,philosophical ,letters3 ,,or1 ,,modest ,,reflections ,upon some ,opinions in ,,natural ,,philosophy1 ,,maintained ,by several ,famous and ,learned ,authors of this ,age1 ,expressed by way of ,,letters3 ,by the ,thrice ,noble1 ,illustrious1 and ,excellent ,princess1 ,the ,lady ,,marchioness of ,,newcastle4 ,,london1 ,printed in the ,year1 #affd4 ,,to ,,her ,,excellency ,the ,lady ,marchioness of ,,newcastle ,on her ,book of ,philosophical ,letters4 ',tis ,supernatural1 nay 'tis ,divine1 ,to write whole ,volumes ere ,i can a line4 ,i 'mplor'd the ,lady ,muses1 those fine things1 ,but they have broken all their ,fidle-strings ,and cannot help me2 ,nay1 then ,i did try ,their ,helicon1 but that is grown all dry3 ,then on ,parnassus ,i did make a sallie1 ,but that's laid level1 like a ,bowling-alley2 ,invok'd my ,muse1 found it a ,pond1 a ,dream1 ,to your eternal ,spring1 and running ,stream2 ,so clear and fresh1 with ,wit and ,phansie store1 ,as then despair did bid me write no more4 ,w4 ,newcastle4 ,,to ,,his ,,excellency ,the ,lord ,marquis of ,,newcastle4 ,my ,noble ,lord1 ,although you have1 always encouraged me in my harmless pastime of ,writing1 yet was ,i afraid that your ,lordship would be angry with me for ,writing and ,publishing this ,book1 by reason it is a ,book of ,controversies1 of which ,i have heard your ,lordship say1 ,that ,controversies and ,disputations make ,enemies of ,friends1 and that such ,disputations and ,controversies as these1 are a pedantical kind of quarrelling1 not becoming ,noble ,persons4 ,but your ,lordship will be pleased to consider in my behalf1 that it is impossible for one ,person to be of every one's ,opinion1 if their opinions be different1 and that my ,opinions in ,philosophy1 being new1 and never thought of1 at least not divulged by any1 but my self1 are quite different from others3 ,for the ,ground of my ,opinions is1 that there is not onely a ,sensitive1 but also a ,rational ,life and ,knowledge1 and so a double ,perception in all ,creatures3 ,and thus my opinions being new1 are not so easily understood as those1 that take up several pieces of old opinions1 of which they patch up a new ,philosophy1 7if new may be made of old things17 like a ,suit made up of old ,stuff bought at the ,brokers3 ,wherefore to find out a ,truth1 at least a ,probability in ,natural ,philosophy by a new and different way from other ,writers1 and to make this way more known1 easie and intelligible1 ,i was in a manner forced to write this ,book2 for ,i have not contradicted those ,authors in any thing1 but what concerns and is opposite to my opinions2 neither do ,i anything1 but what they have done themselves1 as being common amongst them to contradict each other3 which may as well be allowable1 as for ,lawyers to plead at the ,barr in opposite ,causes4 ,for as ,lawyers are not ,enemies to each other1 but great ,friends1 all agreeing from the ,barr1 although not at the ,barr3 so it is with ,philosophers1 who make their ,opinions as their ,clients1 not for ,wealth1 but for ,fame1 and therefore have no reason to become ,enemies to each other1 by being ,industrious in their ,profession4 ,all which considered1 was the cause of ,publishing this ,book2 wherein although ,i dissent from their opinions1 yet doth not this take off the least of the respect and esteem ,i have of their ,merits and ,works4 ,but if your ,lordship do but pardon me1 ,i care not if ,i be condemned by others2 for your ,favour is more then the ,world to me1 for which all the actions of my ,life shall be devoted and ready to serve you1 as becomes1 ,my ,lord1 ,your ,lordships honest ,wife1 and humble ,servant1 ,m4 ,n4 ,,to ,,the ,,most ,,famous ,,university ,,of ,,cambridge4 ,most ,noble1 ,ingenious1 ,learned1 and ,industrious ,students4 ,be not offended1 that ,i dedicate to you this weak and infirm work of mine2 for though it be not an offering worthy your acceptance1 yet it is as much as ,i can present for this time2 and ,i wish from my ,soul1 ,i might be so happy as to have some means or ways to express my ,gratitude for your ,magnificent favours to me1 having done me more honour then ever ,i could expect1 or give sufficient thanks for3 ,but your ,generosity is above all ,gratitude1 and your ,favours above all ,merit1 like as your ,learning is above ,contradiction3 ,and ,i pray ,god your ,university may flourish to the end of the ,world1 for the ,service of the ,church1 the ,truth of ,religion1 the ,salvation of ,souls1 the instruction of ,youth1 the preservation of ,health1 and prolonging of ,life1 and for the increase of profitable ,arts and ,sciences3 so as your several studies may be1 like several ,magistrates1 united for the good and benefit of the whole ,common-wealth1 nay1 the whole ,world4 ,may ,heaven prosper you1 the ,world magnifie you1 and ,eternity record your same2 ,which are the hearty wishes and prayers of1 ,your most obliged ,servant ,m4 ,,newcastle4 ,a ,,preface ,,to ,,the ,,reader4 ,worthy ,readers1 ,i did not write this ,book out of delight1 love or humour to contradiction2 for ,i would rather praise1 then contradict any ,person or ,persons that are ingenious2 but by reason ,opinion is free1 and may pass without a pass-port1 ,i took the liberty to declare my own opinions as other ,philosophers do1 and to that purpose ,i have here set down several famous and learned ,authors opinions1 and my answers to them in the form of ,letters1 which was the easiest way for me to write2 and by so doing1 ,i have done that1 which ,i would have done unto me2 for ,i am as willing to have my opinions contradicted1 as ,i do contradict others3 for ,i love ,reason so well1 that whosoever can bring most rational and probable arguments1 shall have my vote1 although against my own opinion4 ,but you may say1 ,if contradictions were frequent1 there would be no agreement amongst ,mankind4 ,i answer2 it is very true3 ,wherefore ,contradictions are better in general ,books1 then in particular ,families1 and in ,schools better then in ,publick ,states1 and better in ,philosophy then in ,divinity4 ,all which considered1 ,i shun1 as much as ,i can1 not to discourse or write of either ,church or ,state4 ,but ,i desire so much favour1 or rather ,justice of you1 ,worthy ,readers1 as not to interpret my objections or answers any other ways then against several opinions in ,philosophy2 for ,i am confident there is not any body1 that doth esteem1 respect and honour learned and ingenious ,persons more then ,i do3 ,wherefore judg me neither to be of a contradicting humor1 nor of a vain-glorious mind for differing from other mens opinions1 but rather that it is done out of love to ,truth1 and to make my own opinions the more intelligible1 which cannot better be done then by arguing and comparing other mens opinions with them4 ,the ,authors whose opinions ,i mention1 ,i have read1 as ,i found them printed1 in my native ,language1 except ,des ,cartes1 who being in ,latine1 ,i had some few places translated to me out of his works2 and ,i must confess1 that since ,i have read the works of these learned men1 ,i understand the names and terms of ,art a little better then ,i did before2 but it is not so much as to make me a ,scholar1 nor yet so little1 but that1 had ,i read more before ,i did begin to write my other ,book called ,philosophical ,opinions1 they would have been more intelligible2 for my error was1 ,i began to write so early1 that ,i had not liv'd so long as to be able to read many ,authors2 ,i cannot say1 ,i divulged my opinions as soon as ,i had conceiv'd them1 but yet ,i divulged them too soon to have them artificial and methodical4 ,but since what is past1 cannot be recalled1 ,i must desire you to excuse those faults1 which were committed for want of experience and learning4 ,as for ,school-learning1 had ,i applied my self to it1 yet ,i am confident ,i should never have arrived to any2 for ,i am so uncapable of ,learning1 that ,i could never attain to the knowledge of any other ,language but my native1 especially by the ,rules of ,art3 wherefore ,i do not repent that ,i spent not my time in ,learning1 for ,i consider1 it is better to write wittily then learnedly2 nevertheless1 ,i love and esteem ,learning1 although ,i am not capable of it4 ,but you may say1 ,i have expressed neither ,wit nor ,learning in my ,writings3 ,truly1 if not1 ,i am the more sorry for it2 but self-conceit1 which is natural to mankind1 especially to our ,sex1 did flatter and secretly perswade me that my ,writings had ,sense and ,reason1 ,wit and ,variety2 but ,judgment being not called to ,counsel1 ,i yielded to ,self-conceits flattery1 and so put out my ,writings to be ,printed as fast as ,i could1 without being reviewed or ,corrected3 ,neither did ,i fear any censure1 for ,self-conceit had perswaded me1 ,i should be highly applauded2 wherefore ,i made such haste1 that ,i had three or four ,books printed presently after each other4 ,but to return to this present ,work1 ,i must desire you1 worthy ,readers1 to read first my ,book called ,philosophical and ,physical ,opinions1 before you censure this1 for this ,book is but an explanation of the former1 wherein is contained the ,ground of my ,opinions1 and those that will judge well of a ,building1 must first consider the ,foundation2 to which purpose ,i will repeat some few ,heads and ,principles of my ,opinions1 which are these following3 ,first1 ,that ,nature is ,infinite1 and the ,eternal ,servant of ,god3 ,next1 ,that she is ,corporeal1 and partly self-moving1 dividable and composable2 that all and every particular ,creature1 as also all perception and variety in ,nature1 is made by corporeal self-motion1 which ,i name sensitive and rational matter1 which is life and knowledg1 sense and reason4 ,again1 ,that these sensitive and rational parts of matter are the purest and subtilest parts of ,nature1 as the active parts1 the knowing1 understanding and prudent parts1 the designing1 architectonical and working parts1 nay1 the ,life and ,soul of ,nature1 and that there is not any ,creature or part of nature without this ,life and ,soul2 and that not onely ,animals1 but also ,vegetables1 ,minerals and ,elements1 and what more is in ,nature1 are endued with this ,life and ,soul1 ,sense and ,reason3 and because this ,life and ,soul is a corporeal ,substance1 it is both dividable and composable2 for it divides and removes parts from parts1 as also composes and joyns parts to parts1 and works in a perpetual motion without rest2 by which actions not any ,creature can challenge a particular ,life and ,soul to it self1 but every ,creature may have by the dividing and composing nature of this self-moving matter more or fewer natural souls and lives4 ,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 ,opinions1 and more clearly repeated and explained in this present4 ',tis true1 the way of arguing ,i use1 is common1 but the ,principles1 ,heads and ,grounds of my ,opinions are my own1 not borrowed or stolen in the least from any2 and the first time ,i divulged them1 was in the year #afec3 since which time ,i have reviewed1 reformed and reprinted them twice2 for at first1 as my ,conceptions were new and my own1 so my ,judgment was young1 and my ,experience little1 so that ,i had not so much knowledge as to declare them artificially and methodically2 for as ,i mentioned before1 ,i was always unapt to learn by the ,rules of ,art4 ,but although they may be defective for want of ,terms of ,art1 and artificial expressions1 yet ,i am sure they are not defective for want of ,sense and ,reason3 ,and if any one can bring more ,sense and ,reason to disprove these my opinions1 ,i shall not repine or grieve1 but either acknowledge my error1 if ,i find my self in any1 or defend them as rationally as ,i can1 if it be but done justly and honestly1 without deceit1 spight1 or malice2 for ,i cannot chuse but acquaint you1 ,noble ,readers1 ,i have been informed1 that if ,i should be answered in my ,writings1 it would be done rather under the name and cover of a ,woman1 then of a ,man1 the reason is1 because no man dare or will set his name to the contradiction of a ,lady2 and to confirm you the better herein1 there has one ,chapter of my ,book called ,the ,worlds ,olio1 treating of a ,monastical ,life1 been answer'd already in a little ,pamphlet1 under the name of a woman1 although she did little towards it2 wherefore it being a ,hermaphroditical ,book1 ,i judged it not worthy taking notice of4 ,the like shall ,i do to any other that will answer this present work of mine1 or contradict my opinions indirectly with fraud and deceit4 ,but ,i cannot conceive why it should be a disgrace to any man to maintain his own or others opinions against a woman1 so it be done with respect and civility2 but to become a cheat by dissembling1 and quit the ,breeches for a ,petticoat1 meerly out of spight and malice1 is base1 and not fit for the honour of a man1 or the masculine sex4 ,besides1 it will easily be known2 for a ,philosopher or ,philosopheress is not produced on a sudden4 ,wherefore1 although ,i do not care1 nor fear contradiction1 yet ,i desire it may be done without fraud or deceit1 spight and malice2 and then ,i shall be ready to defend my opinions the best ,i can1 whilest ,i live1 and after ,i am dead1 ,i hope those that are just and honorable will also defend me from all sophistry1 malice1 spight and envy1 for which ,heaven will bless them4 ,in the mean time1 ,worthy ,readers1 ,i should rejoyce to see that my ,works are acceptable to you1 for if you be not partial1 you will easily pardon those faults you find1 when you do consider both my sex and breeding2 for which favour and justice1 ,i shall always remain1 ,your most obliged ,servant1 ,m4 ,n4 ,philosophical ,letters4 ,sect4 ,i4 ,i4 ,,madam1 ,you have been pleased to send me the ,works of four ,famous and ,learned ,authors1 to wit1 of two most ,famous ,philosophers of our ,age1 ,des ,cartes1 and ,hobbs1 and of that ,learned ,philosopher and ,divine ,dr4 ,more1 as also of that ,famous ,physician and ,chymist ,van ,helmont4 ,which ,works you have sent me not onely to peruse1 but also to give my judgment of them1 and to send you word by the usual way of our ,correspondence1 which is by ,letters1 how far1 and wherein ,i do dissent from these ,famous ,authors1 their ,opinions in ,natural ,philosophy4 ,to tell you truly1 ,madam1 your ,commands did at first much affright me1 for it did appear1 as if you had commanded me to get upon a high ,rock1 and fling my self into the ,sea1 where neither a ,ship1 nor a ,plank1 nor any kind of help was near to rescue me1 and save my life2 but that ,i was forced to sink1 by reason ,i cannot swim3 ,so ,i having no ,learning nor ,art to assist me in this dangerous undertaking1 thought1 ,i must of necessity perish under the rough censures of my ,readers1 and be not onely accounted a fool for my labour1 but a vain and presumptuous person1 to undertake things surpassing the ability of my performance2 but on the other side ,i considered first1 that those ,worthy ,authors1 were they my censurers1 would not deny me the same liberty they take themselves2 which is1 that ,i may dissent from their ,opinions1 as well as they dissent from others1 and from amongst themselves3 ,and if ,i should express more ,vanity then ,wit1 more ,ignorance then ,knowledg1 more ,folly then ,discretion1 it being according to the ,nature of our ,sex1 ,i hoped that my ,masculine ,readers would civilly excuse me1 and my ,female ,readers could not justly condemn me4 ,next ,i considered with my self1 that it would be a great advantage for my ,book called ,philosophical ,opinions1 as to make it more perspicuous and intelligible by the opposition of other ,opinions1 since two opposite things placed near each other1 are the better discerned2 for ,i must confess1 that when ,i did put forth my ,philosophical ,work at first1 ,i was not so well skilled in the ,terms or ,expressions usual in ,natural ,philosophy2 and therefore for want of their knowledg1 ,i could not declare my meaning so plainly and clearly as ,i ought to have done1 which may be a sufficient argument to my ,readers1 that ,i have not read heretofore any ,natural ,philosophers1 and taken some ,light from them2 but that my ,opinions did meerly issue from the ,fountain of my own ,brain1 without any other help or assistance4 ,wherefore since for want of proper ,expressions1 my named ,book of ,philosophy was accused of obscurity and intricacy1 ,i thought your ,commands would be a means to explain and clear it the better1 although not by an ,artificial way1 as by ,logical ,arguments or ,mathematical ,demonstrations1 yet by expressing my ,sense and ,meaning more properly and clearly then ,i have done heretofore3 ,but the chief reason of all was1 the ,authority of your ,command1 which did work so powerfully with me1 that ,i could not resist1 although it were to the disgrace of my own judgment and wit2 and therefore ,i am fully resolved now to go on as far1 and as well as the ,natural strength of my ,reason will reach3 ,but since neither the strength of my ,body1 nor of my understanding1 or wit1 is able to mark every line1 or every word of their works1 and to argue upon them1 ,i shall onely pick out the ground ,opinions of the aforementioned ,authors1 and those which do directly dissent from mine1 upon which ,i intend to make some few ,reflections1 according to the ability of my ,reason2 and ,i shall meerly go upon the bare ,ground of ,natural ,philosophy1 and not mix ,divinity with it1 as many ,philosophers use to do1 except it be in those places1 where ,i am forced by the ,authors ,arguments to reflect upon it1 which yet shall be rather with an expression of my ignorance1 then a positive declaration of my opinion or judgment thereof2 for ,i think it not onely an absurdity1 but an injury to the holy ,profession of ,divinity to draw her to the ,proofs in ,natural ,philosophy2 wherefore ,i shall strictly follow the ,guidance of ,natural ,reason1 and keep to my own ground and ,principles as much as ,i can2 which that ,i may perform the better1 ,i humbly desire the help and assistance of your ,favour1 that according to that real and intire ,affection you bear to me1 you would be pleased to tell me unfeignedly1 if ,i should chance to err or contradict but the least probability of truth in any thing2 for ,i honor ,truth so much1 as ,i bow down to its shadow with the greatest respect and reverence2 and ,i esteem those persons most1 that love and honor ,truth with the same zeal and fervor1 whether they be ,ancient or ,modern ,writers4 ,thus1 ,madam1 although ,i am destitute of the help of ,arts1 yet being supported by your ,favour and wise ,directions1 ,i shall not fear any smiles of scorn1 or words of reproach2 for ,i am confident you will defend me against all the mischievous and poisonous ,teeth of malicious detractors4 ,i shall besides1 implore the assistance of the ,sacred ,church1 and the ,learned ,schools1 to take me into their ,protection1 and shelter my weak endeavours3 ,for though ,i am but an ignorant and simple ,woman1 yet ,i am their devoted and honest ,servant1 who shall never quit the respect and honor due to them1 but live and die theirs1 as also1 ,,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble and faithful ,servant4 ,m4 ,n4 ,,ii4 ,,madam1 ,before ,i begin my ,reflections upon the ,opinions of those ,authors you sent me1 ,i will answer first your ,objection concerning the ,ground of my ,philosophy1 which is ,infinite ,matter3 ,for you were pleased to mention1 ,that you could not well apprehend1 how it was possible1 that many ,infinites could be contained in one ,infinite1 since one ,infinite takes up all ,place ,imaginary1 leaving no room for any other2 ,also1 if one ,infinite should be contained in an other ,infinite1 that which contains1 must of necessity be bigger then that which is contained1 whereby the ,nater of ,infinite would be lost2 as having no bigger nor less1 but being of an ,infinite quantity4 ,first of all1 ,madam1 there is no such thing as ,all in ,infinite1 nor any such thing as ,all the ,place1 for ,infinite is not circumscribed nor limited3 ,next1 as for that one ,infinite cannot be in an other ,infinite1 ,i answer1 as well as one ,finite can be in another ,finite2 for one ,creature is not onely composed of ,parts1 but one ,part lies within another1 and one ,figure within another1 and one ,motion within another4 ,as for example1 ,animal ,kind1 have they not ,internal and ,external ,parts1 and so ,internal and ,external ,motions8 ,and are not ,animals1 ,vegetables and ,minerals inclosed in the ,elements8 ,but as for ,infinites1 you must know1 ,madam1 that there are several kindes of ,infinites4 ,for there is first ,infinite in quantity or bulk1 that is such a big and great ,corporeal substance1 which exceeds all bounds and limits of measure1 and may be called ,infinite in ,magnitude4 ,next there is ,infinite in ,number1 which exceeds all numeration and account1 and may be termed ,infinite in ,multitude2 ,again there is ,infinite in ,quality2 as for example1 ,infinite degrees of softness1 hardness1 thickness1 thinness1 heat and cold1 c4 also ,infinite degrees of ,motion1 and so ,infinite ,creations1 ,infinite ,compositions1 ,dissolutions1 ,contractions1 ,dilations1 ,digestions1 ,expulsions2 also ,infinite degrees of ,strength1 ,knowledg1 ,power1 c4 ,besides there is ,infinite in ,time1 which is properly named ,eternal4 ,now1 when ,i say1 that there is but one ,infinite1 and that ,infinite is the ,onely ,matter1 ,i mean infinite in bulk and quantity4 ,and this ,onely matter1 because it is ,infinite in bulk1 must of necessity be divisible into infinite ,parts1 that is1 infinite in number1 not in bulk or quantity2 for though ,infinite ,parts in number make up one infinite in quantity1 yet they considered in themselves1 cannot be said ,infinite1 because every ,part is of a certain linked and circumscribed ,figure1 ,quantity and ,proportion1 whereas ,infinite hath no limits nor bounds3 besides it is against the nature of a single ,part to be ,infinite1 or else there would be no difference between the ,part and the whole1 the nature of a ,part requiring that it must be less then its whole1 but all what is less hath a determined quantity1 and so becomes finite4 ,therefore it is no absurdity to say1 that an ,infinite may have both ,finite and ,infinite ,parts1 ,finite in ,quantity1 ,infinite in ,number4 ,but those that say1 if there were an ,infinite ,body1 that each of its ,parts must of necessity be ,infinite too1 are much mistaken2 for it is a contradiction in the same ,terms to say ,one ,infinite ,part1 for the very ,name of a ,part includes a ,finiteness1 but take all parts of an ,infinite ,body together1 then you may rightly say they are infinite4 ,nay ,reason will inform you plainly1 for example3 ,imagine an ,infinite number of grains of ,corn in one heap1 surely if the number of ,grains be ,infinite1 you must grant of necessity the bulk or body1 which contains this infinite number of grains1 to be ,infinite too2 to wit1 ,infinite in quantity1 and yet you will find each ,grain in it self to be ,finite4 ,but you will say1 an ,infinite ,body cannot have parts1 for if it be ,infinite1 it must be ,infinite in ,quantity1 and therefore of one bulk1 and one continued quantity1 but ,infinite parts in number make a discrete quantity4 ,i answer it is all one2 for a ,body of a continued quantity may be divided and severed into so many ,parts either actually1 or mentally in our ,conceptions or thoughts2 besides nature is one continued ,body1 for there is no such ,vacuum in ,nature1 as if her ,parts did hang together like a linked ,chain2 nor can any of her ,parts subsist single and by it self1 but all the ,parts of ,infinite ,nature1 although they are in one continued ,piece1 yet are they several and discerned from each other by their several ,figures4 ,and by this1 ,i hope1 you will understand my meaning1 when ,i say1 that several ,infinites may be included or comprehended in one ,infinite2 for by the one ,infinite1 ,i understand ,infinite in ,quantity1 which includes ,infinite in ,number1 that is ,infinite ,parts2 then ,infinite in ,quality1 as ,infinite degrees of ,rarity1 ,density1 ,swiftness1 ,slowness1 ,hardness1 ,softness1 c4 ,infinite degrees of ,motions1 ,infinite ,creations1 ,dissolutions1 ,contractions1 ,dilations1 ,alterations1 c4 ,infinite degrees of ,wisdom1 ,strength1 ,power1 c41 and lastly ,infinite in ,time or ,duration1 which is ,eternity1 for ,infinite and ,eternal are inseparable2 ,all which ,infinites are contained in the ,onely ,matter as many ,letters are contained in one ,word1 many ,words in one ,line1 many ,lines in one ,book4 ,but you will say perhaps1 if ,i attribute an ,infinite ,wisdom1 ,strength1 ,power1 ,knowledg1 c4 to ,nature2 then ,nature is in all coequal with ,god1 for ,god has the same ,attributes3 ,i answer1 ,not at all2 for ,i desire you to understand me rightly1 when ,i speak of ,infinite ,nature1 and when ,i speak of the ,infinite ,deity1 for there is great difference between them1 for it is one thing a ,deitical or ,divine ,infinite1 and another a ,natural ,infinite2 ,you know1 that ,god is a ,spirit1 and not a bodily substance1 again that ,nature is a ,body1 and not a ,spirit1 and therefore none of these ,infinites can obstruct or hinder each other1 as being different in their kinds1 for a ,spirit being no ,body1 requires no place1 ,place being an attribute which onely belongs to a ,body1 and therefore when ,i call ,nature ,infinite1 ,i mean an ,infinite extension of ,body1 containing an ,infinite number of ,parts2 but what doth an ,infinite extension of ,body hinder the ,infiniteness of ,god1 as an ,immaterial ,spiritual being8 ,next1 when ,i do attribute an ,infinite ,power1 ,wisdom1 ,knowledg1 c4 to ,nature1 ,i do not understand a ,divine1 but a ,natural ,infinite ,wisdom and ,power1 that is1 such as properly belongs to ,nature1 and not a supernatural1 as is in ,god2 ,for ,nature having ,infinite parts of ,infinite degrees1 must also have an ,infinite natural wisdom to order her natural ,infinite parts and actions1 and consequently an ,infinite natural power to put her wisdom into act2 and so of the rest of her attributes1 which are all natural3 ,but ,gods ,attributes being supernatural1 transcend much these natural infinite attributes2 for ,god1 being the ,god of ,nature1 has not onely ,natures ,infinite ,wisdom and ,power1 but besides1 a ,supernatural and ,incomprehensible ,infinite ,wisdom and ,power2 which in no wayes do hinder each other1 but may very well subsist together4 ,neither doth ,gods ,infinite ,justice and his ,infinite ,mercy hinder each other2 for ,gods ,attributes1 though they be all several ,infinites1 yet they make but one ,infinite4 ,but you will say1 ,if ,nature's ,wisdom and ,power extends no further then to natural things1 it is not ,infinite1 but limited and restrained4 ,i answer1 ,that doth not take away the ,infiniteness of ,nature2 for there may be several kinds of ,infinites1 as ,i related before1 and one may be as perfect an ,infinite as the other in its kind4 ,for example3 ,suppose a ,line to be extended infinitely in length1 you will call this ,line ,infinite1 although it have not an ,infinite breadth2 ,also1 if an infinite length and breadth joyn together1 you will call it1 an infinite ,superficies1 although it wants an infinite depth2 and yet every ,infinite1 in its kinde1 is a ,perfect ,infinite1 if ,i may call it so3 ,why then shall not ,nature also be said to have an ,infinite ,natural ,wisdom and ,power1 although she has not a ,divine ,wisdom and ,power8 ,can we say1 ,man hath not a free ,will1 because he hath not an absolute free ,will1 as ,god hath8 ,wherefore1 a ,natural ,infinite1 and the ,infinite ,god1 may well stand together1 without any opposition or hinderance1 or without any detracting or derogating from the ,omnipotency and ,glory of ,god2 for ,god remains still the ,god of ,nature1 and is an ,infinite ,immaterial ,purity1 when as ,nature is an ,infinite ,corporeal ,substance2 and ,immaterial and ,material cannot obstruct each other4 ,and though an ,infinite ,corporeal cannot make an ,infinite ,immaterial1 yet an ,infinite ,immaterial can make an ,infinite ,corporeal1 by reason there is as much difference in the ,power as in the ,purity3 ,and the disparity between the ,natural and ,divine ,infinite is such1 as they cannot joyn1 mix1 and work together1 unless you do believe that ,divine ,actions can have allay4 ,but you may say1 ,purity belongs onely to natural things1 and none but natural bodies can be said purified1 but ,god exceeds all ,purity4 ',tis true3 ,but if there were infinite degrees of ,purity in ,matter1 ,matter might at last become ,immaterial1 and so from an ,infinite ,material turn to an ,infinite ,immaterial1 and from ,nature to be ,god3 ,a great1 but an impossible ,change4 ,for ,i do verily believe1 that there can be but one ,omnipotent ,god1 and he cannot admit of addition1 or diminution2 and that which is ,material cannot be ,immaterial1 and what is ,immaterial cannot become ,material1 ,i mean1 so1 as to change their natures2 for ,nature is what ,god was pleased she should be2 and will be what she was1 until ,god be pleased to make her otherwise4 ,wherefore there can be no new ,creation of matter1 motion1 or figure2 nor any annihilation of any matter1 motion1 or figure in ,nature1 unless ,god do create a new ,nature3 ,for the changing of ,matter into several particular ,figures1 doth not prove an annihilation of particular ,figures2 nor the cessation of particular ,motions an annihilation of them3 ,neither doth the variation of the ,onely ,matter produce an annihilation of any part of ,matter1 nor the variation of figures and motions of ,matter cause an alteration in the nature of ,onely ,matter3 ,wherefore there cannot be new ,lives1 ,souls or ,bodies in ,nature2 for1 could there be any thing new in ,nature1 or any thing annihilated1 there would not be any stability in ,nature1 as a continuance of every kind and sort of ,creatures1 but there would be a confusion between the new and old matter1 motions1 and figures1 as between old and new ,nature2 ,in truth1 it would be like new ,wine in old ,vessels1 by which all would break into disorder4 ,neither can supernatural and natural effects be mixt together1 no more then material and immaterial things or beings3 ,therefore it is probable1 ,god has ordained ,nature to work in her self by his ,leave1 ,will1 and ,free ,gift4 ,but there have been1 and are still strange and erroneous ,opinions1 and great differences amongst ,natural ,philosophers1 concerning the ,principles of ,natural things2 some will have them ,atoms1 others will have the first ,principles to be ,salt1 ,sulphur and ,mercury2 some will have them to be the four ,elements1 as ,fire1 ,air1 ,water1 and ,earth2 and others will have but one of these ,elements also some will have ,gas and ,blas1 ,ferments1 ,ideas and the like2 but what they believe to be ,principles and ,causes of natural things1 are onely ,effects2 for in all ,probability it appears to humane sense and reason1 that the cause of every particular material ,creature is the onely and ,infinite ,matter1 which has ,motions and ,figures inseparably united2 for ,matter1 ,motion and ,figure1 are but one thing1 individable in its ,nature4 ,and as for ,immaterial ,spirits1 there is surely no such thing in ,infinite ,nature1 to wit1 so as to be ,parts of ,nature2 for ,nature is altogether ,material1 but this opinion proceeds from the separation or abstraction of ,motion from ,matter1 viz4 that man thinks matter and motion to be dividable from each other1 and believes motion to be a thing by its self1 naming it an ,immaterial thing1 which has a being1 but not a bodily substance3 ,but various and different effects do not prove a different ,matter or ,cause1 neither do they prove an unsetled ,cause1 onely the variety of ,effects hath obscured the ,cause from the several parts1 which makes ,particular ,creatures partly ,ignorant1 and partly knowing4 ,but in my opinion1 ,nature is material1 and not any thing in ,nature1 what belongs to her1 is immaterial2 but whatsoever is ,immaterial1 is ,supernatural1 ,therefore ,motions1 ,forms1 ,thoughts1 ,ideas1 ,conceptions1 ,sympathies1 ,antipathies1 ,accidents1 ,qualities1 as also ,natural ,life1 and ,soul1 are all ,material3 ,and as for ,colours1 ,sents1 ,light1 ,sound1 ,heat1 ,cold1 and the like1 those that believe them not to be substances or material things1 surely their brain or heart 7take what place you will for the forming of ,conceptions7 moves very ,irregularly1 and they might as well say1 ,our sensitive ,organs are not material2 for what ,objects soever1 that are subject to our senses1 cannot in sense be denied to be ,corporeal1 when as those things that are not subject to our senses1 can be conceived in reason to be ,immaterial8 ,but some ,philosophers striving to express their wit1 obstruct reason2 and drawing ,divinity to prove ,sense and ,reason1 weaken ,faith so1 as their mixed ,divine ,philosophy becomes meer ,poetical ,fictions1 and ,romancical expressions1 making material ,bodies immaterial ,spirits1 and immaterial ,spirits material ,bodies2 and some have conceived some things neither to be ,material nor ,immaterial but between both4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i wish their ,wits had been less1 and their ,judgments more1 as not to jumble ,natural and ,supernatural things together1 but to distinguish either clearly1 for such ,mixtures are neither ,natural nor ,divine2 ,but as ,i said1 the ,confusion comes from their too nice abstractions1 and from the separation of ,figure and ,motion from ,matter1 as not conceiving them individable2 but if ,god1 and his servant ,nature were as ,intricate and ,confuse in their ,works1 as ,men in their ,understandings and ,words1 the ,universe and ,production of all ,creatures would soon be without ,order and ,government1 so as there would be a horrid and ,eternal ,war both in ,heaven1 and in the ,world1 and so pittying their troubled ,brains1 and wishing them the ,light of ,reason1 that they may clearly perceive the ,truth1 ,i rest ,madam1 ,your real ,friend and faithful ,servant4 ,,iii4 ,,madam1 ,it seems you are offended at my ,opinion1 that ,nature is ,eternal without beginning1 which1 you say1 is to make her ,god1 or at least coequal with ,god2 ,but1 if you apprehend my meaning rightly1 you will say1 ,i do not3 ,for first1 ,god is an ,immaterial and ,spiritual ,infinite ,being1 which ,propriety ,god cannot give away to any ,creature1 nor make another ,god in ,essence like to him1 for ,gods ,attributes are not communicable to any ,creature2 ,yet this doth not hinder1 that ,god should not make ,infinite and ,eternal ,matter1 for that is as easie to him1 as to make a ,finite ,creature1 ,infinite ,matter being quite of another ,nature then ,god is1 to wit1 ,corporeal1 when ,god is ,incorporeal1 the difference whereof ,i have declared in my former ,letter4 ,but as for ,nature1 that it cannot be ,eternal without beginning1 because ,god is the ,creator and ,cause of it1 and that the ,creator must be before the ,creature1 as the ,cause before the ,effect1 so1 that it is impossible for ,nature to be without a beginning2 if you will speak naturally1 as human reason guides you1 and bring an ,argument concluding from the ,priority of the ,cause before the ,effect1 give me leave to tell you1 that ,god is not tied to ,natural ,rules1 but that he can do beyond our ,understanding1 and therefore he is neither bound up to time1 as to be before1 for if we will do this1 we must not allow1 that the ,eternal ,son of ,god is ,coeternal with the ,father1 because nature requires a ,father to exist before the ,son1 but in ,god is no time1 but all ,eternity2 and if you allow1 that ,god hath made some ,creatures1 as ,supernatural ,spirits1 to live ,eternally1 why should he not as well have made a ,creature from all ,eternity8 for ,gods making is not our making1 he needs no ,priority of ,time4 ,but you may say1 the ,comparison of the ,eternal ,generation of the ,son of ,god is ,mystical and ,divine1 and not to be applied to natural things3 ,i answer1 ,the action by which ,god created the ,world or made ,nature1 was it natural or supernatural8 surely you will say it was a ,supernatural and ,god-like action1 why then will you apply ,natural ,rules to a ,god-like and ,supernatural ,action8 for what ,man knows1 how and when ,god created ,nature8 ,you will say1 the ,scripture doth teach us that1 for it is not ,six thousand years1 when ,god created this ,world1 ,i answer1 the holy ,scripture informs us onely of the ,creation of this ,visible ,world1 but not of ,nature and natural ,matter2 for ,i firmly believe according to the ,word of ,god1 that this ,world has been ,created1 as is described by ,moses1 but what is that to natural ,matter8 ,there may have been worlds before1 as many are of the opinion that there have been men before ,adam1 and many amongst ,divines do believe1 that after the destruction of this ,world ,god will ,create a new ,world again1 as a new ,heaven1 and a new ,earth2 and if this be probable1 or at least may be believed without any prejudice to the holy ,scripture1 why may it not be probably believed that there have been other worlds before this visible ,world8 for nothing is impossible with ,god2 and all this doth derogate nothing from the ,honour and ,glory of ,god1 but rather increases his ,divine ,power4 ,but as for the ,creation of this present ,world1 it is related1 that there was first a rude and indigested ,heap1 or ,chaos1 without form1 void and dark2 and ,god said1 ,let it be light2 ,let there be a ,firmament in the midst of the ,waters1 and let the ,waters under the ,heaven be gathered together1 and let the dry ,land appear2 ,let the ,earth bring forth ,grass1 the ,herb yielding seed1 and the ,fruit-tree yielding ,fruit after its own kind2 and let there be ,lights in the ,firmament1 the one to rule the ,day1 and the other the ,night2 and let the ,waters bring forth abundantly the moving ,creature that hath life2 and let the ,earth bring forth living ,creatures after its kinde2 and at last ,god said1 ,let us make ,man1 and all what was made1 ,god saw it was good4 ,thus all was made by ,gods ,command1 and who executed his ,command but the ,material servant of ,god1 ,nature8 which ordered her self-moving matter into such several ,figures as ,god commanded1 and ,god approved of them4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 ,i verily believe the ,creation of the ,world1 and that ,god is the ,sole and omnipotent ,creator of ,heaven and ,earth1 and of all ,creatures therein2 nay1 although ,i believe ,nature to have been from ,eternity1 yet ,i believe also that ,god is the ,god and ,author of ,nature1 and has made ,nature and natural ,matter in a way and manner proper to his ,omnipotency and ,incomprehensible by us3 ,i will pass by natural ,arguments and ,proofs1 as not belonging to such an ,omnipotent ,action2 as for example1 how the nature of relative terms requires1 that they must both exist at one point of ,time1 viz4 a ,master and his ,servant1 and a ,king and his ,subjects2 for one bearing relation to the other1 can in no ways be considered as different from one another in formiliness or laterness of ,time2 but as ,i said1 these being meerly natural things1 ,i will nor cannot apply them to ,supernatural and ,divine ,actions2 ,but if you ask me1 how it is possible that ,nature1 the ,effect and ,creature of ,god1 can be ,eternal without beginning8 ,i will desire you to answer me first1 how a ,creature can be ,eternal without end1 as1 for example4 ,supernatural ,spirits are1 and then ,i will answer you1 how a ,creature can be ,eternal without beginning2 ,for ,eternity consists herein1 that it has neither beginning nor end2 and if it be easie for ,god to make a ,being without end1 it is not difficult for ,him to make a ,being without beginning4 ,one thing more ,i will add1 which is1 ,that if ,nature has not been made by ,god from all ,eternity1 then the ,title of ,god1 as being a ,creator1 which is a ,title and action1 upon which our ,faith is grounded1 7for it is the first ,article in our ,creed7 has been accessory to ,god1 as ,i said1 not full ,six thousand years ago2 but there is not any thing accessory to ,god2 he being the ,perfection himself4 ,but1 ,madam1 all what ,i speak1 is under the liberty of ,natural ,philosophy1 and by the ,light of ,reason onely1 not of ,revelation2 and my ,reason being not infallible2 ,i will not declare my ,opinions for an infallible ,truth3 ,neither do ,i think1 that they are offensive either to ,church or ,state1 for ,i submit to the ,laws of ,one1 and believe the ,doctrine of the ,other1 so much1 that if it were for the advantage of either1 ,i should be willing to sacrifice my ,life1 especially for the ,church2 yea1 had ,i millions of ,lives1 and every ,life was either to suffer torment or to live in ease1 ,i would prefer torment for the benefit of the ,church2 and therefore1 if ,i knew that my ,opinions should give any offence to the ,church1 ,i should be ready every minute to alter them3 ,and as much as ,i am bound in all duty to the obedience of the ,church1 as much am ,i particularly bound to your ,ladiship1 for your entire love and sincere affection towards me1 for which ,i shall live and die1 ,madam1 ,your most faithful ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 ,,iv4 ,,madam1 ,i have chosen1 in the first place1 the ,work of that famous ,philosopher ,hobbs called ,leviathan1 wherein ,i find he sayes1#a ,that the cause of sense or sensitive perception is the external body or ,object1 which presses the ,organ proper to each ,sense4 ,to which ,i answer1 according to the ground of my own ,philosophical ,opinions1 ,that all things1 and therefore outward objects as well as sensitive organs1 have both ,sense and ,reason1 yet neither the objects nor the organs are the cause of them2 for ,perception is but the effect of the ,sensitive and rational ,motions1 and not the ,motions of the ,perception2 neither doth the pressure of parts upon parts make ,perception2 for although ,matter by the power of self-motion is as much composeable as divideable1 and parts do joyn to parts1 yet that doth not make perception2 nay1 the several parts1 betwixt which the ,perception is made1 may be at such a distance1 as not capable to press3 ,as for example1 ,two men may see or hear each other at a distance1 and yet there may be other bodies between them1 that do not move to those perceptions1 so that no pressure can be made1 for all pressures are by some constraint and force2 wherefore1 according to my ,opinion1 the ,sensitive and ,rational free ,motions1 do pattern out each others object1 as ,figure and ,voice in each others ,eye and ,ear2 for ,life and ,knowledge1 which ,i name ,rational and ,sensitive ,matter1 are in every ,creature1 and in all parts of every ,creature1 and make all perceptions in ,nature1 because they are the self-moving parts of ,nature1 and according as those ,corporeal1 ,rational1 and ,sensitive ,motions move1 such or such perceptions are made3 ,but these self-moving parts being of different degrees 7for the ,rational matter is purer then the ,sensitive7 it causes a double perception in all ,creatures1 whereof one is made by the ,rational corporeal motions1 and the other by the ,sensitive2 and though both perceptions are in all the body1 and in every part of the body of a ,creature1 yet the sensitive corporeal motions having their proper organs1 as ,work-houses1 in which they work some sorts of perceptions1 those perceptions are most commonly made in those organs1 and are double again2 for the sensitive motions work either on the inside or on the out-side of those organs1 on the inside in ,dreams1 on the out-side awake2 and although both the ,rational and the ,sensitive matter are inseparably joyned and mixed together1 yet do they not always work together1 for oftentimes the ,rational works without any sensitive paterns1 and the sensitive again without any rational paterns4 ,but mistake me not1 ,madam1 for ,i do not absolutely confine the sensitive perception to the ,organs1 nor the rational to the ,brain1 but as they are both in the whole body1 so they may work in the whole body according to their own motions4 ,neither do ,i say1 that there is no other perception in the ,eye but sight1 in the ,ear but hearing1 and so forth1 but the sensitive organs have other perceptions besides these2 and if the sensitive and rational motions be irregular in those parts1 between which the perception is made1 as for example1 in the two fore-mentioned men1 that see and hear each other1 then they both neither see nor hear each other perfectly2 and if one's motions be perfect1 but the other's irregular and erroneous1 then one sees and hears better then the other2 or if the ,sensitive and ,rational motions move more regularly and make perfecter paterns in the ,eye then in the ,ear1 then they see better then they hear2 and if more regularly and perfectly in the ,ear then in the ,eye1 they hear better then they see3 ,and so it may be said of each man singly1 for one man may see the other better and more perfectly1 then the other may see him2 and this man may hear the other better and more perfectly1 then the other may hear him2 whereas1 if perception were made by pressure1 there would not be any such mistakes2 besides the hard pressure of objects1 in my opinion1 would rather annoy and obscure1 then inform4 ,but as soon as the object is removed1 the ,perception of it1 made by the sensitive motions in the ,organs1 ceaseth1 by reason the sensitive ,motions cease from paterning1 but yet the ,rational ,motions do not always cease so suddenly1 because the sensitive corporeal ,motions work with the ,inanimate ,matter1 and therefore cannot retain particular figures long1 whereas the ,rational ,matter doth onely move in its own substance and parts of matter1 and upon none other1 as my ,book of ,philosophical ,opinions will inform you better4 ,and thus ,perception1 in my opinion1 is not made by ,pressure1 nor by ,species1 nor by matter going either from the ,organ to the ,object1 or from the ,object into the ,organ4 ,by this it is also manifest1 that ,understanding comes not from ,exterior ,objects1 or from the ,exterior sensitive ,organs2 for as ,exterior ,objects do not make ,perception1 so they do neither make ,understanding1 but it is the rational matter that doth it1 for ,understanding may be without exterior objects and sensitive organs2 ,and this in short is the opinion of ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,part4 #a4 ch4 #a4 ,v4 ,madam1 ,your ,authours opinion is1#a that when a thing lies still1 unless somewhat else stir it1 it will lie still for ever2 but when a thing is in motion1 it will eternally be in motion1 unless somewhat else stay it2 the reason is1 saith he1 because nothing can change it self2 ,to tell you truly1 ,madam1 ,i am not of his opinion1 for if ,matter moveth it self1 as certainly it doth1 then the least part of ,matter1 were it so small as to seem ,individable1 will move it self2 ',tis true1 it could not desist from motion1 as being its nature to move1 and no thing can change its ,nature2 for ,god himself1 who hath more power then self-moving ,matter1 cannot change himself from being ,god2 but that ,motion should proceed from another exterior ,body1 joyning with1 or touching that body which it moves1 is in my opinion not probable2 for though ,nature is all ,corporeal1 and her actions are ,corporeal ,motions1 yet that doth not prove1 that the ,motion of particular ,creatures or ,parts is caused by the joining1 touching or pressing of parts upon parts2 for it is not the several parts that make motion1 but motion makes them2 and yet ,motion is not the cause of ,matter1 but ,matter is the cause of ,motion1 for ,matter might subsist without ,motion1 but not ,motion without ,matter1 onely there could be no perception without ,motion1 nor no ,variety1 if ,matter were not self-moving2 but ,matter1 if it were all ,inanimate and void of ,motion1 would lie as a dull1 dead and senseless heap2 ,but that all ,motion comes by joining or pressing of other parts1 ,i deny1 for if sensitive and rational perceptions1 which are sensitive and rational motions1 in the body1 and in the mind1 were made by the pressure of outward objects1 pressing the sensitive organs1 and so the brain or interior parts of the ,body1 they would cause such dents and holes therein1 as to make them sore and patched in a short time2 ,besides1 what was represented in this manner1 would always remain1 or at least not so soon be dissolved1 and then those pressures would make a strange and horrid confusion of ,figures1 for not any figure would be distinct2 ,wherefore my opinion is1 that the sensitive and rational ,matter doth make or pattern out the figures of several ,objects1 and doth dissolve them in a moment of time2 as for example1 when the eye seeth the object first of a ,man1 then of a ,horse1 then of another ,creature1 the sensitive motions in the eye move first into the figure of the ,man1 then straight into the figure of the ,horse1 so that the ,mans figure is dissolved and altered into the figure of the ,horse1 and so forth2 but if the eye sees many figures at once1 then so many several figures are made by the sensitive ,corporeal ,motions1 and as many by the ,rational ,motions1 which are ,sight and ,memory1 at once3 ,but in sleep both the sensitive and rational ,motions make the figures without patterns1 that is1 exterior objects1 which is the cause that they are often erroneous1 whereas1 if it were the former ,impression of the ,objects1 there could not possibly be imperfect ,dreams or ,remembrances1 for fading of ,figures requires as much motion1 as impression1 and impression and fading are very different and opposite motions2 nay1 if ,perception was made by ,impression1 there could not possibly be a fading or decay of the figures printed either in the ,mind or ,body1 whereas yet1 as there is alteration of ,motions in self-moving ,matter1 so there is also an alteration of figures made by these motions4 ,but you will say1 it doth not follow1 if ,perception be made by ,impression1 that it must needs continue and not decay2 for if you touch and move a string1 the motion doth not continue for ever1 but ceaseth by degrees2 ,i answer1 ,there is great difference between ,prime self-motion1 and forced or ,artificial ,motions2 for ,artificial ,motions are onely an ,imitation of ,natural ,motions1 and not the same1 but caused by ,natural ,motions2 for although there is no ,art that is not made by ,nature1 yet ,nature is not made by ,art2 ,wherefore we cannot rationally judg of ,perception by comparing it to the motion of a string1 and its alteration to the ceasing of that motion1 for ,nature moveth not by force1 but freely4 ',tis true1 'tis the freedom in ,nature for one man to give another a box on the ,ear1 or to trip up his heels1 or for one or more men to fight with each other2 yet these actions are not like the actions of loving ,imbraces and ,kissing each other2 neither are the actions one and the same1 when a man strikes himself1 and when he strikes another2 and so is likewise the action of impression1 and the action of self-figuring not one and the same1 but different2 for the action of impression is forced1 and the action of self-figuring is free2 ,wherefore the comparison of the forced motions of a string1 rope1 watch1 or the like1 can have no place here2 for though the rope1 made of flax or hemp1 may have the perception of a ,vegetable1 yet not of the hand1 or the like1 that touched or struck it2 and although the hand doth occasion the rope to move in such a manner1 yet it is not the motion of the hand1 by which it moveth1 and when it ceases1 its natural and inherent power to move is not lessened2 like as a man1 that hath left off carving or painting1 hath no less skill then he had before1 neither is that skill lost when he plays upon the ,lute or ,virginals1 or plows1 plants1 and the like1 but he hath onely altered his action1 as from carving to painting1 or from painting to playing1 and so to plowing and planting1 which is not through disability but choice4 ,but you will say1 it is nevertheless a cessation of such a motion4 ,i grant it3 but the ceasing of such a motion is not the ceasing of self-moving matter from all motions1 neither is cessation as much as annihilation1 for the motion lies in the power of the matter to repeat it1 as oft it will1 if it be not overpowred1 for more parts1 or more strength1 or more motions may over-power the less2 ,wherefore forced1 or artificial and free ,natural motions are different in their effects1 although they have but one ,cause1 which is the self-moving matter1 and though ,matter is but active and passive1 yet there is great ,variety1 and so great difference in force and liberty1 objects and perceptions1 sense and reason1 and the like4 ,but to conclude1 perception is not made by the pressure of objects1 no more then hemp is made by the ,rope-maker1 or metal by the ,bell-founder or ,ringer1 and yet neither the rope nor the metal is without sense and reason1 but the natural motions of the metal1 and the artificial motions of the ,ringer are different2 wherefore a natural effect in truth cannot be produced from an artificial cause1 neither can the ceasing of particular forced or artificial motions be a proof for the ceasing of general1 natural1 free motions1 as that matter it self should cease to move2 for there is no such thing as rest in ,nature1 but there is an alteration of motions and figures in self-moving matter1 which alteration causeth variety as well in opinions1 as in every thing else2 ,wherefore in my opinion1 though sense alters1 yet it doth not decay1 for the rational and sensitive part of matter is as lasting as matter it self1 but that which is named decay of sense1 is onely the alteration of motions1 and not an obscurity of motions1 like1 as the motions of memory and forgetfulness1 and the repetition of the same motions is called remembrance4 ,and thus much of this subject for the present1 to which ,i add no more but rest ,madam1 your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 ,part4 #a4 c4 #b4 ,,vi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authour discoursing of ,imagination1 saith1#a ,that as soon as any object is removed from our ,eyes1 though the ,impression that is made in us remain1 yet other objects more present succeeding and working on us1 the ,imagination of the past is obscured and made weak4 ,to which ,i answer1 first1 that he conceives ,sense and ,imagination to be all one1 for he says1 ,imagination is nothing else1 but a fading or decaying sense2 whereas in my opinion they are different1 not onely their matter1 but their motions also being distinct and different2 for ,imagination is a rational perception1 and ,sense a sensitive perception2 wherefore as much as the rational matter differs from the sensitive1 as much doth ,imagination differ from ,sense4 ,next ,i say1 that ,impressions do not remain in the body of sensitive matter1 but it is in its power to make or repeat the like figures2 ,neither is ,imagination less1 when the object is absent1 then when present1 but the figure patterned out in the sensitive organs1 being altered1 and remaining onely in the ,rational part of matter1 is not so perspicuous and clear1 as when it was both in the ,sense and in the ,mind3 ,and to prove that ,imagination of things past doth not grow weaker by distance of time1 as your ,authour says1 many a man in his old age1 will have as perfect an ,imagination of what is past in his younger years1 as if he saw it present4 ,and as for your ,authours opinion1 that ,imagination and ,memory are one and the same1 ,i grant1 that they are made of one kind of ,matter2 but although the ,matter is one and the same1 yet several motions in the several parts make ,imagination and ,memory several things3 ,as for ,example1 a ,man may ,imagine that which never came into his ,senses1 wherefore ,imagination is not one and the same thing with ,memory4 ,but your ,authour seems to make all ,sense1 as it were1 one ,motion1 but not all ,motion ,sense1 whereas surely there is no ,motion1 but is either ,sensitive or ,rational2 for ,reason is but a pure and refined ,sense1 and ,sense a grosser ,reason4 ,yet all sensitive and rational ,motions are not one and the same2 for forced or ,artificial ,motions1 though they proceed from sensitive matter1 yet are they so different from the free and ,prime ,natural ,motions1 that they seem1 as it were1 quite of another nature3 ,and this distinction neglected is the ,cause1 that many make ,appetites and ,passions1 ,perceptions and ,objects1 and the like1 as one1 without any or but little difference4 ,but having discoursed of the difference of these ,motions in my former ,letter1 ,i will not be tedious to you with repeating it again1 but remain1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 part4 #a4 c4 #b4 ,,vii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authours opinion1 concerning ,dreams1#a seemeth to me in some part very rational and probable1 in some part not2 ,for when he sayes1 that ,dreams are onely ,imaginations of them that sleep1 which imaginations have been before either totally or by parcels in the ,sense2 and that the organs of ,sense1 as the ,brain and the ,nerves1 being benumb'd in sleep1 as not easily to be moved by external objects1 those ,imaginations proceed onely from the agitation of the inward parts of mans body1 which for the connexion they have with the ,brain1 and other organs1 when they be distemper'd1 do keep the same in motion1 whereby the ,imaginations there formerly made1 appear as if a man were waking2 ,this seems to my ,reason not very probable3 ,for1 first1 ,dreams are not absolutely ,imaginations1 except we do call all ,motions and ,actions of the ,sensitive and ,rational ,matter1 ,imaginations4 ,neither is it necessary1 that all ,imaginations must have been before either totally or by parcels in the ,sense2 neither is there any benumbing of the organs of ,sense in sleep4 ,but ,dreams1 according to my opinion1 are made by the ,sensitive and ,rational ,corporeal ,motions1 by figuring several objects1 as awake2 onely the difference is1 that the ,sensitive motions in ,dreams work by rote and on the inside of the ,sensitive organs1 when as awake they work according to the patterns of outward objects1 and exteriously or on the outside of the sensitive ,organs1 so that sleep or dreams are nothing else but an alteration of motions1 from moving exteriously to move interiously1 and from working after a ,pattern to work by rote3 ,i do not say that the body is without all exterior motions1 when asleep1 as breathing and beating of the ,pulse 7although these motions are rather interior then exterior17 but that onely the sensitive organs are outwardly shut1 so as not to receive the patterns of outward ,objects1 nevertheless the sensitive ,motions do not cease from moving inwardly2 or on the inside of the sensitive ,organs2 ,but the rational matter doth often1 as awake1 so asleep or in dreams1 make such figures1 as the sensitive did never make either from outward objects1 or of its own accord2 for the sensitive hath sometimes liberty to work without ,objects1 but the ,rational much more1 which is not bound either to the patterns of ,exterior objects1 or of the sensitive voluntary ,figures4 ,wherefore it is not divers distempers1 as your ,authour sayes1 that cause different ,dreams1 or ,gold1 or ,heat2 neither are ,dreams the reverse of our waking ,imaginations1 nor all the ,figures in ,dreams are not made with their heels up1 and their heads downwards1 though some are2 but this error or irregularity proceeds from want of exterior ,objects or ,patterns1 and by reason the sensitive ,motions work by rote2 neither are the ,motions reverse1 because they work inwardly asleep1 and outwardly awake1 for ,mad-men awake see several ,figures without ,objects4 ,in short1 sleeping and waking1 is somewhat after that manner1 when men are called either out of their doors1 or stay within their houses2 or like a ,ship1 where the ,mariners work all under hatches1 whereof you will find more in my ,philosophical ,opinions2 and so taking my leave1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 ,part4 #a4 c4 #b4 ,,viii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authour going on in his discourse of ,imagination1 says1#a ,that1 as we have no ,imagination1 whereof we have not formerly had sense1 in whole or in parts2 so we have not ,transition from one ,imagination to another1 whereof we never had the like before in our senses4 ,to which my answer is in short1 that the ,rational part of ,matter in ,one composed figure1 as in ,man1 or the like ,creature1 may make such figures1 as the senses did never make in that composed ,figure or ,creature2 ,and though your ,authour reproves those that say1#b ,imaginations rise of themselves2 yet1 if the self-moving part of ,matter1 which ,i call ,rational1 makes ,imaginations1 they must needs rise of themselves2 for the ,rational part of matter being free and self-moving1 depends upon nothing1 neither ,sense nor ,object1 ,i mean1 so1 as not to be able to work without them4 ,next1 when your ,author1 defining ,understanding1 says that it is nothing else1 but#c an ,imagination raised by words or other voluntary signs1 ,my ,answer is1 that ,understanding1 and so ,words and ,signs are made by self-moving ,matter1 that is1 ,sense and ,reason1 and not ,sense and ,reason by ,words and ,signs2 wherefore ,thoughts are not like#d ,water upon a plain ,table1 which is drawn and guided by the finger this or that way1 for every ,part of self-moving matter is not alwayes forced1 perswaded or directed1 for if all the ,parts of ,sense and ,reason were ruled by force or perswasion1 not any wounded ,creature would fail to be healed1 or any disease to be cured by outward ,applications1 for outward ,applications to ,wounds and ,diseases might have more force1 then any ,object to the ,eye3 ,but though there is great affinity and sympathy between parts1 yet there is also great difference and antipathy betwixt them1 which is the cause that many objects cannot with all their endeavours work such effects upon the ,interiour parts1 although they are closely press'd1 for ,impressions of objects do not always affect those parts they press4 ,wherefore1 ,i am not of your ,author's opinion1 that all ,parts of ,matter press one another2 ,it is true1 ,madam1 there cannot be any part single1 but yet this doth not prove1 that parts must needs press each other3 ,and as for his ,train of ,thoughts1 ,i must confess1 that ,thoughts for the most part are made orderly1 but yet they do not follow each other like ,geese1 for surely1 man has sometimes very different thoughts2 as for ,example1 a man sometime is very sad for the death of his ,friend1 and thinks of his own death1 and immediately thinks of a wanton ,mistress1 which later thought1 surely1 the thought of ,death did not draw in2 wherefore1 though some thought may be the ,ring-leader of others1 yet many are made without leaders4 ,again1 your ,author in his description of the ,mind sayes1 that the discourse of the mind1 when it is govern'd by design1 is nothing but seeking1 or the ,faculty of ,invention2 a hunting out of the ,causes of some ,effects1 present or past2 or of the ,effects of some present or past ,cause4 ,sometimes a man seeks what he has lost1 and from that ,place and ,time wherein he misses it1 his mind runs back from place to place1 and time to time1 to find where and when he had it1 that is to say1 to find some certain and limited ,time and ,place1 in which to begin a method of ,seeking4 ,and from thence his thoughts run over the same places and times to find what action or other occasion might make him lose it4 ,this we call ,remembrance or calling to mind4 ,sometimes a man knows a place determinate1 within the compass whereof he is to seek1 and then his thoughts run over all the ,parts thereof in the same manner as one would sweep a room to find a ,jewel1 or as a ,spaniel ranges the field till he find a sent2 or as a ,man should run over the ,alphabet to start a ,rime4 ,thus far your ,author3 ,in which discourse ,i do not perceive that he defineth what the ,mind is1 but ,i say1 that if1 according to his opinion1 nothing moves it self1 but one thing moves another1 then the ,mind must do nothing1 but move backward and forward1 nay1 onely forward1 and if all actions were thrusting or pressing of parts1 it would be like a crowd of ,people1 and there would be but little or no motion1 for the crowd would make a stoppage1 like water in a glass1 the mouth of the ,glass being turned downwards1 no water can pass out1 by reason the numerous drops are so closely press'd1 as they cannot move exteriously4 ,next1 ,i cannot conceive how the ,mind can run back either to ,time or ,place1 for as for ,place1 the mind is inclosed in the body1 and the running about in the parts of the body or brain will not inform it of an ,exterior place or object2 besides1 objects being the cause of the minds motion1 it must return to its ,cause1 and so move until it come to the object1 that moved it first1 so that the mind must run out of the body to that object1 which moved it to such a ,thought1 although that object were removed out of the ,world 7as the phrase is37 ,but for the mind to move backward1 to ,time past1 is more then it can do2 ,wherefore in my opinion1 ,remembrance1 or the like1 is onely a repetition of such ,figures as were like to the ,objects2 and for ,thoughts in ,particular1 they are several figures1 made by the mind1 which is the ,rational ,part of matter1 in its own substance1 either voluntarily1 or by imitation1 whereof you may see more in my ,book of ,philosophical ,opinions4 ,hence ,i conclude1 that ,prudence is nothing else1 but a comparing of ,figures to ,figures1 and of the several actions of those ,figures2 as repeating former ,figures1 and comparing them to others of the like nature1 qualities1 proprieties1 as also chances1 fortunes1 c4 ,which figuring and repeating is done actually1 in and by the ,rational ,matter1 so that all the observation of the mind on outward ,objects is onely an actual repetition of the mind1 as moving in such or such figures and actions2 and when the mind makes voluntary ,figures with those repeated ,figures1 and compares them together1 this comparing is ,examination2 and when several ,figures agree and joyn1 it is ,conclusion or ,judgment3 likewise doth ,experience proceed from repeating and comparing of several ,figures in the ,mind1 and the more several ,figures are repeated and compared1 the greater the experience is4 ,one thing more there is in the same ,chapter1 which ,i cannot let pass without examination2 ,your ,authour says1 ,that things ,present onely have a being in ,nature1 things ,past onely a being in the ,memory1 but things to come have no being at all2 ,which how it possibly can be1 ,i am not able to conceive2 for certainly1 if nothing in nature is lost or annihilated1 what is past1 and what is to come1 hath as well a being1 as what is present2 and1 if that which is now1 had its being before1 why may it not also have its being hereafter8 ,it might as well be said1 that what is once forgot1 cannot be remembred2 for whatsoever is in ,nature1 has as much a being as the ,mind1 and there is not any action1 or motion1 or figure1 in ,nature1 but may be repeated1 that is1 may return to its former ,figure1 ,when it is altered and dissolved2 ,but by reason ,nature delights in variety1 repetitions are not so frequently made1 especially of those things or creatures1 which are composed by the sensitive corporeal motions in the inanimate part of ,matter1 because they are not so easily wrought1 as the ,rational matter can work upon its own parts1 being more pliant in its self1 then the ,inanimate matter is2 ,and this is the reason1 that there are so many repetitions of one and the same ,figure in the ,rational matter1 which is the ,mind1 but seldom any in the ,gross and inanimate part of ,matter1 for ,nature loves ease and freedom3 ,but to conclude1 ,madam1 ,i perceive your ,author confines ,sense onely to ,animal-kind1 and ,reason onely to ,man-kind3 ,truly1 it is out of self-love1 when one ,creature prefers his own ,excellency before another1 for nature being endued with self-love1 all ,creatures have self-love too1 because they are all ,parts of ,nature2 and when ,parts agree or disagree1 it is out of ,interest and ,self-love2 but ,man herein exceeds all the rest1 as having a supernatural ,soul1 whose actions also are supernatural2 ,to which ,i leave him1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 part4 #a4 c4 #c4 #b part4 #a4 c4 #b4 #c ibid4 c4 #c4 #d ibid4 ,,ix4 ,,madam1 ,when your ,author discourseth of the use of ,speech or ,words and ,names1 he is pleas'd to say1#a ,that their use is to serve for marks and notes of ,remembrance2 ,whereof to give you my opinion1 ,i say1 ,that ,speech is natural to the shape of ,man2 and though sometimes it serves for marks or notes of remembrance1 yet it doth not always1 for all other ,animals have ,memory without the help of ,speech1 and so have deaf and dumb men1 nay more then those that hear and speak3 ,wherefore1 though ,words are useful to the mind1 and so to the memory1 yet both can be without them1 whereas ,words cannot be without ,memory2 for take a ,bird1 and teach him to speak1 if he had not ,memory1 before he heard the words1 he could never learn them4 ,you will ask me1 ,madam1 ,what then1 is ,memory the ,cause of ,speech8 ,i answer1 ,life and ,knowledg1 which is ,sense and ,reason1 as it creates and makes all sorts of ,creatures1 so also amongst the rest it makes ,words3 ,and as ,i said before1 that ,memory may be without the help of ,speech or ,words1 so ,i say also1 that there is a possibility of reckoning of numbers1 as also of magnitudes1 of swiftness1 of force1 and other things without words1 although your ,author denies it3 ,but some men are so much for ,art1 as they endeavour to make ,art1 which is onely a ,drudgery-maid of ,nature1 the chief ,mistress1 and ,nature her ,servant1 which is as much as to prefer ,effects before the ,cause1 ,nature before ,god1 ,discord before ,unity and ,concord4 ,again1 your ,author1 in his ,chapter of ,reason1#b defines ,reason to be nothing else but ,reckoning3 ,i answer1 ,that in my opinion ,reckoning is not ,reason it self1 but onely an effect or action of ,reason2 for ,reason1 as it is the chiefest and purest degree of animate matter1 works variously and in divers motions1 by which it produces various and divers effects1 which are several ,perceptions1 as ,conception1 ,imagination1 ,fancy1 ,memory1 ,remembrance1 ,understanding1 ,judgment1 ,knowledg1 and all the ,passions1 with many more3 ,wherefore this ,reason is not in one undivided part1 nor bound to one motion1 for it is in every ,creature more or less1 and moves in its own parts variously2 and in some ,creatures1 as for example1 in some men1 it moves more variously then in others1 which is the cause that some men are more dull and stupid1 then others2 neither doth ,reason always move in one ,creature regularly1 which is the cause1 that some men are mad or foolish3 ,and though all men are made by the direction of ,reason1 and endued with ,reason1 from the first time of their birth1 yet all have not the like ,capacities1 ,understandings1 ,imaginations1 ,wits1 ,fancies1 ,passions1 c4 but some more1 some less1 and some regular1 some irregular1 according to the motions of ,reason or ,rational part of animate matter2 and though some rational parts may make use of other rational ,parts1 as one man of another mans ,conceptions1 yet all these parts cannot associate together2 as for example1 all the ,material parts of several objects1 no not their species1 cannot enter or touch the eye without danger of hurting or loosing it1 nevertheless the eye makes use of the objects by patterning them out1 and so doth the rational matter1 by taking patterns from the sensitive2 ,and thus knowledg or perception of objects1 both sensitive and rational1 is taken without the pressure of any other parts2 for though parts joyn to parts1 7for no part can be single7 yet this joining doth not necessarily infer the pressure of objects upon the sensitive organs2 ,whereof ,i have already discoursed sufficiently heretofore1 to which ,i refer you1 and rest ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 part4 #a4 c4 #d4 #b ,ch4 #e4 ,x4 ,,madam1 ,understanding says your ,author1#a is nothing else but ,conception caused by speech1 and therefore1 if speech be peculiar to man1 7as1 for ought ,i know1 it is7 then is understanding peculiar to him also4 ,where he confineth ,understanding onely to speech and to ,mankind2 ,but1 by his leave1 ,madam1 ,i surely believe1 that there is more understanding in ,nature1 then that1 which is in speech1 for if there were not1 ,i cannot conceive1 how all the exact forms in ,generations could be produced1 or how there could be such distinct degrees of several sorts and kinds of ,creatures1 or distinctions of times and seasons1 and so many exact motions and figures in ,nature3 ,considering all this1 my reason perswadeth me1 that all ,understanding1 which is a part of ,knowledg1 is not caused by speech1 for all the motions of the ,celestial ,orbs are not made by speech1 neither is the knowledg or understanding which a man hath1 when sick1 as to know or understand he is sick1 made by speech1 nor by outward objects1 especially in a disease he never heard1 nor saw1 nor smelt1 nor tasted1 nor touched2 ,wherefore all ,perception1 ,sensation1 ,memory1 ,imagination1 ,appetite1 ,understanding1 and the like1 are not made nor caused by outward objects1 nor by speech4 ,and as for names