their
+exterior figures do differ, yet their interior natures, figures
+and forms are much alike, and those things that
+are of the same interior nature, do easily and suddenly
+joyn as into one: Wherefore Wine and Water having
+both wet natures, do soon incorporate together,
+whereas, were they of different natures, they would
+not so peaceably joyn together, but by their contrary
+natures become enemies, and strive to destroy each other;
+but this is to be observed, that the sharp points of
+the Circle-lines of Wine, by passing through the
+smooth Circle-lines of Water, help to make a more
+hasty and sudden conjunction. The third question, is,
+<i>Why Light, which in its nature is white, shining through a
+coloured Glass, doth appear of the same colour which the
+Glass is of, either Blew, Green, Red, or the like?</i> I
+answer: The reason is, that though Light in its nature
+be white, and the Glass clear and transparent, yet when
+as the Glass is stained or painted with colours, both the
+clearness of the glass, and the whiteness of the light, is
+obstructed by the figure of that colour the glass is stained
+or painted withal, and the light spreading upon or
+thorow the glass, represents it self in the figure of that
+same colour; indeed, in all probability to sense and
+reason, it appears, that the lines or beams of light, which
+are straight, small, even, and parallel, do contract in
+their entrance through the glass into the figure of the colour
+the glass is stained or painted with, so that the
+light passes through the glass figuratively, in so much,
+as it seems to be of the same colour the glass is of, although
+in it self it is white, lucent, and clear; and as
+the light appears, so the eye receives it, if the sight be
+not destructive. The fourth question, is, <i>Whether</i> (as
+your <i>Authors</i> opinion is) <i>kisses feel pleasing and delightful
+by the thinness of the parts, and a gentle stirring and
+quavering of the tangent spirits, that give a pleasing
+tact?</i> I answer: If this were so, then all kisses would
+be pleasing, which surely are not; for some are thought
+very displeasing, especially from thin lips; wherefore,
+in my opinion, it is neither the thinness of the parts of
+the lips, nor the quavering of the tangent spirits, but
+the appetites and passions of life, reason, and soul, that
+cause the pleasure; Nevertheless, I grant, the stirring
+up of the spirits may contribute to the increasing, heightening,
+or strengthning of that tact, but it is not the prime
+cause of it. The fifth question, is, <i>Whether the greatest
+man have always the greatest strength?</i> I answer,
+Not: for strength and greatness of bulk doth not always
+consist together, witness experience: for a little
+man may be, and is oftentimes stronger then a tall
+man. The like of other animal Creatures: As for example,
+some Horses of a little or middle size, have a
+great deal more strength then others which are high and
+big; for it is the quantity of sensitive matter that gives
+strength, and not the bigness or bulk of the body. The
+sixth question, is, <i>Whether this World or Universe be
+the biggest Creature?</i> I answer: It is not possible to
+be known, unless Man could perfectly know its dimension
+or extension, or whether there be more Worlds
+then one: But, to speak properly, there is no such
+thing as biggest or least in Nature. The seventh question,
+is, <i>Whether the Earth be the Center of Matter, or
+of the World?</i> As for Matter, it being Infinite, has
+no Center, by reason it has no Circumference; and,
+as for this World, its Center cannot be known, unless
+man knew the utmost parts of its circumference, for no
+Center can be known without its circumference; and
+although some do imagine this world so little, that in
+comparison to Infinite Matter, it would not be so big
+as the least Pins head, yet their knowledg cannot extend
+so far as to know the circumference of this little World;
+by which you may perceive the Truth of the old saying,
+Man talks much, but knows little. The eighth
+question is, <i>Whether all Centers must needs be full, and
+close, as a stufft Cushion; and whether the matter in the
+Center of the Universe or World be dense, compact, and
+heavy?</i> I answer: This can no more be known, then
+the circumference of the World; for what man is able
+to know, whether the Center of the world be rare, or
+dense, since he doth not know where its Center is; and
+as for other particular Centers, some Centers may
+be rare, some dense, and some may have less matter
+then their circumferences. The ninth question is, <i>Whether
+Finite Creatures can be produced out of an Infinite material
+cause?</i> I answer: That, to my sense and reason,
+an Infinite cause must needs produce Infinite effects,
+though not in each Particular, yet in General;
+that is, Matter, being Infinite in substance, must needs
+be dividable into Infinite parts in number, and thus Infinite
+Creatures must needs be produced out of Infinite
+Matter; but Man being but a finite part, thinks all
+must be finite too, not onely each particular Creature,
+but also the Matter out of which all Creatures are
+produced, which is corporeal Nature. Nevertheless,
+those Infinite effects in Nature are equalized by her different
+motions which are her different actions; for it
+is not <i>non</i>-sence, but most demonstrable to sense and
+reason that there are equalities or a union in Infinite.
+The tenth question is, <i>Whether the Elements be the onely
+matter out of which all other Creatures are produced?</i>
+I answer: The Elements, as well as all other Creatures,
+as it appears to humane sense and reason, are all
+of one and the same Matter, which is the onely Infinite
+Matter; and therefore the Elements cannot be the
+Matter of all other Creatures, for several sorts of
+Creatures have several ways of productions, and I know
+no reason to the contrary, but that Animals, Vegetables,
+and Minerals, may as well derive their essence
+from each other, as from the Elements, or the Elements
+from them; for as all Creatures do live by each other,
+so they are produced from each other, according to the
+several ways or manners of productions. But mistake
+me not, <i>Madam</i>, for I speak of production in General,
+and not of such natural production whereby the
+several species of Creatures are maintained: As for example,
+Generation in Animals; for an Element cannot
+generate an Animal in that manner as an Animal can
+generate or produce its like; for as Nature is wise, so her
+actions are all wise and orderly, or else it would make a
+horrid confusion amongst the Infinite parts of Nature.
+The eleventh question is, <i>What is meant by Natural
+Theology?</i> I answer: Natural Theology, in my opinion,
+is nothing else but Moral Philosophy; for as
+for our belief, it is grounded upon the Scripture, and
+not upon Reason.</p>
+
+<p>These, <i>Madam</i>, are the questions which I have
+pickt out of your new <i>Author</i>, together with my answers,
+of which I desire your impartial Judgment: But
+I must add one thing more before I conclude, which is,
+I am much pleased with your <i>Authors</i> opinion, That
+Sound may be perceived by the Eye, Colour by the
+Ear, and that Sound and Colour may be smell'd and
+tasted; and I have been of this opinion eleven years
+since, as you will find in my Book of Poems, whose
+first Edition was printed in the Year, 1653. And thus I
+take my leave of you, and remain constantly,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>to serve you.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XVI" id="IV_XVI">XVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning your question of the ascending nature
+of fire, I am absolutely of <i>Aristotle's</i> Opinion,
+that it is as natural for Fire to ascend, as it is
+for Earth to descend; And why should we believe the
+nature of one, and doubt the nature of the other? For
+if it be granted, that there are as well ascending, as descending
+bodies in Nature, as also low and high places,
+(according to the situation of Particulars) and Circumferences,
+as well as Centers, (considering the
+shape of bodies) I cannot perceive by humane reason,
+but that the Nature of fire is ascending, and that it is
+very improbable, it should have a descending or contracting
+nature, as to tend or endeavour to a Center.
+But, <i>Madam</i>, give me leave to ask what sort of Fire
+you mean, whether a Celestial, or a Terrestrial Fire,
+<i>viz.</i> that which is named an Elemental fire, or any other
+sort of fire? for there may be as many several
+sorts of fire, as of other Creatures; or whether you
+mean onely that sort of fire that belongs to this terrestrial
+Globe, or all the fire in general that is in Infinite
+Nature? and if you mean onely that sort of fire which
+belongs to this Terrestrial World we live upon; I answer,
+There are many several sorts of that fire too; for
+all the fire belonging to this Earthly Globe, doth not
+lie in one place, body, or part, no more then all metal,
+or but one sort of metal, as Gold, lies in one mine,
+or all Mankind in one womb. Neither can I believe,
+that the Sun is the onely Celestial Fire in Nature, but
+that there may be as numerous Suns, as there are other
+sorts of Creatures in Nature. But as for the ascending
+propriety of this terrestrial Fire, you may say, That
+the Elements do commix and unite in this worldly
+Globe, and if Fire should have an ascending motion, it
+would pierce into other Globes, or Worlds, and never
+leave ascending. I answer: That, first of all, the
+strength of fire is to be considered, consisting not onely
+in its quantity, but also in its quality; as whether it can
+ascend to those bodies and places which are far above it:
+For example; A Man, or any other Creature, hath
+never so much strength, or ability, or length of life, as to
+travel to the utmost parts of the Universe, were the way
+never so plain and free, and the number of men never so
+great: the like for Elementary fire, which hath life
+and death, that is, generation and dissolution, and successive
+motion, as well as other Creatures. But you
+would fain know, whether fire, if it were left at liberty,
+would not turn to a Globous figure? I answer; That,
+to my sense and reason, it would not: but some men,
+seeing the flame of fire in an arched Oven, descend
+round the sides of the Oven in a Globous figure, do
+perhaps imagine the nature of fire to be descending,
+and its natural figure round as a Globe, which is ridiculous;
+for the fire in the Oven, although every
+where incompassed and bound, yet, according to its
+nature, ascends to the top of the Oven; and finding
+a stoppage and suppression, offers to descend perpendicularly;
+but by reason of a continual ascending of
+the following flame, the first, and so all the following
+parts of flame are forced to spread about, and descend
+round the sides of the Oven, so that the descension of
+the flame is forced, and not natural, and its Globous
+figure is caused, as it were, by a mould, which is the
+Oven. But some are of opinion, that all bodies have
+descending motions towards the Center of this worldly
+Globe, and therefore they do not believe, that any
+bodies do ascend naturally: But what reason have they
+to believe one, and not the other? Besides, how
+do they know that all bodies would rest in the Center
+of this terrestrial Globe, if they came thither? For
+if it was possible, that a hole could be digged from the
+superficies of this Earthly Globe thorow the middle
+or Center of it unto the opposite superficies, and a
+stone be sent thorow; the question is, whether the
+stone would rest in the Center, and not go quite thorow?
