diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/53679-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/53679-8.txt | 15539 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 15539 deletions
diff --git a/old/53679-8.txt b/old/53679-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4b64f5d..0000000 --- a/old/53679-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,15539 +0,0 @@ -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 Dæmons, 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 æthereal 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 æthereal 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 Æthereal 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 _Æsopes_ 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 -Dæmons, 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 Dæmons 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 _Cæsar_ 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 _Cæsar_ what is _Cæsars_, 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 _Chymæras_ 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 Æthereal 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 Ægyptians -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 Chymæra, 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 Chymæra'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-vitæ 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 Dæmons 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. - |