of things1 they are but different postures of the figures in our mind or thoughts1 made by the ,rational matter2 ,but ,reasoning is a comparing of the several figures with their several postures and actions in the ,mind1 which joyned with the several words1 made by the sensitive motions1 inform another distinct and separate part1 as an other man1 of their minds conceptions1 understanding1 opinions1 and the like4 ,concerning ,addition and ,subtraction1 wherein your ,author sayes ,reasoning consists1 ,i grant1 that it is an act of ,reasoning1 yet it doth not make ,sense or ,reason1 which is ,life and ,knowledge1 but ,sense and ,reason which is self-motion1 makes addition and subtraction of several ,parts of matter2 for had matter not self-motion1 it could not divide nor compose1 nor make such varieties1 without great and lingring retardments1 if not confusion4 ,wherefore all1 what is made in ,nature1 is made by self-moving matter1 which self-moving matter doth not at all times move regularly1 but often irregularly1 which causes false ,logick1 false ,arithmetick1 and the like2 and if there be not a certainty in these self-motions or actions of ,nature1 much less in ,art1 which is but a secundary action2 and therefore1 neither speech1 words1 nor exterior objects cause ,understanding or ,reason4 ,and although many parts of the ,rational and ,sensitive ,matter joyned into one1 may be stronger by their association1 and over-power other parts that are not so well knit and united1 yet these are not the less pure2 onely these ,parts and ,motions being not equal in several ,creatures1 make their ,knowledge and ,reason more or less3 ,for1 when a man hath more ,rational ,matter well regulated1 and so more ,wisdom then an other1 that same man may chance to over-power the other1 whose ,rational ,matter is more irregular1 but yet not so much by strength of the united ,parts1 as by their subtilty2 for the ,rational ,matter moving regularly1 is more strong with subtilty1 then the sensitive with force2 so that ,wisdom is stronger then ,life1 being more pure1 and so more active2 for in my opinion1 there is a degree of difference between ,life and ,knowledge1 as my ,book of ,philosophical ,opinions will inform you4 ,again1 your ,author sayes1 ,that ,man doth excel all other ,animals in this faculty1 that when he conceives any thing whatsoever1 he is apt to enquire the ,consequences of it1 and what effects he can do with it3 ,besides this 7sayes he7 ,man hath an other degree of ,excellence1 that he can by ,words reduce the ,consequences he finds to ,general ,rules called ,theoremes or ,aphorisms1 that is1 he can reason or reckon not onely in ,number1 but in all other things1 whereof one may be added unto1 or substracted from an other4 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that according to my ,reason ,i cannot perceive1 but that all ,creatures may do as much2 but by reason they do it not after the same manner or way as ,man1 ,man denies1 they can do it at all2 which is very hard2 for what man knows1 whether ,fish do not ,know more of the nature of ,water1 and ebbing and flowing1 and the saltness of the ,sea8 or whether ,birds do not know more of the nature and degrees of ,air1 or the cause of ,tempests8 or whether ,worms do not know more of the nature of ,earth1 and how ,plants are produced8 or ,bees of the several sorts of juices of ,flowers1 then ,men8 ,and whether they do not make there ,aphorismes and ,theoremes by their manner of ,intelligence8 ,for1 though they have not the speech of ,man1 yet thence doth not follow1 that they have no ,intelligence at all4 ,but the ,ignorance of ,men concerning other ,creatures is the cause of despising other ,creatures1 imagining themselves as petty ,gods in ,nature1 when as ,nature is not capable to make one ,god1 much less so many as ,mankind2 and were it not for ,mans supernatural ,soul1 ,man would not be more ,supreme1 then other ,creatures in ,nature1 ,but 7says your ,author7 this ,priviledge in ,man is allay'd by another1 which is1 ,no living ,creature is subject to absurdity1 but onely ,man4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 ,i believe the contrary1 to wit1 that all other ,creatures do as often commit mistakes and absurdities as ,man1 and if it were not to avoid tediousness1 ,i could present sufficient proofs to you3 ,wherefore ,i think1 not onely ,man but also other ,creatures may be ,philosophers and subject to absurdities as aptly as ,men2 for ,man doth1 nor cannot truly know the ,faculties1 and ,abilities or ,actions of all other ,creatures1 no not of his own ,kind as ,man-,kind1 for if he do measure all men by himself he will be very much mistaken1 for what he conceives to be true or wise1 an other may conceive to be false and foolish4 ,but ,man may have one way of ,knowledge in ,philosophy and other ,arts1 and other ,creatures another way1 and yet other ,creatures manner or way may be as ,intelligible and ,instructive to each other as ,man's1 ,i mean1 in those things which are ,natural4 ,wherefore ,i cannot consent to what your ,author says1 ,that ,children are not endued with ,reason at all1 till they have attained to the use of ,speech2 for ,reason is in those ,creatures which have not ,speech1 witness ,horses1 especially those which are taught in the manage1 and many other ,animals4 ,and as for the weak understanding in ,children1 ,i have discoursed thereof in my ,book of ,philosophy2 ,the rest of this discourse1 lest ,i tire you too much at once1 ,i shall reserve for the next1 resting in the mean time1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 part4 #a4 c4 #d4 ,,xi4 ,madam1 ,i sent you word in my last1 that your ,author's opinion is1 ,that ,children are not endued with ,reason at all1 until they have attained to the use of ,speech1 in the same ,chapter#a he speaks to the same purpose thus3 ,reason is not as ,sense and ,memory born with us1 nor gotten by experience onely1 as ,prudence is1 but attained by industry4 ,to which ,i reply onely this1 ,that it might as well be said1 a ,child when new born hath not flesh and blood1 because by taking in nourishment or food1 the ,child grows to have more flesh and blood2 or1 that a ,child is not born with two legs1 because he cannot go1 or with two arms and hands1 because he cannot help himself2 or that he is not born with a tongue1 because he cannot speak3 ,for although ,reason doth not move in a ,child as in a ,man1 in ,infancy as in ,youth1 in ,youth as in ,age1 yet that doth not prove that ,children are without ,reason1 because they cannot run and prate3 ,i grant1 some other ,creatures appear to have more ,knowledg when new born then others2 as for example1 a young ,foal has more knowledg than a young ,child1 because a ,child cannot run and play2 besides a ,foal knows his own ,dam1 and can tell where to take his food1 as to run and suck his ,dam1 when as an ,infant cannot do so1 nor all beasts1 though most of them can1 but yet this doth not prove1 that a ,child hath no reason at all2 ,neither can ,i perceive that man is a ,monopoler of all ,reason1 or ,animals of all ,sense1 but that ,sense and ,reason are in other ,creatures as well as in ,man and ,animals2 for example1 ,drugs1 as ,vegetables and ,minerals1 although they cannot slice1 pound or infuse1 as man can1 yet they can work upon man more subtilly1 wisely1 and as sensibly either by purging1 vomiting1 spitting1 or any other way1 as man by mincing1 pounding and infusing them1 and ,vegetables will as wisely nourish ,men1 as ,men can nourish ,vegetables2 ,also some ,vegetables are as malicious and mischievous to ,man1 as ,man is to one another1 witness ,hemlock1 ,nightshade1 and many more2 and a little ,poppy will as soon1 nay sooner cause a ,man to sleep1 though silently1 then a ,nurse a ,child with singing and rocking2 ,but because they do not act in such manner or way as ,man1 ,man judgeth them to be without sense and reason2 and because they do not prate and talk as ,man1 ,man believes they have not so much wit as he hath2 and because they cannot run and go1 ,man thinks they are not industrious2 the like for ,infants concerning ,reason4 ,but certainly1 it is not local motion or speech that makes sense and reason1 but sense and reason makes them2 neither is sense and reason bound onely to the actions of ,man1 but it is free to the actions1 forms1 figures and proprieties of all ,creatures2 for if none but ,man had reason1 and none but ,animals sense1 the ,world could not be so exact1 and so well in order as it is3 but ,nature is wiser then ,man with all his ,arts1 for these are onely produced through the variety of ,natures actions1 and disputes through the superfluous varieties of ,mans follies or ignorances1 not knowing ,natures powerful life and knowledg3 ,but ,i wonder1 ,madam1 your ,author says in this place1 ,that ,reason is not born with ,man1 when as in another place1#b he says1 ,that every man brought ,philosophy1 that is ,natural reason with him into the ,world2 ,which how it agree1 ,i will leave to others to judg1 and to him to reconcile it1 remaining in the meantime1 ,madam1 ,your ,constant ,friend and ,faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #d4 #b ,in his ,elements of ,philosophy1 part4 #a4 c4 #a4 art4 #a4 ,,xii4 ,madam1 ,two sorts of motions1 ,i find your ,author#a doth attribute to ,animals1 viz4 ,vital and ,animal1 the ,vital motions1 says he1 are begun in ,generation1 and continued without ,interruption through their whole life1 and those are the ,course of the ,blood1 the ,pulse1 the ,breathing1 ,conviction1 ,nutrition1 ,excretion1 c4 to which motions there needs no help of ,imaginations2 ,but the animal ,motions1 otherwise called voluntary ,motions1 are to go1 to speak1 to move any of our limbs1 in such manner as is first fancied in our minds3 ,and because going1 speaking1 and the like voluntary motions1 depend always upon a precedent thought of whither1 which way1 and what1 it is evident1 that the ,imagination is the first ,internal beginning of all voluntary ,motion4 ,thus far your ,author4 ,whereof in short ,i give you my opinion1 first concerning ,vital ,motions1 that it appears improbable if not impossible to me1 that ,generation should be the cause and beginning of ,life1 because ,life must of necessity be the cause of ,generation1 life being the ,generator of all things1 for without life motion could not be1 and without motion not any thing could be begun1 increased1 perfected1 or dissolved4 ,next1 that ,imagination is not necessary to ,vital ,motions1 it is probable it may not1 but yet there is required ,knowledg1 which ,i name ,reason2 for if there were not ,knowledg in all ,generations or ,productions1 there could not any distinct ,creature be made or produced1 for then all ,generations would be confusedly mixt1 neither would there be any distinct kinds or sorts of ,creatures1 nor no different ,faculties1 ,proprieties1 and the like4 ,thirdly1 concerning ,animal ,motions1 which your ,author names ,voluntary ,motions1 as to go1 to speak1 to move any of our limbs1 in such manner as is first fancied in our minds1 and that they depend upon a precedent thought of whither1 which way1 and what1 and that ,imagination is the first ,internal beginning of them2 ,i think1 by your ,authors leave1 it doth imply a contradiction1 to call them ,voluntary ,motions1 and yet to say they are caused and depend upon our ,imagination2 for if the ,imagination draws them this way1 or that way1 how can they be voluntary motions1 being in a manner forced and necessitated to move according to ,fancy or ,imagination8 ,but when he goes on in the same place and treats of ,endeavour1 ,appetite1 ,desire1 ,hunger1 ,thirst1 ,aversion1 ,love1 ,hate1 and the like1 he derives one from the other1 and treats well as a ,moral ,philosopher2 but whether it be according to the truth or probability of ,natural ,philosophy1 ,i will leave to others to judge1 for in my opinion ,passions and ,appetites are very different1 ,appetites being made by the motions of the sensitive ,life1 and ,passions1 as also ,imagination1 ,memory1 c4 by the motions of the rational ,life1 which is the cause that ,appetites belong more to the actions of the ,body then the ,mind3 ',tis true1 the ,sensitive and ,rational self-moving matter doth so much resemble each other in their actions1 as it is difficult to distinguish them4 ,but having treated hereof at large in my other ,philosophical ,work1 to cut off repetitions1 ,i will refer you to that1 and desire you to compare our opinions together3 ,but certainly there is so much variety in one and the same sort of ,passions1 and so of ,appetites1 as it cannot be easily express'd4 ,to conclude1 ,i do not perceive that your ,author tells or expresses what the cause is of such or such actions1 onely he mentions their dependance1 which is1 as if a man should converse with a ,nobleman's ,friend or ,servant1 and not know the ,lord himself4 ,but leaving him for this time1 it is sufficient to me1 that ,i know your ,ladyship1 and your ,ladyship knows me1 that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 #a ,leviathan1 part4 #a4 c4 #f4 ,,xiii4 ,madam1 ,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 me1 ,i would go on2 but seeing he treats in his following ,parts of the ,politicks1 ,i was forced to stay my ,pen1 because of these following ,reasons4 ,first1 ,that a ,woman is not imployed in ,state ,affairs1 unless an absolute ,queen4 ,next1 ,that to study the ,politicks1 is but loss of ,time1 unless a man were sure to be a ,favourite to an absolute ,prince4 ,thirdly1 ,that it is but a deceiving ,profession1 and requires more ,craft then ,wisdom4 ,all which considered1 ,i did not read that part of your ,author3 ,but as for his ,natural ,philosophy1 ,i will send you my opinion so far as ,i understand it3 ,for what belongs to ,art1 as to ,geometry1 being no ,scholar1 ,i shall not trouble my self withal4 ,and so ,i'l take my leave of you1 when ,i have in two or three words answered the ,question you sent me last1 which was1 ,whether ,nature be the ,art of ,god1 ,man the ,art of ,nature1 and a ,politick ,government the ,art of ,man8 ,to which ,i answer1 ',tis probable it may be so2 onely ,i add this1 ,that ,nature doth not rule ,god1 nor ,man ,nature1 nor ,politick ,government ,man2 for the ,effect cannot rule the ,cause1 but the ,cause doth rule the ,effect3 ,wherefore if men do not naturally agree1 ,art cannot make unity amongst them1 or associate them into one ,politick ,body and so rule them2 ,but man thinks he governs1 when as it is ,nature that doth it1 for as nature doth unite or divide parts regularly or irregularly1 and moves the several minds of men and the several parts of mens bodies1 so war is made or peace kept3 ,thus it is not the artificial form that governs men in a ,politick ,government1 but a natural power1 for though natural motion can make artificial things1 yet artificial things cannot make natural power2 and we might as well say1 nature is governed by the art of nature1 as to say man is ruled by the art and invention of men4 ,the truth is1 ,man rules an artificial ,government1 and not the ,government ,man1 just like as a ,watch-maker rules his ,watch1 and not the ,watch the ,watch-maker4 ,and thus ,i conclude and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xiv4 ,,madam1 ,concerning the other ,book of that learned ,author ,hobbs you sent me1 called ,elements of ,philosophy1 ,i shall likewise according to your desire1 give you my judgment and opinion of it as ,i have done of the former1 not that ,i intend to prejudice him any ways thereby1 but onely to mark those places wherein ,i seem to dissent from his opinions1 which liberty1 ,i hope1 he will not deny me2 ,and in order to this1 ,i have read over the first ,chapter of the mentioned ,book1 treating of ,philosophy in ,general1 wherein amongst the rest1 discoursing of the ,utility of ,natural ,philosophy1 and relating the commodities and benefits which proceed from so many arts and sciences1 he is pleased to say1#a that they are injoyed almost by all people of ,europe1 ,asia1 and some of ,africa1 onely the ,americans1 and those that live neer the ,poles do want them3 ,but why1 says he1 have they sharper wits then these8 ,have not all men one kind of soul1 and the same faculties of mind8 ,to which1 give me leave1 ,madam1 to add1 ,that my opinion is1 that there is a difference between the ,divine and the ,natural soul of man1 and though the natural mind or soul is of one kind1 yet being made of rational matter1 it is divideable and composeable1 by which division and composition1 men may have more or less wit1 or quicker and slower wit2 the like for ,judgments1 ,imaginations1 ,fancies1 ,opinions1 c4 ,for were the natural rational mind individeable1 all men would have the like degree of wit or understanding1 all men would be ,philosophers or fools1 which by reason they are not1 it proves the natural rational mind is divideable and composeable1 making variations of its own several parts by self-motion2 for it is not the several outward objects1 or forreign instructions1 that make the variety of the mind2 neither is wit or ingenuity alike in all men2 for some are natural ,poets1 ,philosophers1 and the like1 without learning1 and some are far more ingenious then others1 although their breeding is obscure and mean1 ,neither will learning make all men ,scholars1 for some will continue ,dunces all their life time2 ,neither doth much experience make all men wise1 for some are not any ways advanced in their wisdom by much and long experiences2 ,and as for ,poetry1 it is according to the common ,proverb2 a ,poet is born1 not made2 ,indeed learning doth rather hurt ,fancy1 for great ,scholars are not always good ,poets1 nor all ,states-men ,natural ,philosophers1 nor all ,experienced ,men ,wise ,men1 nor all ,judges ,just1 nor all ,divines ,pious1 nor all ,pleaders or ,preachers ,eloquent1 nor all ,moral ,philosophers ,vertuous2 ,but all this is occasioned by the various ,motions of the rational self-moving matter1 which is the ,natural ,mind4 ,and thus much for the present of the difference of wits and faculties of the mind2 ,i add no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,art4 #g4 ,,xv4 ,,madam1 ,my ,discourse for the present shall be of ,infinite1 and the question shall be first ,whether several ,finite parts1 how many soever there be1 can make an ,infinite4 ,your ,author says1#a that several ,finite parts when they are all put together make a whole ,finite2 which1 if his meaning be of a certain determinate number1 how big soever1 of finite parts1 ,i do willingly grant1 for all what is determinate and limited1 is not ,infinite but ,finite2 neither is there any such thing1 as ,whole or ,all in ,infinite2 but if his meaning be1 that no ,infinite can be made of finite parts1 though infinite in number1 ,i deny it2 ,next he says there can be no such thing as ,one in ,infinite1 because ,no thing can be said ,one1 except there be another to compare it withal2 which in my opinion doth not follow1 for there is but ,one ,god1 who is ,infinite1 and hath none other to be compared withal1 and so there may be but one ,onely ,infinite in ,nature1 which is ,matter4 ,but when he says1 there cannot be an ,infinite and ,eternal ,division1 is very true1 viz41 in this sense1 that one single part cannot be actually infinitely divided1 for the ,compositions hinder the ,divisions in ,nature1 and the ,divisions the ,compositions1 so that ,nature1 being ,matter1 cannot be composed so1 as not to have parts1 nor divided so1 as that her parts should not be composed1 but there are nevertheless infinite divided parts in ,nature1 and in this sense there may also be infinite divisions1 as ,i have declared in my ,book of ,philosophy#b4 ,and thus there are ,infinite divisions of ,infinite parts in ,nature1 but not ,infinite actual divisions of one single part2 ,but though ,infinite is without end1 yet my discourse of it shall be but short and end here1 though not my affection1 which shall last and continue with the life of ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,humble ,servant4 #a ,elem4 of ,philos4 c4 #g4 a4 #a #b4 #b ,p4 #a4 c4 #h4 ,,xvi4 ,,madam1 ,an ,accident1 says your ,author1#a is nothing else1 but the manner of our ,conception of body1 or that ,faculty of any body1 by which it works in us a ,conception of it self2 ,to which ,i willingly consent2 but yet ,i say1 that these qualities cannot be separated from the body1 for as impossible it is that the essence of ,nature should be separable from ,nature1 as impossible is it that the various modes or alterations1 either of ,figures or ,motions1 should be separable from matter or body2 ,wherefore when he goes on1 and says1#b ,an accident is not a body1 but in a body1 yet not so1 as if any thing were contained therein1 as if for example1 redness were in blood in the same manner as blood is in a bloody cloth2 but as magnitude is in that which is great1 rest in that which resteth1 motion in that which is moved2 ,i answer1 that in my opinion1 not any thing in ,nature can be without a body1 and that redness is as well in blood1 as blood is in a bloody cloth1 or any other colour in any thing else2 for there is no colour without a body1 but every colour hath as well a body as any thing else1 and if ,colour be a separable accident1 ,i would fain know1 how it can be separated from a subject1 being bodiless1 for that which is no body is nothing1 and nothing cannot be taken away from any thing2 ,wherefore as for natural ,colour it cannot be taken away from any creature1 without the parts of its substance or body2 and as for artificial ,colours1 when they are taken away1 it is a separation of two bodies1 which joyned together2 and if ,colour1 or ,hardness1 or ,softness do change1 it is nothing else but an alteration of motions and not an annihilation1 for all changes and alterations remain in the power of ,corporeal motions1 as ,i have said in other places2 for we might as well say1 life doth not remain in nature1 when a body turns from an animal to some other figure1 as believe that those1 they name accidents1 do not remain in ,corporeal ,motions2 ,wherefore ,i am not of your ,authors mind1 when he says1#c that when a ,white thing is made black1 the whiteness perishes2 for it cannot perish1 although it is altered from white to black1 being in the power of the same matter1 to turn it again from black to white1 so as it may make infinite ,repetitions of the same thing2 but by reason nature takes delight in variety1 she seldom uses such repetitions2 nevertheless that doth not take away the ,power of self-moving matter1 for it doth not1 and it cannot1 are two several things1 and the latter doth not necessarily follow upon the former2 ,wherefore not any1 the least thing1 can perish in ,nature1 for if this were possible1 the whole body of nature might perish also1 for if so many ,figures and ,creatures should be annihilated and perish without any supply or new ,creation1 ,nature would grow less1 and at last become nothing2 besides it is as difficult for ,nature to turn something into nothing1 as to ,create something out of nothing2 ,wherefore as there is no annihilation or perishing in ,nature1 so there is neither any new ,creation in ,nature4 ,but your ,author makes a difference between bodies and accidents1 saying1 that bodies are things and not generated1 but accidents are ,generated and not things4 ,truly1 ,madam1 these accidents seem to me to be like ,van ,helmont's ,lights1 ,gases1 ,blazes and ,ideas2 and ,dr ,more's ,immaterial ,substances or ,dmons1 onely in this ,dr ,more hath the better1 that his ,immaterial ,substances1 are beings1 which subsist of themselves1 whereas accidents do not1 but their existence is in other bodies2 ,but what they call ,accidents1 are in my opinion nothing else but ,corporeal ,motions1 and if these accidents be generated1 they must needs be bodies1 for how nothing can be ,generated in nature1 is not conceivable1 and yet your ,author denies1#d that ,accidents are something1 namely some part of a natural thing2 ,but as for ,generations1 they are onely various actions of self-moving matter1 or a variety of ,corporeal ,motions1 and so are all ,accidents whatsoever1 so that there is not any thing in nature1 that can be made new1 or destroyed1 for whatsoever was and shall be1 is in nature1 though not always in act1 yet in power1 as in the nature and power of ,corporeal motions1 which is self-moving matter1 ,and as there is no new ,generation of ,accidents1 so there is neither a new ,generation of ,motions2 wherefore when your ,author says1#e ,that1 when the hand1 being moved1 moveth the pen1 the motion doth not go out of the hand into the pen1 for so the writing might be continued1 though the hand stood still1 but a new motion is generated in the pen1 and is the pens motion3 ,i am of his opinion1 that the motion doth not go out of the hand into the pen1 and that the motion of the pen1 is the pens own motion2 but ,i deny1 that after holding the hand a little while still1 and beginning to write again1 a new motion of the pen is generated2 for it is onely a repetition1 and not a new generation1 for the ,hand1 ,pen and ,ink1 repeat but the same motion or action of writing3 ,besides1 ,generation is made by ,connexion or ,conjunction of parts1 moving by consent to such or such ,figures1 but the motion of the ,hand or the ,pen is always one and the same2 wherefore it is but the variation and repetition in and of the same motion of the ,hand1 or ,pen1 which may be continued in that manner infinitely1 just as the same ,corporeal ,motions can make infinite variations and repetitions of one and the same ,figure1 repeating it as oft as they please1 as also making ,copy of ,copy2 ,and although ,i do not deny1 but there are ,generations in ,nature1 yet not annihilations or perishings1 for if any one motion or figure should perish1 the matter must perish also2 and if any one part of matter can perish1 all the matter in nature may perish also2 and if there can any new thing be made or created in nature1 which hath not been before1 there may also be a new ,nature1 and so by perishings and new ,creations1 this ,world would not have continued an age2 ,but surely whatsoever is in ,nature1 hath been existent always4 ,wherefore to conclude1 it is not the generation and perishing of an ,accident that makes its subject to be changed1 but the production and alteration of the ,form1 makes it said to be generated or destroyed1 for matter will change its motions and figures without perishing or annihilating2 and whether there were words or not1 there would be such causes and effects2 ,but having not the art of ,logick to dispute with artificial words1 nor the art of ,geometry to demonstrate my opinions by ,mathematical ,figures1 ,i fear they will not be so well received by the ,learned2 ,however1 ,i leave them to any mans unprejudiced ,reason and ,judgment1 and devote my self to your service1 as becomes1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,elem4 of ,philos4 c4 #h4 art4 #b4 #b ,art4 #c4 #c ,art4 #bj4 #d ,art4 #b4 #e ,art4 #ba4 ,,xvii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author concerning ,place and ,magnitude says1#a1 that ,place is nothing out of the mind1 nor ,magnitude any thing within it2 for ,place is a meer ,phantasme of a body of such quantity and figure1 and ,magnitude a peculiar accident of the body2 but this doth not well agree with my reason1 for ,i believe that ,place1 ,magnitude and ,body are but one thing1 and that ,place is as true an extension as ,magnitude1 and not a feigned one2 ,neither am ,i of his opinion1 that ,place is ,immoveable1 but that place moves1 according as the body moveth1 for not any body wants place1 because place and body is but one thing1 and wheresoever is body1 there is also place1 and wheresoever is place1 there is body1 as being one and the same2 ,wherefore ,motion cannot be a relinquishing of one place and acquiring another1#b for there is no such thing as place different from body1 but what is called change of place1 is nothing but change of corporeal motions2 for1 say an house stands in such a place1 if the house be gone1 the place is gone also1 as being impossible that the place of the house should remain1 when the house is taken away2 like as a man when he is gone out of his chamber1 his place is gone too2 ',tis true1 if the ground or foundation do yet remain1 one may say1 there stood such an house heretofore1 but yet the place of the house is not there really at that present1 unless the same house be built up again as it was before1 and then it hath its place as before2 ,nevertheless the house being not there1 it cannot be said that either place or house are annihilated1 viz41 when the materials are dissolved1 no not when transformed into millions of several other figures1 for the house remains still in the power of all those several parts of matter2 and as for space1 it is onely a distance betwixt some parts or bodies2 ,but an ,empty place signifies to my opinion ,nothing1 for if place and body are one and the same1 and empty is as much as nothing2 then certainly these two words cannot consist together1 but are destructive to one another4 ,concerning1 that your ,author says1#c ,two bodies cannot be together in the same place1 nor one body in two places at the same time1 is very true1 for there are no more places then bodies1 nor more bodies then places1 and this is to be understood as well of the grosser1 as the purest parts of nature1 of the mind as well as of the body1 of the rational and sensitive animate matter as well as of the inanimate1 for there is no matter1 how pure and subtil soever1 but is imbodied1 and all that hath body hath place4 ,likewise ,i am of his opinion1#d ,that one body hath always one and the same magnitude2 for1 in my opinion1 magnitude1 place and body do not differ1 and as place1 so magnitude can never be separated from body4 ,but when he speaks of ,rest1 ,i cannot believe there is any such thing truly in ,nature1 for it is impossible to prove1 that any thing is without ,motion1 either consistent1 or composing1 or dissolving1 or transforming motions1 or the like1 although not altogether perceptible by our senses1 for all the ,matter is either moving or moved1 and although the moved parts are not capable to receive the nature of self-motion from the self-moving parts1 yet these self-moving parts1 being joyned and mixt with all other parts of the moved matter1 do always move the same2 for the ,moved or ,inanimate part of ,matter1 although it is a ,part of it self1 yet it is so intermixt with the self-moving ,animate ,matter1 as they make but one ,body2 and though some parts of the ,inanimate may be as pure as the ,sensitive ,animate ,matter1 yet they are never so subtil as to be self-moving2 ,wherefore the ,sensitive moves in the ,inanimate1 and the ,rational in the ,sensitive1 but often the ,rational moves in it self4 ,and1 although there is no rest in nature1 nevertheless ,matter could have been without ,motion1 when as it is impossible that ,matter could be without place or magnitude1 no more then ,variety can be without motion2 ,and thus much at this present3 ,i conclude1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,part4 #b4 c4 #h4 a4 #e4 #b ,art4 #aj4 #c ,art4 #h4 #d ,art4 #e4 ,,xviii4 ,,madam1 ,passing by those ,chapters of your ,authors1 that treat of ,power and ,act1 ,identy and ,difference1 ,analogisme1 ,angle and ,figure1 ,figures deficient1 dimension of ,circles1 and several others1 most of which belong to art1 as to ,geometry1 and the like2 ,i am come to that wherein he discourses of ,sense and ,animal ,motion1 saying1#a ,that some ,natural bodies have in themselves the patterns almost of all things1 and others of none at all2 ,whereof my opinion is1 that the sensitive and rational parts of ,matter are the living and knowing parts of ,nature1 and no part of nature can challenge them onely to it self1 nor no creature can be sure1 that sense is onely in ,animal-kind1 and reason in ,man-kind2 for can any one think or believe that ,nature is ignorant and dead in all her other parts besides ,animals8 ,truly this is a very unreasonable opinion2 for no man1 as wise as he thinks himself1 nay were all ,man-kind joyned into one body1 yet they are not able to know it1 unless there were no variety of parts in nature1 but onely one whole and individeable body1 for other ,creatures may know and perceive as much as ,animals1 although they have not the same ,sensitive ,organs1 nor the same manner or way of ,perception4 ,next your ,author says1#b ,the cause of ,sense or ,perception consists herein1 that the first organ of sense is touched and pressed2 ,for when the uttermost part of the organ is pressed1 it no sooner yields1 but the part next within it is pressed also1 and in this manner the pressure or motion is propagated through all the parts of the organ to the innermost4 ,and thus also the pressure of the uttermost part proceeds from the pressure of some more remote body1 and so continually1 till we come to that1 from which1 as from its fountain1 we derive the ,phantasme or ,idea1 that is made in us by our sense3 ,and this1 whatsoever it be1 is that we commonly call the object2 ,sense therefore is some ,internal motion in the ,sentient1 generated by some ,internal motion of the ,parts of the object1 and propagated through all the media to the innermost part of the organ4 ,moreover there being a resistance or reaction in the organ1 by reason of its internal motion against the motion propagated from the object1 there is also an endeavour in the organ opposite to the endeavour proceeding from the object1 and when that endeavour inwards is the last action in the act of sense1 then from the reaction a ,phantasme or ,idea has its being4 ,this is your ,authors opinion1 which if it were so1 perception could not be effected so suddenly1 nay ,i think the sentient by so many pressures in so many perceptions1 would at last be pressed to death1 besides the organs would take a great deal of hurt1 nay totally be removed out of their places1 so as the eye would in time be prest into the centre of the brain2 ,and if there were any ,resistance1 ,reaction or ,indeavour in the organ1 opposite to the ,endeavour of the object1 there would1 in my opinion1 be always a war between the animal senses and the objects1 the endeavour of the objects pressing one way1 and the senses pressing the other way1 and if equal in their strengths1 they would make a stop1 and the sensitive organs would be very much pained4 ,truly1 ,madam1 in my opinion1 it would be like that ,custom which formerly hath been used at ,newcastle1 when a man was married1 the guests divided themselves1 behind and before the ,bridegroom1 the one party driving him back1 the other forwards1 so that one time a ,bridegroom was killed in this fashion2 ,but certainly ,nature hath a more quick and easie way of giving intelligence and knowledg to her ,creatures1 and doth not use such constraint and force in her actions2 ,neither is sense or sensitive perception a meer ,phantasme or ,idea1 but a ,corporeal action of the sensitive and rational matter1 and according to the variation of the objects or patterns1 and the sensitive and rational motions1 the perception also is various1 produced not by external pressure1 but by internal self-motion1 as ,i have declared heretofore2 and to prove1 that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions are the onely cause of perception2 ,i say1 if those motions in an animal move in another way1 and not to such perceptions1 then that animal can neither hear1 see1 taste1 smell nor touch1 although all his sensitive organs be perfect1 as is evident in a man falling into a swoon1 where all the time he is in a swoon1 the pressure of the objects is made without any effect2 ,wherefore1 as the sensitive and rational corporeal motions make all that is in nature2 so likewise they make perception1 as being perception it self1 for all self-motion is perception1 but all perception is not animal perception2 or after an animal way2 and therefore sense cannot decay nor die1 but what is called a decay or death1 is nothing else but a change or alteration of those ,motions4 ,but you will say1 ,madam1 it may be1 that one body1 as an object1 leaves the print of its figure1 in the next adjoyning body1 until it comes to the organ of sense1 ,i answer that then soft bodies onely must be pressed1 and the object must be so hard as to make a print1 and as for rare parts of matter1 they are not able to retain a print without self-motion2 ,wherefore it is not probable that the parts of air should receive a print1 and print the same again upon the adjoyning part1 until the last part of the air print it upon the eye2 and that the exterior parts of the organ should print upon the interior1 till it come to the centre of the ,brain1 without self-motion4 ,wherefore in my opinion1 ,perception is not caused either by the