+Wherefore this is but an idle Fancy; and the
+proof that Fire tends not to a Center, is, because it
+cannot be poised or weighed, not onely by reason of
+its rarity, but of its dilative and aspiring Nature; and
+as fire is ascending, or aspiring, so likewise do I, <i>Madam</i>,
+aspire to the top of your favour, and shall never
+descend from the ambition to serve you, but by the suppression
+of death. Till then, I remain,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XVII" id="IV_XVII">XVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In your last, you were pleased to desire my answer
+to these following questions: First, <i>What the reason
+is, that a Vessel, although it be of a solid and compact
+substance, yet will retain the smell or odour of a forreign
+substance poured into it, for a long time?</i> I answer:
+The Vessel, or rather the perceptive corporeal
+motions of the Vessel, having patterned out the figure
+of the sent of the odorous substance, retain that same figure
+of sent, although the odorous substance is gone; and
+as long as that patterned figure is perfect, the sent will
+remain in the Vessel, either more or less, according as
+the figure doth last or alter. But you must consider,
+<i>Madam</i>, that although it be the natural motions that
+make those patterns of odours, yet those patterned figures
+are but as it were artificial, like as a man who
+draws a Copy from an Original; for Nature has divers
+and several ways of such motions as we call Art,
+for whatsoever is an imitation, is that which man calls
+Art. Your second question was, <i>How it came, that the
+mind and understanding in many did die or dissolve before
+the body?</i> I answer: The reason is, because the rational
+corporeal motions alter before the sensitive; for as
+in some, as for example, in Natural fools, the rational
+motions never move to a regular humane understanding,
+so in some dying Persons they do make a general
+alteration before the sensitive. Your third question was,
+<i>Why a man, being bitten by a mad Dog, is onely distempered
+in his mind, and not in his body?</i> The reason, according
+to my judgment, is, that the rational part of
+Matter is onely disturbed, and not the sensitive. The
+fourth question was, <i>Why a Basilisk will kill with his eyes?</i>
+I answer: It is the sensitive corporeal motions in the
+organ of sight in the man, which upon the printing
+of the figure of the eyes of the Basilisk, make a sudden
+alteration. Your fifth question was, <i>Why an Asp will
+kill insensibly by biting?</i> The reason, in my opinion, is,
+That the biting of the Asp hath the same efficacy as
+deadly <i>Opium</i> hath, yea, and much stronger. Your
+sixth question was, <i>Why a Dog that rejoyces, swings his tail,
+and a Lyon when angry, or a Cat when in a fear, do lift
+up their tails?</i> I answer: The several motions of the
+mind may produce either but one, or several sorts of
+motions in some part or parts of the body; and as the
+sensitive motions of anger will produce tears, so will
+the motions of joy; but grief made by the rational motions
+of the mind, may by excess disturb and make a
+general alteration of the sensitive motions in an animal:
+the same may excessive joy. But, <i>Madam</i>, you may
+perhaps find out better reasons for your own questions
+then these are; for my endeavour was onely to frame my
+answer to the ground of my own opinions, and so to
+satisfie your desire, which was, and is still the ambition
+of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XVIII" id="IV_XVIII">XVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In your last, you were pleased to desire an account,
+how far, or how much I did understand the ancient
+and modern Philosophers in their Philosophical
+Writings. Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I can more readily tell
+you what I do not understand, then what I do understand:
+for, first, I do not understand their sophistical
+Logick, as to perswade with arguments that black is
+white, and white is black; and that fire is not hot, nor
+water wet, and other such things; for the glory in Logick
+is rather to make doubts, then to find truth; indeed,
+that Art now is like thick, dark clouds, which darken
+the light of truth. Next: I do not understand in
+particular, what they mean by second matter; for if
+they name figures and forms second matter, they may
+as well say, all several motions, which are the several
+actions of Nature, are several matters, and so there
+would be infinite several matters, which would produce
+a meer confusion in Nature. Neither do I understand,
+when they say, a body dissolves into the
+first matter; for I am not able to conceive their first
+matter, nor what they mean by <i>magna</i> and <i>major materia</i>;
+for I believe there is but one matter, and the
+motion of that matter is its action by which it
+produces several figures and effects; so that the nature
+of the matter is one and the same, although its
+motions, that is, its actions, be various, for the various
+effects alter not the nature or unity of the onely matter.
+Neither do I understand what they mean by
+corruption, for surely Nature is not corruptible. Nor
+do I understand their individables in Nature, nor a
+bodiless form, nor a privation, nor a being without a
+body; nor any such thing as they call rest, for there's
+not any thing without motion in Nature: Some do
+talk of moving <i>minima's</i>, but they do not tell what
+those <i>minima's</i> or their motions are, or how they were
+produced, or how they came to move. Neither do I
+understand when they say there is but one World, and
+that finite; for if there be no more Matter then that
+which they call the whole World, and may be measured
+by a <i>Jacob's</i> staff, then certainly there is but little
+matter, and that no bigger then an atome in comparison
+to Infinite. Neither can my reason comprehend,
+when they say, that not any thing hath power
+from its interior nature to move exteriously and locally;
+for common sense and reason, that is sight and observation,
+doth prove the contrary. Neither do I know
+what they mean by making a difference between matter
+and form, power and act; for there can be no form
+without matter, nor no matter without form; and as act
+includes power, so power is nothing without act: Neither
+can I conceive Reason to be separable from matter;
+nor what is meant when they say, that, onely that
+is real, which moves the understanding without. Nor do
+I understand what they mean by intentionals, accidentals,
+incorporeal beings, formal <i>ratio</i>, formal <i>unity</i>, and hundreds
+the like; enough to puzle truth, when all is but the
+several actions of one cause, to wit, the onely matter. But
+most men make such cross, narrow, and intricate ways in
+Nature, with their over-nice distinctions, that Nature
+appears like a Labyrinth, whenas really she is as plain as
+an un-plowed, ditched, or hedged champion: Nay, some
+make Nature so full, that she can neither move nor stir;
+and others again will have her so empty, as they leave
+not any thing within her; and some with their penetrations,
+pressings, squeezings, and the like, make such holes
+in her, as they do almost wound, press and squeeze her to
+death: And some are so learned, witty, and ingenious, as
+they understand and know to discourse of the true compass,
+just weight, exact rules, measures and proportions of
+the Universe, as also of the exact division of the <i>Chaos</i>,
+and the architecture of the world, to an atome. Thus, <i>Madam</i>,
+I have made my confession to you of what I understand
+not, and have endeavoured to make my ignorance
+as brief as I could; but the great God knows, that
+my ignorance is longer then that which is named life and
+death; and as for my understanding, I can onely say,
+that I understand nothing better, but my self to be,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your most faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XIX" id="IV_XIX">XIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since I have given you, in my last, an account how
+much I did understand the Philosophical works of
+both the ancient and modern Philosophers, or rather
+what I did not understand of them, you would fain
+have my opinion now of the persons themselves. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, as for those that are dead, or those that are
+living, I cannot say any thing, but that I believe they all
+were or are worthy persons, men of vast understandings,
+subtil conceptions, ingenious wits, painful students,
+and learned writers. But as for their works, as
+I told you heretofore, I confess ingeniously, I understand
+them not, by reason I am ignorant in their Scholastical
+Arts, as Logick, Metaphysick, Mathematicks,
+and the like: For to my simple apprehension, when as
+Logicians argue of natural causes and effects, they make
+natural causes to produce natural effects with more difficulty
+and enforcement then Nature knows of; and as
+for Mathematicians, they endeavour to inchant Nature
+with Circles, and bind her with lines so hard, as if she
+were so mad, that she would do some mischief, when
+left at liberty. Geometricians weigh Nature to an Atome,
+and measure her so exactly, as less then a hairs
+breadth; besides, they do press and squeeze her so
+hard and close, as they almost stifle her. And Natural
+Philosophers do so stuff her with dull, dead, senceless
+<i>minima's</i>, like as a sack with meal, or sand, by which
+they raise such a Dust as quite blinds Nature and natural
+reason. But Chymists torture Nature worst of all; for
+they extract and distil her beyond substance, nay, into no
+substance, if they could. As for natural Theologers,
+I understand them least of any; for they make such a
+gallamalfry of Philosophy and Divinity, as neither can
+be distinguished from the other. In short, <i>Madam</i>,
+They all with their intricate definitions and distinctions
+set my brain on the rack: but some Philosophers are like
+some Poets, for they endeavour to write strong lines.
+You may ask me, what is meant by strong lines? I
+answer: Weak sense. To which leaving them, I
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XX" id="IV_XX">XX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I am not of your opinion, That nice distinctions and
+Logistical arguments discover truth, dissolve doubts,
+and clear the understanding; but I say, they rather
+make doubts of truth, and blind-fold the understanding;
+Indeed, nice distinctions and sophistical arguments,
+are very pernicious both in Schools, Church,
+and State: As for the Church, although in Divinity
+there is but one Truth, yet nice distinctions, and Logistical
+sophistry, have made such confusion in it, as has
+caused almost as many several opinions as there are
+words in the Scripture; and as for natural Theology,
+which is moral Philosophy, they have divided vertues
+and vices into so many parts, and minced them so small,
+that neither can be clearly distinguished. The same in
+Government; they endeavour to cut between command
+and obedience to a hairs breadth. Concerning
+causes of Law, they have abolish'd the intended benefit,
+and banish'd equity; and instead of keeping
+Peace, they make War, causing enmity betwixt men:
+As for Natural Philosophy, they will not suffer sense and
+reason to appear in that study: And as for Physick, they
+have kill'd more men then Wars, Plagues, or Famine.
+Wherefore from nice distinctions and Logistical sophistry,
+Good God deliver us, especially, from those that
+concern Divinity; for they weaken Faith, trouble Conscience,
+and bring in Atheism: In short, they make controversies,
+and endless disputes. But least the opening
+of my meaning in such plain terms should raise a controversie
+also between you and me, I'le cut off here, and
+rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXI" id="IV_XXI">XXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Yesterday I received a visit from the Lady <i>N. M.</i>
+who you know hath a quick wit, rational opinions,
+and subtil conceptions; all which she is
+ready and free to divulge in her discourse. But when
+she came to my Chamber, I was casting up some
+small accounts; which when she did see, What, said
+she, are you at Numeration? Yes, said I: but I
+cannot number well, nor much, for I do not understand
+Arithmetick. Said she, You can number to
+three. Yes, said I, I can number to four: Nay,
+faith, said she, the number of three is enough, if you
+could but understand that number well, for it is a mystical
+number. Said I, There is no great mystery to
+count that number; for one, and two, makes three. Said
+she, That is not the mystery; for the mystery is, That
+three makes one: and without this mystery no man
+can understand Divinity, Nature, nor himself. Then
+I desired her to make me understand that mystery. She
+said, It required more time to inform me, then a short
+visit, for this mystery was such, as did puzle all wise
+men in the world; and the not understanding of this
+mystery perfectly, had caused endless divisions and disputes.
+I desired, if she could not make me understand
+the mystery, she would but inform me, how three
+made one in Divinity, Nature, and Man. She said,
+That was easie to do; for in Divinity there are three
+Persons in one Essence, as God the Father, the Son,
+and the holy Ghost, whose Essence being individable,
+they make but one God; And as for Philosophy, there
+is but Matter, Motion, and Figure, which being individable,
+make but one Nature; And as for Man,
+there is Soul, Life, and Body, all three joyned in one
+Man. But I replied, Man's Life, Soul and Body, is dividable.
+That is true, said she, but then he is no more
+a Man; for these three are his essential parts, which
+make him to be a man; and when these parts are dissolved,
+then his interior nature is changed, so that he can
+no longer be call'd a man: As for example; Water being
+turned into Air, and having lost its interior nature,
+can no more be called Water, but it is perfect Air; the
+same is with Man: But as long as he is a Man, then
+these three forementioned parts which make him to be
+of that figure are individably united as long as man lasts.
+Besides, said she, this is but in the particular, considering
+man single, and by himself; but in general, these
+three, as life, soul, and body, are individably united,
+so that they remain as long as mankind lasts. Nay, although
+they do dissolve in the particulars, yet it is but
+for a time; for they shall be united again at the last day,
+which is the time of their resurrection; so that also in this
+respect we may justly call them individable, for man
+shall remain with an united soul, life, and body, eternally.
+And as she was thus discoursing, in came a Sophisterian,
+whom when she spied, away she went as
+fast as she could; but I followed her close, and got
+hold of her, then asked her, why she ran away? She
+answer'd, if she stayed, the Logician would dissolve
+her into nothing, for the profession of Logicians is to
+make something nothing, and nothing something. I
+pray'd her to stay and discourse with the Logician: Not
+for a world, said she, for his discourse will make my
+brain like a confused <i>Chaos</i>, full of senseless <i>minima's</i>; and
+after that, he will so knock, jolt, and jog it, and make
+such whirls and pits, as will so torture my brain, that
+I shall wish I had not any: Wherefore, said she, I
+will not stay now, but visit you again to morrow. And
+I wish with all my heart, <i>Madam</i>, you were so
+near as to be here at the same time, that we three might
+make a Triumvirate in discourse, as well as we do in
+friendship. But since that cannot be, I must rest satisfied
+that I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXII" id="IV_XXII">XXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You were pleased to desire my opinion of the
+works of that Learned and Ingenious Writer <i>B.</i>
+Truly, <i>Madam</i>, I have read but some part of
+his works; but as much as I have read, I have observed,
+he is a very civil, eloquent, and rational Writer;
+the truth is, his style is a Gentleman's style. And in
+particular, concerning his experiments, I must needs
+say this, that, in my judgment, he hath expressed himself
+to be a very industrious and ingenious person; for
+he doth neither puzle Nature, nor darken truth with
+hard words and compounded languages, or nice distinctions;
+besides, his experiments are proved by his
+own action. But give me leave to tell you, that I observe,
+he studies the different parts and alterations, more
+then the motions, which cause the alterations in those
+parts; whereas, did he study and observe the several
+and different motions in those parts, how they change
+in one and the same part, and how the different alterations
+in bodies are caused by the different motions of
+their parts, he might arrive to a vast knowledg by the
+means of his experiments; for certainly experiments
+are very beneficial to man. In the next place, you
+desire my opinion of the Book call'd, <i>The Discourses of
+the Virtuosi in France</i>: I am sorry, <i>Madam</i>, this book
+comes so late to my hands, that I cannot read it so slowly
+and observingly, as to give you a clear judgment of
+their opinions or discourses in particular; however,
+in general, and for what I have read in it, I may say, it
+expresses the French to be very learned and eloquent
+Writers, wherein I thought our English had exceeded
+them, and that they did onely excel in wit and ingenuity;
+but I perceive most Nations have of all sorts.