printing of objects1 nor by pressures1 for pressures would make a general stop of all natural motions1 especially if there were any reaction or resistence of sense2 but according to my reason1 the sensitive and rational corporeal motions in one body1 pattern out the ,figure of another body1 as of an exterior object1 which may be done easily without any pressure or reaction2 ,i will not say1 that there is no pressure or reaction in ,nature1 but pressure and reaction doth not make perception1 for the sensitive and rational parts of matter make all perception and variety of motion1 being the most subtil parts of ,nature1 as self-moving1 as also divideable1 and composeable1 and alterable in their figurative motions1 for this ,perceptive matter can change its substance into any figure whatsoever in nature1 as being not bound to one constant figure4 ,but having treated hereof before1 and being to say more of it hereafter1 this shall suffice for the present1 remaining always1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 #a ,c4 #be4 a4 #a4 #b ,art4 #b4 ,,xix4 ,,madam1 ,to discourse of the ,world and ,stars1 is more then ,i am able to do1 wanting the art of ,astronomy and ,geometry2 wherefore passing by that ,chapter of your ,author1 ,i am come to that#a wherein he treats of ,light1 ,heat and ,colours2 and to give you my opinion of ,light1 ,i say1 it is not the light of the ,sun1 that makes an ,animal see1 for we can see inwardly in ,dreams without the ,suns light1 but it is the sensitive and rational ,motions in the ,eye and ,brain that make such a figure as ,light2 ,for if ,light did press upon the ,eye1 according to your ,authors opinion1 it might put the ,eye into as much pain as ,fire doth1 when it sticks its points into our skin or flesh4 ,the same may be said of ,colours1 for the sensitive motions make such a figure1 which is such a ,colour1 and such a ,figure1 which is such a ,colour2 ,wherefore ,light1 ,heat and ,colour1 are not bare and bodiless qualities1 but such figures made by corporeal self-motions1 and are as well real and corporeal objects as other figures are2 and when these figures change or alter1 it is onely that their motions alter1 which may alter and change heat into cold1 and light into darkness1 and black colour into white4 ,but by reason the motions of the ,sun are so constant1 as the motions of any other kind of ,creatures1 it is no more subject to be altered then all the ,world1 unless ,nature did it by the command of ,god2 for though the ,parts of self-moving ,matter be alterable1 yet all are not altered2 and this is the reason1 that the figure of ,light in our eye and brain is altered1 as well as it is alterable1 but not the real figure of the ,sun1 neither doth the ,sun enter our eyes2 and as the ,light of the ,sun is made or patterned in the eye1 so is the light of ,glow-worms-tails1 and ,cats-eyes1 that shine in the dark1 made not by the ,sun's1 but their own motions in their own parts2 ,the like when we dream of ,light1 the sensitive corporeal motions working inwardly1 make the figure of light on the inside of the eye1 as they did pattern out the figure of light on the outside of the eye when awake1 and the objects before them2 for the sensitive motions of the eye pattern out the figure of the object in the eye1 and the rational motions make the same figure in their own substance4 ,but there is some difference between those figures that perceive light1 and those that are light themselves2 for when we sleep1 there is made the figure of light1 but not from a copy2 but when the eye seeth light1 that figure is made from a copy of the real figure of the ,sun2 but those lights which are inherent1 as in ,glow-worms-tails1 are original lights1 in which is as much difference as between a ,man and his ,picture2 and as for the swiftness of the ,motions of light1 and the violence of the ,motions of fire1 it is very probable they are so1 but they are a certain particular kind or sort of swift and violent motions2 neither will all sorts of swift and violent motions make fire or light1 as for example the swift and violent ,circular motion of a ,whirlewind neither makes light nor fire2 ,neither is all fire light1 nor all light fire1 for there is a sort of dead fire1 as in ,spices1 ,spirits1 ,oyles1 and the like2 and several sorts of lights1 which are not hot1 as the light which is made in ,dreams1 as also the inherent lights in ,glow-worms1 ,cats-eyes1 ,fish-bones1 and the like2 all which several fires and lights are made by the self-moving matter and motions distinguishable by their figures1 for those ,motions make such a figure for the ,suns light1 such a figure for ,glow-worms light1 such a figure for ,cats-eyes light1 and so some alteration in every sort of light2 ,the same for ,fire1 onely ,fire-light is a mixt figure1 as partly of the figure of ,fire1 and partly of the figure of ,light3 ,also ,colours are made after the like manner1 viz4 so many several ,colours1 so many several ,figures2 and as these ,figures are less or more different1 so are the ,colours4 ,thus1 ,madam1 whosoever will study ,nature1 must consider the ,figures of every ,creature1 as well as their ,motions1 and must not make abstractions of ,motion and ,figure from ,matter1 nor of ,matter from ,motion and ,figure1 for they are inseparable1 as being but one thing1 viz4 ,corporeal ,figurative ,motions2 and whosoever conceives any of them as abstract1 will1 in my opinion1 very much erre2 but men are apt to make more difficulties and enforcements in nature then nature ever knew4 ,but to return to ,light3 ,there is no better argument to prove that all objects of sight are figured in the ,eye1 by the sensitive1 voluntary or self-motions1 without the pressure of objects1 but that not onely the pressure of light would hurt the tender ,eye1 but that the eye doth not see all objects according to their ,magnitude1 but sometimes bigger1 sometimes less3 as for example1 when the eye looks through a small passage1 as a ,perspective-glass1 by reason of the difficulty of seeing a body through a small hole1 and the double figure of the glass being convex and concave1 the corporeal motions use more force1 by which the object is enlarged1 like as a spark of fire by force is dilated into a great fire1 and a drop of water by blowing into a bubble2 so the corporeal motions do double and treble their strength1 making the ,image of the object exceeding large in the eye2 for though the eye be contracted1 yet the ,image in the eye is enlarged to a great extension2 for the sensitive and rational matter is extremely subtil1 by reason it is extreamly pure1 by which it hath more means and ways of magnifying then the ,perspective-glass4 ,but ,i intend to write more of this subject in my next1 and so ,i break off here1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #bg4 ,,xx4 ,,madam1 ,some perhaps will question the truth or probability of my saying1 that ,light is a ,body1 objecting that if light were a body1 when the ,sun is absent or retires under our ,horizon1 its light would leave an empty place1 or if there were no empty place but all full1 the light of the ,sun at its return would not have room to display it self1 especially in so great a compass as it doth1 for two bodies cannot be in one place at one time4 ,i answer1 all bodies carry their places along with them1 for body and place go together and are inseparable1 and when the light of the ,sun is gone1 darkness succeeds1 and when darkness is gone1 light succeeds1 so that it is with light and darkness as with all ,creatures else2 ,for you cannot believe1 that if the whole ,world were removed1 there would be a place of the world left1 for there cannot be an empty nothing1 no more then there can be an empty something2 but if the world were annihilated1 the place would be annihilated too1 place and body being one and the same thing2 and therefore in my opinion1 there be no more places then there are bodies1 nor no more bodies then there are places4 ,secondly1 ,they will think it absurd that ,i say1 the eye can see without light2 but in my opinion it seems not absurd1 but very rational1 for we may see in dreams1 and some do see in the dark1 not in their fancy or imagination1 but really2 and as for dreams1 the sensitive corporeal motions make a light on the inside of the organ of sight really1 as ,i have declared in my former ,letter4 ,but that we do not see ordinarily without exterior ,light1 the reason is1 that the sensitive ,motions cannot find the outward objects to pattern out without exterior light1 but all perception doth not proceed from light1 for all other perception besides animal sight requires not light4 ,neither in my opinion1 doth the ,perception of sight in all ,creatures but ,animals1 but yet ,animals do often see in the dark1 and in sleep3 ,i will not say but that the animate matter which by self-motion doth make the ,perception of light with other perceptive ,figures1 and so animal perceptive light may be the presenter or ground perceptive figure of sight2 yet the sensitive corporeal motions can make other figures without the help of light1 and such as light did never present3 ,but when the eye patterns out an exterior object presented by light1 it patterns also out the object of light2 for the sensitive motions can make many figures by one act1 not onely in several organs1 but in one organ2 as for example1 there is presented to sight a piece of ,imbroydery1 wherein is silk1 silver and gold upon ,sattin in several forms or figures1 as several flowers1 the sensitive motions streight by one and the same act1 pattern out all those several figures of flowers1 as also the figures of ,silk1 ,silver1 ,gold and ,sattin1 without any pressure of these objects1 or motions in the medium1 for if they all should press1 the eye would no more see the exterior objects1 then the nose1 being stopt1 could smell a presented perfume4 ,thirdly1 ,they may ask me1 if sight be made in the eye1 and proceeds not from the outward object1 what is the reason that we do not see inwardly1 but outwardly as from us8 ,i answer1 when we see objects outwardly1 as from us1 then the sensitive motions work on the outside of the organ1 which organ being outwardly convex1 causes us to see outwardly1 as from us1 but in dreams we see inwardly2 also the sensitive motions do pattern out the distance together with the object3 ,but you will say1 the body of the distance1 as the air1 cannot be perceived1 and yet we can perceive the distance2 ,i answer1 you could not perceive the distance1 but by such or such an object as is subject to your sight2 for you do not see the distance more then the air1 or the like rare body1 that is between grosser objects2 for if there were no stars1 nor planets1 nor clouds1 nor earth1 nor water1 but onely air1 you would not see any space or distance2 but light being a more visible body then air1 you might figure the body of air by light1 but so1 as in an extensive or dilating way2 for when the mind or the rational matter conceives any thing that hath not such an exact figure1 or is not so perceptible by our senses2 then the mind uses art1 and makes such figures1 which stand like to that2 as for example1 to express infinite to it self1 it dilates it parts without alteration1 and without limitation or circumference2 ,likewise1 when it will conceive a constant succession of ,time1 it draws out its parts into the figure of a line2 and if eternity1 it figures a line without beginning1 and end4 ,but as for ,immaterial1 no mind can conceive that1 for it cannot put it self into nothing1 although it can dilate and rarifie it self to an higher degree1 but must stay within the circle of natural bodies1 as ,i within the circle of your ,commands1 to express my self ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and obedient ,servant4 ,,xxi4 ,,madam1 ,heat and ,cold1 according to your ,authors opinion1 are made by ,dilation and ,contraction3 for says he1#a ,when the ,motion of the ambient thereal substance makes the spirits and fluid parts of our bodies tend outwards1 we acknowledg heat1 but by the indeavour inwards of the same spirits and humors we feel cold3 so that to cool is to make the exterior parts of the body endeavour inwards1 by a motion contrary to that of calefaction1 by which the internal parts are called outwards4 ,he therefore that would know the cause of ,cold1 must find by what motion the exterior parts of any body endeavour to retire inwards4 ,but ,i desire you to consider1 ,madam1 that there be moist ,colds1 and dry ,heats1 as well as dry ,colds1 and moist ,heats2 wherefore all sorts of ,cold are not made by the retyring of parts inwards1 which is contraction or attraction2 neither are all sorts of ,heat made by parts tending outwards1 which is dilation or rarefaction2 for a moist cold is made by dilation1 and a dry heat by contraction1 as well as a moist heat is made by dilation1 and a dry cold by contraction3 ,but your ,author makes not this difference1 but onely a difference between a dilated heat1 and a contracted cold2 but because a cold wind is made by breath blown thorow pinched or contracted lips1 and an hot wind by breath through opened and extended lips1 should we judg that all heat and cold must be made after one manner or way8 ,the contracted mouth makes ,wind as well as the dilated1 but yet ,wind is not made that way1 as heat and cold2 for it may be1 that onely the air pressed together makes wind1 or it may be that the corporeal motions in the air may change air into wind1 as they change water into vapour1 and vapour into air2 or it may be something else that is invisible and rare1 as air2 and there may be several sorts of wind1 air1 heat1 cold1 as of all other ,creatures1 more then man is capable to know4 ,as for your ,authors opinion concerning the congealing of ,water1 and how ,ice is made1 ,i will not contradict it1 onely ,i think nature hath an easier way to effect it1 then he describes2 ,wherefore my opinion is1 that it is done by altering motions2 as for example1 the corporeal motions making the figure of water by dilation in a ,circle figure1 onely alter from such a dilating circular figure into a contracted square1 which is ,ice1 or into such a contracted triangle1 as is snow3 ,and thus water and vapour may be changed with ease1 without any forcing1 pressing1 raking1 or the like4 ,the same may be said of hard and bent bodies2 and of restitution1 as also of air1 thunder and lightning1 which are all done by an easie change of motion1 and changing into such or such a figure is not the motion of ,generation1 which is to build a new house with old materials1 but onely a ,transformation2 ,i say a new house with old materials2 not that ,i mean there is any new ,creation in nature1 of any thing that was not before in nature2 for nature is not ,god1 to make new beings out of nothing1 but any thing may be called new1 when it is altered from one figure into another4 ,i add no more at this time1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,c4 #bh4 a4 #a4 ,,xxii4 ,,madam1 ,the ,generation of sound1 according to your worthy ,authors opinion1 is as follows3 ,as ,vision1 says he1#a so hearing is ,generated by the medium1 but not in the same manner2 for sight is from pressure1 that is1 from an endeavour1 in which there is no perceptible progression of any of the parts of the medium1 but one part urging or thrusting on another1 propagateth that action successively to any distance whatsoever2 whereas the motion of the medium1 by which sound is made1 is a stroke2 for when we hear1 the drum of the ,ear1 which is the first organ of hearing1 is strucken1 and the drum being stricken1 the ,pia ,mater is also shaken1 and with it the arteries inserted into it1 by which the action propagated to the heart it self1 by the reaction of the heart a ,phantasme is made which we call ,sound4 ,thus far your ,author3 ,to which give me leave to reply1 that ,i fear1 if the ,ear was bound to hear any loud ,musick1 or another sound a good while1 it would soundly be beaten1 and grow sore and bruised with so many strokes2 but since a pleasant sound would be rendred very unpleasant in this manner1 my opinion is1 that like as in the ,eye1 so in the ,ear the corporeal sensitive motions do pattern out as many several figures1 as sounds are presented to them2 but if these motions be irregular1 then the figure of the sound in the ear is not perfect according to the original2 for if it be1 that the motions are tyred with figuring1 or the object of sound be too far distant from the sensitive organ1 then they move slowly and weakly1 not that they are tyred or weak in strength1 but with working and repeating one and the same object1 and so through love to variety1 change from working regularly to move irregularly1 so as not to pattern outward objects as they ought1 and then there are no such patterns made at all1 which we call to be deaf2 and sometimes the sensitive motions do not so readily perceive a soft sound near1 as a stronger farther off4 ,but to prove it is not the outward object of sound with its striking or pressing motion1 nor the medium1 that causes this perception of sense1 if there be a great solid body1 as a wall1 or any other partition betwixt two rooms1 parting the object and the sensitive organ1 so1 as the sound is not able to press it1 nevertheless the perception will be made2 ,and as for pipes to convey sounds1 the perception is more fixt and perfecter in united then in dilated or extended bodies1 and then the sensitive motions can make perfecter patterns2 for the stronger the objects are1 the more perfect are the figures and patterns of the objects1 and the more perfect is the perception4 ,but when the sound is quite out of the ear1 then the sensitive motions have altered the patterning of such figures to some other action2 and when the sound fadeth by degrees1 then the figure or pattern alters by degrees2 but for the most part the sensitive corporeal motions alter according as the objects are presented1 or the perception patterns out4 ,neither do they usually make figures of outward objects1 if not perceived by the senses1 unless through ,irregularities as in ,mad men1 which see such and such things1 when as these things are not neer1 and then the sensitive motions work by rote1 or after their own voluntary invention4 ,as for ,reflexion1 it is a double perception1 and so a double figure of one object2 like as many pictures of one man1 where some are more perfect then others1 for a copy of a copy is not so perfect as a copy of an original4 ,but the recoyling of sound is1 that the sensitive motions in the ear begin a new pattern1 before they dissolved the former1 so as there is no perfect alteration or change1 from making to dissolving1 but pattern is made upon pattern1 which causes a confusion of figures1 the one being neither perfectly finished1 nor the other perfectly made4 ,but it is to be observed1 that not always the sensitive motions in the organs take their pattern from the original1 but from copies2 as for example1 the sensitive motions in the eye1 pattern out the figure of an eye in a glass1 and so do not take a pattern from the original it self1 but by an other pattern1 representing the figure of the eye in a ,looking-glass2 ,the same doth the ,ear1 by patterning out ,ecchoes1 which is but a pattern of a pattern2 ,but when as a man hears himself speak or make a sound1 then the corporeal sensitive motions in the ,ear1 pattern out the object or figure made by the motions of the tongue and the throat1 which is voice2 ,by which we may observe1 that there may be many figures made by several motions from one original2 as for example1 the figure of a word is made in a mans mouth1 then the copy of that figure is made in the ear1 then in the brain1 and then in the memory1 and all this in one ,man3 ,also a word being made in a mans mouth1 the air takes a copy or many copies thereof2 but the ,ear patterns them both out1 first the original coming from the mouth1 and then the copy made in the air1 which is called an ,eccho1 and yet not any strikes or touches each others parts1 onely perceives and patterns out each others figure4 ,neither are their substances the same1 although the figures be alike2 for the figure of a man may be carved in wood1 then cut in brass1 then in stone1 and so forth1 where the figure may be always the same1 although the substances which do pattern out the figure are several1 viz4 ,wood1 ,brass1 ,stone1 c4 and so likewise may the figure of a stone be figured in the fleshy substance of the ,eye1 or the figure of light or colour1 and yet the substance of the ,eye remains full the same2 neither doth the substantial figure of a stone1 or tree1 patterned out by the sensitive corporeal motions1 in the flesh of an animal eye1 change from being a vegetable or mineral1 to an animal1 and if this cannot be done by nature1 much less by art2 for if the figure of an animal be carved in wood or stone1 it doth not give the wood or stone any animal knowledg1 nor an animal substance1 as flesh1 bones1 blood1 c4 no more doth the patterning or figuring of a ,tree give a vegetable knowledg1 or the substance of wood to the eye1 for the figure of an outward object doth not alter the substance that patterns it out or figures it1 but the patterning substance doth pattern out the figure1 in it self1 or in its own substance1 so as the figure which is pattern'd1 hath the same life and knowledg with the substance by and in which it is figured or pattern'd1 and the inherent motions of the same substance2 and according as the sensitive and rational self-moving matter moves1 so figures are made2 and thus we see1 that lives1 knowledges1 motions and figures are all material1 and all ,creatures are indued with life1 knowledg1 motion and figure1 but not all alike or after the same manner4 ,but to conclude this discourse of perception of ,sound1 the ,ear may take the object of sound afar off1 as well as at a near distance2 not onely if many figures of the same sound be made from that great distance1 but if the interposing parts be not so thick1 close1 or many as to hinder or obscure the object from the animal ,perception in the sensitive organ2 for if a man lays his ,ear near to the ,ground1 the ,ear may hear at a far distance1 as well as the ,eye can see1 for it may hear the noise of a troop afar off1 perception being very subtil and active2 ,also there may several ,copies be made from the ,original1 and from the last ,copy nearest to the ,ear1 the ,ear may take a pattern1 and so pattern out the noise in the organ1 without any strokes to the ,ear1 for the subtil matter in all ,creatures doth inform and perceive4 ,but this is well to be observed1 that the figures of objects are as soon made1 as perceived by the sensitive motions in their work of patterning4 ,and this is my ,opinion concerning the ,perception of ,sound1 which together with the rest ,i leave to your ,ladyships and others wiser ,judgment1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #bi4 a4 #a4 ,,xxiii4 ,,madam1 ,i perceive by your last1 that you cannot well apprehend my meaning1 when ,i say that the print or figure of a ,body ,printed or ,carved1 is not made by the motions of the body ,printing or ,carving it1 but by the motions of the body or substance ,printed or ,carved2 for say you1 ,doth a piece of ,wood carve it self1 or a black ,patch of a ,lady cut its own figure by its own motions8 ,before ,i answer you1 ,madam1 give me leave to ask you this question1 whether it be the motion of the hand1 or the ,instrument1 or both1 that print or carve such or such a body8 ,perchance you will say1 that the motion of the hand moves the ,instrument1 and the ,instrument moves the ,wood which is to be carved3 ,then ,i ask1 whether the motion that moves the ,instrument1 be the ,instruments1 or the ,hands8 ,perchance you will say the ,hands2 but ,i answer1 how can it be the ,hands motion1 if it be in the ,instrument8 ,you will say1 perhaps1 the motion of the hand is transferred out of the hand into the instrument1 and so from the instrument into the carved figure2 but give me leave to ask you1 was this motion of the hand1 that was transferred1 ,corporeal or ,incorporeal8 ,if you say1 ,corporeal1 then the hand must become less and weak1 but if ,incorporeal1 ,i ask you1 how a bodiless motion can have force and strength to carve and cut8 ,but put an ,impossible proposition1 as that there is an ,immaterial motion1 and that this ,incorporeal motion could be transferred out of one body into another2 then ,i ask you1 when the hand and instrument cease to move1 what is become of the motion8 ,perhaps you will say1 the motion perishes or is annihilated1 and when the hand and the instrument do move again1 to the carving or cutting of the figure1 then a new ,incorporeal ,motion is created2 ,truly then there will be a perpetual creation and annihilation of ,incorporeal motions1 that is1 of that which naturally is nothing2 for an ,incorporeal being is as much as a natural ,no-thing1 for ,natural reason cannot know nor have naturally any perception or ,idea of an ,incorporeal being3 besides1 if the motion be ,incorporeal1 then it must needs be a supernatural ,spirit1 for there is not any thing else ,immaterial but they1 and then it will be either an ,angel or a ,devil1 or the ,immortal ,soul of man2 but if you say it is the supernatural ,soul1 truly ,i cannot be perswaded that the supernatural ,soul should not have any other imployment then to carve or cut prints1 or figures1 or move in the hands1 or heels1 or legs1 or arms of a ,man2 for other animals have the same kind of ,motions1 and then they might have a ,supernatural ,soul as well as ,man1 which moves in them4 ,but if you say1 that these transferrable motions are material1 then every action whereby the hand moves to the making or moving of some other body1 would lessen the number of the motions in the hand1 and weaken it1 so that in the writing of one letter1 the hand would not be able to write a second letter1 at least not a third4 ,but ,i pray1 ,madam1 consider rationally1 that though the ,artificer or ,workman be the occasion of the motions of the carved body1 yet the motions of the body that is carved1 are they which put themselves into such or such a figure1 or give themselves such or such a print as the ,artificer intended2 for a ,watch1 although the ,artist or ,watch-maker be the occasional cause that the ,watch moves in such or such an artificial figure1 as the figure of a ,watch1 yet it is the ,watches own motion by which it moves2 for when you carry the ,watch about you1 certainly the ,watch-makers hand is not then with it as to move it2 or if the motion of the ,watch-makers hand be transferred into the ,watch1 then certainly the ,watch-maker cannot make another ,watch1 unless there be a new creation of new motions made in his hands2 so that ,god and ,nature would be as much troubled and concerned in the making of ,watches1 as in the making of a new ,world2 for ,god created this ,world in six days1 and rested the seventh day1 but this would be a perpetual ,creation2 ,wherefore ,i say that some things may be ,occasional causes of other things1 but not the ,prime or ,principal causes2 and this distinction is very well to be considered1 for there are no frequenter mistakes then to confound these two different causes1 which make so many confusions in natural ,philosophy2 and this is the ,opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxiv4 ,,madam1 ,in answer to your question1 ,what makes ,eccho1 ,i say1 it is that which makes all the effects of ,nature1 viz4 self-moving matter2 ,i know1 the common opinion is1 that ,eccho is made like as the figure of a ,face1 or the like1 in a ,looking-glass1 and that the ,reverberation of sound is like the ,reflection of sight in a ,looking-glass2 ,but ,i am not of that opinion1 for both ,eccho1 and that which is called the ,reflection in a ,looking-glass1 are made by the self-moving matter1 by way of patterning and copying out4 ,but then you will ask me1 whether the glass takes the copy of the face1 or the face prints its copy on the glass1 or whether it be the medium of light and air that makes it8 ,i answer1 although many ,learned men say1 that as all perception1 so also the seeing of ones face in a ,looking-glass1 and ,eccho1 are made by impression and reaction2 yet ,i cannot in my simplicity conceive it1 how bodies that come not near1 or touch each other1 can make a figure by impression and reaction3 ,they say it proceeds from the motions of the ,medium of light1 or air1 or both1 viz4 that the ,medium is like a long stick with two ends1 whereof one touches the object1 the other the organ of sense1 and that one end of it moving1 the other moves also at the same point of ,time1 by which motions it may make many several figures2 ,but ,i cannot conceive1 how this motion of pressing forward and backward should make so many figures1 wherein there is so much variety and curiosity4 ,but1 say light and air are as one figure1 and like as a seal do print another body2 ,i answer1 if any thing could print1 yet it is not probable1 that so soft and rare bodies as light and air1 could print such solid bodies as glass1 nor could air by reverberation make such a sound as ,eccho4 ,but mistake me not1 for1 ,i do not say1 that the ,corporeal motions of light or air1 cannot1 or do not pencil1 copie1 or pattern out any figure1 for both light and air are very active in such sorts of ,motions1 but ,i say1 they cannot do it on any other bodies but their own4 ,but to cut off tedious and unnecessary disputes1 ,i return to the expressing of my own opinion1 and believe1 that the glass in its own substance doth figure out the copy of the face1 or the like1 and from that copy the sensitive motions in the eyes take another copy1 and so the rational from the sensitive2 and in this manner is made both rational and sensitive perception1 sight and knowledg4 ,the same with ,ecchoes2 for the air patterns out the copy of the sound1 and then the sensitive corporeal motions in the ear pattern again this copy from the air1 and so do make the perception and sense of hearing4 ,you may ask me1 ,madam1 if it be so1 that the glass and the air copy out the figure of the face and of sound1 whether the ,glass may be said to see and the ,air to speak8 ,i answer1 ,i cannot tell that2 for though ,i say1 that the air repeats the words1 and the glass represents the face1 yet ,i cannot guess what their perceptions are1 onely this ,i may say1 that the air hath an elemental1 and the glass a mineral1 but not an animal perception4 ,but if these figures were made by the pressures of several objects or parts1 and by reaction1 there could not be such variety as there is1 for they could but act by one sort of motion3 ,likewise is it improbable1 that sounds1 words or voices1 should like a company of ,wild-,geese fly in the air1 and so enter into the ears of the hearers1 as they into their nests3 ,neither can ,i conceive1 how in this manner a word can enter so many ears1 that is1 be divided into every ear1 and yet strike every ear with an undivided vocal sound2 ,you will say1 as a small fire doth heat and warm all those that stand by2 for the heat issues from the fire1 as the light from the ,sun4 ,i answer1 all what issues and hath motion1 hath a ,body1 and yet most learned men deny that sound1 light and heat have bodies3 ,but if they grant of light that it has a body1 they say it moves and presses the air1 and the air the eye1 and so of heat2 which if so1 then the air must not move to any other motion but light1 and onely to one sort of light1 as the ,suns light2 for if it did move in any other motion1 it would disturb the light2 for if a ,bird did but fly in the air1 it would give all the region of air another motion1 and so put out1 or alter the light1 or at least disturb it2 and wind would make a great disturbance in it4 ,besides1 if one body did give another body motion1 it must needs give it also substance1 for motion is either something or nothing1 body or no body1 substance or no substance2 if nothing1 it cannot enter into another body2 if something1 it must lessen the bulk of the body it quits1 and increase the bulk of the body it enters1 and so the ,sun and ,fire with giving light and heat1 would become less1 for they cannot both give and keep at once1 for this is as impossible1 as for a man to give to another creature his human ,nature1 and yet to keep it still4 ,wherefore my opinion is for heat1 that when many men stand round about a fire1 and are heated and warmed by it1 the fire doth not give them any thing1 nor do they receive something from the fire1 but the sensitive motions in their bodies pattern out the object of the fires heat1 and so they become more or less hot according as their patterns are numerous or perfect2 ,and as for air1 it patterns out the light of the ,sun1 and the sensitive motions in the eyes of animals pattern out the light in the air4 ,the like for ,ecchoes1 or any other sound1 and for the figures which are presented in a ,looking-glass4 ,and thus millions of parts or creatures may make patterns of one or more objects1 and the objects neither give nor loose any thing4 ,and this ,i repeat here1 that my meaning of ,perception may be the better understood1 which is the desire of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 ,,xxv4 ,,madam ,i perceive you are not fully satisfied with my former ,letter concerning ,eccho1 and a figure presented in a ,looking-glass2 for you say1 how is it possible1 if ,eccho consists in the ears patterning out of a voice or sound1 but that it will make a confusion in all the parts of the air8 ,my answer is1 that ,i doe not say that ,eccho is onely made by the patterning out of the voice or sound1 but by repeating the same voice or sound1 which repetition is named an ,eccho1 for millions of ears in animals may pattern out a voice or words1 and yet never repeat them1 and so may millions of parts of the air2 wherefore ,eccho doth not consist in the bare patterning out1 but in the repetition of the same sound or words1 which are pattern'd out2 and so some parts of the air may at one and the same time pattern out a sound and not repeat it1 and some may both pattern out1 and repeat it1 but some may neither pattern out1 nor repeat it1 and therefore the ,repetition1 not the bare ,patterning out is called ,eccho3 ,just as when two or more men do answer or mock each other1 and repeat each others words1 it is not necessary1 if there were a thousand standers by1 that they should all do the same4 ,and as for the figure presented in a ,looking-glass1 ,i cannot conceive it to be made by pressure and reaction2 for although there is both pressure and reaction in nature1 and those very frequent amongst natures ,parts1 yet they do neither make perception nor production1 although both pressure and reaction are made by corporeal self-motions2 ,wherefore the figure presented in a ,looking-glass1 or any other smooth glassie body1 is1 in my opinion1 onely made by the motions of the ,looking-glass1 which do both pattern out1 and present the figure of an external object in the ,glass3 ,but you will say1 why do not the motions of other bodies pattern out1 and present the figures of external objects1 as well as smooth glassie bodies do8 ,i answer1 they may pattern out external objects1 for any thing ,i know2 but the reason that their figures are not presented to our eyes1 lies partly in the presenting subject it self1 partly in our sight2 for it is observed1 that two things are chiefly required in a subject that will present the figure of an external object2 first it must be smooth1 even and glassie1 next it must not be transparent3 the first is manifest by experience2 for the subject being rough and uneven1 will never be able to present such a figure2 as for example1 ,a piece of steel rough and unpolished1 although it may perhaps pattern out the figure of an external object1 yet it will never present its figure1 but as soon as it is polished1 and made smooth and glassie1 the figure is presently perceived4 ,but this is to be observed1 that smooth and glassie bodies do not always pattern out exterior objects exactly1 but some better1 some worse2 like as ,painters have not all the same ingenuity2 neither do all eyes pattern out all objects exactly2 which proves that the perception of sight is not made by pressure and reaction1 otherwise there would be no difference1 but all eyes would see alike4 ,next ,i say1 it is observed1 that the subject which will present the figure of an external object1 must not be transparent2 the reason is1 that the figure of ,light being a substance of a piercing and penetrating quality1 hath more force on transparent1 then on other solid dark bodies1 and so disturbs the figure of an external object pattern'd out in a transparent body1 and quite over-masters it4 ,but you will say1 you have found by experience1 that if you hold a burning ,candle before a ,transparent-glass1 although it be in an open ,sun-light1 yet the figure of light and flame of the ,candle will clearly be seen in the ,glass4 ,i answer1 that it is an other thing with the figure of ,candle-light1 then of a duskish or dark body2 for a ,candle-light1 though it is not of the same sort as the ,suns light1 yet it is of the same nature and quality1 and therefore the ,candle-light doth resist and oppose the light of the ,sun1 so that it cannot have so much power over it1 as over the figures of other bodies patterned out and presented in ,transparent-glass4 ,lastly1 ,i say1 that the fault oftentimes lies in the perceptive motions of our sight1 which is evident by a plain and ,concave-glass2 for in a plain ,looking-glass1 the further you go from it1 the more your figure presented in the glass seems to draw backward2 and in a ,concave-glass1 the nearer you go to it1 the more seems your figure to come forth3 which effects are like as an house or tree appears to a ,traveller2 for1 as the man moves from the house or tree1 so the house or tree seems to move from the man2 or like one that sails upon a ,ship1 who imagines that the ,ship stands still1 and the ,land moves2 when as yet it is the ,man and the ,ship that moves1 and not the ,house1 or ,tree1 or the ,land2 so when a ,man turns round in a quick motion1 or when his head is dizzie1 he imagines the room or place1 where he is1 turns round4 ,wherefore it is the ,inherent ,perceptive motions in the ,eye1 and not the motions in the ,looking-glass1 which cause these effects4 ,and as for several figures that are presented in one glass1 it is absurd to imagine that so many several figures made by so many several motions should touch the eye2 certainly this would make such a disturbance1 if all figures were to enter or but to touch the eye1 as the eye would not perceive any of them1 at lead not distinctly2 ,wherefore it is most probable that the glass patterns out those figures1 and the sensitive corporeal motions in the eye take again a pattern from those figures patterned out by the glass1 and so make copies of copies2 but the reason why several figures are presented in one glass in several places1 is1 that two perfect figures cannot be in one point1 nor made by one motion1 but by several corporeal motions4 ,concerning a ,looking-glass1 made in the form or shape of a ,cylinder1 why it represents the figure of an external object in an other shape and posture then the object is1 the cause is the shape and form of the ,glass1 and not the patterning motions in the ,glass4 ,but this discourse belongs properly to the ,opticks1 wherefore ,i will leave it to those that are versed in that ,art1 to enquire and search more after the rational truth thereof4 ,in the mean time1 my opinion is1 that though the object is the occasion of the figure presented in a ,looking-glass1 yet the figure is made by the motions of the glass or body that presents it1 and that the figure of the glass perhaps may be patterned out as much by the motions of the object in its own substance1 as the figure of the object is patterned out and presented by the motions of the glass in its own body or substance4 ,and thus ,i conclude and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxvi4 ,,madam1 ,since ,i mentioned in my last that ,light did disturb the figures of ,external objects presented in ,transparent bodies2 you were pleased to ask1 ,whether light doth penetrate transparent bodies8 ,i answer1 for anything ,i know1 it may2 for when ,i consider the subtil1 piercing and penetrating nature of light1 ,i believe it doth2 but again1 when ,i consider that light is presented to our sight by transparent bodies onely1 and not by duskish and dark bodies1 and yet that those duskish bodies are more porous then the transparent bodies1 so that the light hath more passage to pass through them1 then through transparent bodies2 but that on the contrary1 those dark bodies1 as ,wood1 and the like1 do quite obscure the light1 when as transparent bodies1 as ,glass1 c4 transmit it1 ,i am half perswaded that the transparent bodies1 as ,glass1 rather present the ,light by patterning it out1 then by giving it passage3 ,also ,i am of a mind1 that the air in a room may pattern out the ,light from the ,glass1 for the ,light in a room doth not appear so clear as in the ,glass2 also if the ,glass be any way defective1 it doth not present the ,light so perfectly1 whereas1 if it were the penetration of light through the glass1 the light would pass through all sorts of glass alike1 which it doth not1 but is more clearly seen through some1 and more obscurely through others1 according to the goodness or purity of the glass4 ,but you may say1 that the light divulges the imperfection or goodness of the glass2 ,i answer1 so it doth of any other objects perceived by our sight2 for light is the presenter of objects to the sense and perception of sight1 and for any thing ,i know1 the corporeal optick motions make the figure of light1 the ground figure of all other figures patterned out by the corporeal optick motions1 as in dreams1 or when as some do see in the dark1 that is1 without the help of exterior light4 ,but you may say1 ,that if the glass and the air in a room did pattern out the figure of light1 those patterns of light would remain when light is absent3 ,i answer1 ,that is not usual in nature2 for when the object removes1 the ,pattern alters2 ,i will not say but that the corporeal optick motions may work by rote without objects1 but that is irregular1 as in some distempers4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 ,i have given you my opinion also to this your question2 if you have any more scruples1 ,i pray let me know of them1 and assure your self that ,i shall be ready upon all occasions to express my self1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 ,,xxvii4 ,,madam1 ,your desire is to know1 why sound is louder in a ,vault1 and in a large ,room then in a less8 ,i answer1 ,a ,vault or arched ,figure is the freest from obstruction1 as being without corners and points1 so as the sensitive and rational corporeal motions of the ,ear can have a better perception2 like as the ,eye can see farthest from a hill then being upon a level ground1 because the prospect is freer from the hill1 as without obstruction1 unless it be so cloudy that the clouds do hinder the perception2 ,and as the eye can have a better prospect upon a hill1 so the ear a stronger perception in a ,vault2 ,and as for sound1 that it is better perceived in a large1 then in a little close room or place1 it is somewhat like the perception of sent1 for the more the odorous parts are bruised1 the stronger is that perception of sent1 as being repeated double or treble1 which makes the perception stronger1 like as a thick body is stronger then a thin one2 ,so likewise the perception of sound in the air2 for though not all the parts of the air make repetitions1 yet some or many make patterns of the sound2 the truth is1 ,air is as industrious to divulge or present a sound1 by patterns to the ,ear1 as light doth objects to the ,eye4 ,but then you may ask me1 ,why a long hollow pipe doth convey a voice to the ear more readily1 then any large and open place8 ,my answer is1 ,that the ,parts of the air in a long pipe are more ,composed and not at liberty to wander1 so that upon necessity they must move onely to the patterning out of the sound1 having no choice1 which makes the sound much stronger1 and the perception of the ,ear perfecter2 ,but as for ,pipes1 ,vaults1 ,prospects1 as also figures presented in a room through a little hole1 inverted1 and many the like1 belongs more to ,artists then to my study1 for though ,natural ,philosophy gives or points out the ,ground1 and shews the reason1 yet it is the ,artist that ,works2 ,besides it is more proper for ,mathematicians to discourse of1 which study ,i am not versed in2 and so leaving it to them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxviii4 ,,madam1 ,from ,sound ,i am come to ,sent1 in the discourse whereof1 your ,author#a is pleased to set down these following propositions3 #a4 ,that smelling is hindred by cold and helped by heat3 #b4 ,that when the ,wind bloweth from the object1 the smell is the stronger1 and when it blows from the sentient towards the object1 the weaker1 which by experience is found in dogs1 that follow the track of beasts by the ,sent3 #c4 ,that such bodies as are last pervious to the fluid medium1 yield less smell then such as are more pervious3 #d4 ,that such bodies as are of their own nature odorous1 become yet more odorous1 when they are bruised3 #e4 ,that when the breath is stopped 7at least in man7 nothing can be smelt3 #f4 ,that the ,sense of smelling is also taken away by the stopping of the nostrils1 though the mouth be left open4 ,to begin from the last1 ,i say1 that the nose is like the other sensitive organs1 which if they be stopt1 the corporeal sensitive motions cannot take copies of the exterior objects1 and therefore must alter their action of patterning to some other1 for when the eye is shut and cannot perceive outward objects then it works to the ,sense of ,touch1 or on the inside of the organ to some phantasmes2 and so do the rest of the ,senses4 ,as for the stopping of breath1 why it hinders the ,sent1 the cause is1 that the nostrils and the mouth are the chief organs1 to receive air and to let out breath3 but though they be common passages for air and breath1 yet taste is onely made in the mouth and tongue1 and sent in the nose2 not by the pressure of meat1 and the odoriferous object1 but by patterning out the several figures or objects of sent and taste1 for the nose and the mouth will smell and taste one1 nay several things at the same time1 like as the eye will see light1 colour1 and other objects at once1 which ,i think can hardly be done by pressures2 and the reason is1 that the sensitive motions in the sensitive organs make patterns of several objects at one time1 which is the cause1 that when flowers1 and such like odoriferous bodies are bruised1 there are as many figures made as there are parts bruised or divided1 and by reason of so many figures the sensitive knowledg is stronger2 but that stones1 minerals1 and the like1 seem not so strong to our smell1 the reason is1 that their parts being close and united1 the sensitive motions in the organ cannot so readily perceive and pattern them out1 as those bodies which are more porous and divided4 ,but as for the wind blowing the sent either to or from the sentient1 it is like a window or door that by the motion of opening and shutting1 hinders or disturbeth the sight2 for bodies coming between the object and the organ1 make a stop of that perception4 ,and as for the ,dogs smelling out the track of ,beasts1 the cause is1 that the earth or ground hath taken a copy of that sent1 which copy the sensitive motions in the nose of the ,dog do pattern out1 and so long as that figure or copy lasts1 the ,dog perceives the sent1 but if he doth not follow or hunt readily1 then there is either no perfect copy made by the ground1 or otherwise he cannot find it1 which causes him to seek and smell about until he hath it2 and thus smell is not made by the motion of the air1 but by the figuring motions in the nose3 ,where it is also to be observed1 that not onely the motions in one1 but in millions of noses1 may pattern out one little object at one time1 and therefore it is not1 that the object of sent fills a room by sending out the sent from its substance1 but that so many figures are made of that object of sent by so many several sensitive motions1 which pattern the same out2 and so the air1 or ground1 or any other creature1 whose sensitive motions pattern out the object of sent1 may perceive the same1 although their sensitive organs are not like to those of animal ,creatures2 for if there be but such sensitive motions and perceptions1 it is no matter for such organs4 ,lastly1 it is to be observed1 ,that all ,creatures have not the same strength of smelling1 but some smell stronger1 some weaker1 according to the disposition of their sensitive motions3 ,also there be other parts in the body1 which pattern out the object of sent1 besides the nose1 but those are interior parts1 and take their patterns from the nose as the organ properly designed for it2 neither is their resentment the same1 because their motions are not alike1 for the stomack may perceive and pattern out a sent with aversion1 when the nose may pattern it out with pleasure4 ,and thus much also of ,sent2 ,i conclude and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #bi4 art4 #ab4 ,,xxix4 ,,madam1 ,concerning your ,learned ,authors discourse of ,density and ,rarity1 he defines#a ,thick to be that1 which takes up more parts of a space given2 and thin1 which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude3 not that there is more matter in one place then in an other equal place1 but a greater quantity of some named body2 wherefore the multitude and paucity of the parts contained within the same space do constitute density and rarity4 ,whereof my opinion is1 ,that there is no more nor less space or place then body according to its dilation or contraction1 and that space and place are dilated and contracted with the body1 according to the magnitude of the body1 for body1 place and magnitude are the same thing1 only place is in regard of the several parts of the body1 and there is as well space betwixt things distant a hairs breadth from one another1 as betwixt things distant a million of miles1 but yet this space is nothing from the body2 but it makes1 that that body has not the same place with this body1 that is1 that this body is not that body1 and that this bodies place is not that bodies place4 ,next your ,author sayes1#b ,he hath already clearly enough demonstrated1 that there can be no beginning of motion1 but from an external and moved body1 and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards cannot be cast down again1 but by external motion4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i will not speak of your ,authors demonstrations1 for it is done most by art1 which ,i have no knowledg in1 but ,i think ,i have probably declared1 that all the actions of nature are not forced by one part1 driving1 pressing1 or shoving another1 as a man doth a wheel-barrow1 or a whip a horse2 nor by reactions1 as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs1 or as men with carts meeting each other in a narrow lane4 ,but to prove there is no self-motion in nature1 he goes on and says2 ,to attribute to created bodies the power to move themselves1 what is it else1 then to say that there be creatures which have no dependance upon the ,creator8 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that if man 7who is but a single part of nature7 hath given him by ,god the power and a free will of moving himself1 why should not ,god give it to ,nature8 ,neither can ,i see1 how it can take off the dependance upon ,god1 more then ,eternity2 for1 if there be an ,eternal ,creator1 there is also an ,eternal ,creature1 and if an ,eternal ,master1 an ,eternal ,servant1 which is ,nature2 and yet ,nature is subject to ,gods ,command1 and depends upon him2 and if all ,gods ,attributes be ,infinite1 then his ,bounty is ,infinite also1 which cannot be exercised but by an ,infinite ,gift1 but a ,gift doth not cause a less dependance4 ,i do not say1 ,that man hath an absolute ,free-will1 or power to move1 according to his desire2 for it is not conceived1 that a part can have an absolute power3 nevertheless his motion both of body and mind is a free and self-motion1 and such a self-motion hath every thing in ,nature according to its figure or shape2 for motion and figure1 being inherent in matter1 matter moves figuratively4 ,yet do ,i not say1 ,that there is no hindrance1 obstruction and opposition in nature2 but as there is no particular ,creature1 that hath an absolute power of self-moving2 so that ,creature which hath the advantage of strength1 subtilty1 or policy1 shape1 or figure1 and the like1 may oppose and over-power another which is inferior to it1 in all this2 yet this hinderance and opposition doth not take away self-motion4 ,but ,i perceive your ,author is much for necessitation1 and against free-will1 which ,i leave to ,moral ,philosophers and ,divines4 ,and as for the ascending of light1 and descending of heavy bodies1 there may be many causes1 but these four are perceiveable by our senses1 as bulk1 or quantity of body1 grossness of substance1 density1 and shape or figure1 which make heavy bodies descend3 ,but little quantity1 purity of substance1 rarity1 and figure or shape make light bodies ascend4 ,wherefore ,i cannot believe1 that there are#c certain little bodies as atoms1 and by reason of their smallness1 invisible1 differing from one another in consistence1 figure1 motion and magnitude1 intermingled with the air1 which should be the cause of the descending of heavy bodies4 ,and concerning air1#d whether it be subject to our senses or not1 ,i say1 that if air be neither hot1 nor cold1 it is not subject2 but if it be1 the sensitive motions will soon pattern it out1 and declare it4 ,i'le conclude with your ,authors question1#e ,what the cause is1 that a man doth not feel the weight of ,water in ,water8 and answer1 it is the dilating nature of ,water4 ,but of this question and of ,water ,i shall treat more fully hereafter1 and so ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,c4 #cj4 a4 #a4 #b ,art4 #b4 #c ,art4 #c4 #d ,art4 #ad4 #e ,art4 #f4 ,,xxx4 ,,madam1 ,i am reading now the works of that ,famous and most ,renowned ,author1 ,des ,cartes1 out of which ,i intend to pick out onely those discourses which ,i like best1 and not to examine his opinions1 as they go along from the beginning to the end of his books2 ,and in order to this1 ,i have chosen in the first place1 his discourse of motion1 and do not assent to his opinion1#a when he defines ,motion to be onely a ,mode of a thing1 and not the thing or body it selfe2 for1 in my opinion1 there can be no abstraction made of motion from body1 neither really1 nor in the manner of our conception1 for how can ,i conceive that which is not1 nor cannot be in nature1 that is1 to conceive motion without body8 ,wherefore ,motion is but one thing with body1 without any separation or abstraction soever4 ,neither doth it agree with my reason1 that#b one body can give or transferr motion into another body2 and as much motion it gives or transfers into that body1 as much loses it3 ,as for example1 in two hard bodies thrown against one another1 where one1 that is thrown with greater force1 takes the other along with it1 and loses as much motion as it gives it4 ,for how can motion1 being no substance1 but onely a mode1 quit one body1 and pass into another8 ,one body may either occasion1 or imitate anothers motion1 but it can neither give nor take away what belongs to its own or another bodies substance1 no more then matter can quit its nature from being matter2 and therefore my opinion is1 that if motion doth go out of one body into another1 then substance goes too2 for motion1 and substance or body1 as afore-mentioned1 are all one thing1 and then all bodies that receive motion from other bodies1 must needs increase in their substance and quantity1 and those bodies which impart or transferr motion1 must decrease as much as they increase3 ,truly1 ,madam1 that neither ,motion nor ,figure should subsist by themselves1 and yet be transferable into other bodies1 is very strange1 and as much as to prove them to be nothing1 and yet to say they are something4 ,the like may be said of all others1 which they call accidents1 as skill1 learning1 knowledge1 c4 saying1 they are no bodies1 because they have no extension1 but inherent in bodies or substances as in their subjects2 for although the body may subsist without them1 yet they being always with the body1 body and they are all one thing3 ,and so is power and body1 for body cannot quit power1 nor power the body1 being all one thing4 ,but to return to ,motion1 my opinion is1 ,that all matter is partly animate1 and partly inanimate1 and all matter is moving and moved1 and that there is no part of ,nature that hath not life and knowledg1 for there is no ,part that has not a comixture of animate and inanimate matter2 and though the inanimate matter has no motion1 nor life and knowledg of it self1 as the animate has1 nevertheless being both so closely joyned and commixed as in one body1 the inanimate moves as well as the animate1 although not in the same manner2 for the animate moves of it self1 and the inanimate moves by the help of the animate1 and thus the animate is moving and the inanimate moved2 not that the animate matter transfers1 infuses1 or communicates its own motion to the inanimate2 for this is impossible1 by reason it cannot part with its own nature1 nor alter the nature of inanimate matter1 but each retains its own nature2 for the inanimate matter remains inanimate1 that is1 without self-motion1 and the animate loses nothing of its self-motion1 which otherwise it would1 if it should impart or transferr its motion into the inanimate matter2 but onely as ,i said heretofore1 the inanimate works or moves with the animate1 because of their close union and commixture2 for the animate forces or causes the inanimate matter to work with her2 and thus one is moving1 the other moved1 and consequently there is life and knowledg in all parts of nature1 by reason in all parts of nature there is a commixture of animate and inanimate matter3 and this ,life and ,knowledg is sense and reason1 or sensitive and rational corporeal motions1 which are all one thing with animate matter without any distinction or abstraction1 and can no more quit matter1 then matter can quit motion4 ,wherefore every creature being composed of this commixture of animate and inanimate matter1 has also selfe-motion1 that is life and knowledg1 sense and reason1 so that no part hath need to give or receive motion to or from another part2 although it may be an occasion of such a manner of motion to another part1 and cause it to move thus or thus3 as for example1 ,a ,watch-maker doth not give the watch its motion1 but he is onely the occasion1 that the watch moves after that manner1 for the motion of the watch is the watches own motion1 inherent in those parts ever since that matter was1 and if the watch ceases to move after such a manner or way1 that manner or way of motion is never the less in those parts of matter1 the watch is made of1 and if several other figures should be made of that matter1 the power of moving in the said manner or mode1 would yet still remain in all those parts of matter as long as they are body1 and have motion in them4 ,wherefore one body may occasion another body to move so or so1 but not give it any motion1 but every body 7though occasioned by another1 to move in such a way7 moves by its own natural motion2 for self-motion is the very nature of animate matter1 and is as much in hard1 as in fluid bodies1 although your ,author denies it1 saying1#c ,the nature of fluid bodies consists in the motion of those little insensible parts into which they are divided1 and the nature of hard bodies1 when those little particles joyned closely together1 do rest2 for there is no rest in nature2 wherefore if there were a ,world of ,gold1 and a ,world of ,air1 ,i do verily believe1 that the ,world of ,gold would be as much interiously active1 as the ,world of ,air exteriously2 for ,natures motions are not all external or perceptible by our senses1 neither are they all circular1 or onely of one sort1 but there is an infinite change and variety of motions2 for though ,i say in my ,philosophical opinions1#d ,as there is but one onely ,matter1 so there is but one onely ,motion2 yet ,i do not mean1 there is but one particular sort of motions1 as either circular1 or straight1 or the like1 but that the nature of motion is one and the same1 simple and intire in it self1 that is1 it is meer motion1 or nothing else but corporeal motion2 and that as there are infinite divisions or parts of matter1 so there are infinite changes and varieties of motions1 which is the reason that ,i call motion as well infinite as matter2 first that matter and motion are but one thing1 and if matter be infinite1 motion must be so too2 and secondly1 that motion is infinite in its changes and variations1 as matter is in its parts4 ,and thus much of motion for this time2 ,i add no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,philos4 p4 #b4 ,art4 #be4 #b ,art4 #dj4 #c ,philos4 part4 #b4 a4 #ed4 #d ,part4 #a4 c4 #e4 ,,xxxi4 ,,madam1 ,i observe your ,author in his discourse of ,place makes a difference#a betwixt an ,interior and ,exterior place1 and that according to this distinction1 one body may be said to change1 and not to change its place at the same time1 and that one body may succeed into anothers place4 ,but ,i am not of this opinion1 for ,i believe not that there is any more place then body2 as for example1 ,water being mix'd with ,earth1 the water doth not take the ,earths place1 but as their parts intermix1 so do their places1 and as their parts change1 so do their places1 so that there is no more place1 then there is water and earth2 the same may be said of ,air and ,water1 or ,air and ,earth1 or did they all mix together2 for as their bodies join1 so do their places1 and as they are separated from each other1 so are their places4 ,say a man travels a hundred miles1 and so a hundred thousand paces2 but yet this man has not been in a hundred thousand places1 for he never had any other place but his own1 he hath joined and separated himselfe from a hundred thousand1 nay millions of parts1 but he has left no places behind him4 ,you will say1 if he travel the same way back again1 then he is said to travel thorow the same places4 ,i answer1 ,it may be the vulgar way of expression1 or the common phrase2 but to speak properly1 after a ,philosophical way1 and according to the truth in nature1 he cannot be said to go back again thorow the same places he went1 because he left none behind him1 or els all his way would be nothing but place after place1 all the hundred miles along2 besides if place should be taken so1 as to express the joyning to the neerest bodies which compass him about1 certainly he would never find his places again2 for the air being fluid1 changes or moves continually1 and perchance the same parts of the air1 which compassed him once1 will never come near him again4 ,but you may say1 ,if a man be hurt1 or hath some mischance in his body1 so as to have a piece of flesh cut out1 and new flesh growing there2 then we say1 because the adjoyning parts do not change1 that a new piece of flesh is grown in the same place where the former flesh was1 and that the place of the former flesh cut or fallen out1 is the same of this new grown flesh4 ,i answer1 ,in my opinion1 it is not1 for the parts being not the same1 the places are not1 but every one hath its own place4 ,but if the wound be not filled or closed up with other new flesh1 you will say1 that according to my opinion there is no place then at all4 ,i say1 ,yes1 for the air or any thing else may be there1 as new parts joyning to the other parts2 nevertheless1 the air1 or that same body which is there1 hath not taken the fleshes place1 which was there before1 but hath its own2 but1 by reason the adjoyning parts remain1 man thinks the place remains there also which is no consequence4 ',tis true1 a man may return to the same adjoining bodies1 where he was before1 but then he brings his place with him again1 and as his body1 so his place returnes also1 and if a mans arm be cut off1 you may say1 there was an arm heretofore1 but you cannot say properly1 this is the place where the arm was4 ,but to return to my first example of the mixture of ,water1 and ,earth or ,air2 ,suppose water is not porous1 but onely dividable1 and hath no other place but what is its own bodies1 and that other parts of water intermix with it by dividing and composing2 ,i say1 there is no more place required1 then what belongs to their own parts1 for if some contract1 others dilate1 some divide1 others joyn1 the places are the same according to the magnitude of each part or body4 ,the same may be said of all kinds or sorts of mixtures1 for one body hath but one place2 and so if many parts of the same nature joyn into one body and increase the bulk of the body1 the place of that same body is accordingly2 and if they be bodies of different natures which intermix and joyne1 each several keeps its place2 ,and so each body and each particular part of a body hath its place1 for you cannot name body or part of a body1 but you must also understand place to be with them1 and if a point should dilate to a world1 or a world contract to a point1 the place would always be the same with the body4 ,and thus ,i have declared my opinion of this subject1 which ,i submit to the correction of your better judgment1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,philos4 p4 #b4 a4 #aj1 #aa1 #ab1 #ac1 #ad4 ,,xxxii4 ,,madam1 ,in my last1 ,i hope1 ,i have sufficiently declared my opinion1 ,that to one body belongs but one place1 and that no body can leave a place behind it1 but wheresoever is body1 there is place also4 ,now give me leave to examine this question3 when a bodies figure is printed on snow1 or any other fluid or soft matter1 as air1 water1 and the like2 whether it be the body1 that prints its own figure upon the snow1 or whether it be the snow1 that patterns the figure of the body8 ,my answer is1 ,that it is not the body1 which prints its figure upon the snow1 but the snow that patterns out the figure of the body2 for if a seal be printed upon wax1 'tis true1 it is the figure of the seal1 which is printed on the wax1 but yet the seal doth not give the wax the print of its own figure1 but it is the wax that takes the print or pattern from the seal1 and patterns or copies it out in its own substance1 just as the sensitive motions in the eye do pattern out the figure of an object1 as ,i have declared heretofore4 ,but you will say1 perhaps1 ,a body being printed upon snow1 as it leaves its print1 so it leaves also its place with the print in the snow4 ,i answer1 ,that doth not follow2 ,for the place remains still the bodies place1 and when the body removes out of the snow1 it takes its place along with it3 ,just like a man1 whose picture is drawn by a ,painter1 when he goes away1 he leaves not his place with his picture1 but his place goes with his body2 and as the place of the picture is the place of the colour or paint1 and the place of the copie of an exterior object patterned out by the sensitive corporeal motions is the place of the sensitive organ1 so the place of the print in snow1 is the snows place2 or else1 if the print were the bodies place that is printed1 and not the snow's1 it might as well be said1 that the motion and shape of a watch were not the motion and shape of the watch1 but of the hand of him that made it4 ,and as it is with snow1 so it is with air1 for a mans figure is patterned out by the parts and motions of the air1 wheresoever he moveth2 the difference is onely1 that air being a fluid body doth not retain the print so long1 as snow or a harder body doth1 but when the body removes1 the print is presently dissolved4 ,but ,i wonder much1 your ,author denies1 that there can be two bodies in one place1 and yet makes two places for one body1 when all is but the motions of one body3 ,wherefore a man sailing in a ,ship1 cannot be said to keep place1 and to change his place2 for it is not place he changes1 but onely the adjoyning parts1 as leaving some1 and joyning to others2 and it is very improper1 to attribute that to place which belongs to parts1 and to make a change of place out of change of parts4 ,i conclude1 repeating once again1 that figure and place are still remaining the same with body2 ,for example2 let a stone be beat to dust1 and this dust be severally dispersed1 nay1 changed into numerous figures2 ,i say1 as long as the substance of the stone remains in the power of those dispersed and changed parts1 and their corporeal motions1 the place of it continues also2 and as the corporeal motions change and vary1 so doth place1 magnitude and figure1 together with their parts or bodies1 for they are but one thing4 ,and so ,i conclude1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxxiii4 ,,madam1 ,i am absolutely of your ,authors opinion1 when he sayes1#a ,that all bodies of this ,universe are of one and the same matter1 really divided into many parts1 and that these parts are diversly moved3 ,but that these motions should be circular more then of any other sort1 ,i cannot believe1 although he thinks that this is the most probable way1 to find out the causes of natural effects3 for nature is not bound to one sort of motions more then to another1 and it is but in vain to indeavour to know how1 and by what motions ,god did make the ,world1 since ,creation is an action of ,god1 and ,gods actions are incomprehensible2 ,wherefore his thereal ,whirlpools1 and little particles of matter1 which he reduceth to three sorts and calls them the three elements of the ,universe1 their circular motions1 several figures1 shavings1 and many the like1 which you may better read1 then ,i rehearse to you1 are to my thinking1 rather ,fancies1 then rational or probable conceptions2 for how can we imagine that the ,universe was set a moving as a ,top by a ,whip1 or a ,wheele by the hand of a ,spinster1 and that the vacuities were fill'd up with shavings8 for these violent motions would rather have disturbed and disordered ,nature2 and though ,nature uses variety in her motions or actions1 yet these are not extravagant1 nor by force or violence1 but orderly1 temperate1 free1 and easie1 which causes me to believe1 the ,earth turns about rather then the ,sun2 and though corporeal motions for variety make ,whirl-winds1 yet ,whirl-winds are not constant1 ,neither can ,i believe that the swiftness of motion could make the matter more subtil and pure then it was by nature1 for it is the purity and subtilty of the matter1 that causes motion1 and makes it swifter or slower1 and not motion the subtilty and purity of matter2 motion being onely the action of matter2 and the self-moving part of matter is the working part of nature1 which is wise1 and knows how to move and form every creature without instruction2 and this self-motion is as much her own as the other parts of her body1 matter and figure1 and is one and the same with her self1 as a corporeal1 living1 knowing1 and inseparable being1 and a part of her self4 ,as for the several parts of matter1 ,i do believe1 that they are not all of one and the same bigness1 nor of one and the same figure1 neither do ,i hold their figures to be unalterable2 for if all parts in nature be corporeal1 they are dividable1 composable1 and intermixable1 and then they cannot be always of one and the same sort of figure2 besides nature would not have so much work if there were no change of figures3 and since her onely action is change of motion1 change of motion must needs make change of figures3 and thus natural parts of matter may change from lines to points1 and from points to lines1 from squares to circles1 and so forth1 infinite ways1 according to the change of motions2 but though they change their figures1 yet they cannot change their matter2 for matter as it has been1 so it remaines constantly in each degree1 as the ,rational1 ,sensitive and ,inanimate1 none becomes purer1 none grosser then ever it was1 notwithstanding the infinite changes of motions1 which their figures undergo2 for ,motion changes onely the figure1 not the matter it self1 which continues still the same in its nature1 and cannot be altered without a confusion or destruction of ,nature4 ,and this is the constant opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,philos4 part4 #c4 a4 #dj4 ,,xxxiv4 ,,madam1 ,that ,rarefaction is onely a change of figure1 according to your ,authors opinion1#a is in my reason very probable2 but when he sayes1 that in rarified bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with some other subtil matter1 if he means that all rarified bodies are porous1 ,i dissent from him2 for it is not necessary that all rarified bodies should be porous1 and all hard bodies without pores3 but if there were a probability of pores1 ,i am of opinion1 it would be more in dense and hard1 than in rare and soft bodies2 as for example1 rarifying and dilating motions are plaining1 smoothing1 spreading and making all parts even1 which could not well be1 if there were holes or pores2 ,earth is dense and hard1 and yet is porous1 and flame is rare and dilating1 and yet is not porous2 and certainly ,water is not so porous as ,earth4 ,wherefore pores1 in my opinion1 are according to the nature or form of the figure1 and not according to the rarity or thinness1 