+The truth is, ingenious and subtil wit brings news;
+but learning and experience brings proofs, at least, argumental
+discourses; and the French are much to be
+commended, that they endeavour to spend their time
+wisely, honourably, honestly, and profitably, not onely
+for the good and benefit of their own, but also of other
+Nations. But before I conclude, give me leave
+to tell you, that concerning the curious and profitable
+Arts mentioned in their discourses, I confess, I do
+much admire them, and partly believe they may arrive
+to the use of many of them; but there are two arts
+which I wish with all my heart I could obtain: the
+first is, to argue without error in all kinds, modes, and
+figures, in a quarter of an hour; and the other is to
+learn a way to understand all languages in six hours.
+But as for the first, I fear, if I want a thorow understanding
+in every particular argument, cause, or
+point, a general art or mode of words will not help
+me, especially, if I, being a woman, should want
+discretion: And as for the second, my memory is
+so bad, that it is beyond the help of Art, so that Nature
+has made my understanding harder or closer then
+Glass, through which the Sun of verity cannot pass,
+although its light doth; and therefore I am confident
+I shall not be made, or taught to learn this mentioned
+Art in six hours, no not in six months. But I wish
+all Arts were as easily practised, as mentioned; and
+thus I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXIII" id="IV_XXIII">XXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Concerning your question, <i>Whether a Point be
+something, or nothing, or between both</i>; My opinion
+is, that a natural point is material; but
+that which the learned name a Mathematical point, is
+like their Logistical Egg, whereof there is nothing in
+Nature any otherwise, but a word, which word is material,
+as being natural; for concerning immaterial beings, it
+is impossible to believe there be any in Nature; and
+though witty Students, and subtil Arguers have both
+in past, and this present age, endeavoured to prove
+something, nothing; yet words and disputes have not
+power to annihilate any thing that is in Nature, no
+more then to create something out of nothing; and
+therefore they can neither make something, nothing; nor
+nothing to be something: for the most witty student,
+nor the subtilest disputant, cannot alter Nature, but
+each thing is and must be as Nature made it. As for
+your other question, <i>Whether there be more then five
+Senses?</i> I answer: There are as many senses as there
+are sensitive motions, and all sensation or perception is
+by the way of patterning; and whosoever is of another
+opinion, is, in my judgment, a greater friend to contradiction,
+then to truth, at least to probability. Lastly,
+concerning your question, why a Gun, the longer
+its barrel is made, the further it will shoot, until
+it come to a certain degree of length; after which,
+the longer it is made, the weaker it becomes, so that
+every degree further, makes it shoot shorter and shorter,
+whereas before it came to such a degree of length,
+it shot further and further: Give me leave to tell
+you, <i>Madam</i>, that this question would be put more
+properly to a Mathematician, then to me, who am ignorant
+in the Mathematicks: However, since you are
+pleased to desire my opinion thereof, I am willing to
+give it you. There are, in my judgment, but three
+reasons which do produce this alteration: The one
+may be the compass of the stock, or barrel, which being
+too wide for the length, may weaken the force, or
+being too narrow for the length, may retard the force;
+the one giving liberty before the force is united,
+the other inclosing it so long by a streight passage, as it
+loses its force before it hath liberty; so that the one
+becomes stronger with length, the other weaker with
+length. The second reason, in my opinion, is, That
+degrees of strength may require degrees of the <i>medium</i>.
+Lastly, It may be, that Centers are required for degrees
+of strength;, if so, every <i>medium</i> may be a Center,
+and the middle length to such a compass may be a
+Center of such a force. But many times the force
+being weaker or stronger, is caused by the good or ill
+making of the Powder, or Locks, or the like. But,
+<i>Madam</i>, such questions will puzle me as much as those
+of Mr. <i>V. Z.</i> concerning those glasses, one of which
+being held close in ones hand, and a little piece being
+broke of its tail, makes as great a noise as the discharging
+of a Gun: Wherefore I beseech you, <i>Madam</i>, do
+not trouble my brain with Mathematical questions,
+wherein I have neither skill, learning, nor experience
+by Practice; for truly I have not the subtilty to find
+out their mystery, nor the capacity to understand arts,
+no more then I am capable to learn several languages. If
+you command me any thing else I am able to do, assure
+your self, there is none shall more readily and cheerfully
+serve you then my self; who am, and shall ever
+continue,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXIV" id="IV_XXIV">XXIV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I have heard that Artists do glory much in their Glasses,
+Tubes, Engines, and Stills, and hope by their
+Glasses and Tubes to see invisible things, and by
+their Engines to produce incredible effects, and by
+their Stills, Fire, and Furnaces, to create as Nature doth;
+but all this is impossible to be done: For Art cannot arrive
+to that degree, as to know perfectly Natures secret
+and fundamental actions, her purest matter, and subtilest
+motions; and it is enough if Artists can but produce
+such things as are for mans conveniencies and use,
+although they never can see the smallest or rarest bodies,
+nor great and vast bodies at a great distance, nor make
+or create a Vegetable, Animal, or the like, as Nature
+doth; for Nature being Infinite, has also Infinite
+degrees of figures, sizes, motions, densities, rarities,
+knowledg, &amp;c. as you may see in my Book of Philosophy,
+as also in my book of Poems, especially that
+part that treats of little, minute Creatures, which
+I there do name, for want of other expressions, Fairies;
+for I have considered much the several sizes of
+Creatures, although I gave it out but for a fancy in the
+mentioned book, lest I should be thought extravagant
+to declare that conception of mine for a rational
+truth: But if some small bodies cannot be
+perfectly seen but by the help of magnifying glasses,
+and such as they call Microscopia; I pray, Nature
+being Infinite, What figures and sizes may there
+not be, which our eyes with all the help of Art are not
+capable to see? for certainly, Nature hath more
+curiosities then our exterior senses, helped by Art,
+can perceive: Wherefore I cannot wonder enough
+at those that pretend to know the least or greatest
+parts or creatures in Nature, since no particular Creature
+is able to do it. But concerning Artists, you
+would fain know, <i>Madam</i>, whether the Artist be
+beholden to the conceptions of the Student? To
+which I return this short answer: That, in my
+judgment, without the Students conceptions, the
+Artist could not tell how to make experiments: The
+truth is, the conceptions of studious men set the Artists
+on work, although many Artists do ungratefully
+attribute all to their own industry. Neither
+doth it always belong to the studious Concepter
+to make trials or experiments, but he leaves that
+work to others, whose time is not so much imployed
+with thoughts or speculations, as with actions; for the
+the Contemplator is the Designer, and the Artist the
+Workman, or Labourer, who ought to acknowledg
+him his Master, as I do your <i>Ladiship</i>, for I am in all
+respects,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXV" id="IV_XXV">XXV.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your Command in your last was to send you my
+opinion concerning the division of Religions, or
+of the several opinions in Religions, I suppose
+you mean the division of the Religion, not of Religions;
+for certainly, there is but one divine Truth, and
+consequently but one true Religion: But natural men
+being composed of many divers parts, as of several motions
+and figures, have divers and several Ideas, which
+the grosser corporeal motions conceive to be divers and
+several gods, as being not capable to know the Great
+and Incomprehensible God, who is above Nature.
+For example: Do but consider, <i>Madam</i>, what strange
+opinions the Heathens had of God, and how they divided
+him into so many several Persons, with so many
+several bodies, like men; whereas, surely God considered
+in his Essence, he being a Spirit, as the Scripture
+describes him, can neither have Soul nor body, as he
+is a God, but is an Immaterial Being; Onely the Heathens
+did conceive him to have parts, and so divided the
+Incomprehensible God into several Deities, at least they
+had several Deitical Ideas, or rather Fancies of him. But,
+<i>Madam</i>, I confess my ignorance in this great mystery,
+and honour, and praise the Omnipotent, Great, and
+Incomprehensible God, with all fear and humility as I
+ought; beseeching his infinite mercy to keep me from
+such presumption, whereby I might prophane his holy
+Name, and to make me obedient to the Church, as
+also to grant me life and health, that I may be able to
+express how much I am,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXVI" id="IV_XXVI">XXVI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since I spake of Religion in my last, I cannot but
+acquaint you, that I was the other day in the company
+of Sir <i>P. H.</i> and Sir <i>R. L.</i> where amongst
+other discourses they talk'd of Predestination and Free-will.
+Sir <i>P. H.</i> accounted the opinion of Predestination
+not onely absurd, but blasphemous; for, said he, Predestination
+makes God appear Cruel, as first to create
+Angels and Man, and then to make them fall from their
+Glory, and damn them eternally: For God, said he,
+knew before he made them, they would fall; Neither
+could he imagine, from whence that Pride and
+Presumption did proceed, which was the cause of the
+Angels fall, for it could not proceed from God, God
+being infinitely Good. Sir <i>R. L.</i> answer'd, That this
+Pride and Presumption did not come from God, but
+from their own Nature. But, replyed Sir <i>P. H.</i>
+God gave them that Nature, for they had it not of
+themselves, but all what they were, their Essence and
+Nature, came from God the Creator of all things, and
+to suffer that, which was in his power to hinder, was
+as much as to act. Sir <i>R. L.</i> said, God gave both
+Angels and Man a Free-will at their Creation. Sir
+<i>P. H.</i> answered, that a Free-will was a part of a divine
+attribute, which surely God would not give away to
+any Creature: Next, said he, he could not conceive
+why God should make Creatures to cross and oppose
+him; for it were neither an act of Wisdom to make
+Rebels, nor an act of Justice to make Devils; so that
+neither in his Wisdom, Justice, nor Mercy, God
+could give leave, that Angels and Man should fall
+through sin; neither was God ignorant that Angels
+and Man would fall; for surely, said he, God knew
+all things, past, present, and to come; wherefore, said
+he, Free-will doth weaken the Power of God, and Predestination
+doth weaken the power of man, and both
+do hinder each other: Besides, said he, since God
+did confirm the rest of the Angels in the same state
+they were before, so as they could not fall afterwards,
+he might as well have created them all so
+at first. But Sir <i>R. L.</i> replied, That God suffered
+Angels and Man to fall for his Glory, to shew his
+Justice in Devils, and his Mercy in Man; and that the
+Devils express'd God's Omnipotency as much as the
+Blessed. To which Sir <i>P. H.</i> answered, That they expressed
+more God's severity in those horrid torments
+they suffer through their Natural Imperfections, then
+his power in making and suffering them to sin. Thus
+they discoursed: And to tell you truly, <i>Madam</i>, my
+mind was more troubled, then delighted with their discourse;
+for it seemed rather to detract from the honour
+of the great God, then to increase his Glory; and
+no Creature ought either to think or to speak any thing
+that is detracting from the Glory of the Creator:
+Wherefore I am neither for Predestination, nor for
+an absolute Free-will, neither in Angels, Devils, nor
+Man; for an absolute Free-will is not competent to any
+Creature: and though Nature be Infinite, and the Eternal
+Servant to the Eternal and Infinite God, and
+can produce Infinite Creatures, yet her Power and
+Will is not absolute, but limited; that is, she has a
+natural free-will, but not a supernatural, for she cannot
+work beyond the power God has given her. But
+those mystical discourses belong to Divines, and not to
+any Lay-person, and I confess my self very ignorant in
+them. Wherefore I will nor dare not dispute God's
+actions, being all infinitely wise, but leave that to Divines,
+who are to inform us what we ought to believe,
+and how we ought to live. And thus taking my leave
+of you for the present, I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXVII" id="IV_XXVII">XXVII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>You are pleased to honor me so far, that you do not
+onely spend some time in the perusing of my Book
+called <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>, but take it so much
+into your consideration, as to examine every opinion of
+mine which dissents from the common way of the
+Schools, marking those places which seem somewhat
+obscure, and desiring my explanation of them; All
+which, I do not onely acknowledg as a great favour,
+but as an infallible testimony of your true and unfeigned
+friendship; and I cannot chuse but publish it to all the
+world; both for the honour of your self, as to let every
+body know the part of so true a friend, who is so
+much concerned for the honour and benefit of my poor
+Works; as also for the good of my mentioned Book,
+which by this means will be rendred more intelligible;
+for I must confess that my Philosophical Opinions are
+not so plain and perspicuous as to be perfectly understood
+at the first reading, which I am sorry for. And
+there be two chief reasons why they are so: First, Because
+they are new, and never vented before; for the
+have their original meerly from my own conceptions,
+and are not taken out of other Philosophers. Next, because
+I being a Woman, and not bred up to Scholarship,
+did want names and terms of Art, and therefore
+being not versed in the Writings of other Philosophers,
+but what I knew by hearing, I could not form my
+named Book so methodically, and express my opinions
+so artificially and clearly, as I might have done, had
+I been studious in the reading of Philosophical Books, or
+bred a Scholar; for then I might have dressed them with
+a fine coloured Covering of Logick and Geometry,
+and set them out in a handsome array; by which I
+might have also cover'd my ignorance, like as Stage-Players
+do cover their mean persons or degrees with
+fine Cloathes. But, as I said, I being void of Learning
+and Art, did put them forth according to my own
+conceptions, and as I did understand them myself; but
+since I have hitherto by the reading of those famous
+and learned <i>Authors</i> you sent me, attained to the knowledg
+of some artificial Terms, I shall not spare any labour
+and pains to make my opinions so intelligible, that
+every one, who without partiality, spleen, or malice, doth
+read them, may also easily understand them: And thus
+I shall likewise endeavour to give such answers to your
+scruples, objections, or questions, as may explain those
+passages which seem obscure, and satisfie your desire. In
+the first place, and in general, you desire to know, <i>Whether
+any truth may be had in Natural Philosophy</i>: for
+since all this study is grounded upon probability, and
+he that thinks he has the most probable reasons for his
+opinion, may be as far off from truth, as he who is
+thought to have the least; nay, what seems most probable
+to day, may seem least probable to morrow, especially
+if an ingenious opposer, bring rational arguments
+against it: Therefore you think it is but vain for any
+one to trouble his brain with searching and enquiring
+after such things wherein neither truth nor certainty can
+be had. To which, I answer: That the undoubted
+truth in Natural Philosophy, is, in my opinion, like
+the Philosopher's Stone in Chymistry, which has
+been sought for by many learned and ingenious
+Persons, and will be sought as long as the Art
+of Chymistry doth last; but although they cannot
+find the Philosophers Stone, yet by the help
+of this Art they have found out many rare things
+both for use and knowledg. The like in Natural
+Philosophy, although Natural Philosophers
+cannot find out the absolute truth of Nature, or
+Natures ground-works, or the hidden causes of
+natural effects; nevertheless they have found out many
+necessary and profitable Arts and Sciences, to
+benefit the life of man; for without Natural Philosophy
+we should have lived in dark ignorance,
+not knowing the motions of the Heavens, the cause
+of the Eclipses, the influences of the Stars, the use
+of Numbers, Measures, and Weights, the vertues
+and effects of Vegetables and Minerals, the
+Art of Architecture, Navigation, and the like:
+Indeed all Arts and Sciences do adscribe their original
+to the study of Natural Philosophy; and those
+men are both unwise and ungrateful, that will refuse
+rich gifts because they cannot be masters of all
+Wealth; and they are fools, that will not take remedies
+when they are sick, because Medicines can onely
+recover them from death for a time, but not
+make them live for ever. But to conclude, Probability
+is next to truth, and the search of a hidden cause
+finds out visible effects; and this truth do natural Philosophers
+find, that there are more fools, then wise
+men, which fools will never attain to the honour of being
+Natural Philosophers. And thus leaving them,
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships</i></p>
+
+<p><i>humble and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXVIII" id="IV_XXVIII">XXVIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Your desire is to know, since I say Nature is Wise,
+Whether all her parts must be wise also? To
+which, I answer; That (by your favour) all
+her parts are not fools: but yet it is no necessary consequence,
+that because Nature is infinitely wise, all
+her parts must be so too, no more then if I should say,
+Nature is Infinite, therefore every part must be Infinite:
+But it is rather necessary, that because Nature is
+Infinite, therefore not any single part of hers can be
+Infinite, but must be finite. Next, you desire to know,
+Whether Nature or the self-moving matter is subject
+to err, and to commit mistakes? I answer: Although
+Nature has naturally an Infinite wisdom and knowledg,
+yet she has not a most pure and intire perfection, no
+more then she has an absolute power; for a most pure
+and intire perfection belongs onely to God: and though
+she is infinitely naturally wise in her self, yet her parts
+or particular creatures may commit errors and mistakes;
+the truth is, it is impossible but that parts or particular
+Creatures must be subject to errors, because no part can
+have a perfect or general knowledg, as being but a part,
+and not a whole; for knowledg is in parts, as parts are
+in Matter: Besides several corporeal motions, that is,
+several self-moving parts do delude and oppose each other
+by their opposite motions; and this opposition is
+very requisite in Nature to keep a mean, and hinder
+extreams; for were there not opposition of parts, Nature
+would run into extreams, which would confound
+her, and all her parts. And as for delusion, it is part
+of Natures delight, causing the more variety; but there
+be some actions in Nature which are neither perfect
+mistakes, nor delusions, but onely want of a clear and
+thorow perception: As for example; when a man is
+sailing in a Ship, he thinks the shore moves from the
+ship, when as it is the ship that moves from the shore:
+Also when a man is going backward from a Looking-glass,
+he thinks, the figure in the Glass goeth inward,
+whereas it is himself that goes backward, and not his figure
+in the glass. The cause of it is, That the perception
+in the eye perceives the distanced body, but not
+the motion of the distance or medium; for though the
+man may partly see the motion of the visible parts, yet
+he doth not see the parts or motion of the distance or
+medium, which is invisible, and not subject to the perception
+of sight; and since a pattern cannot be made if
+the object be not visible, hence I conclude, that the
+motion of the medium cannot make perception, but
+that it is the perceptive motions of the eye, which pattern
+out an object as it is visibly presented to the corporeal
+motions in the eye; for according as the object is
+presented, the pattern is made, if the motions be regular:
+For example; a fired end of a stick, if you
+move it in a circular figure, the sensitive corporeal motions
+in the eye pattern out the figure of fire, together
+with the exterior or circular motion, and apprehend
+it as a fiery circle; and if the stick be moved any otherwise,
+they pattern out such a figure as the fired end of
+the stick is moved in; so that the sensitive pattern is
+made according to the exterior corporeal figurative motion
+of the object, and not according to its interior figure
+or motions. And this, <i>Madam</i>, is in short my
+answer to your propounded questions, by which, I hope,
+you understand plainly the meaning of,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXIX" id="IV_XXIX">XXIX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>The scruples or questions you sent me last, are
+these following. First, you desire to be informed
+what I mean by <i>Phantasmes</i> and <i>Ideas</i>? I answer:
+They are figures made by the purest and subtilest
+degree of self-moving matter, that is to say, by
+the rational corporeal motions, and are the same with
+thoughts or conceptions. Next, your question is,
+what I do understand by <i>Sensitive Life</i>? I answer:
+It is that part of self-moving matter, which in its own
+nature is not so pure and subtil as the rational, for it is
+but the labouring, and the rational the designing part
+of matter. Your third question is, <i>Whether this sensitive
+self-moving matter be dense or rare?</i> I answer:
+density and rarity are onely effects caused by the several
+actions, that is, the corporeal motions of Nature;
+wherefore it cannot properly be said, that sensitive matter
+is either dense, or rare; for it has a self-power to
+contract and dilate, compose and divide, and move in
+any kind of motion whatsoever, as is requisite to the
+framing of any figure; and thus I desire you to observe
+well, that when I say the rational part of matter is purer
+in its degree then the sensitive, and that this is a rare and
+acute matter, I do not mean that it is thin like a rare
+egg, but that it is subtil and active, penetrating and
+dividing, as well as dividable. Your fourth question
+is, <i>What this sensitive matter works upon?</i> I answer:
+It works with and upon another degree of matter,
+which is not self-moving, but dull, stupid, and immoveable
+in its own nature, which I call the inanimate
+part or degree of matter. Your fifth question is,
+<i>Whether this inanimate Matter do never rest?</i> I answer;
+It doth not: for the self-moving matter being
+restless in its own nature, and so closely united and
+commixed with the inanimate, as they do make but one
+body, will never suffer it to rest; so that there is no
+part in Nature but is moving; the animate matter in it
+self, or its own nature, the inanimate by the help or
+means of the animate. Your sixth question is, <i>If there
+be a thorow mixture of the parts of animate and inanimate
+matter, whether those parts do retain each their own nature
+and substance, so that the inanimate part of matter
+remains dull and stupid in its essence or nature, and the animate
+full of self-motion, or all self-motion?</i> I answer:
+Although every part and particle of each degree are
+closely intermixed, nevertheless this mixture doth not
+alter the interior nature of those parts or degrees; As
+for example; a man is composed of Soul, and Body,
+which are several parts, but joyned as into one substance,