and density or thickness of the substance4 ,as for his thin and subtil matter filling up the pores of porous bodies1 ,i assent to your ,author so far1 that ,i meane1 thin and thick1 or rare and dense substances are joyned and mixed together4 ,as for plaining1 smoothing and spreading1 ,i do not mean so much artificial plaining and spreading2 as for example1 when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate1 and a board is made plain and smooth by a ,joyners tool1 or a napkin folded up is spread plain and even1 although1 when you observe these arts1 you may judge somewhat of the nature of natural dilations2 for a folded cloth is fuller of creases then when plain1 and the beating of a thin plate is like to the motion of dilation1 which is to spread out1 and the forme of rarifying is thinning and extending4 ,i add onely this1 that ,i am not of your ,authors opinion1 that ,rest is the ,cause or ,glue which keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together1 but it is retentive motions4 ,and so ,i conclude1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,philos4 part4 #b4 a4 #f1 #g4 ,,xxxv4 ,,madam1 ,that the ,mind1 according to your ,authors opinion1 is a substance really distinct from the body1 and may be actually separated from it and subsist without it3 ,if he mean the natural mind and soul of ,man1 not the supernatural or divine1 ,i am far from his opinion2 for though the mind moveth onely in its own parts1 and not upon1 or with the parts of inanimate matter1 yet it cannot be separated from these parts of matter1 and subsist by its self as being a part of one and the same matter the inanimate is of1 7for there is but one onely matter1 and one kind of matter1 although of several degrees17 onely it is the self-moving part2 but yet this cannot impower it1 to quit the same natural body1 whose part it is4 ,neither can ,i apprehend1 that the ,mind's or ,soul's seat should be in the ,glandula or kernel of the ,brain1 and there sit like a ,spider in a ,cobweb1 to whom the least motion of the ,cobweb gives intelligence of a ,flye1 which he is ready to assault1 and that the ,brain should get intelligence by the animal spirits as his servants1 which run to and fro like ,ants to inform it2 or that the ,mind should1 according to others opinions1 be a light1 and imbroidered all with ,ideas1 like a ,heraulds ,coat2 and that the sensitive organs should have no knowledg in themselves1 but serve onely like peeping-holes for the mind1 or barn-dores to receive bundles of pressures1 like sheaves of ,corn2 ,for there being a thorow mixture of animate1 rational and sensitive1 and inanimate matter1 we cannot assign a certain seat or place to the rational1 another to the sensitive1 and another to the inanimate1 but they are diffused and intermixt throughout all the body2 ,and this is the reason1 that sense and knowledg cannot be bound onely to the head or brain2 ,but although they are mixt together1 nevertheless they do not lose their interior nature1 by this mixture1 nor their purity and subtilty1 nor their proper motions or actions1 but each moves according to its nature and substance1 without confusion2 ,the actions of the rational part in ,man1 which is the ,mind or ,soul1 are called ,thoughts1 or thoughtful perceptions1 which are numerous1 and so are the sensitive perceptions2 for though ,man1 or any other animal hath but five exterior sensitive organs1 yet there be numerous perceptions made in these sensitive organs1 and in all the body2 nay1 every several ,pore of the flesh is a sensitive organ1 as well as the ,eye1 or the ,ear4 ,but both sorts1 as well the rational as the sensitive1 are different from each other1 although both do resemble another1 as being both parts of animate matter1 as ,i have mentioned before3 ,wherefore ,i'le add no more1 onely let you know1 that ,i constantly remain1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 ,,xxxvi4 ,,madam1 ,that all other animals1 besides man1 want reason1 your ,author endeavours to prove in his discourse of method1 where his chief argument is1 ,that other animals cannot express their mind1 thoughts or conceptions1 either by speech or any other signs1 as man can do3 ,for1 sayes he1 it is not for want of the organs belonging to the framing of words1 as we may observe in ,parrats and ,pies1 which are apt enough to express words they are taught1 but understand nothing of them4 ,my answer is1 ,that one man expressing his mind by speech or words to an other1 doth not declare by it his excellency and supremacy above all other ,creatures1 but for the most part more folly1 for a talking man is not so wise as a contemplating man4 ,but by reason other ,creatures cannot speak or discourse with each other as men1 or make certain signs1 whereby to express themselves as dumb and deaf men do1 should we conclude1 they have neither knowledge1 sense1 reason1 or intelligence8 ,certainly1 this is a very weak argument2 for one part of a mans body1 as one hand1 is not less sensible then the other1 nor the heel less sensible then the heart1 nor the legg less sensible then the head1 but each part hath its sense and reason1 and so consequently its sensitive and rational knowledg2 and although they cannot talk or give intelligence to each other by speech1 nevertheless each hath its own peculiar and particular knowledge1 just as each particular man has his own particular knowledge1 for one man's knowledge is not another man's knowledge2 and if there be such a peculiar and particular knowledg in every several part of one animal creature1 as man1 well may there be such in ,creatures of different kinds and sorts3 ,but this particular knowledg belonging to each creature1 doth not prove that there is no intelligence at all betwixt them1 no more then the want of humane ,knowledg doth prove the want of ,reason2 for ,reason is the rational part of matter1 and makes perception1 observation1 and intelligence different in every creature1 and every sort of creatures1 according to their proper natures1 but perception1 observation and intelligence do not make reason1 ,reason being the cause1 and they the effects4 ,wherefore though other ,creatures have not the speech1 nor ,mathematical rules and demonstrations1 with other ,arts and ,sciences1 as ,men2 yet may their perceptions and observations be as wise as ,men's1 and they may have as much intelligence and commerce betwixt each other1 after their own manner and way1 as men have after theirs3 ,to which ,i leave them1 and ,man to his conceited prerogative and excellence1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 ,,xxxvii4 ,,madam1 ,concerning ,sense and ,perception1 your ,authors opinion is1#a ,that it is made by a motion or impression from the object upon the sensitive organ1 which impression1 by means of the nerves1 is brought to the brain1 and so to the mind or soul1 which onely perceives in the brain3 ,explaining it by the example#b of a ,man being blind1 or walking in dark1 who by the help of his stick can perceive when he touches a ,stone1 a ,tree1 ,water1 ,sand1 and the like2 which example he brings to make a comparison with the perception of ,light2 ,for1 says he1 ,light in a shining body1 is nothing else but a quick and lively motion or action1 which through the air and other transparent bodies tends towards the eye1 in the same manner as the motion or resistance of the bodies1 the blind man meets withal1 tends thorow the stick towards the hand2 wherefore it is no wonder that the ,sun can display its rays so far in an instant1 seeing that the same action1 whereby one end of the stick is moved1 goes instantly also to the other end1 and would do the same if the stick were as long as ,heaven is distant from ,earth4 ,to which ,i answer first1 ,that it is not onely the ,mind that perceives in the kernel of the ,brain1 but that there is a double perception1 rational and sensitive1 and that the mind perceives by the rational1 but the body and the sensitive organs by the sensitive perception2 and as there is a double perception1 so there is also a double knowledg1 rational and sensitive1 one belonging to the mind1 the other to the body2 for ,i believe that the ,eye1 ,ear1 ,nose1 ,tongue1 and all the ,body1 have knowledg as well as the ,mind1 onely the rational matter1 being subtil and pure1 is not incumbred with the grosser part of matter1 to work upon1 or with it1 but leaves that to the sensitive1 and works or moves onely in its own substance1 which makes a difference between thoughts1 and exterior senses4 ,next ,i say1 ,that it is not the ,motion or ,reaction of the bodies1 the blind man meets withal1 which makes the sensitive perception of these objects1 but the sensitive corporeal motions in the hand do pattern out the figure of the ,stick1 ,stone1 ,tree1 ,sand1 and the like4 ,and as for comparing the perception of the hand1 when by the help of the stick it perceives the objects1 with the perception of light1 ,i confess that the sensitive perceptions do all resemble each other1 because all sensitive parts of matter are of one degree1 as being sensible parts1 onely there is a difference according to the figures of the objects presented to the senses2 and there is no better proof for perception being made by the sensitive motions in the body1 or sensitive organs1 but that all these sensitive perceptions are alike1 and resemble one another2 for if they were not made in the body of the sentient1 but by the impression of exterior objects1 there would be so much difference betwixt them1 by reason of the diversity of objects1 as they would have no resemblance at all4 ,but for a further proof of my own opinion1 did the perception proceed meerly from the motion1 impression and resistance of the objects1 the hand could not perceive those objects1 unless they touched the hand it self1 as the stick doth2 for it is not probable1 that the motions of the stone1 water1 sand1 c4 should leave their bodies and enter into the stick1 and so into the hand2 for motion must be either something or nothing2 if something1 the stick and the hand would grow bigger1 and the objects touched less1 or else the touching and the touched must exchange their motions1 which cannot be done so suddenly1 especially between solid bodies2 ,but if motion has no body1 it is nothing1 and how nothing can pass or enter or move some body1 ,i cannot conceive4 ',tis true there is no part that can subsist singly by it self1 without dependance upon each other1 and so parts do always joyn and touch each other1 which ,i am not against2 but onely ,i say perception is not made by the exterior motions of exterior parts of objects1 but by the interior motions of the parts of the body sentient4 ,but ,i have discoursed hereof before1 and so ,i take my leave1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,philos4 part4 #d4 a4 #ahi4 #b ,diopt4 c4 #a4 a4 #b1 #c4 c4 #d4 a4 #a4 ,,xxxviii4 ,,madam1 ,i cannot conceive why your ,author is so much for little and insensible parts1 out of which the ,elements and all other bodies are made2 for though ,nature is divideable1 yet she is also composeable2 and ,i think there is no need to dissect every creature into such little parts1 to know their nature1 but we can do it by another way as well2 for we may dissect or divide them into never so little parts1 and yet gain never the more knowledg by it4 ,but according to these principles he describing amongst the rest the nature of ,water1 says1#a ,that those little parts1 out of which ,water consists1 are in figure somewhat long1 light and slippery like little ,eeles1 which are never so closely joyned and entangled1 but may easily be separated4 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that ,i observe the nature and figure of water to be flowing1 dilating1 divideable and circular2 for we may see1 in ,tides1 overflowings1 and breaking into parts1 as in rain1 it will always move in a round and circular figure2 ,and ,i think1 if its parts were long and entangled like a knot of ,eeles1 it could never be so easily contracted and denced into snow or ice4 ,neither do ,i think1 ,that ,salt-water hath a mixture of somewhat grosser parts1 not so apt to bend2#b for to my observation and reason1 the nature of salt-water consists herein1 that its circle-lines are pointed1 which sharp and pointed figure makes it so penetrating2 yet may those points be separated from the circle lines of water1 as it is seen in the making of ,salt4 ,but ,i am not of your ,authors opinion1 ,that those little points do stick so fast in flesh1 as little nails1 to keep it from putrefaction2 for points do not always fasten2 or else fire1 which certainly is composed of sharp-pointed parts1 would harden1 and keep other bodies from dissolving1 whereas on the contrary1 it separates and divides them1 although after several manners4 ,but ,putrefaction is onely a dissolving and separating of parts1 after the manner of dilation2 and the motion of salt is contracting as well as penetrating1 for we may observe1 what flesh soever is dry-salted1 doth shrink and contract close together2 ,i will not say1 but the pointed parts of salt may fasten like nayls in some sorts of bodies1 but not in all they work on4 ,and this is the reason also1 that ,sea-water is of more weight then fresh-water1 for being composed of points1 those points stick within each other1 and so become more strong2 ,but yet do they not hinder the circular dilating motion of water1 for the circle-lines are within1 and the points without1 but onely they make it more strong from being divided by other exterior bodies that swim upon it4 ,and this is the cause that ,salt-water is not so easily forced or turned to vapour1 as ,fresh1 for the points piercing into each other1 hold it more strongly together2 but this is to be considered1 that the points of salt are on the outside of the watery ,circle1 not on the inside1 which causes it to be divideable from the watery ,circles4 ,i will conclude1 when ,i have given the reason why water is so soon suckt up by sand1 lime1 and the like bodies1 and say that it is the nature of all spongy1 dry and porous bodies1 meeting with liquid and pliable bodies as water1 do draw and suck them up1 like as animal ,creatures being thirsty1 do drink3 ,and so ,i take my leave1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of ,meteor4 c4 #a4 a4 #c4 #b ,c4 #c4 a4 #a4 ,,xxxix4 ,,madam1 ,concerning ,vapour1 ,clouds1 ,wind and ,rain1 ,i am of your ,authors opinion1#a ,that ,water is changed into ,vapour1 and ,vapour into ,air1 and that dilated ,vapours make ,wind1 and condensed ,vapours1 ,clouds and ,mists2 ,but ,i am not for his little particles1 whereof1 he says1 ,vapours are made1 by the motion of a rare and subtil matter in the pores of terrestrial bodies2 which certainly ,i should conceive to be loose atoms1 did he not make them of several figures and magnitude3 for1 in my opinion1 there are no such things in nature1 which like little ,flyes or ,bees do fly up into the air2 and although ,i grant1 that in ,nature are several parts1 whereof some are more rare1 others more dense1 according to the several degrees of matter1 yet they are not single1 but all mixt together in one body1 and the change of motions in those joyned parts1 is the cause of all changes of figures whatever1 without the assistance of any forreign parts3 ,and thus ,water of it self is changed to ,snow1 ,ice1 or ,hail1 by its inherent figurative ,motions2 that is1 the circular dilation of ,water by contraction1 changes into the figure of ,snow1 ,ice1 or ,hail or by rarifying motions it turns into the figure of ,vapour1 and this ,vapour again by contracting motions into the figure of hoar frost2 and when all these motions change again into the former1 then the figure of ,ice1 ,snow1 ,hail1 ,vapour and ,frost1 turns again into the figure of ,water3 ,and this in all sense and reason is the most facil and probable way of making ,ice1 ,snow1 ,hail1 c4 ,as for rarefaction and condensation1 ,i will not say that they may be forced by forreign parts1 but yet they are made by change and alteration of the inherent motions of their own parts1 for though the motions of forreign parts1 may be the occasion of them1 yet they are not the immediate cause or actors thereof4 ,and as for ,thunder1 that clouds of ,ice and ,snow1 the uppermost being condensed by heat1 and so made heavy1 should fall upon another and produce the noise of thunder1 is very improbable2 for the breaking of a little small string1 will make a greater noise then a huge shower of snow with falling1 and as for ,ice being hard1 it may make a great noise1 one part falling upon another1 but then their weight would be as much as their noise1 so that the clouds or roves of ,ice would be as soon upon our heads1 if not sooner1 as the noise in our ,eares2 like as a bullet shot out of a ,canon1 we may feel the bullet as soon as we hear the noise4 ,but to conclude1 all densations are not made by heat1 nor all noises by pressures1 for sound is oftener made by division then pressure1 and densation by cold then by heat3 ,and this is all for the present1 from1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,of ,meteor41 c4 #b1 #d1 #e1 #f4 ,,xl4 ,,madam1 ,i cannot perceive the ,rational ,truth of your ,authors opinion1 concerning ,colours1 made by the agitation of little spherical bodies of an thereal matter1 transmitting the action of ,light2 for if colours were made after this manner1 there would1 in my opinion1 not be any fixed or lasting colour1 but one colour would be so various1 and change faster then every minute2 the truth is1 there would be no certain or perfect colour at all3 wherefore it seems altogether improbable1 that such liquid1 rare and disunited bodies should either keep or make inherent and fixed colours2 for liquid and rare bodies1 whose several parts are united into one considerable bulk of body1 their colours are more apt to change then the colours of those bodies that are dry1 solid and dense2 the reason is1 that rare and liquid bodies are more loose1 slack1 and agil1 then solid and dry bodies1 in so much1 as in every alteration of motion their colours are apt to change3 ,and if united rare and liquid bodies be so apt to alter and change1 how is it probable1 that those bodies1 which are small and not united1 should either keep or make inherent fixed colours8 ,i will not say1 but that such little bodies may range into such lines and figures1 as make colours1 but then they cannot last1 being not united into a lasting body1 that is1 into a solid1 substantial body1 proper to make such figures as colours4 ,but ,i desire you not to mistake me1 ,madam1 for ,i do not mean1 that the substance of colours is a gross thick substance1 for the substance may be as thin and rare as flame or light1 or in the next degree to it2 for certainly the substance of light1 and the substance of colours come in their degrees very neer each other2 ,but according to the contraction of the figures1 colours are paler or deeper1 or more or less lasting4 ,and as for the reason1 why colours will change and rechange1 it is according as the figures alter or recover their forms2 for colours will be as animal ,creatures1 which sometimes are faint1 pale1 and sick1 and yet recover2 but when as a particular colour is1 as ,i may say1 quite dead1 then there is no recovering of it4 ,but colours may seem altered sometimes in our eyes1 and yet not be altered in themselves2 for our eyes1 if perfect1 see things as they are presented2 and for proof1 if any animal should be presented in an unusual posture or shape1 we could not judg of it2 also if a ,picture1 which must be viewed side-wards1 should be looked upon forwards1 we could not know what to make of it2 so the figures of colours1 if they be not placed rightly to the sight1 but turned topsie-turvie as the ,phrase is1 or upside-down1 or be moved too quick1 and this quick motion do make a confusion with the lines of ,light1 we cannot possibly see the colour perfectly4 ,also several lights or shades may make colours appear otherwise then in themselves they are1 for some sorts of lights and shades may fall upon the substantial figures of colours in solid bodies1 in such lines and figures1 as they may over-power the natural or artificial inherent colours in solid bodies1 and for a time make other colours1 and many times the lines of light or of shadows will meet and sympathize so with inherent colours1 and place their lines so exactly1 as they will make those inherent colours more splendorous then in their own nature they are1 so that light and shadows will add or diminish or alter colours very much4 ,likewise some sorts of colours will be altered to our sight1 not by all1 but onely by some sorts of light1 as for example1 blew will seem green1 and green blew by candle light1 when as other colours will never appear changed1 but shew constantly as they are2 the reason is1 because the lines of candle light fall in such figures upon the inherent colours1 and so make them appear according to their own figures2 ,wherefore it is onely the alteration of the exterior figures of light and shadows1 that make colours appear otherwise1 and not a change of their own natures2 ,and hence we may rationally conclude1 that several lights and shadows by their spreading and dilating lines may alter the face or out-side of colours1 but not suddenly change them1 unless the power of heat1 and continuance of time1 or any other cause1 do help and assist them in that work of metamorphosing or transforming of colours2 but if the lines of light be onely1 as the phrase is1 ,skin-deep2 that is1 but lightly spreading and not deeply penetrating1 they may soon wear out or be rubbed off2 for though they hurt1 yet they do not kill the natural colour1 but the colour may recover and reassume its former vigour and lustre3 but time and other accidental causes will not onely alter1 but destroy particular colours as well as other creatures1 although not all after the same manner1 for some will last longer then others4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 there are three sorts of ,colours1 ,natural1 ,artificial1 and ,accidental2 but ,i have discoursed of this subject more at large in my ,philosophical ,opinions1 to which ,i refer you1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xli4 ,,madam1 ,my answer to your ,authors question1 ,why flame ascends in a pointed figure8#a is1 ,that the figure of fire consists in points1 and being dilated into a flame1 it ascends in lines of points slope-wayes from the fired fuel2 like as if you should make two or more sticks stand upright and put the upper ends close together1 but let the lower ends be asunder1 in which posture they will support each other1 which1 if both their ends were close together1 they could not do4 ,the second question is1 ,why fire doth not alwayes flame8#b ,i answer1 ,because all fuel is not flameable1 some being so moist1 as it doth oppose the fires dryness1 and some so hard and retentive1 as fire cannot so soon dissolve it2 and in this contest1 where one dissipates1 and the other retains1 a third figure is produced1 viz4 smoak1 between the heat of one1 and the moisture of the other2 and this smoak is forced by the fire out of the fuel1 and is nothing else but certain parts of fuel1 raised to such a degree of rarefaction2 and if fire come near1 it forces the smoak into flame1 the smoak changing it self by its figurative motions into flame2 but when smoak is above the flame1 the flame cannot force the smoak to fire or enkindle it self1 for the flame cannot so well encounter it2 which shews1 as if smoak had a swifter motion then flame1 although flame is more rarified then smoak2 and if moisture predominate1 there is onely smoak1 if fire1 then there is flame3 ,but there are many figures1 that do not flame1 until they are quite dissolved1 as ,leather1 and many other things4 ,neither can fire work upon all bodies alike1 but according to their several natures1 like as men cannot encounter several sorts of creatures after one and the same manner2 for not any part in nature hath an absolute power1 although it hath self-motion2 and this is the reason1 that wax by fire is melted1 and clay hardened4 ,the third question is1 ,why some few drops of water sprinkled upon fire1 do encrease its flame8 ,i answer1 by reason of their little quantity1 which being over-powred by the greater quantity and force of fire1 is by its self-motions converted into fire2 for water being of a rare nature1 and fire1 for the most part1 of a rarifying quality1 it cannot suddenly convert it self into a more solid body then its nature is1 but following its nature by force it turns into flame4 ,the fourth question is1 ,why the flame of spirit of ,wine doth consume the ,wine1 and yet cannot burn or hurt a linnen cloth8 ,i answer1 ,the ,wine is the fuel that feeds the flame1 and upon what it feeds1 it devoureth1 and with the food1 the feeder2 but by reason ,wine is a rarer body then ,oyle1 or ,wood1 or any other fuel1 its flame is also weaker4 ,and thus much of these questions1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,p4 #d4 art4 #ig4 #b ,art4 #ajg4 ,,xlii4 ,,madam1 ,to conclude my discourse upon the ,opinions of these two famous and learned ,authors1 which ,i have hitherto sent you in several ,letters1 ,i could not chuse but repeat the ground of my own opinions in this present2 which ,i desire you to observe well1 lest you mistake any thing1 whereof ,i have formerly discoursed4 ,first ,i am for self-moving matter1 which ,i call the sensitive and rational matter1 and the perceptive and architectonical part of nature1 which is the life and knowledg of nature4 ,next ,i am of an opinion1 ,that all ,perception is made by corporeal1 figuring self-motions1 and that the perception of forreign objects is made by patterning them out3 as for example1 ,the sensitive perception of forreign objects is by making or taking copies from these objects1 so as the sensitive corporeal motions in the eyes copy out the objects of sight1 and the sensitive corporeal motions in the ears copy out the objects of sound2 the sensitive corporeal motions in the nostrils1 copy out the objects of sent2 the sensitive corporeal motions in the tongue and mouth1 copy out the objects of taste1 and the sensitive corporeal motions in the flesh and skin of the body copy out the forreign objects of touch2 for when you stand by the fire1 it is not that the fire1 or the heat of the fire enters your flesh1 but that the sensitive motions copy out the objects of fire and heat4 ,as for my ,book of ,philosophy1 ,i must tell you1 that it treats more of the production and architecture of ,creatures then of their perceptions1 and more of the causes then the effects1 more in a general then peculiar way1 which ,i thought necessary to inform you of1 and so ,i remain1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xliii4 ,,madam1 ,i received your questions in your last3 the first was1 ,whether there be more body compact together in a heavy then in a light thing8 ,i answer1 ,that purity1 rarity1 little quantity1 exteriour shape1 as also motion cause lightnesse2 and grossness of bulk1 density1 much quantity1 exterior figure and motion cause heaviness1 as it may be confirmed by many examples3 but lightness and heaviness are onely conceptions of man1 as also ascent and descent2 and it may be questioned1 whether there be such things really in nature2 for change of motions of one and the same body will make lightness1 and heaviness1 as also rarity and density3 besides1 the several figures and compositions of bodies will cause them to ascend or descend1 for ,snow is a light body and yet descends from the clouds1 and ,water is a heavie body1 and yet ascends in springs out of the ,earth2 ,dust is a dense body and yet is apt to ascend1 ,rain or ,dew is a rare body and yet is apt to descend2 ,also a ,bird ascends by his shape1 and a small worm although of less body and lighter will fall down2 and there can be no other proof of light and heavy bodies but by their ascent and descent2 ,but as really there is no such thing as heavie or light in nature more then words1 and comparisons of different corporeal motions1 so there is no such thing1 as high or low1 place or time1 but onely words to make comparisons and to distinguish different corporeal motions4 ,the second question was2 ,when a ,bason with water is wasted into smoak1 which fills up a whole ,room1 ,whether the air in the room doth1 as the sensitive motions of the eye1 pattern out the figure of the smoak2 or whether all the room is really fill'd with the vapour or smoak8 ,i answer1 ,if it be onely the pattern or figure of smoak or vapour1 the extension and dilation is not so much as man imagines2 but why may not the air1 which in my opinion hath self-motion1 pattern out the figure of smoak as well as the eye2 for that the eye surely doth it1 may be proved2 because smoak1 if it enter the eye1 makes it not onely smart and water much1 but blinds it quite for the present2 wherefore smoak doth not enter the eye1 when the eye seeth it1 but the eye patterns out the figure of smoak1 and this is perception2 ,in the same manner may the air pattern out the figure of smoak4 ,the third question was1 ,whether all that they name qualities of bodies1 as thickness1 thinness1 hardness1 softness1 gravity1 levity1 transparentness and the like1 be substances8 ,i answer1 ,that all those1 they call qualities1 are nothing else but change of motion and figure of the same body1 and several changes of motions are not several bodies1 but several actions of one body2 for change of motion doth not create new matter or multiply its quantity3 for though corporeal motions may divide and compose1 contract and dilate1 yet they cannot create new matter1 or make matter any otherwise then it is by nature1 neither can they add or substract any thing from its nature4 ,and therefore my opinion is1 not that they are things subsisting by themselves without matter1 but that there can no abstraction be made of motion and figure from matter1 and that matter and motion being but one thing and inseparable1 make but one substance4 ,wherefore density and rarity1 gravity and levity1 c4 being nothing else but change of motions1 cannot be without matter1 but a dense or rare1 heavie or light matter is but one substance or body2 ,and thus having obeyed your commands1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 ,,xliv4 ,,madam1 ,i am very ready to give you my opinion of those two questions you sent me1 whereof the first was1 ,whether that1 which is rare and subtil1 be not withal pure8 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that all rare bodies are not subtil1 nor pure1 and that all which is dense is not gross and dull3 ,as for example1 ,puddle-water1 or also clear water1 is rarer then ,quicksilver1 and yet not so subtil and pure as ,quicksilver2 the like of ,gold2 for ,quicksilver and ,gold may be rarified to a transparentness1 and yet be so dense1 as not to be easily dissolved2 and ,quicksilver is very subtil and searching1 so as to be able to force other bodies to divide as well as it can divide and compose its own parts4 ,wherefore my opinion is1 that the purest and subtilest degree of matter in nature1 is that degree of matter which can dilate and contract1 compose and divide into any figure by corporeal self-motion4 ,your second question was1 ,why a man's hand cannot break a little hard body1 as a little nail1 whereas yet it is bigger then the nail8 ,i answer1 ,it is not because the hand is softer then the nail1 for one hard body will not break suddenly another hard body1 and a man may easily break an iron nail with his hand1 as ,i have bin informed2 but it is some kind of motion which can easier do it1 then another3 for ,i have seen a strong cord wound about both a man's hands1 who pulled his hands as hard and strongly asunder as he could1 and yet was not able to break it2 when as a ,youth taking the same cord1 and winding it about his hands as the former did1 immediately broke it2 the cause was1 that he did it with another kind of motion or pulling1 then the other did1 which though he used as much force and strength1 as he was able1 yet could not break it1 when the boy did break it with the greatest ease1 and turning onely his hands a little1 which shews1 that many things may be done by a slight of motion1 which otherwise a great strength and force cannot do4 ,this is my answer and opinion concerning your proposed questions2 if you have any more1 ,i shall be ready to obey you1 as1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,xlv4 ,,madam1 ,i understand by your last1 that you are very desirous to know1 ,whether there be not in nature such animal creatures both for purity and size1 as we are not capable to perceive by our sight4 ,truly1 ,madam1 in my opinion it is very probable there may be animal creatures of such rare bodies as are not subject to our exterior senses1 as well1 as there are elements which are not subject to all our exterior senses3 as for example1 fire is onely subject to our sight and feeling1 and not to any other sense1 water is subject to our sight1 taste1 touch and hearing1 but not to smelling2 and earth is subject to our sight1 taste1 touch and smelling1 but not to our hearing2 and vapour is onely subject to our sight1 and wind onely to our hearing2 but pure air is not subject to any of our senses1 but onely known by its effects3 and so there may likewise be animal creatures which are not subject to any of our senses both for their purity and life2 as for example1 ,i have seen pumpt out of a water pump small worms which could hardly be discerned but by a bright ,sun-light1 for they were smaller then the smallest hair1 some of a pure scarlet colour and some white1 but though they were the smallest creatures that ever ,i did see1 yet they were more agil and fuller of life1 then many a creature of a bigger size1 and so small they were1 as ,i am confident1 they were neither subject to tast1 smell1 touch nor hearing1 but onely to sight1 and that neither without difficulty1 requiring both a sharp sight and a clear light to perceive them2 and ,i do verily believe that these small animal creatures may be great in comparison to others which may be in nature4 ,but if it be probable that there may be such small animal creatures in nature1 as are not subject to our exterior senses1 by reason of their littleness2 it is also probable1 that there may be such great and big animal creatures in nature as are beyond the reach and knowledg of our exterior senses2 for bigness and smallness are not to be judged by our exterior senses1 onely2 but as sense and reason inform us1 that there are different degrees in ,purity and ,rarity1 so also in shapes1 figures and sizes in all natural creatures4 ,next you desired to know1 ,whether there can be an artificial ,life1 or a ,life made by ,art8 ,my answer is1 ,not2 for although there is ,life in all natures parts1 yet not all the parts are life1 for there is one part of natural matter which in its nature is inanimate or without life1 and though natural ,life doth produce ,art1 yet ,art cannot produce natural ,life1 for though ,art is the action of ,life1 yet it is not ,life it self3 not but that there is ,life in ,art1 but not art in life1 for ,life is natural1 and not artificial2 and thus the several parts of a watch may have sense and reason according to the nature of their natural figure1 which is steel1 but not as they have an artificial shape1 for ,art cannot put ,life into the watch1 ,life being onely natural1 not artificial4 ,lastly your desire was to know1 ,whether a part of matter may be so small1 as it cannot be made less8 ,i answer1 there is no such thing in nature as biggest or least1 nature being ,infinite as well in her actions as in her substance2 and ,i have mentioned in my book of ,philosophy1 and in a letter1 ,i sent you heretofore concerning ,infinite1 that there are several sorts of ,infinites1 as ,infinite in quantity or bulk1 ,infinite in number1 ,infinite in quality1 as ,infinite degrees of hardness1 softness1 thickness1 thinness1 swiftness1 slowness1 c4 as also ,infinite compositions1 divisions1 creations1 dissolutions1 c4 in nature2 and my meaning is1 that all these ,infinite actions do belong to the ,infinite body of nature1 which being infinite in substance must also of necessity be infinite in its actions2 but although these ,infinite actions are inherent in the power of the ,infinite substance of nature1 yet they are never put in act in her parts1 by reason there being contraries in nature1 and every one of the aforementioned actions having its opposite1 they do hinder and obstruct each other so1 that none can actually run into infinite2 for the ,infinite degrees of compositions hinder the infinite degrees of divisions2 and the infinite degrees of rarity1 softness1 swiftness1 c4 hinder the infinite degrees of density1 hardness1 slowness1 c4 all which nature has ordered with great wisdom and ,prudence to make