+<i>viz.</i> Man, and yet they retain each their own
+proprieties and natures; for although soul and body
+are so closely united as they do make but one Man, yet
+the soul doth not change into the body, nor the body
+into the soul, but each continues in its own nature as it
+is. And so likewise in Infinite Matter, although the
+degrees or parts of Matter are so throughly intermixed
+as they do make but one body or substance, which
+is corporeal Nature, yet each remains in its nature as
+it is, to wit, the animate part of matter doth not become
+dull and stupid in its nature, but remains self-moving;
+and the inanimate, although it doth move
+by the means of the animate, yet it doth not become
+self-moving, but each keeps its own interior nature
+and essence in their commixture. The truth is, there
+must of necessity be degrees of matter, or else there
+would be no such various and several effects in Nature,
+as humane sense and reason do perceive there
+are; and those degrees must also retain each their own
+nature and proprieties, to produce those various and
+curious effects: Neither must those different degrees
+vary or alter the nature of Infinite Matter; for Matter
+must and doth continue one and the same in its
+Nature, that is, Matter cannot be divided from being
+Matter: And this is my meaning, when I say in
+my <i>Philosophical Opinions, There is but one kind of
+Matter</i>: Not that Matter is not dividable into several
+parts or degrees, but I say, although Matter has several
+parts and degrees, yet they do not alter the nature
+of Matter, but Matter remains one and the same in its
+own kind, that is, it continues still Matter in its own
+nature notwithstanding those degrees; and thus I do
+exclude from Matter all that which is not Matter, and
+do firmly believe, that there can be no commixture of
+Matter and no Matter in Nature; for this would breed
+a meer confusion in Nature. Your seventh question
+is, <i>Whether that, which I name the rational part of self-moving
+Matter makes as much variety as the sensitive?</i>
+To which I answer: That, to my sense and reason,
+the rational part of animate or self-moving Matter
+moves not onely more variously, but also more swiftly
+then the sensitive; for thoughts are sooner made, then
+words spoke, and a certain proof of it are the various
+and several Imaginations, Fancies, Conceptions, Memories,
+Remembrances, Understandings, Opinions,
+Judgments, and the like: as also the several sorts of
+Love, Hate, Fear, Anger, Joy, Doubt; and the like
+Passions. Your eighth question is, <i>Whether the
+Sensitive Matter can and doth work in it self and its own
+substance and degree?</i> My answer is, That there is
+no inanimate matter without animate, nor no animate
+without inanimate, both being so curiously and subtilly
+intermixt, as they make but one body; Nevertheless
+the several parts of this one body may move
+several ways. Neither are the several degrees bound
+to an equal mixture, no more then the several parts
+of one body are bound to one and the same size, bigness,
+shape, or motion; or the Sea is bound to be always
+at the high tide; or the Moon to be always at the
+Full; or all the Veins or Brains in animal bodies are
+bound to be of equal quantity; or every Tree of the
+same kind to bear fruit, or have leaves of equal number;
+or every Apple, Pear, or Plum, to have an equal
+quantity of juice; or every Bee to make as much honey
+and wax as the other. Your nineth question is,
+<i>Whether the Sensitive Matter can work without taking
+patterns?</i> My answer is, That all corporeal motion
+is not patterning, but all patterning is made by corporeal
+motion; and there be more several sorts of corporeal
+motions then any single Creature is able to conceive,
+much less to express: But the perceptive corporeal
+motions are the ground-motions in Nature,
+which make, rule, and govern all the parts of Nature,
+as to move to Production, or Generation, Transformation,
+and the like. Your tenth question is, <i>How
+it is possible, that numerous figures can exist in one
+part of matter? for it is impossible that two things
+can be in one place, much less many.</i> My answer in
+short is, That it were impossible, were a part of
+Matter, and the numerous figures several and distinct
+things; but all is but one thing, that is,
+a part of Matter moving variously; for there
+is neither Magnitude, Place, Figure, nor Motion,
+in Nature, but what is Matter, or Body; Neither
+is there any such thing as Time: Wherefore
+it cannot properly be said, <i>There was</i>, and
+<i>There shall be</i>; but onely, <i>There is</i>. Neither can
+it properly be said, from this to that place; but onely in
+reference to the several moving parts of the onely Infinite
+Matter. And thus much to your questions; I
+add no more, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXX" id="IV_XXX">XXX.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In your last, you were pleased to express, that some
+men, who think themselves wise, did laugh in a scornful
+manner at my opinion, when I say that every
+Creature hath life and knowledg, sense and reason;
+counting it not onely ridiculous, but absurd; and asking,
+whether you did or could believe, a piece of wood,
+metal, or stone, had as much sense as a beast, or as
+much reason as a man, having neither brain, blood,
+heart, nor flesh; nor such organs, passages, parts, nor
+shapes as animals? To which, I answer: That it is
+not any of these mentioned things that makes life and
+knowledg, but life and knowledg is the cause of them,
+which life and knowledg is animate matter, and is in
+all parts of all Creatures: and to make it more plain
+and perspicuous, humane sense and reason may perceive,
+that wood, stone, or metal, acts as wisely as an
+animal: As for example; Rhubarb, or the like drugs,
+will act very wisely in Purging; and Antimony, or the
+like, will act very wisely in Vomiting; and Opium
+will act very wisely in Sleeping; also Quicksilver or
+Mercury will act very wisely, as those that have the
+French disease can best witness: likewise the Loadstone
+acts very wisely, as Mariners or Navigators will
+tell you: Also Wine made of Fruit, and Ale of Malt,
+and distilled Aqua-vit� will act very subtilly; ask the
+Drunkards, and they can inform you; Thus Infinite
+examples may be given, and yet man says, all Vegetables
+and Minerals are insensible and irrational,
+as also the Planets and Elements; when as yet the
+Planets move very orderly and wisely, and the Elements
+are more active, nay, more subtil and searching
+then any of the animal Creatures; witness Fire,
+Air, and Water: As for the Earth, she brings forth
+her fruit, if the other Elements do not cause abortives,
+in due season; and yet man believes, Vegetables,
+Minerals, and Elements, are dead, dull, senseless,
+and irrational Creatures, because they have not
+such shapes, parts, nor passages as Animals, nor such
+exterior and local motions as Animals have: but
+Man doth not consider the various, intricate and obscure
+ways of Nature, unknown to any particular
+Creature; for what our senses are not capable to know,
+our reason is apt to deny. Truly, in my opinion,
+Man is more irrational then any of those Creatures,
+when he believes that all knowledg is not onely confined
+to one sort of Creatures, but to one part of one
+particular Creature, as the head, or brain of man; for
+who can in reason think, that there is no other sensitive
+and rational knowledg in Infinite Matter, but
+what is onely in Man, or animal Creatures? It is a
+very simple and weak conclusion to say, Other Creatures
+have no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no tongues
+to taste, no noses to smell, as animals have; wherefore
+they have no sense or sensitive knowledg; or because
+they have no head, nor brain as Man hath, therefore
+they have no reason, nor rational knowledg at all:
+for sense and reason, and consequently sensitive and rational
+knowledg, extends further then to be bound to
+the animal eye, ear, nose, tongue, head, or brain;
+but as these organs are onely in one kind of Natures
+Creatures, as Animals, in which organs the sensitive
+corporeal motions make the perception of exterior objects,
+so there may be infinite other kinds of passages or
+organs in other Creatures unknown to Man, which
+Creatures may have their sense and reason, that is, sensitive
+and rational knowledg, each according to the nature
+of its figure; for as it is absurd to say, that all Creatures
+in Nature are Animals, so it is absurd to confine
+sense and reason onely to Animals; or to say, that all
+other Creatures, if they have sense and reason, life
+and knowledg, it must be the same as is in Animals: I
+confess, it is of the same degree, that is, of the same animate
+part of matter, but the motions of life and knowledg
+work so differently and variously in every kind and
+sort, nay, in every particular Creature, that no single
+Creature can find them out: But, in my opinion, not
+any Creature is without life and knowledg, which life
+and knowledg is made by the self-moving part of matter,
+that is, by the sensitive and rational corporeal motions;
+and as it is no consequence, that all Creatures
+must be alike in their exterior shapes, figures, and motions,
+because they are all produced out of one and the
+same matter, so neither doth it follow, that all Creatures
+must have the same interior motions, natures, and proprieties,
+and so consequently the same life and knowledg,
+because all life and knowledg is made by the same
+degree of matter, to wit, the animate. Wherefore
+though every kind or sort of Creatures has different
+perceptions, yet they are not less knowing; for Vegetables,
+Minerals, and Elements, may have as numerous,
+and as various perceptions as Animals, and they
+may be as different from animal perceptions as their kinds
+are; but a different perception is not therefore no perception:
+Neither is it the animal organs that make perception,
+nor the animal shape that makes life, but the motions
+of life make them. But some may say, it is Irreligious
+to believe any Creature has rational knowledg
+but Man. Surely, <i>Madam</i>, the God of Nature, in
+my opinion, will be adored by all Creatures, and adoration
+cannot be without sense and knowledg. Wherefore
+it is not probable, that onely Man, and no Creature
+else, is capable to adore and worship the Infinite
+and Omnipotent God, who is the God of Nature, and
+of all Creatures: I should rather think it irreligious to
+confine sense and reason onely to Man, and to say, that
+no Creature adores and worships God, but Man;
+which, in my judgment, argues a great pride, self-conceit,
+and presumption. And thus, <i>Madam</i>, having
+declared my opinion plainly concerning this subject, I
+will detain you no longer at this present, but rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your constant Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and faithful Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXXI" id="IV_XXXI">XXXI.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>I perceive you do not well apprehend my meaning,
+when I say in my <i>Philosophical Opinions,</i><a name="FNanchor_1_177" id="FNanchor_1_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_177" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>That the
+Infinite degrees of Infinite Matter are all Infinite:</i>
+For, say you, the degrees of Matter cannot be Infinite,
+by reason there cannot be two Infinites, but one would
+obstruct the other. My answer is; I do not mean that
+the degrees of Matter are Infinite each in its self, that
+is, that the animate and inanimate are several Infinite
+matters, but my opinion is, that the animate
+degree of matter is in a perpetual motion, and the inanimate
+doth not move of it self, and that those degrees
+are infinite in their effects, as producing and making
+infinite figures; for since the cause, which is the onely
+matter, is infinite, the effects must of necessity be infinite
+also; the cause is infinite in its substance, the effects
+are Infinite in number. And this is my meaning,
+when I say,<a name="FNanchor_2_178" id="FNanchor_2_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_178" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> that, although in Nature there is but
+one kind of matter, yet there are Infinite degrees, Infinite
+motions, and Infinite parts in that onely matter;
+and though Infinite and Eternal matter has no perfect
+or exact figure, by reason it is Infinite, and therefore
+unlimited, yet there being infinite parts in number, made
+by the infinite variations of motions in infinite Matter,
+these parts have perfect or exact figures, considered as
+parts, that is, single, or each in its particular figure:
+And therefore if there be Infinite degrees, considering
+the effects of the animate and inanimate matter, infinite
+motions for changes, infinite parts for number, infinite
+compositions and divisions for variety and diversity
+of Creatures; then there may also be infinite sizes,
+each part or figure differing more or less, infinite smallness
+and bigness, lightness and heaviness, rarity and
+density, strength and power, life and knowledg, and
+the like: But by reason Nature or Natural matter is
+not all animate or inanimate, nor all composing or dividing,
+there can be no Infinite in a part, nor can there
+be something biggest or smallest, strongest or weakest,
+heaviest or lightest, softest or hardest in Infinite Nature,
+or her parts, but all those several Infinites are as
+it were included in one Infinite, which is Corporeal
+Nature, or Natural Matter.</p>
+
+<p>Next, you desire my opinion of <i>Vacuum</i>, whether
+there be any, or not? for you say I determine nothing,
+of it in my Book of <i>Philosophical Opinions</i>. Truly,
+<i>Madam</i>, my sense and reason cannot believe a <i>Vacuum</i>,
+because there cannot be an empty Nothing; but
+change of motion makes all the alteration of figures, and
+consequently all that which is called place, magnitude,
+space, and the like; for matter, motion, figure, place,
+magnitude, &amp;c. are but one thing. But some men
+perceiving the alteration, but not the subtil motions,
+believe that bodies move into each others place, which
+is impossible, because several places are onely several
+parts, so that, unless one part could make it self another
+part, no part can be said to succeed into anothers place;
+but it is impossible that one part should make it self
+another part, for it cannot be another, and it self, no
+more then Nature can be Nature, and not Nature;
+wherefore change of place is onely change of motion,
+and this change of motion makes alteration of Figures.</p>
+
+<p>Thirdly, you say, You cannot understand what I
+mean by Creation, for you think that Creation is a
+production or making of Something out of Nothing.
+To tell you really, <i>Madam</i>, this word is used by
+me for want of a better expression; and I do not take
+it in so strict a sense as to understand by it, a Divine or
+supernatural Creation, which onely belongs to God;
+but a natural Creation, that is, a natural production
+or Generation; for Nature cannot create or produce
+Something out of Nothing: And this Production may
+be taken in a double sence; First, in General, as for example,
+when it is said, that all Creatures are produced
+out of Infinite Matter; and in this respect every particular
+Creature which is finite, that is, of a circumscribed
+and limited figure, is produced of Infinite Matter,
+as being a part thereof: Next, Production is taken
+in a more strict sense, to wit, when one single Creature
+is produced from another; and this is either Generation
+properly so called, as when in every kind and sort
+each particular produces its like; or it is such a Generation
+whereby one creature produces another, each being
+of a different kind or species, as for example, when
+an Animal produces a Mineral, as when a Stone is generated
+in the Kidneys, or the like; and in this sence
+one finite creature generates or produces another finite
+creature, the producer as well as the produced being
+finite; but in the first sence finite creatures are produced
+out of infinite matter.</p>
+
+<p>Fourthly, you confess, You cannot well apprehend
+my meaning, when I say,<a name="FNanchor_3_179" id="FNanchor_3_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_179" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> that the several kinds are as
+Infinite as the particulars; for your opinion is, That
+the number of particulars must needs exceed the number
+of kinds. I answer: I mean in general the Infinite
+effects of Nature which are Infinite in number,
+and the several kinds or sorts of Creatures are Infinite
+in duration, for nothing can perish in Nature.</p>
+
+<p>Fifthly, When I say,<a name="FNanchor_4_180" id="FNanchor_4_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_180" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> that ascending and descending
+is often caused by the exterior figure or shape of a
+body; witness a Bird, who although he is of a much
+bigger size and bulk then a Worm, yet can by his shape
+lift himself up more agilly and nimbly then a Worm;
+Your opinion is, That his exterior shape doth not contribute
+any thing towards his flying, by reason a Bird
+being dead retains the same shape, but yet cannot fly
+at all. But, truly, <i>Madam</i>, I would not have you
+think that I do exclude the proper and interior natural
+motion of the figure of a Bird, and the natural and proper
+motions of every part and particle thereof; for that
+a Bird when dead, keeps his shape, and yet cannot fly,
+the reason is, that the natural and internal motions
+of the Bird, and the Birds wings, are altered towards
+some other shape or figure, if not exteriously, yet interiously;
+but yet the interior natural motions could
+not effect any flying or ascending without the help of
+the exterior shape; for a Man, or any other animal,
+may have the same interior motions as a Bird hath, but
+wanting such an exterior shape, he cannot fly; whereas
+had he wings like a Bird, and the interior natural
+motions of those wings, he might without doubt fly as
+well as a Bird doth.</p>
+
+<p>Sixthly, Concerning the descent of heavy bodies,<a name="FNanchor_5_181" id="FNanchor_5_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_181" class="fnanchor">[5]</a>
+that it is more forcible then the ascent of light bodies,
+you do question the Truth of this my opinion. Certainly,
+<i>Madam</i>, I cannot conceive it to be otherwise
+by my sense and reason; for though Fire that is
+rare, doth ascend with an extraordinary quick motion,
+yet this motion is, in my opinion, not so strong and
+piercing as when grosser parts of Creatures do descend;
+but there is difference in strength and quickness; for
+had not Water a stronger motion, and another sort of
+figure then Fire, it could not suppress Fire, much less
+quench it. But Smoak, which is heavier then Flame,
+flies up, or rises before, or rather, above it: Wherefore
+I am still of the same opinion, that heavy bodies
+descend more forcibly then light bodies do ascend, and
+it seems most rational to me.</p>
+
+<p>Lastly, I perceive you cannot believe that all bodies
+have weight; by reason, if this were so, the Sun, and
+the Stars would have long since cover'd the Earth. In
+answer to this objection, I say, That as there can be
+no body without figure and magnitude, so consequently
+not without weight, were it no bigger then an atome;
+and as for the Sun's and the Stars not falling down, or
+rising higher, the reason is, not their being without
+weight, but their natural and proper motion, which
+keeps them constantly in their spheres; and it might as
+well be said, a Man lives not, or is not, because he doth
+not fly like a Bird, or dive and catch fish like a Cormorant,
+or dig and undermine like a Mole, for those
+are motions not proper to his nature. And these, <i>Madam</i>,
+are my answers to your objections, which if they
+do satisfie you, it is all I desire, if not, I shall endeavour
+hereafter to make my meaning more intelligible
+and study for other more rational arguments
+then these are, to let you see how much I value both
+the credit of my named Book, and your <i>Ladiships</i>
+Commands; which assure you self, shall never be more
+faithfully performed, then by,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Ladiships most obliged Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_177" id="Footnote_1_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_177"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_178" id="Footnote_2_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_178"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_179" id="Footnote_3_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_179"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 4. <i>c.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_180" id="Footnote_4_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_180"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 20.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_181" id="Footnote_5_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_181"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>Ch.</i> 21.</p></div>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXXII" id="IV_XXXII">XXXII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>Since my opinion is, that the Animate part of Matter,
+which is sense and reason, life and knowledg, is
+the designer, architect, and creator of all figures in
+Nature; you desire to know, whence this Animate
+Matter, sense and reason, or life and knowledg (call
+it what you will, for it is all one and the same thing)
+is produced? I answer: It is eternal. But then you
+say, it is coequal with God. I answer, That cannot
+be: for God is above all Natural sense and reason,
+which is Natural life and knowledg; and therefore it
+cannot be coequal with God, except it be meant in Eternity,
+as being without beginning and end. But if Gods
+Power can make Man's Soul, as also the good and
+evil Spirits to last eternally without end, he may, by
+his Omnipotency make as well things without beginning.
+You will say, If Nature were Eternal, it
+could not be created, for the word Creation is contrary
+to Eternity. I answer, <i>Madam</i>, I am no Scholar for
+words; for if you will not use the word Creation, you
+may use what other word you will; for I do not stand
+upon nice words and terms, so I can but express my
+conceptions: Wherefore, if it be (as in Reason it
+cannot be otherwise) that nothing in Nature can be
+annihilated, nor any thing created out of nothing, but
+by Gods special and all-powerful Decree and Command,
+then Nature must be as God has made her, until
+he destroy her. But if Nature be not Eternal, then the
+Gods of the Heathens were made in time, and were no
+more then any other Creature, which is as subject to be
+destroyed as created; for they conceived their Gods, as
+we do men, to have Material Bodies, but an Immaterial
+Spirit, or as some Learned men imagine, to be an Immaterial
+Spirit, but to take several shapes, and so to
+perform several corporeal actions; which truly is too
+humble and mean a conception of an Immaterial Being,
+much more of the Great and Incomprehensible God;
+which I do firmly believe is a most pure, all-powerful
+Immaterial Being, which doth all things by his own
+Decree and Omnipotency without any Corporeal actions
+or shapes, such as some fancy of D�mons and the
+like Spirits. But to return to the former question; you
+might as well enquire how the world, or any part of it
+was created, or how the variety of creatures came to
+be, as ask how Reason and sensitive corporeal Knowledg
+was produced. Nevertheless, I do constantly believe,
+that both sensitive and rational Knowledg in Matter was
+produced from God; but after what manner or way, is
+impossible for any creature or part of Nature to know,
+for Gods wayes are incomprehensible and supernatural.
+And thus much I believe, That as God is an Eternal
+Creator, which no man can deny, so he has also an Eternal
+Creature, which is Nature, or natural Matter.
+But put the case Nature or natural Matter was made
+when the World was created, might not God give this
+Natural Matter self-motion, as well as he gave self-motion
+to Spirits and Souls? and might not God endue
+this Matter with Sense and Reason, as well as he endued
+Man? Shall or can we bind up Gods actions with our
+weak opinions and foolish arguments? Truly, if
+God could not act more then Man is able to conceive,
+he were not a God of an infinite Power; but God is
+Omnipotent, and his actions are infinite, supernatural,
+and past finding out; wherefore he is rather to be admired,
+adored and worshipped, then to be ungloriously
+discoursed of by vain and ambitious men, whose
+foolish pride and presumption drowns their Natural
+Judgment and Reason; to which leaving them,
+I rest,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your Faithful Friend</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+<h3><a name="IV_XXXIII" id="IV_XXXIII">XXXIII.</a></h3>
+
+
+<p><i>MADAM,</i></p>
+
+<p>In obedience to your commands, I here send you
+also an explanation and clearing of those places and
+passages in my Book of Philosophy, which in your
+last Letter you were pleased to mark, as containing
+some obscurity and difficulty of being understood.</p>
+
+<p>First, When I say,<a name="FNanchor_1_182" id="FNanchor_1_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_182" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> <i>Nature is an Individable Matter</i>,
+I do not mean as if Nature were not dividable into
+parts; for because Nature is material, therefore she
+must also needs be dividable into parts: But my meaning
+is, that Nature cannot be divided from Matter,
+nor Matter from Nature, that is, Nature cannot be
+Immaterial, nor no part of Nature, but if there be any
+thing Immaterial, it doth not belong to Nature.
+Also when I call Nature a <i>Multiplying Figure</i>;<a name="FNanchor_2_183" id="FNanchor_2_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_183" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> I mean,
+that Nature makes infinite changes, and so infinite
+figures.</p>
+
+<p>Next, when I say,<a name="FNanchor_3_184" id="FNanchor_3_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_184" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> <i>There are Infinite Divisions in
+Nature</i>; my meaning is not, that there are infinite
+divisions of one single part, but that Infinite Matter
+has Infinite parts, sizes, figures, and motions, all
+being but one Infinite Matter, or corporeal Nature.
+Also when I say single parts, I mean not parts subsisting
+by themselves, precised from each other, but single,
+that is, several or different, by reason of their different
+figures. Likewise, when I name Atomes, I
+mean small parts of Matter; and when I speak of Place
+and Time, I mean onely the variation of corporeal
+figurative motions.</p>
+
+<p>Again: when I say,<a name="FNanchor_4_185" id="FNanchor_4_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_185" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> <i>Nature has not an absolute
+Power, because she has an Infinite power</i>; I mean by <i>absolute</i>,
+as much as finite, or circumscribed; and in
+this sense Nature cannot have an absolute power, for
+the Infiniteness hinders the absoluteness; but when
+in my former Letters I have attributed an absolute
+Power onely to God, and said that Nature has not an
+absolute power, but that her power, although it be
+Infinite, yet cannot extend beyond Nature, but is an
+Infinite natural power; I understand by an absolute
+Power, not a finite power, but such a power which
+onely belongs to God, that is, a supernatural and divine
+power, which power Nature cannot have, by
+reason she cannot make any part of her body immaterial,
+nor annihilate any part of her Creatures, nor
+create any part that was not in her from Eternity, nor
+make her self a Deity; for though God can impower
+her with a supernatural gift, and annihilate her when
+he pleases, yet she is no ways able to do it her self.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover, when I say,<a name="FNanchor_5_186" id="FNanchor_5_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_186" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> <i>That one Infinite is contained
+within another</i>; I mean, the several sorts of Infinites,
+as Infinite in number, Infinite in duration;
+as also the Infinite degrees, motions, figures, sizes,
+compositions, divisions, &amp;c. all which are contained
+in the Infinite body of Nature, which is the onely Infinite
+in quantity or substance, neither can the parts of
+Nature go beyond Infinite.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I say,<a name="FNanchor_6_187" id="FNanchor_6_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_187" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> <i>That Matter would have power over
+Infinite, and Infinite over Matter, and Eternal over both</i>;
+I mean, that some corporeal actions endeavour
+to be more powerful then others, and thus the whole
+strives to over-power the parts, and the parts the whole:
+As for example, if one end of a string were tied about
+the little finger of ones hand, and the other end were
+in the power of the other whole hand, and both did pull
+several and opposite ways; certainly, the little finger
+would endeavour to over-power the hand, and the
+hand again would strive to over-power the little finger:
+The same may be said of two equal figures, as two
+hands, and other the like examples may be given. And
+this is also my meaning, when I say, that some shapes
+have power over others, and some degrees and temperaments
+of matter over others; whereby I understand nothing
+else, but that some parts have power over others.
+Also when I say,<a name="FNanchor_7_188" id="FNanchor_7_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_188" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> that outward things govern,
+and a Creature has no power over it self, I mean,
+that which is stronger, by what means soever, is superior
+in power.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_8_189" id="FNanchor_8_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_189" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> That <i>the Animate part of Matter is
+not so gross an Infinite as the Inanimate</i>, I do not attribute
+an Infiniteness to a part, as if animate matter considered
+as a part were infinite; but my meaning is, that
+the Animate matter produces infinite effects: For, it
+being the Designer, Architect, and Creator of all Figures,
+as also the Life and Soul of all Creatures, it must
+needs be infinite in its effects, as also infinite in its duration.
+But you may object, That a part cannot produce
+infinite effects. I answer, It is true, if animate
+matter should be considered in it self without the inanimate,
+it could not produce infinite effects, having nothing
+to work upon and withal; but because there is
+such a close and inseparable conjunction of those parts
+of matter, as they make but one body, and that Infinite,
+none can be or work without the other, but both
+degrees of matter, which make but one infinite Nature,
+are required in the production of the infinite effects and
+figures in Nature: Nevertheless, since the Animate
+part of Matter is the onely architect, creator, or producer
+of all those effects, by reason it is the self-moving
+part, and the Inanimate is onely the instrument
+which the Animate works withal, and the materials it
+works upon, the Production of the infinite effects in
+Nature is more fitly ascribed to the Animate then the Inanimate
+part of matter; as for example, If an architect
+should build an house, certainly he can do nothing without
+materials, neither can the materials raise themselves
+to such a figure as a house without the help of the architect
+and workmen, but both are of necessity required
+to this artificial production; nevertheless, the building
+of the house is not laid to the materials, but to the architect:
+the same may be said of animate and inanimate
+matter in the production of natural effects.
+Again, you may reply, That the animate and inanimate
+parts of matter are but two parts, and the number
+of Two is but a finite number, wherefore they cannot
+make one infinite body, such as I call Nature or natural
+Matter. I answer, <i>Madam</i>, I confess, that a finite
+number is not nor cannot make an infinite number;
+but I do not say, that the animate and inanimate parts or
+degrees of matter are two finite parts each subsisting by it
+self as circumscribed, and having its certain bounds, limits
+and circumference; for if this were so, certainly they being
+finite themselves, could not produce but finite effects;
+but my meaning is, that both the animate and inanimate
+matter do make but one Infinite bulk, body, or substance
+and are not two several and dividable bodies in themselves,
+and thus they may be divided not into two
+but into Infinite parts; Neither are they two different
+Matters, but they are but one Matter; for by the animate
+Matter I do understand self-motion; and that I call this
+self-motion Matter, the reason is, that no body shall
+think as if self-motion were immaterial; for my opinion
+is, that Nature is nothing but meer Matter, and that
+nothing is in Nature which is a part of Nature, that is
+not material; wherefore to avoid such a misapprehension
+(seeing that most learned men are so much for abstractions
+and immaterial beings) I called self-motion
+animate matter, or the animate part of matter; not as
+if they were two several matters, but that all is but one
+natural Matter, or corporeal Nature in one bulk, body,
+or substance, just like as the soul and body do make but
+one man; and to avoid also this misapprehension, lest
+they might be taken for several matters, I have upon
+better consideration, in this volume of <i>Philosophical
+Letters</i>, call'd the animate matter corporeal self-motion,
+which expression, I think, is more proper, plain, and intelligible
+then any other: Neither would I have you to
+scruple at it, when I say, that both parts or degrees of
+animate and inanimate matter do retain their own interior
+natures and proprieties in their commixture, as if
+those different natures and proprieties, where one is self-moving,
+and the other not, did cause them to be two
+different matters; for thus you might say as well, that
+several figures which have several and different interior
+natures and proprieties, are so many several matters.
+The truth is, if you desire to have the truest expression
+of animate and inanimate matter, you cannot find it
+better then in the definition of Nature, when I say,
+Nature is an infinite self-moving body; where by the
+body of Nature I understand the inanimate matter,
+and by self-motion the animate, which is the life and
+soul of Nature, not an immaterial life and soul, but
+a material, for both life, soul and body are and make
+but one self-moving body or substance which is corporeal
+Nature. And therefore when I call <i>Animate
+matter</i> an <i>Extract</i>,<a name="FNanchor_9_190" id="FNanchor_9_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_190" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> I do it by reason of its purity, subtilty
+and agility, not by reason of its immateriality. Also
+when I name the word Motion by it self, and without
+any addition, I understand corporeal Motion; and
+when I name Motion, Matter and Figure, I do not
+mean three several and distinct things, but onely figurative
+corporeal motion, or figurative self-moving
+matter, all being but one thing; the same when I speak
+of Place, Time, Magnitude, and the like.</p>
+
+<p>Concerning Natural Production or Generation;
+when I say,<a name="FNanchor_10_191" id="FNanchor_10_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_191" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> <i>The same matter or figure of the producers
+doth not always move after one and the same manner in
+producing, for then the same producers would produce one
+and the same creature by repetition</i>, I do not mean the
+very same creature in number, unless the same motions
+and parts of matter did return into the producers
+again, which is impossible; but I understand the like
+creature, to wit, that one and the same sort of particular
+motions would make all particular figures resemble
+so, as if they were one and the same creature without
+any difference.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_11_192" id="FNanchor_11_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_192" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> <i>Sensitive and Rational knowledg lives in
+sensitive and rational Matter, and Animate liveth in
+Inanimate matter</i>, I mean they are all several parts and
+actions of the onely infinite matter inseparable from each
+other; for wheresoever is matter, there is also self-motion,
+and wheresoever is self-motion, there is sense and
+reason, and wheresoever is sense and reason, there is sensitive
+and rational knowledge, all being but one body or
+substance, which is Nature.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_12_193" id="FNanchor_12_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_193" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> <i>The death of particular Creatures causes
+an obscurity of Knowledge, and that particular Knowledges
+increase and decrease, and may be more or less</i>, I
+mean onely that parts divide themselves from parts, and
+joyn to other parts; for every several Motion is a several
+Knowledge, and as motion varies, so doth knowledge;
+but there is no annihilation of any motion, and consequently
+not of knowledge in Nature. And as for
+more or less knowledge, I mean more or less alteration
+and variety of corporeal figurative motions, not onely
+rational but sensitive, so that that creature which has most
+variety of those perceptive motions is most knowing,
+provided they be regular, that is, according to the nature
+and propriety of the figure, whether animal, vegetable,
+mineral, or elemental; for though a large figure
+is capable of most knowledge, yet it is not commonly
+or alwayes so wise or witty as a less, by reason it is
+more subject to disorders and irregularities; like as a private
+Family is more regular and better ordered then a
+great State or Common-wealth. Also when I say,
+<i>That some particular Knowledge lasts longer then some
+other</i>, I mean that some corporeal motions in some parts
+do continue longer then in others.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_13_194" id="FNanchor_13_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_194" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> <i>A little head may be full, and a great
+head may be empty of rational matter</i>, I mean there may
+be as it were an ebbing or flowing, that is more or less of
+Rational Matter joyned with the Sensitive and Inanimate:
+And when I say, <i>That, if all the heads of Mankind
+were put into one, and sufficient quantity of Rational
+Matter therein, that Creature would not onely have the
+knowledge of every particular, but that Understanding
+and Knowledge would increase like Use-money</i>, my meaning
+is, that if there were much of those parts of rational
+matter joyned, they would make more variety by self-change
+of corporeal motions.</p>
+
+<p>When I name <i>Humane sense and reason</i>, I mean such
+sensitive and rational perception and knowledge as is
+proper to the nature of Man; and when I say <i>Animal
+sense and reason</i>, I mean such as is proper to the nature
+of all Animals; for I do not mean that the sensitive and
+rational corporeal motions which do make a man, or any
+Animal, are bound to such figures eternally, but whilest
+they work and move in such or such figures, they make
+such perceptions as belong to the nature of those figures;
+but when those self-moving parts dissolve the figure of
+an Animal into a Vegetable or any other Creature, then
+they work according to the nature of that same figure,
+both exteriously and interiously.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_14_195" id="FNanchor_14_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_195" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> <i>That Place, Space, Measure, Number,
+Weight, Figures, &amp;c. are mixed with Substance</i>,
+I do not mean they are incorporeal, and do inhere
+in substance as so many incorporeal modes or accidents;
+but my meaning is, they are all corporeal parts
+and actions of Nature, there being no such thing in
+Nature that may be called incorporeal; for Place, Figure,
+Weight, Measure, &amp;c. are nothing without Body,
+but Place and Body are but one thing, and so of
+the rest. Also when I say,<a name="FNanchor_15_196" id="FNanchor_15_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_196" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> <i>That sometimes Place,
+sometimes Time, and sometimes Number gives advantage</i>,
+I mean, that several parts of Matter are getting
+or losing advantage.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_16_197" id="FNanchor_16_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_197" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> an Animal or any thing else that has
+exterior local motion, goeth or moveth to such or such
+a place, I mean, to such or such a body; and when
+such a Creature doth not move out of its place, I mean,
+it doth not remove its body from such or such parts adjoyning
+to it.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_17_198" id="FNanchor_17_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_198" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> <i>The rational animate matter divides it
+self into as many parts, and after as many several manners
+as their place or quantity will give way to</i>, I mean their own
+place and quantity: also, as other parts will give way to
+those parts, for some parts will assist others, and some do
+obstruct others.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_18_199" id="FNanchor_18_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_199" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> <i>That the Nature of extension or dilation
+strives or endeavours to get space, ground, or compass</i>,
+I mean those corporeal motions endeavour to make place
+and space by their extensions, that is, to spread their
+parts of matter into a larger compass or body. And
+when I say, <i>That Contractions endeavour to cast or thrust
+out space, place, ground, or compass</i>, My meaning is,
+That those corporeal motions endeavour to draw their
+parts of matter into a more close and solid body, for
+there is no place nor space without body.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I name<a name="FNanchor_19_200" id="FNanchor_19_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_200" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> several <i>tempered substances and matters</i>,
+I mean several changes and mixtures of corporeal
+motions.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I speak of <i>Increase</i> and <i>Decrease</i>, I mean
+onely an alteration of corporeal figurative motions, as
+uniting parts with parts, and dissolving or separating
+parts from parts.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_20_201" id="FNanchor_20_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_201" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> That the motions of cold, and the motions
+of moisture, when they meet, make cold and
+moist effects, and when the motions of heat and moisture
+meet, make hot and moist effects; and so for the
+motions of cold and dryness: I mean, that when
+several parts do joyn in such several corporeal motions,
+they cause such effects; and when I say cold and heat
+presses into every particular Creature, I mean, that every
+Creatures natural and inherent perceptive motions
+make such patterns as their exterior objects are, <i>viz.</i>
+hot or cold, if they do but move regularly, for if they
+be irregular, then they do not: as for example; those
+in an Ague will shake for cold in a hot Summers day,
+and those that are in a Fever will burn with heat,
+although they were at the Poles.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_21_202" id="FNanchor_21_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_202" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> that hot motions, and burning motions,
+and hot figures, and burning figures do not associate or
+joyn together in all Creatures: I mean, that the corporeal
+motions in some figures or creatures, do act in
+a hot, but not in a burning manner; and when I say,
+some creatures have both hot and burning motions and
+figures, I mean, the corporeal motions act both in a
+hot and burning manner; for though heat is in a degree
+to burning, yet it is not always burning, for
+burning is the highest degree of heat, as wetness is the
+highest degree of moisture.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_22_203" id="FNanchor_22_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_203" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> <i>Warmth feeds other Creatures after a
+spiritual manner, not a corporeal</i>, My meaning is, not
+as if heat were not corporeal, but that those corporeal
+motions which make heat work invisibly, and not visibly
+like as fire feeds on fuel, or man on meat.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I say, <i>Excercise amongst animals gets strength</i>,
+I mean, that by excercise the inherent natural
+motions of an animal body are more active, as being
+more industrious.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_23_204" id="FNanchor_23_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_204" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> <i>That the passage whence cold and sharp
+winds do issue out, is narrow</i>, I mean, when as such or
+such parts disjoyn or separate from other parts; as for
+example, when dilating parts disjoyn from contracting
+parts; and oftentimes the disjoyning parts do move
+according to the nature of those parts they disjoyn
+from.</p>
+
+<p>Concerning the actions of Nature, my meaning is,
+that there is not any action whatsoever, but was always
+in Nature, and remains in Nature so long as it
+pleases God that Nature shall last, and of all her actions
+Perception and self-love are her prime and chief
+actions; wherefore it is impossible but that all her particular
+creatures or parts must be knowing as well as
+self-moving, there being not one part or particle of
+Nature that has not its share of animate or self-moving
+matter, and consequently of knowledg and self-love,
+each according to its own kind and nature; but
+by reason all the parts are of one matter, and belong to
+one body, each is unalterable so far, that although it can
+change its figure, yet it cannot change or alter from being
+matter, or a part of Infinite Nature; and this is the
+cause there cannot be a confusion amongst those parts
+of Nature, but there must be a constant union and
+harmony betwixt them; for cross and opposite actions
+make no confusion, but onely a variety, and such
+actions which are different, cross and opposite, not
+moving always after their usual and accustomed way,
+I name Irregular, for want of a better expression; but
+properly there is no such thing as Irregularity in Nature,
+nor no weariness, rest, sleep, sickness, death or
+destruction, no more then there is place, space, time,
+modes, accidents, and the like, any thing besides body or
+matter.</p>
+
+<p>When I speak of <i>unnatural Motions</i>,<a name="FNanchor_24_205" id="FNanchor_24_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_205" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> I mean such
+as are not proper to the nature of such or such a Creature,
+as being opposite or destructive to it, that is, moving
+or acting towards its dissolution. Also when I call
+Violence supernatural, I mean that Violence is beyond
+the particular nature of such a particular Creature, that
+is, beyond its natural motions; but not supernatural,
+that is beyond Infinite Nature or natural Matter.</p>
+
+<p>When I say, <i>A thing is forced</i>, I do not mean that
+the forced body receives strength without Matter; but
+that some Corporeal Motions joyn with other Corporeal
+Motions, and so double the strength by joyning their
+parts, or are at least an occasion to make other parts more
+industrious.</p>
+
+<p>By <i>Prints</i> I understand the figures of the objects
+which are patterned or copied out by the sensitive and rational
+corporeal figurative Motions; as for example,
+when the sensitive corporeal motions pattern out the figure
+of an exteriour object, and the rational motions
+again pattern out a figure made by the sensitive motions,
+those figures of the objects that are patterned out, I name
+Prints; as for example, <i>The sense of Seeing is not capable
+to receive the Print</i>,<a name="FNanchor_25_206" id="FNanchor_25_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_206" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> that is, the figure or pattern
+<i>of the object of the whole Earth</i>. And again, <i>The rational
+Motions are not alwayes exactly after the sensitive
+Prints</i>, that is, after the figures made by the sensitive
+motions. Thus by Prints I understand Patterns, and
+by printing patterning; not that the exteriour object
+prints its figure upon the exteriour sensitive organs, but
+that the sensitive motions in the organs pattern out the
+figure of the object: but though all printing is done by
+the way of patterning, yet all patterning is not printing.
+Therefore when I say,<a name="FNanchor_26_207" id="FNanchor_26_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_207" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> that <i>solid bodies print
+their figures in that which is more porous and soft, and
+that those solid bodies make new prints perpetually;
+and as they remove, the prints melt out, like verbal or
+vocal sounds, which print words and set notes in the Air</i>;
+I mean, the soft body by its own self-motion patterns
+out the figure of the solid body, and not that the solid
+body makes its own print, and so leaves the place of its
+own substance with the print in the soft body; for place
+remains always with its own body, and cannot be separated
+from it, they being but one thing: for example;
+when a Seal is printed in Wax, the Seal gives not any
+thing to the Wax, but is onely an object patterned out
+by the figurative motions of the Wax in the action of
+printing or sealing.</p>
+
+<p>When I make mention<a name="FNanchor_27_208" id="FNanchor_27_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_208" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> <i>of what the Senses bring in</i>,
+I mean what the sensitive Motions pattern out of forreign
+objects: And when I say,<a name="FNanchor_28_209" id="FNanchor_28_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_209" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> <i>that the pores being
+shut, touch cannot enter</i>, I mean, the sensitive corporeal
+motions cannot make patterns of outward objects.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I say, <i>our Ears may be as knowing as our
+Eyes</i>, and so of the rest of the sensitive organs; I mean
+the sensitive motions in those parts or organs.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_29_210" id="FNanchor_29_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_210" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> <i>The more the Body is at rest, the more
+active or busie is the Mind</i>, I mean when the sensitive
+Motions are not taken up with the action of patterning
+out forreign objects.</p>
+
+<p>When I say,<a name="FNanchor_30_211" id="FNanchor_30_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_211" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> the Air is fill'd with sound, and that
+words are received into the ears, as figures of exterior
+objects are received into the eyes, I mean, the sensitive
+motions of the Air pattern out sound, and the sensitive
+motions of the Ears pattern out words, as the
+sensitive figurative motions of the Eyes pattern out the
+figures of external objects.</p>
+
+<p>Also when I speak of <i>Thunder</i> and <i>Lightning</i>, to
+wit, <i>That Thunder makes a great noise by the breaking
+of lines</i>: My meaning is, That the Air patterns out
+this sound or noise of the lines; and by reason there are
+so many patterns made in the air by its sensitive motions,
+the Ear cannot take so exact a copy thereof, but somewhat
+confusedly; and this is the reason why Thunder
+is represented, or rather pattern'd out with some terrour;
+for Thunder is a confused noise, because the patterns
+are made confusedly.</p>
+
+<p>But concerning Sound and Light, I am forced to
+acquaint you, <i>Madam</i>, that my meaning thereof is
+not so well expressed in my Book of Philosophy, by
+reason I was not of the same opinion at that time when I
+did write that Book which I am now of; for upon better
+consideration, and a more diligent search into the causes
+of natural effects, I have found it more probable, that
+all sensitive perception is made by the way of Patterning,
+and so consequently the perception of Sound and
+of Light; wherefore, I beseech you, when you find
+in my mentioned Book any thing thereof otherwise expressed,
+do not judg of it as if I did contradict my self,
+but that I have alter'd my opinion since upon more probable
+reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, <i>Madam</i>, you have a true declaration of my
+sence and meaning concerning those places, which in
+my <i>Philosophical Opinions</i> you did note, as being obscure;
+but I am resolved to bestow so much time and
+labour as to have all other places in that Book rectified
+and cleared, which seem not perspicuous, lest its obscurity
+may be the cause of its being neglected: And I
+pray God of his mercy to assist me with his Grace, and
+grant that my Works may find a favourable acceptance.
+In the mean time, I confess my self infinitely
+bound to your Ladyship, that you would be pleased to
+regard so much the Honour of your Friend, and be the
+chief occasion of it; for which I pray Heaven may bless,
+prosper, and preserve you, and lend me some means
+and ways to express my self,</p>
+
+<p>Madam,</p>
+
+<p><i>Your thankfull Friend,</i></p>
+
+<p><i>and humble Servant.</i></p>
+
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_1_182" id="Footnote_1_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_182"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_2_183" id="Footnote_2_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_183"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_3_184" id="Footnote_3_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_184"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_4_185" id="Footnote_4_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_185"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> <i>Part.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 13, 14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_5_186" id="Footnote_5_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_186"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_6_187" id="Footnote_6_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_187"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_7_188" id="Footnote_7_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_188"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 10.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_8_189" id="Footnote_8_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_189"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 1. <i>Ch.</i> 3.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_9_190" id="Footnote_9_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_190"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 4. <i>c.</i> 3, 32.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_10_191" id="Footnote_10_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_191"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 22.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_11_192" id="Footnote_11_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_192"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 15.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_12_193" id="Footnote_12_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_193"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_13_194" id="Footnote_13_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_194"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_14_195" id="Footnote_14_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_195"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 21.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_15_196" id="Footnote_15_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_196"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> <i>c.</i> 14.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_16_197" id="Footnote_16_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_197"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 51.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_17_198" id="Footnote_17_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_198"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 8.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_18_199" id="Footnote_18_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_199"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 4. <i>c.</i> 34.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_19_200" id="Footnote_19_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_200"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_20_201" id="Footnote_20_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_201"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 4.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_21_202" id="Footnote_21_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_202"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_22_203" id="Footnote_22_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_203"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 27.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_23_204" id="Footnote_23_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_204"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 45.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_24_205" id="Footnote_24_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_205"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 7. <i>c.</i> 11.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_25_206" id="Footnote_25_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_206"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 3. <i>c.</i> 2.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_26_207" id="Footnote_26_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_207"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 5. <i>c.</i> 23.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_27_208" id="Footnote_27_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_208"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_28_209" id="Footnote_28_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_209"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 7. <i>c.</i> 12.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_29_210" id="Footnote_29_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_210"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 13.</p></div>
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+<p><a name="Footnote_30_211" id="Footnote_30_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_211"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>P.</i> 6. <i>c.</i> 29.</p></div>
+
+<hr class="chap" />
+
+
+<p>
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i><a id="Eternal_God_Infinite_Deity"></a>Eternal God, Infinite Deity,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Thy Servant</i>, NATURE, <i>humbly prays to Thee,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>That thou wilt please to favour Her, and give</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Her parts, which are Her Creatures, leave to live,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>That in their shapes and forms, what e're they be,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>And all their actions they may worship thee;</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>For 'tis not onely Man that doth implore,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>But all Her parts, Great God, do thee adore;</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>A finite Worship cannot be to thee,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Thou art above all finites in degree:</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Then let thy Servant Nature mediate</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Between thy Justice, Mercy, and our state,</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>That thou may'st bless all Parts, and ever be</i></span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><i>Our Gracious God to all Eternity.</i></span><br />
+<br />
+<br />
+</p>
+
+
+<h4>FINIS.</h4>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Philosophical Letters: or, modest
+Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy, by Margaret Cavendish
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PHILOSOPHICAL LETTERS: OR ***
+
+***** This file should be named 53679-h.htm or 53679-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/5/3/6/7/53679/
+
+Produced by Clare Graham and Marc D'Hooghe at Free
+Literature (online soon in an extended version, also linking
+to free sources for education worldwide ... MOOC's,
+educational materials,...) Images generously made available
+by the Internet Archive.
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
+be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
+law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
+so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
+States without permission and without paying copyright
+royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
+of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
+and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive
+specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
+eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook
+for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports,
+performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given
+away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks
+not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the
+trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
+
+START: FULL LICENSE
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
+Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
+www.gutenberg.org/license.
+
+Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+
+1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
+destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
+possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
+Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
+by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
+person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
+1.E.8.
+
+1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
+paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
+agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
+Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
+of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
+works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
+States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
+United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
+claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
+displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
+all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
+that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
+free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
+works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
+Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
+comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
+same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
+you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
+in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
+check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
+agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
+distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
+other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
+representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
+country outside the United States.
+
+1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
+immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
+prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
+on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
+performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
+
+  This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
+  most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
+  restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
+  under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
+  eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
+  United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you
+  are located before using this ebook.
+
+1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
+derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
+contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
+copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
+the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
+redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
+either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
+obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
+additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
+will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
+posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
+beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
+any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
+to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
+other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
+version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site
+(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
+to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
+of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
+Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
+full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+provided that
+
+* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+  the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+  you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
+  to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
+  agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
+  within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
+  legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
+  payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
+  Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
+  Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
+  Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+  you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+  does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+  License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
+  copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
+  all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
+  works.
+
+* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
+  any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+  electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
+  receipt of the work.
+
+* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+  distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
+are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
+from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The
+Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
+Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
+contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
+or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
+other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
+cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
+with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
+with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
+lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
+or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
+opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
+the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
+without further opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
+OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
+damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
+violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
+agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
+limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
+unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
+remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
+accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
+production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
+including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
+the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
+or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
+additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
+Defect you cause.
+
+Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
+computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
+exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
+from people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
+generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
+Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
+www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+
+Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
+U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the
+mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its
+volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous
+locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt
+Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to
+date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and
+official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
+
+For additional contact information:
+
+    Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+    Chief Executive and Director
+    gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
+DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
+state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
+donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
+
+Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
+freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
+distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
+volunteer support.
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
+the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
+necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
+edition.
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search
+facility: www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/53679-h/images/cover.jpg b/53679-h/images/cover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7e0501c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/53679-h/images/cover.jpg
author	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-06 18:28:54 -0800
committer	nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org>	2025-02-06 18:28:54 -0800
commit	dbd2c9030fe8e6a2e7a9fd01ed2680f192434132 (patch)
tree	00d70ebddcc4f34a82bce40292173fbc8142ce3d