an amiable combination between her parts2 for if but one of these actions should run into infinite1 it would cause a horrid confusion between natures parts1 nay an utter destruction of the whole body of nature1 if ,i may call it whole3 as for example1 if one part should have infinite compositions1 without the hinderance or obstruction of division1 it would at last mount and become equal to the ,infinite body of nature1 and so from a part change to a whole1 from being finite to infinite1 which is impossible2 ,wherefore1 though nature hath an ,infinite natural power1 yet she doth not put this power in act in her particulars2 and although she has an infinite force or strength1 yet she doth not use this force or strength in her parts4 ,moreover when ,i speak of ,infinite divisions and compositions1 creations and dissolutions1 c4 in nature1 ,i do not mean so much the infinite degrees of compositions and divisions1 as the actions themselves to be infinite in number2 for there being infinite parts in nature1 and every one having its compositions and divisions1 creations and dissolutions1 these actions must of necessity be infinite too1 to wit1 in number1 according to the ,infinite number of parts1 for as there is an ,infinite number of parts in nature1 so there is also an infinite number and variety of motions which are natural actions4 ,however let there be also infinite degrees of these natural actions1 in the body or substance of infinite nature2 yet1 as ,i said1 they are never put in act1 by reason every action hath its contrary or opposite1 which doth hinder and obstruct it from running actually into infinite4 ,and thus ,i hope1 you conceive cleerly now1 what my opinion is1 and that ,i do not contradict my self in my works1 as some have falsly accused me1 for they by misapprehending my meaning1 judge not according to the truth of my sense1 but according to their own false interpretation1 which shews not onely a weakness in their understandings and passions1 but a great injustice and injury to me1 which ,i desire you to vindicate when ever you chance to hear such accusations and blemishes laid upon my works1 by which you will ,infinitely oblige1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 ,sect4 ,,ii4 ,i4 ,,madam1 ,being come now to the ,perusal of the ,works of that learned ,author ,dr4 ,moor1 ,i find that the onely design of his ,book called ,antidote1 is to prove the ,existence of a ,god1 and to refute1 or rather convert ,atheists2 which ,i wonder very much at1 considering1 he says himself1#a ,that there is no man under the cope of ,heaven but believes a ,god2 which if so1 what needs there to make so many arguments to no purpose8 unless it be to shew ,learning and wit2 ,in my opinion1 it were better to convert ,pagans to be ,christians1 or to reform irregular ,christians to a more pious life1 then to prove that1 which all men believe1 which is the way to bring it into question4 ,for certainly1 according to the natural ,light of ,reason1 there is a ,god1 and no man1 ,i believe1 doth doubt it2 for though there may be many vain words1 yet ,i think there is no such atheistical belief amongst man-kind1 nay1 not onely amongst men1 but also1 amongst all other creatures1 for if nature believes a ,god1 all her parts1 especially the sensitive and rational1 which are the living and knowing parts1 and are in all natural creatures1 do the like1 and therefore all parts and creatures in nature do adore and worship ,god1 for any thing man can know to the contrary2 for no question1 but natures soule adores and worships ,god as well as man's soule2 and why may not ,god be worshipped by all sorts and kinds of creatures as well1 as by one kind or sort8 ,i will not say the same way1 but ,i believe there is a general worship and adoration of ,god2 for as ,god is an ,infinite ,deity1 so certainly he has an ,infinite ,worship and ,adoration1 and there is not any part of nature1 but adores and worships the only omnipotent ,god1 to whom belongs ,praise and ,glory from and to all eternity3 ,for it is very improbable1 that ,god should be worshipped onely in part1 and not in whole1 and that all creatures were made to obey man1 and not to worship ,god1 onely for man's sake1 and not for ,god's worship1 for man's use1 and not ,god's adoration1 for mans spoil and not ,god's blessing4 ,but this ,presumption1 ,pride1 ,vain-glory and ,ambition of man1 proceeds from the irregularity of nature1 who being a servant1 is apt to commit errors2 and cannot be so absolute and exact in her devotion1 adoration and worship1 as she ought1 nor so well observant of ,god as ,god is observing her3 ,nevertheless1 there is not any of her parts or creatures1 that ,god is not acknowledged by1 though not so perfectly as he ought1 which is caused by the irregularities of nature1 as ,i said before4 ,and so ,god of his mercy have mercy upon all ,creatures2 ,to whose protection ,i commend your ,ladiship1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,antidote1 ,book ,i4 c4 #aj4 a4 #e4 ,,ii4 ,,madam1 ,since ,i spake in my last of the adoration and worship of ,god1 you would faine know1 whether we can have an ,idea of ,god8 ,i answer1 ,that naturally we may1 and really have a knowledge of the existence of ,god1 as ,i proved in my former letter1 to wit1 that there is a ,god1 and1 that he is the ,author of all things1 who rules and governs all things1 and is also the ,god of ,nature3 but ,i dare not think1 that naturally we can have an ,idea of the essence of ,god1 so as to know what ,god is in his very nature and essence2 for how can there be a finite ,idea of an ,infinite ,god8 ,you may say1 ,as well as of ,infinite space4 ,i answer1 ,space is relative1 or has respect to body1 but there is not any thing that can be compared to ,god2 for the ,idea of ,infinite nature is material1 as being a material creature of ,infinite material ,nature4 ,you will say1 ,how can a finite part have an ,idea of infinite nature8 ,i answer1 ,very well1 by reason the ,idea is part of ,infinite ,nature1 and so of the same kind1 as material2 but ,god being an ,eternal1 ,infinite1 ,immaterial1 ,individable ,being1 no natural creature can have an ,idea of him4 ,you will say1 ,that the ,idea of ,god in the mind is immaterial2 ,i answer1 ,i cannot conceive1 that there can be any immaterial ,idea in nature2 but be it granted1 yet that ,immaterial is not a part of ,god1 for ,god is individable1 and hath no parts2 wherefore the ,mind cannot have an ,idea of ,god1 as it hath of ,infinite nature1 being a part of nature2 for the ,idea of ,god cannot be of the essence of ,god1 as the ,idea of nature is a corporeal part of nature3 and though nature may be known in some parts1 yet ,god being ,incomprehensible1 his ,essence can by no wayes or means be naturally known2 and this is constantly believed1 by ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 ,,iii4 ,,madam1 ,although ,i mentioned in my last1 that it is impossible to have an ,idea of ,god1 yet your ,author is pleased to say1#a ,that he will not stick to affirm1 that the ,idea or notion of ,god is as easie1 as any notion else whatsoever1 and that we may know as much of him as of any thing else in the world4 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that in my opinion1 ,god is not so easily to be known by any creature1 as man may know himself2 nor his attributes so well1 as man can know his own natural proprieties3 for ,gods ,infinite attributes are not conceivable1 and cannot be comprehended by a finite knowledg and understanding1 as a finite part of nature2 for though nature's parts may be ,infinite in number1 and as they have a relation to the ,infinite whole1 if ,i may call it so1 which is ,infinite nature1 yet no part is infinite in it self1 and therefore it cannot know so much as whole nature3 and ,god being an ,infinite ,deity1 there is required an ,infinite capacity to conceive him2 nay1 ,nature her self although ,infinite1 yet cannot possibly have an exact notion of ,god1 by reason of the disparity between ,god and her self2 and therefore it is not probable1 if the ,infinite servant of ,god is not able to conceive him1 that a finite part or creature of nature1 of what kind or sort soever1 whether ,spiritual1 as your ,author is pleased to name it1 or ,corporeal1 should comprehend ,god4 ,concerning my belief of ,god1 ,i submit wholly to the ,church1 and believe as ,i have bin informed out of the ,athanasian ,creed1 that the ,father is ,incomprehensible1 the ,sonne ,incomprehensible1 and the ,holy ,ghost ,incomprehensible2 and that there are not three1 but one ,incomprehensible ,god2 ,wherefore if any man can prove 7as ,i do verily believe he cannot7 that ,god is not ,incomprehensible1 he must of necessity be more knowing then the whole ,church1 however he must needs dissent from the ,church4 ,but perchance your ,author may say1 ,i raise new and prejudicial opinions1 in saying that matter is eternal4 ,i answer1 ,the ,holy ,writ doth not mention ,matter to be created1 but onely ,particular ,creatures1 as this ,visible ,world1 with all its ,parts1 as the history or description of the ,creation of the ,world in ,genesis plainly shews2 ,for ,god said1 ,let it be ,light1 and there was ,light2 ,let there be a ,firmament in the midst of the ,waters1 and let it divide the ,waters from the ,waters2 and ,let the ,waters under the ,heaven be gathered together unto one place1 and let the dry ,land appear2 and let the ,earth bring forth ,grass1 the ,herb yielding ,seed1 and the ,fruit-tree yielding ,fruit after his kind2 and let there be ,lights in the ,firmament of the ,heaven1 to divide the ,day from the ,night1 c4 ,which proves1 that all creatures and figures were made and produced out of that rude and desolate heap or chaos which the ,scripture mentions1 which is nothing else but matter1 by the powerful ,word and ,command of ,god1 executed by his ,eternal ,servant1 ,nature2 as ,i have heretofore declared it in a ,letter ,i sent you in the beginning concerning ,infinite ,nature4 ,but least ,i seem to encroach too much upon ,divinity1 ,i submit this ,interpretation to the ,church2 ,however1 ,i think it not against the ground of our ,faith2 for ,i am so far from maintaining any thing either against ,church or ,state1 as ,i am submitting to both in all duty1 and shall do so as long as ,i live1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 pt4 #a41 c4 #d4 ,,iv4 ,,madam1 ,since your ,worthy and ,learned ,author is pleased to mention1#a ,that an ample experience both of ,men and ,things doth enlarge our ,understanding1 ,i have taken occasion hence to enquire1 how a mans ,understanding may be encreased or inlarged4 ,the ,understanding must either be in ,parts1 or it must be ,individable as one2 if in ,parts1 then there must be so many ,understandings as there are things understood2 but if ,individable1 and but one ,understanding1 then it must dilate it self upon so many several objects4 ,i for my part1 assent to the first1 ,that ,understanding increases by ,parts1 and not by ,dilation1 which ,dilation must needs follow1 if the ,mind or ,understanding of man be indivisible and without parts2 but if the ,mind or ,soul be ,individable1 then ,i would fain know1 how ,understanding1 ,imagination1 ,conception1 ,memory1 ,remembrance1 and the like1 can be in the mind8 ,you will say1 perhaps1 they are so many faculties or properties of the ,incorporeal ,mind1 but1 ,i hope1 you do not intend to make the ,mind or ,soul a ,deity1 with so many attributes1 ,wherefore1 in my opinion1 it is safer to say1 ,that the ,mind is composed of several active ,parts3 but of these ,parts ,i have treated in my ,philosophy1 where you will find1 that all the several ,parts of ,nature are ,living and ,knowing1 and that there is no part that has not ,life and ,knowledg1 being all composed of rational and sensitive matter1 which is the life and soul of ,nature2 and that ,nature being ,material1 is composable and dividable1 which is the cause of so many several ,creatures1 where every ,creature is a part of ,nature1 and these ,infinite parts or creatures are ,nature her self2 for though ,nature is a self-moving substance1 and by self-motion divides and composes her self several manners or ways into several forms and figures1 yet being a knowing1 as well as a living substance1 she knows how to order her parts and actions wisely2 for as she hath an ,infinite body or substance1 so she has an ,infinite life and knowledg2 and as she hath an ,infinite life and knowledg1 so she hath an infinite wisdom3 ,but mistake me not1 ,madam2 ,i do not mean an ,infinite ,divine ,wisdom1 but an ,infinite ,natural ,wisdom1 given her by the ,infinite bounty of the ,omnipotent ,god2 but yet this ,infinite ,wisdom1 ,life and ,knowledg in ,nature make but one ,infinite4 ,and as ,nature hath degrees of matter1 so she has also degrees and variety of corporeal motions2 for some parts of matter are self-moving1 and some are moved by these self-moving parts of matter2 and all these parts1 both the moving and moved1 are so intermixed1 that none is without the other1 no not in any the least ,creature or part of ,nature we can conceive2 for there is no ,creature or part of ,nature1 but has a comixture of those mentioned parts of animate and inanimate matter1 and all the motions are so ordered by ,natures wisdom1 as not any thing in ,nature can be otherwise1 unless by a ,supernatural ,command and ,power of ,god2 for no part of corporeal matter and motion can either perish1 or but rest2 one part may cause another part to alter its motions1 but not to quit motion1 no more then one part of matter can annihilate or destroy another2 and therefore matter is not meerly ,passive1 but always ,active1 by reason of the thorow mixture of animate and inanimate matter2 for although the animate matter is onely active in its nature1 and the inanimate passive1 yet because they are so closely united and mixed together that they make but one body1 the parts of the animate or self-moving matter do bear up and cause the inanimate parts to move and work with them2 and thus there is an activity in all parts of matter moving and working as one body1 without any fixation or rest1 for all is moveable1 moving and moved4 ,all which1 ,madam1 if it were well observed1 there would not be so many strange opinions concerning nature and her actions1 making the purest and subtillest part of matter immaterial or incorporeal1 which is as much1 as to extend her beyond nature1 and to rack her quite to nothing4 ,but ,i fear the opinion of ,immaterial substances in ,nature will at last bring in again the ,heathen ,religion1 and make us believe a god ,pan1 ,bacchus1 ,ceres1 ,venus1 and the like1 so as we may become worshippers of ,groves and shadows1 ,beans and ,onions1 as our ,forefathers4 ,i say not this1 as if ,i would ascribe any worship to ,nature1 or make her a ,deity1 for she is onely a servant to ,god1 and so are all her parts or creatures1 which parts or creatures1 although they are transformed1 yet cannot be annihilated1 except ,nature her self be annihilated1 which may be1 whensoever the ,great ,god pleases2 for her existence and resolution1 or total destruction1 depends upon ,gods ,will and ,decree1 whom she fears1 adores1 admires1 praises and prayes unto1 as being her ,god and ,master2 and as she adores ,god1 so do all her parts and creatures1 and amongst the rest ,man1 so that there is no ,atheist in ,infinite ,nature1 at least not in the opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 ,book4 #b4 ,ch4 #b4 a4 #a4 ,v4 ,,madam1 ,i cannot well conceive what your ,author means by the ,common ,laws of ,nature2#a ,but if you desire my opinion how many ,laws ,nature hath1 and what they are2 ,i say ,nature hath but ,one ,law1 which is a wise ,law1 to keep ,infinite matter in order1 and to keep so much ,peace1 as not to disturb the ,foundation of her ,government3 for though ,natures actions are various1 and so many times opposite1 which would seem to make wars between several ,parts1 yet those active ,parts1 being united into one ,infinite body1 cannot break ,natures general ,peace2 for that which ,man names ,war1 ,sickness1 ,sleep1 ,death1 and the like1 are but various particular actions of the onely matter2 not1 as your ,author imagines1 in a confusion1 like ,bullets1 or such like things juggled together in a mans ,hat1 but very orderly and methodical2 ,and the ,playing motions of nature are the actions of ,art1 but her serious actions are the actions of ,production1 ,generation and ,transformation in several kinds1 sorts and particulars of her ,creatures1 as also the action of ruling and governing these her several active ,parts4 ,concerning the ,pre-eminence and ,prerogative of ,man1 whom your ,author calls#b ,the flower and chief of all the products of nature upon this ,globe of the earth2 ,i answer1 ,that ,man cannot well be judged of himself1 because he is a ,party1 and so may be ,partial2 ,but if we observe well1 we shall find that the ,elemental ,creatures are as excellent as ,man1 and as able to be a friend or foe to ,man1 as ,man to them1 and so the rest of all ,creatures2 so that ,i cannot perceive more abilities in ,man then in the rest of natural ,creatures2 for though he can build a stately ,house1 yet he cannot make a ,honey-comb2 and though he can plant a ,slip1 yet he cannot make a ,tree2 though he can make a ,sword1 or ,knife1 yet he cannot make the ,mettal4 ,and as ,man makes use of other ,creatures1 so other ,creatures make use of ,man1 as far as he is good for any thing3 ,but ,man is not so useful to his neighbour or fellow-creatures1 as his neighbour or fellow-creatures to him1 being not so profitable for use1 as apt to make spoil4 ,and so leaving him1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 ,book4 #b4 c4 #b4 #b ,c4 #c4 ,,vi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author demands1#a ,whether there was ever any man1 that was not mortal1 and whether there be any mortal that had not a beginning8 ,truly1 if nature be eternal1 all the material figures which ever were1 are1 and can be1 must be also eternal in nature2 for the figures cannot be annihilated1 unless nature be destroyed2 and although a ,creature is dissolved and transformed into numerous different figures1 yet all these several figures remain still in those parts of matter1 whereof that creature was made1 for matter never changes1 but is always one and the same1 and figure is nothing else but matter transposed or transformed by motion several modes or ways4 ,but if you conceive ,matter to be one thing1 ,figure another1 and ,motion a third1 several1 distinct and dividable from each other1 it will produce gross errors1 for1 matter1 motion1 and figure1 are but one thing4 ,and as for that common question1 whether the ,egg was before the ,chick1 or the ,chick before the ,egg1 it is but a thred-bare argument1 which proves nothing1 for there is no such thing as ,first in ,eternity1 neither doth ,time make productions or generations1 but ,matter2 and whatsoever matter can produce or generate1 was in matter before it was produced2 wherefore the question is1 whether ,matter1 which is ,nature1 had a beginning1 or not8 ,i say not3 for put the case1 the figures of ,earth1 ,air1 ,water1 and ,fire1 ,light and ,colours1 ,heat and ,cold1 ,animals1 ,vegetables and ,minerals1 c4 were not produced from all ,eternity1 yet those figures have nevertheless been in ,matter1 which is ,nature1 from all eternity1 for these mentioned ,creatures are onely made by the corporeal motions of ,matter1 transforming ,matter into such several figures2 ,neither can there be any perishing or dying in ,nature1 for that which ,man calls so1 is onely an alteration of ,figure4 ,and as all other productions are but a change of ,matters sensitive motions1 so all irregular and extravagant opinions are nothing but a change of ,matters rational motions2 onely productions by rational motions are interior1 and those by sensitive motions exterior4 ,for the ,natural ,mind is not less material then the body1 onely the ,matter of the ,mind is much purer and subtiller then the ,matter of the ,body4 ,and thus there is nothing in ,nature but what is material2 but he that thinks it absurd to say1 the ,world is composed of meer self-moving ,matter1 may consider1 that it is more absurd to believe ,immaterial substances or spirits in ,nature1 as also a spirit of ,nature1 which is the ,vicarious power of ,god upon ,matter2 ,for why should it not be as probable1 that ,god did give ,matter a self-moving power to her self1 as to have made another ,creature to govern her8 ,for ,nature is not a ,babe1 or ,child1 to need such a ,spiritual ,nurse1 to teach her to go1 or to move2 neither is she so young a ,lady as to have need of a ,governess1 for surely she can govern her self2 she needs not a ,guardian for fear she should run away with a younger ,brother1 or one that cannot make her a ,jointure4 ,but leaving those strange opinions to the fancies of their ,authors1 ,i'le add no more1 but that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 l4 #c4 c4 #ae4 a4 #c4 ,,vii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author being very earnest in arguing against those that maintain the opinion of ,matter being self-moving1 amongst the rest of his arguments brings in this3#a ,suppose1 says he1 ,matter could move it self1 would meer ,matter with self-motion amount to that admirable wise contrivance of things which we see in the ,world8--,all the evasion ,i can imagine1 our adversaries may use here1 will be this3 ,that ,matter is capable of sense1 and the finest and most subtil of the most refined sense2 and consequently of ,imagination too1 yea happily of ,reason and ,understanding4 ,i answer1 it is very probable1 that not onely all the ,matter in the ,world or ,universe hath ,sense1 but also ,reason2 and that the sensitive part of matter is the builder1 and the rational the designer2 whereof ,i have spoken of before1 and you may find more of it in my ,book of ,philosophy4 ,but1 says your ,author1 ,let us see1 if all their heads laid together can contrive the anatomical ,fabrick of any ,creature that liveth8 ,i answer1 all parts of ,nature are not bound to have heads or tayls2 but if they have1 surely they are wiser then many a man's4 ,i demand1 says he1 ,has every one of these ,particles1 that must have a hand in the framing of the body of an animal1 the whole design of the work by the ,impress of some ,phantasme upon it8 or as they have several offices1 so have they several parts of the design8 ,i answer1 ,all the actions of self-moving ,matter are not ,impresses1 nor is every part a hand-labourer1 but every part unites by degrees into such or such a ,figure4 ,again1 says he1 ,how is it conceiveable that any one ,particle of ,matter1 or many together1 7there not existing1 yet in ,nature an animal7 can have the ,idea ,impressed of that ,creature they are to frame8 ,i answer1 all figures whatsoever have been1 are1 or can be in ,nature1 are existent in nature4 ,how1 says he1 can they in framing several parts confer notes8 by what language or speech can they communicate their ,counsels one to another8 ,i answer1 ,knowledg doth not always require speech1 for speech is an effect and not a cause1 but knowledg is a cause and not an effect2 and nature hath infinite more ways to express knowledg then man can imagine1 ,wherefore1 he concludes1 that they should mutually serve one another in such a design1 is more impossible1 then that so many men1 blind and dumb from their nativity1 should joyn their forces and wits together to build a ,castle1 or carve a statue of such a ,creature1 as none of them knew any more in several1 then some one of the smallest parts thereof1 but not the relation it bore to the whole4 ,i answer1 ,nature is neither blind nor dumb1 nor any ways defective1 but infinitely wise and knowing2 for blindness and dumbness are but effects of some of her particular actions1 but there is no defect in self-moving matter1 nor in her actions in general2 and it is absurd to conceive the ,generality of wisdom according to an ,irregular effect or defect of a particular ,creature2 for the ,general actions of ,nature are both life and knowledg1 which are the architects of all ,creatures1 and know better how to frame all kinds and sorts of ,creatures then man can conceive2 and the several parts of ,matter have a more easie way of communication1 then ,mans head hath with his hand1 or his hand with pen1 ink1 and paper1 when he is going to write2 which later example will make you understand my opinion the better1 if you do but compare the rational part of ,matter to the head1 the sensitive to the hand1 the inanimate to pen1 ink and paper1 their action to writing1 and their framed figures to those figures or letters which are written2 in all which is a mutual agreement without noise or trouble4 ,but give me leave1 ,madam1 to tell you1 ,that self-moving ,matter may sometimes erre and move irregularly1 and in some parts not move so strong1 curious1 or subtil at sometimes1 as in other parts1 for ,nature delights in variety2 ,nevertheless she is more wise then any ,particular ,creature or part can conceive1 which is the cause that ,man thinks ,nature's wise1 subtil and lively actions1 are as his own gross actions1 conceiving them to be constrained and turbulent1 not free and easie1 as well as wise and knowing2 ,whereas ,nature's ,creating1 ,generating and ,producing actions are by an easie connexion of parts to parts1 without ,counterbuffs1 ,joggs and ,jolts1 producing a particular figure by degrees1 and in order and method1 as humane sense and reason may well perceive3 ,and why may not the sensitive and rational part of ,matter know better how to make a ,bee1 then a ,bee doth how to make ,honey and ,wax8 or have a better communication betwixt them1 then ,bees that fly several ways1 meeting and joyning to make their ,combes in their ,hives8 ,but pardon1 ,madam1 for ,i think it a ,crime to compare the ,creating1 ,generating and producing ,corporeal ,life and ,wisdom of ,nature unto any particular ,creature1 although every particular ,creature hath their share1 being a part of ,nature4 ,wherefore those1 in my opinion1 do grossly err1 that bind up the sensitive matter onely to taste1 touch1 hearing1 seeing1 and smelling2 as if the sensitive parts of ,nature had not more variety of actions1 then to make five senses2 for we may well observe1 in every ,creature there is difference of sense and reason according to the several modes of self-motion2 ,for the ,sun1 ,stars1 ,earth1 ,air1 ,fire1 ,water1 ,plants1 ,animals1 ,minerals2 although they have all sense and knowledg1 yet they have not all sense and knowledg alike1 because sense and knowledg moves not alike in every kind or sort of ,creatures1 nay many times very different in one and the same ,creature2 but yet this doth not cause a general ,ignorance1 as to be altogether ,insensible or ,irrational1 neither do the erroneous and irregular actions of sense and reason prove an annihilation of sense and reason2 as for example1 a man may become ,mad or a ,fool through the irregular motions of sense and reason1 and yet have still the ,perception of sense and reason1 onely the alteration is caused through the alteration of the sensitive and rational corporeal motions or actions1 from regular to irregular2 nevertheless he has ,perceptions1 ,thoughts1 ,ideas1 ,passions1 and whatsoever is made by sensitive and rational ,matter1 neither can ,perception be divided from ,motion1 nor ,motion from ,matter2 for all sensation is ,corporeal1 and so is ,perception4 ,i can add no more1 but take my leave1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #a4 c4 #ab4 ,,viii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is pleased to say1#a that ,matter is a ,principle purely passive1 and no otherwise moved or modified1 then as some other thing moves and modifies it1 but cannot move it self at all2 which is most demonstrable to them that contend for sense and perception in it3 ,for if it had any such perception1 it would1 by vertue of its self-motion withdraw its self from under the knocks of hammers1 or fury of the fire2 or of its own accord approach to such things as are most agreeable to it1 and pleasing1 and that without the help of muscles1 it being thus immediately endowed with a self-moving power4 ,by his leave1 ,madam1 ,i must tell you1 that ,i see no consequence in this argument2 ,because some parts of matter cannot withdraw themselves from the force and power of other parts1 therefore they have neither sense1 reason1 nor perception3 ,for put the case1 a man should be over-powr'd by some other men1 truely he would be forced to suffer1 and no ,immaterial ,spirits1 ,i think1 would assist him4 ,the very same may be said of other ,creatures or parts of ,nature2 for some may over-power others1 as the fire1 hammer and hand doth over-power a ,horse-shooe1 which cannot prevail over so much odds of power and strength2 ,and so likewise it is with sickness and health1 life and death2 for example1 some corporeal motions in the body turning ,rebels1 by moving contrary to the health of an animal ,creature1 it must become sick2 for not every particular creature hath an absolute power1 the power being in the ,infinite whole1 and not in single divided parts3 ,indeed1 to speak properly1 there is no such thing as an absolute power in ,nature2 for though ,nature hath power to move it self1 yet not beyond it self4 ,but mistake me not1 for ,i mean by an absolute ,power2 not a circumscribed and limited1 but an unlimited power1 no ways bound or confined1 but absolutely or every way ,infinite1 and there is not anything that has such an absolute power but ,god alone3 neither can ,nature be undividable1 being ,corporeal or ,material2 nor rest from motion being naturally self-moving1 and in a perpetual motion4 ,wherefore though ,matter is self-moving1 and very wise1 7although your ,author denies it1 calling those ,fools that maintain this opinion7#b yet it cannot go beyond the rules of its ,nature1 no more then any ,art can go beyond its ,rules and ,principles3 ,and as for what your ,author says1 ,that every thing would approach to that1 which is agreeable and pleasant2 ,i think ,i need no demonstration to prove it2 for we may plainly see it in all effects of ,nature1 that there is ,sympathy and ,antipathy1 and what is this else1 but approaching to things agreeable and pleasant1 and withdrawing it self from things disagreeable1 and hurtful or offensive8 ,but of this subject ,i shall discourse more hereafter1 wherefore ,i finish here1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #b41 c4 #a4 a4 #c4 #b ,in the ,append4 to the ,antid4 c4 #c4 a4 #aj4 ,,ix4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authors opinion is1#a ,that ,matter being once actually divided as far as possibly it can1 it is a perfect contradiction it should be divided any further4 ,i answer1 ,though ,nature is ,infinite1 yet her actions are not all dilative nor separative1 but some divide and some compose1 some dilate and some contract1 which causes a mean betwixt ,natures actions or motions4 ,next your ,author says1 ,that as ,infinite ,greatness has no ,figure1 so ,infinite ,littleness hath none also4 ,i answer1 ,whatsoever hath a body1 has a figure2 for it is impossible that substance1 or body1 and figure1 should be separated from each other1 but wheresoever is body or substance1 there is also figure1 and if there be an infinite substance1 there must also be an infinite figure1 although not a certain determined or circumscribed figure1 for such a figure belongs onely to finite particulars2 and therefore ,i am of your ,authors mind1 ,that it is a contradiction to say an ,infinite ,cube or ,triangle1 for a ,cube and a ,triangle is a perfect circumscribed figure1 having its certain compass and circumference1 be it never so great or little2 wherefore to say an ,infinite ,cube1 would be as much as to say a ,finite ,infinite4 ,but as for your ,authors example of ,infinite matter1 space or duration1 divided into three equal parts1 all which he says must needs be ,infinite1 or else the whole will not be so1 and then the middle part of them will seem both ,finite and ,infinite4 ,i answer1 ,that ,matter is not dividable into three equal parts1 for three is a finite number and so are three equal parts2 but ,i say that ,matter being an ,infinite body1 is dividable into ,infinite parts1 and it doth not follow1 as your ,author says1 ,that one of those infinite parts must be infinite also1 for else there would be no difference betwixt the whole and its parts2 ,i say whole for distinctions and better expressions sake1 and do not mean such a whole which hath a certain number of parts1 and is of a certain and limited figure1 although never so great2 but an ,infinite whole1 which expression ,i must needs use1 by reason ,i speak of ,infinite parts2 and that each one of these ,infinite parts in number may be finite in substance or figure1 is no contradiction1 but very probable and rational2 nay1 ,i think it rather absurd to say that each part is infinite2 for then there would be no difference betwixt parts and whole1 as ,i said before4 ,onely this is to be observed1 that the ,infinite whole is ,infinite in substance or bulk1 but the parts are ,infinite in number1 and not in bulk1 for each part is circumscribed1 and finite in its exterior figure and substance4 ,but mistake me not1 when ,i speak of circumscribed and finite single parts2 for ,i do not mean1 that each part doth subsist single and by it self1 there being no such thing as an absolute single part in ,nature1 but ,infinite ,matter being by self-motion divided into an infinite number of parts1 all these parts have so near a relation to each other1 and to the infinite whole1 that one cannot subsist without the other2 for the ,infinite parts in number do make the ,infinite whole1 and the ,infinite whole consists in the ,infinite number of parts2 wherefore it is onely their figures which make a difference betwixt them2 for each part having its proper figure different from the other1 which is circumscribed and limited1 it is called a finite single part2 and such a part cannot be said ,infinitely dividable1 for infinite composition and division belong onely to the ,infinite body of ,nature1 which being infinite in substance may also be infinitely divided1 but not a finite and single part3 ,besides1 ,infinite composition doth hinder the ,infinite division1 and ,infinite division hinders the ,infinite composition2 so that one part cannot be either infinitely composed1 or infinitely divided2 and it is one thing to be dividable1 and another to be divided4 ,and thus1 when your ,author mentions in another place1#b ,that if a body be divisible into ,infinite ,parts1 it hath an ,infinite number of extended parts3 ,if by extension he mean corporeal dimension1 ,i am of his opinion2 for there is no part1 be it never so little in ,nature1 but is material2 and if material1 it has a body2 and if a body1 it must needs have a bodily dimension2 and so every part will be an extended part3 but since there is no part but is finite in its self1 it cannot be divisible into infinite parts2 neither can any part be infinitely dilated or contracted2 for as composition and division do hinder and obstruct each other from running into ,infinite1 so doth dilation hinder the ,infinite contraction1 and contraction the ,infinite dilation1 which1 as ,i said before1 causes a mean betwixt ,nature's actions2 nevertheless1 there are ,infinite dilations and contractions in ,nature1 because there are ,infinite contracted and dilated parts1 and so are infinite divisions because there are infinite divided parts2 but contraction1 dilation1 extension1 composition1 division1 and the like1 are onely ,nature's several actions2 and as there can be no single part in ,nature that is ,infinite1 so there can neither be any single ,infinite action4 ,but as for ,matter1 ,motion and ,figure1 those are ,individable and inseparable1 and make but one body or substance2 for it is as impossible to divide them1 as impossible it is to your ,author to separate the essential proprieties1 which he gives1 from an ,immortal ,spirit2 ,and as ,matter1 ,motion and ,figure are inseparable2 so is likewise ,matter1 ,space1 ,place and ,duration2 ,for ,parts1 ,motion1 ,figure1 ,place and ,duration1 are but one ,infinite body2 onely the ,infinite parts are the ,infinite divisions of the ,infinite body1 and the ,infinite body is a composition of the ,infinite parts2 but figure1 place and body are all one1 and so is time1 and duration1 except you will call time the division of duration1 and duration the composition of time2 but infinite time1 and infinite duration is all one in ,nature3 and thus ,nature's ,principal motions and actions are dividing1 composing1 and disposing or ordering1 according to her ,natural wisdom1 by the ,omnipotent ,god's leave and permission4 ,concerning the ,sun1 which your ,author speaks of in the same place1 and denies him to be a ,spectator of our particular affairs upon ,earth2 saying1 there is no such divine ,principle in him1 whereby he can do it4 ,i will speak nothing again it1 nor for it2 but ,i may say1 that the ,sun hath such a ,principle as other ,creatures have1 which is1 that he has sensitive and rational corporeal motions1 as well as animals or other ,creatures1 although not in the same manner1 nor the same organs2 and if he have sensitive and rational motions1 he may also have sensitive and rational knowledg or perception1 as well as man1 or other animals and parts of ,nature have1 for ought any body knows2 for it is plain to humane sense and reason1 that all ,creatures must needs have rational and sensitive knowledg1 because they have all sensitive and rational matter and motions4 ,but leaving the ,sun for ,astronomers to contemplate upon1 ,i take my leave1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,in the ,preface before the ,imm4 of the ,soul4 #b ,antid4 ,book4 #b4 c4 #d4 ,x4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author in his arguments against ,motion1 being a ,principle of ,nature1#a endeavours to prove1 that ,beauty1 ,colour1 ,symmetry1 and the like1 in ,plants1 as well as in other ,creatures1 are no result from the meer motion of the matter2 and forming this objection1 ,it may be said1 says he1 ,that the regular motion of the matter made the first plant of every kind2 but we demand1 ,what regulated the motion of it1 so as to guide it1 to form it self into such a state8 ,i answer1 ,the ,wisdom of ,nature or infinite ,matter did order its own actions so1 as to form those her ,parts into such an exact and beautiful figure1 as such a ,tree1 or such a ,flower1 or such a ,fruit1 and the like2 and some of her ,parts are pleased and delighted with other parts1 but some of her parts are afraid or have an aversion to other parts2 and hence is like and dislike1 or sympathy and antipathy1 hate and love1 according as nature1 which is infinite self-moving matter1 pleases to move2 for though ,natural ,wisdom is dividable into parts1 yet these parts are united in one infinite ,body1 and make but one ,being in it self1 like as the several parts of a man make up but one perfect man2 for though a man may be wise in several causes or actions1 yet it is but one wisdom2 and though a ,judg may shew ,justice in several causes1 yet it is but one ,justice2 for ,wisdom and ,justice1 though they be practised in several causes1 yet it is but one ,wisdom1 and one ,justice2 and so1 all the parts of a mans body1 although they move differently1 yet are they but one man's bodily actions2 ,just as a man1 if he carve or cut out by art several statues1 or draw several ,pictures1 those statues or pictures are but that one man's work4 ,the like may be said of ,natures ,motions and ,figures2 all which are but one self-active or self-moving ,material ,nature4 ,but ,wise ,nature's ,ground or ,fundamental actions are very ,regular1 as you may observe in the several and distinct kinds1 sorts and particulars of her ,creatures1 and in their distinct ,proprieties1 ,qualities1 and ,faculties1 belonging not onely to each kind and sort1 but to each particular ,creature2 and since man is not able to know perfectly all those proprieties which belong to animals1 much less will he be able to know and judg of those that are in ,vegetables1 ,minerals and ,elements2 and yet these ,creatures1 for any thing ,man knows1 may be as knowing1 understanding1 and wise as he2 and each as knowing of its kind or sort1 as man is of his2 ,but the mixture of ignorance and knowledg in all ,creatures proceeds from thence1 that they are but ,parts2 and there is no better proof1 that the mind of man is dividable1 then that it is not perfectly knowing2 nor no better proof that it is composeable1 then that it knows so much3 but all minds are not alike1 but some are more composed then others1 which is the cause1 some know more then others2 for if the mind in all men were alike1 all men would have the same ,imaginations1 ,fancies1 ,conceptions1 ,memories1 ,remembrances1 ,passions1 ,affections1 ,understanding1 and so forth3 ,the same may be said of their bodies2 for if all mens sensitive parts were as one1 and not dividable and composeable1 all their ,faculties1 ,proprieties1 ,constitutions1 ,complexions1 ,appetites1 would be the same in every man without any difference2 but humane sense and reason doth well perceive1 that neither the mind1 life nor body are as one piece1 without division and composition4 ,concerning the divine ,soul1 ,i do not treat of it2 onely this ,i may say1 ,that all are not devout alike1 nor those which are1 are not at all times alike devout4 ,but to conclude3 some of our modern ,philosophers think they do ,god good service1 when they endeavour to prove ,nature1 as ,gods good ,servant1 to be stupid1 ignorant1 foolish and mad1 or any thing rather then wise1 and yet they believe themselves wise1 as if they were no part of ,nature2 but ,i cannot imagine any reason why they should rail on her1 except ,nature had not given them as great a share or portion1 as she hath given to others2 for children in this case do often rail at their ,parents1 for leaving their ,brothers and ,sisters more then themselves4 ,however1 ,nature can do more then any of her ,creatures3 and if ,man can ,paint1 ,imbroider1 ,carve1 ,ingrave curiously2 why may not ,nature have more ,ingenuity1 ,wit and ,wisdom then any of her particular ,creatures8 ,the same may be said of her ,government4 ,and so leaving ,wise ,nature1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,append4 to the ,antid4 c4 #aa4 ,,xi4 ,,madam1 ,to your ,authors argument1#a ,that if ,motion belong naturally to ,matter1 ,matter being ,uniform1 it must be alike moved in every part or particle imaginable of it1 by reason this ,motion being natural and essential to ,matter1 is alike every way4 ,i answer1 ,that this is no more necessary1 then that the several actions of one body1 or of one part of a body should be alike2 for though ,matter is one and the same in its ,nature1 and never changes1 yet the motions are various1 which motions are the several actions of one and the same ,natural ,matter2 and this is the cause of so many several ,creatures2 for self-moving matter by its self-moving power can act several ways1 modes or manners2 and had not natural matter a self-acting power1 there could not be any variety in ,nature2 for ,nature knows of no rest1 there being no such thing as rest in ,nature2 but she is in a perpetual motion1 ,i mean self-motion1 given her from ,god3 ,neither do ,i think it ,atheistical 7as your ,author deems7 to maintain this opinion of self-motion1 as long as ,i do not deny the ,omnipotency of ,god2 but ,i should rather think it ,irreligious to make so many several ,creatures as ,immaterial ,spirits1 like so many severall ,deities1 to rule and govern ,nature and all material substances in ,nature2 for what ,atheism doth there lie in saying1 that natural matter is naturally moving1 and wise in her self8 ,doth this oppose the omnipotency and ,infinite wisdom of ,god8 ,it rather proves and confirms it2 for all ,natures free power of moving and wisdom is a gift of ,god1 and proceeds from him2 but ,i must confess1 it destroys the power of ,immaterial substances1 for ,nature will not be ruled nor governed by them1 and to be against ,natural ,immaterial substances1 ,i think1 is no ,atheisme1 except we make them ,deities2 neither is ,atheisme to contradict the opinion of those1 that believe such natural incorporeal ,spirits1 unless man make himself a ,god4 ,but although ,nature is wise1 as ,i said before1 and acts methodically1 yet the variety of motions is the cause of so many ,irregularities in ,nature1 as also the cause of ,irregular opinions2 for all opinions are made by self-moving matters motions1 or 7which is all one7 by corporeal self-motion1 and some in their opinions do conceive ,nature according to the measure of themselves1 as that ,nature can1 nor could not do more1 then they think1 nay1 some believe they can do as much as ,nature doth2 which opinions1 whether they be probable or regular1 ,i'le let any man judg2 adding onely this1 that to humane sense and reason it appears plainly1 that as ,god has given ,nature a power to act freely1 so he doth approve of her actions1 being wise and methodical in all her several ,productions1 ,generations1 ,transformations and ,designs3 ,and so ,i conclude for the present1 onely subscribe my self1 as really ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 l4 #b4 c4 #a4 ,,xii4 ,,madam1 ,i am of your ,authors opinion1 concerning self-activity or self-motion1#a ,that what is ,active of it self1 can no more cease to be active then to be3 ,and ,i have been always of this opinion1 even from the first beginning of my conceptions in natural ,philosophy1 as you may see in my first ,treatise of ,natural ,philosophy1 which ,i put forth eleven years since2 where ,i say1 ,that self-moving ,matter is in a ,perpetual motion2 ,but your ,author endeavors from thence to conclude1 ,that ,matter is not self active1 because it is reducible to rest4 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that there is no such thing as ,rest in ,nature3 ,not do ,i say1 that all sorts of motions are subject to our senses1 for those that are subject to our sensitive ,perceptions1 are but gross ,motions1 in comparison to those that are not subject to our exterior senses3 as for example2 ,we see some bodies dilate1 others consume1 others corrupt2 yet we do not see how they dilate1 nor how they consume1 nor how they corrupt3 ,also we see some bodies contract1 some attract1 some condense1 some consist1 c4 yet we do not see their contracting1 attracting1 condensing1 consisting or retenting motions2 and yet we cannot say1 they are not corporeal motions1 because not subject to our exterior senses2 for if there were not contracting1 attracting1 retenting or consistent corporeal self-motions1 it had been impossible that any creature could have been composed into one united figure1 much less stayed and continued in the same figure without a general alteration4 ,but your ,author says1 ,if ,matter1 as ,matter1 had ,motion1 nothing would hold together1 but ,flints1 ,adamants1 ,brass1 ,iron1 yea1 this whole ,earth1 would suddenly melt into a thinner substance then the subtil ,air1 or rather it never had been condensated together to this consistency we find it4 ,but ,i would ask him1 what reason he can give1 that corporeal self-motion should make all matter rare and fluid1 unless he believe there is but one kind of motion in ,nature1 but this1 human sense and reason will contradict2 for we may observe there are ,infinite changes of ,motion1 and there is more variety and curiosity in corporeal motions1 then any one single ,creature can imagine1 much less know2 but ,i suppose he conceives all corporeal matter to be gross1 and that not any corporeal motion can be subtil1 penetrating1 contracting and dilating2 and that whatsoever is penetrating1 contracting and dilating1 is ,individable3 ,but by his leave1 ,madam1 this doth not follow2 for though there be gross degrees of ,matter1 and strong degrees of ,corporeal ,motions1 yet there are also pure and subtil degrees of ,matter and ,motions2 to wit1 that degree of ,matter1 which ,i name sensitive and rational ,matter1 which is natural ,life and ,knowledg1 as sensitive ,life and rational ,knowledg4 ,again1 your ,author askes1 ,what glue or cement holds the parts of hard matter in ,stones and ,metals together8 ,i answer1 ,consistent or retentive corporeal motions1 by an agreeable union and conjunction in the several parts of ,metal or ,stone2 and these retentive or consistent motions1 are as strong and active1 if not more1 then some dilative or contractive motions2 for ,i have mentioned heretofore1 that1 as sensitive and rational corporeal motions are in all ,creatures1 so also in ,stone1 ,metal1 and any other dense body whatsoever2 so that not any one ,creature or part of ,matter is without ,motion1 and therefore not any thing is at rest4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i dare say1 ,i could bring more reason and sense to prove1 that sensitive and rational ,matter is fuller of activity1 and has more variety of motion1 and can change its own parts of self-moving ,matter more suddenly1 and into more exterior figures1 then ,immaterial ,spirits can do upon natural ,matter4 ,but your ,author says1 ,that ,immaterial ,spirits are endued with ,sense and ,reason2 ,i say1 ,my sensitive and rational corporeal ,matter is ,sense and ,reason it self1 and is the ,architect or ,creator of all figures of ,natural matter1 for though all the parts of ,matter are not self-moving1 yet there is not any part that is not moving or moved1 by and with the mover1 which is animate matter4 ,and thus ,i conclude1 and rest constantly1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #a4 c4 #g4 ,,xiii4 ,,madam1 ,that ,matter is uncapable of ,sense1 your ,author proves by the example of dead ,carcasses2#a ,for1 says he1 ,motion and ,sense being really one and the same thing1 it must needs follow1 that where there is motion1 there is also sense and perception2 but on the contrary1 there is ,reaction in dead ,carcasses1 and yet no ,sense4 ,i answer shortly1 ,that it is no consequence1 because there is no animal sense nor exterior perceptible local motion in a dead ,carcass1 therefore there is no sense at all in it2 for though it has not animal sense1 yet it may nevertheless have sense according to the nature of that figure1 into which it did change from being an animal4 ,also he says1 ,if any ,matter have sense1 it will follow1 that upon reaction all shall have the like2 and that a ,bell while it is ringing1 and a ,bow while it is bent1 and every ,jack-in-a-box1 that ,school-boys play with1 shall be living animals4 ,i answer1 ,it is true1 if reaction made sense2 but reaction doth not make sense1 but sense makes reaction2 and though the ,bell hath not an animal knowledg1 yet it may have a mineral life and knowledg1 and the ,bow1 and the ,jack-in-a-box a vegetable knowledg2 for the shape and form of the ,bell1 ,bow1 and ,jack-in-a-box1 is artificial2 nevertheless each in its own kind may have as much knowledg as an animal in his kind2 onely they are different according to the different proprieties of their ,figures3 ,and who can prove the contrary that they have not8 ,for certainly ,man cannot prove what he cannot know2 but ,mans nature is so1 that knowing but little of other ,creatures1 he presently judges there is no more knowledg in ,nature1 then what ,man1 at least ,animals1 have2 and confines all sense onely to ,animal sense1 and all knowledg to ,animal knowledg4 ,again says your ,author1 ,that ,matter is utterly uncapable of such operations as we find in our selves1 and that therefore there is something in us ,immaterial or ,incorporeal2 for we find in our selves that one and the same thing1 both hears1 and sees1 and tastes1 and perceives all the variety of objects that ,nature manifests unto us4 ,i answer1 ,that is the reason there is but one matter1 and that all natural perception is made by the animate part of matter2 but although there is but one matter in ,nature1 yet there are several parts or degrees1 and consequently several actions of that onely matter1 which causes such a variety of perceptions1 both sensitive and rational3 the sensitive perception is made by the sensitive corporeal motions1 copying out the figures of forreign objects in the sensitive organs of the sentient2 and if those sensitive motions do pattern out forreign objects in each sensitive organ alike at one and the same time1 then we hear1 see1 taste1 touch and smell1 at one and the same time3 ,but ,thoughts and ,passions1 as ,imagination1 ,conception1 ,fancy1 ,memory1 ,love1 ,hate1 ,fear1 ,joy1 and the like1 are made by the rational corporeal motions in their own degree of matter1 to wit1 the rational4 ,and thus all perception is made by one and the same matter1 through the variety of its actions or motions1 making various and several figures1 both sensitive and rational4 ,but all this variety in sense and reason1 or of sensitive and rational perceptions1 is not made by parts pressing upon parts1 but by changing their own parts of matter into several figures by the power of self-motion3 ,for example1 ,i see a ,man or ,beast2 that ,man or ,beast doth not touch my eye1 in the least1 neither in it self1 nor by pressing the adjoyning parts3 but the sensitive corporeal motions streight upon the sight of the ,man or ,beast make the like figure in the sensitive organ1 the ,eye1 and in the eyes own substance or matter1 as being in the eye as well as the other degrees of matter1 to wit1 the rational and inanimate1 for they are all mixt together4 ,but this is to be observed1 ,that the rational matter can and doth move in its own substance1 as being the purest and subtillest degree of matter2 but the sensitive being not so pure and subtil1 moves always with the inanimate ,matter1 and so the perceptive figures which the rational ,matter1 or rational corporeal ,motions make1 are made in their own degree of ,matter2 but those figures which the sensitive patterns out1 are made in the organs or parts of the sentient body proper to such or such a sense or perception3 as in an animal ,creature1 the perception of sight is made by the sensitive corporeal motions in the ,eye2 the perception of hearing1 in the ,ear1 and so forth4 ,as for what your ,author says1 ,that we cannot conceive any portion of ,matter1 but is either hard or soft2 ,i answer1 ,that these are but effects of ,matters actions1 and so is rare1 and dense1 and the like2 but there are some ,creatures which seem neither perfectly rare1 nor dense1 nor hard1 nor soft1 but of mixt qualities2 as for example1 ,quicksilver seems rare1 and yet is dense2 soft1 and yet is hard2 for though liquid ,quicksilver is soft to our touch1 and rare to our sight1 yet it is so dense and hard1 as not to be readily dissolved from its nature2 and if there be such contraries and mixtures in one particular creature made of self-moving ,matter1 what will there not be in ,matter it self1 according to the old saying3 ,if the ,man such praise shall have2 ,what the ,master that keeps the knave8 ,so if a particular ,creature hath such opposite qualities and mixtures of corporeal motions1 what will the ,creator have which is self-moving ,matter8 ,wherefore it is impossible to affirm1 that self-moving ,matter is either all rare1 or all dense1 or all hard1 or all soft2 because by its self-moving power it can be either1 or both1 and so by the change and variety of motion1 there may be soft and rare ,points1 and hard and sharp ,points1 hard and contracted ,globes1 and soft and rare ,globes2 also there may be pressures of ,parts without printing1 and printing without pressures4 ,concerning that part of ,matter which is the ,common ,sensorium1 your ,author demands1 ,whether some point of it receive the whole ,image of the object1 or whether it be wholly received into every point of it8 ,i answer1 first1 ,that all sensitive ,matter is not in ,points2 ,next1 ,that not any single part can subsist of it self2 and then that one ,part doth not receive all parts or any part into it self2 but that ,parts by the power of self-motion can and do make several figures of all sizes and sorts1 and can ,epitomize a great object into a very little figure2 for outward objects do not move the body1 but the sensitive and rational matter moves according to the figures of outward objects3 ,i do not say always1 but most commonly2 ,but1 says your ,author1 ,how can so smal a ,point receive the ,images of so vast or so various objects at once1 without obliteration or confusion4 ,first1 ,i answer1 ,that1 as ,i said before1 sensitive ,matter is not bound up to a ,point1 nor to be a single self-subsisting ,part4 ,next1 as for confusion1 ,i say1 that the sensitive matter makes no more confusion1 then an ,engraver1 when he engraves several figures in a small stone1 and a ,painter draws several figures in a small compass2 for a ,carver will cut out several figures in a ,cherry-stone1 and a ,lady in a little black ,patch2 and if gross and rude ,art is able to do this1 what may not ,ingenious and ,wise ,nature do8 ,and as ,nature is ingenious and knowing in her self1 so in her ,parts1 and her ,parts in her2 for neither whole nor ,parts are ignorant1 but have a knowledg1 each according to the motion of its own ,parts2 for knowledg is in ,motion1 and ,motion in ,matter2 and the diversity and variety of motion is the diversity and variety of knowledg1 so that every particular figure and motion hath its particular knowledg1 as well as its proper and peculiar parts2 and as the parts join or divide1 so doth knowledg1 which many times causes ,arts to be lost and found1 and memory and remembrance in ,particular ,creatures3 ,i do not say1 they are utterly lost in nature1 but onely in respect to particular ,creatures1 by the dissolving and dividing of their particular figures4 ,for the rational matter1 by reason it moves onely in its own parts1 it can change and rechange into several figures without division of parts1 which makes memory and remembrance3 ,but men not considering or believing there might be such a degree of onely matter1 namely rational1 it has made them erre in their judgments4 ,nevertheless there is a difference between sensitive and rational parts and motions1 and yet they are agreeable most commonly in their actions1 though not always4 ,also the rational can make such figures as the sensitive cannot1 by reason the rational has a greater power and subtiler faculty in making variety1 then the sensitive2 for the sensitive is bound to move with the inanimate1 but the rational moves onely in its own parts2 for though the sensitive and rational oftentimes cause each other to move1 yet they are not of one and the same degree of matter1 nor have they the same motions4 ,and this rational ,matter is the cause of all ,notions1 ,conceptions1 ,imaginations1 ,deliberation1 ,determination1 ,memory1 and any thing else that belongs to the ,mind2 for this matter is the mind of ,nature1 and so being dividable1 the mind of all ,creatures1 as the sensitive is the life2 and it can move1 as ,i said1 more subtilly1 and more variously then the sensitive1 and make such figures as the sensitive cannot1 without outward examples and objects4 ,but all diversity comes by change of motion1 and motions are as sympathetical and agreeing1 as antipathetical and disagreeing2 ,and though ,nature's artificial motions1 which are her ,playing motions1 are sometimes extravagant1 yet in her fundamental actions there is no extravagancy1 as we may observe by her exact rules in the various generations1 the distinct kinds and sorts1 the several exact measures1 times1 proportions and motions of all her ,creatures1 in all which her wisdom is well exprest1 and in the variety her wise pleasure3 ,to which ,i leave her1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #b4 c4 #b4 ,,xiv4 ,,madam1 ,if there be any sense and perception in ,matter1 says your ,author1#a it must needs be ,motion or ,reaction of one part of matter against another2 and that all diversity of sense and perception doth necessarily arise from the diversity of the ,magnitude1 ,figure1 ,posture1 ,vigour and ,direction of ,motion in ,parts of the ,matter2 ,in which variety of perceptions1 ,matter hath none1 but such1 as are impressed by corporeal motions1 that is to say1 that are perceptions of some actions1 or modificated ,impressions of parts of matter bearing one against another4 ,i have declared1 ,madam1 my opinion concerning ,perception in my former ,letters1 that all ,perception is not ,impression and ,reaction1 like as a ,seal is printed on ,wax3 ,for example1 the corporeal rational motions in the mind do not print1 but move figuratively2 but the sensitive motions do carve1 print1 engrave1 and1 as it were1 pencil out1 as also move figuratively in productions1 and do often take patterns from the rational figures1 as the rational motions make figures according to the sensitive patterns2 ,but the rational can move without patterns1 and so the sensitive3 ,for surely1 were a man born blind1 deaf1 dumb1 and had a numb palsie in his exterior parts1 the sensitive and rational motions would nevertheless move both in body and mind according to the nature of his figure2 for though no copies were taken from outward objects1 yet he would have thoughts1 passions1 appetites1 and the like2 and though he could not see exterior objects1 nor hear exterior sounds1 yet no question but he would see and hear interiously after the manner of dreams1 onely they might not be any thing like to what is perceiveable by man in the ,world2 but if he sees not the ,sun-light1 yet he would see something equivalent to it2 and if he hears not such a thing as ,words1 yet he would hear something equivalent to words2 for it is impossible1 that his sensitive and rational faculties should be lost for want of an ,ear1 or an ,eye2 so that ,perception may be without exterior object1 or marks1 or patterns3 for although the sensitive ,motions do usually pattern out the figures of exterior objects1 yet that doth not prove1 but they can make interior figures without such objects4 ,wherefore ,perception is not always ,reaction1 neither is ,perception and ,reaction really one thing2 for though ,perception and ,action is one and the same1 yet not always ,reaction2 but did ,perception proceed from the reaction of outward objects1 a blind and deaf man would not so much as dream2 for he would have no interior motion in the head1 having no other exterior sense but touch1 which1 if the body was troubled with a painful disease1 he would neither be sensible of1 but to feel pain1 and interiously feel nothing but hunger and fulness2 and his ,mind would be as ,irrational as some imagine ,vegetables and ,minerals are4 ,to which opinion ,i leave them1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #b4 c4 #a4 a4 #a1 #f1 #g4 ,,xv4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is pleased1 in ,mirth1 and to disgrace the opinion of those which hold1 that ,perception is made by figuring1 to bring in this following example3#a ,suppose1 says he1 one ,particle should shape it self into a ,george on ,horse-back with a ,lance in his hand1 and another into an ,inchanted ,castle2 this ,george on ,horse-back must run against the ,castle1 to make the ,castle receive his impress and similitude3 ,but what then8 ,truly the ,encounter will be very ,unfortunate1 for ,s4 ,george indeed may easily break his ,lance1 but it is impossible that he should by justling against the ,particle in the form of a ,castle1 conveigh the intire shape of himself and his ,horse thereby1 such as we find our selves able to imagine of a man on ,horse-back2 which is a ,truth as demonstrable as any ,theorem in ,mathematicks4 ,i answer1 first1 ,that there is no ,particle single and alone by it self2 ,next1 ,i say1 ,it is more easie for the rational matter to put it self into such figures1 and to make such encounters1 then for an ,immaterial mind or substance to imagine it2 for no imagination can be without figure1 and how should an ,immaterial created substance present such ,figures1 but by making them either in it self or upon matter8 ,for ,s4 ,george and the ,castle are figures1 and their encounters are real fighting actions1 and how such figures and actions can be in the mind or memory1 and yet not be1 is impossible to conceive2 for1 as ,i said1 those figures and actions must be either in the incorporeal mind1 or in the corporeal parts of matter2 and if the figures and motions may be in an incorporeal substance1 much more is it probable for them to be in a corporeal2 nay if the figures and their actions can be in gross corporeal matter1 why should they not be in the purest part of matter1 which is the rational matter8 ,and as for being made known to the whole body1 and every part thereof1 it is not necessary1 no more then it is necessary1 that the private actions of every ,man or ,family should be made known to the whole ,kingdom1 or ,town1 or ,parish3 ,but my opinion of self-corporeal motion and perception1 may be as demonstrable as that of ,immaterial ,natural ,spirits1 which1 in my mind1 is not demonstrable at all1 by reason it is not corporeal or material2 ,for how can that be naturally demonstrable1 which naturally is nothing8 ,but your ,author believes the ,mind or rational ,soul to be individable1 and therefore concludes1 that the ,parts of the same ,matter1 although at great distance1 must of necessity know each ,particular act of each several ,part2 but that is not necessary2 for if there were not ignorance through the division of ,parts1 every man and other creatures would know alike2 and there is no better proof1 that matter1 or any particular creature in nature is not governed by a created ,immaterial ,spirit1 then that knowledg is in parts2 for the hand doth not know what pain the head feels1 which certainly it would do1 if the mind were not dividable into parts1 but an individable substance4 ,but this is well to be observed1 that some parts in some actions agree generally in one body1 and some not2 as for example1 temperance and appetite do not agree2 for the corporeal actions of appetite desire to join with the corporeal actions of such or such other parts1 but the corporeal actions of temperance do hinder and forbid it2 whereupon there is a faction amongst the several parts3 for example1 a ,man desires to be drunk with ,wine2 this desire is made by such corporeal actions as make appetite2 the rational corporeal motions or actions which make temperance1 oppose those that make appetite1 and that sort of actions which hath the better1 carryes it1 the hand and other parts of the body obeying the strongest side2 and if there be no wine to satisfie the appetite1 yet many times the appetite continues2 that is1 the parts continue in the same motions that make such an appetite2 but if the appetite doth not continue1 then those parts have changed their motions2 or when by drinking1 the appetite is satisfied1 and ceases1 then those parts that made the appetite1 have altered their former motions4 ,but oftentimes the rational corporeal motions may so agree with the sensitive1 as there may be no opposition or crossing at all1 but a sympathetical mutual agreement betwixt them1 at least an approvement2 so that the rational may approve what the sensitive covet or desire3 ,also some motions of the rational1 as also of the sensitive matter1 may disagree amongst themselves1 as we see1 that a man will often have a divided mind2 for he will love and hate the same thing1 desire and not desire one and the same thing1 as to be in ,heaven1 and yet to be in the ,world3 ,moreover1 this is to be observed1 ,that all rational perceptions or cogitations1 are not so perspicuous and clear as if they were ,mathematical ,demonstrations1 but there is some obscurity1 more or less in them1 at least they are not so well perceivable without comparing several figures together1 which proves1 they are not made by an individable1 immaterial ,spirit1 but by dividable corporeal parts3 ,as for example1 ,man writes oftentimes false1 and seldom so exact1 but he is forced to mend his hand1 and correct his opinions1 and sometimes quite to alter them1 according as the figures continue or are dissolved and altered by change of motion1 and according as the actions are quick or slow in these alterations1 the humane mind is setled or wavering2 and as figures are made1 or dissolved and transformed1 ,opinions1 ,conceptions1 ,imaginations1 ,understanding1 and the like1 are more or less2 ,and according as these figures last1 so is constancy or inconstancy1 memory or forgetfulness1 and as those figures are repeated1 so is remembrance2 but sometimes they are so constant and permanent1 as they last as long as the figure of the body1 and sometimes it happens not once in an age1 that the like figures are repeated1 and sometimes they are repeated every moment3 ,as for example2 a man remembers or calls to mind the figure of another man1 his friend1 with all his qualities1 dispositions1 actions1 proprieties1 and the like1 several times in an hour1 and sometimes not once in a year1 and so as often as he remembers him1 as often is the figure of that man repeated2 and as oft as he forgets him1 so often is his figure dissolved4 ,but some imagine the rational motions to be so gross as the ,trotting of a ,horse1 and that all the motions of ,animate matter are as rude and course as renting or tearing asunder1 or that all impressions must needs make dents or creases4 ,but as ,nature hath degrees of corporeal matter1 so she hath also degrees of corporeal motions1 ,matter and ,motion being but one substance2 and it is absurd to judg of the interior motions of self-moving matter1 by artificial or exterior gross motions1 as that all motions must be like the tearing of a sheet of ,paper1 or that the printing and patterning of several figures of rational and sensitive matter must be like the printing of ,books2 nay1 all artificial ,printings are not so hard1 as to make dents and impresses2 witness ,writing1 ,painting1 and the like2 for they do not disturb the ground whereon the letters are written1 or the picture drawn1 and so the curious actions of the purest rational matter are neither rude nor rough2 but although this matter is so subtil and pure1 as not subject to exterior human senses and organs1 yet certainly it is dividable1 not onely in several ,creatures1 but in the several parts of one and the same ,creature1 as well as the sensitive1 which is the ,life of ,nature1 as the other is the ,soul2 not the ,divine1 but natural ,soul2 neither is this ,soul ,immaterial1 but ,corporeal2 not composed of raggs and shreds1 but it is the purest1 simplest and subtillest matter in ,nature4 ,but to conclude1 ,i desire you to remember1 ,madam1 that this rational and sensitive ,matter in one united and finite ,figure or particular ,creature1 has both common and particular actions1 for as there are several kinds and sorts of ,creatures1 and particulars in every kind and sort3 so the like for the actions of the rational and sensitive matter in one particular ,creature4 ,also it is to be noted1 ,that the ,parts of rational matter1 can more suddenly give and take ,intelligence to and from each other1 then the sensitive2 nevertheless1 all ,parts in ,nature1 at least adjoyning parts1 have ,intelligence between each other1 more or less1 because all parts make but one body2 for it is not with the parts of ,matter1 as with several ,constables in several ,hundreds1 or several ,parishes1 which are a great way distant from each other1 but they may be as close as the combs of ,bees1 and yet as partable and as active as ,bees4 ,but concerning the ,intelligence of ,natures ,parts1 ,i have sufficiently spoken in other places2 and so ,i'le add no more1 but that ,i unfeignedly remain2 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in the second ,book of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 ch4 #f4 ,,xvi4 ,,madam1 ,sensation in corporeal motion is first1 and ,perception follows1 sayes your ,author3#a to which opinion ,i give no assent1 but do believe that ,perception and ,sensation are done both at one and the same time1 as being one and the same thing without division1 either in reason or sense1 and are performed without any knocks1 or jolts1 or hitting against4 ,but let me tell you1 ,madam1 there arises a great mistake by many1 from not distinguishing well1 sensitive ,motion1 and rational ,motion2 for though all motions are in one onely matter1 yet that matter doth not move always in the same manner1 for then there could be no variety in ,nature2 and truly1 if man1 who is but a part of ,nature1 may move diversly1 and put himself into numerous postures2 ,why may not ,nature8 ,but concerning ,motions1 and their variety1 to avoid tedious repetitions1 ,i must still referr you to my ,book of ,philosophical ,opinions2 ,i'le add onely this1 that it is well to be observed1 ,that all ,motions are not ,impressions1 neither do all ,impressions make such dents1 as to disturb the adjoyning ,parts3 ,wherefore those1 in my opinion1 understand ,nature best1 which say1 that ,sensation and ,perception are really one and the same2 but they are out1 that say1 there can be no communication at a distance1 unless by pressing and crowding2 for the patterning of an outward object1 may be done without any inforcement or disturbance1 jogging or crowding1 as ,i have declared heretofore2 for the sensitive and rational motions in the sensitive and rational parts of matter in one creature1 observing the exterior motions in outward objects1 move accordingly1 either regularly or irregularly in patterns2 and if they have no exterior objects1 as in dreams1 they work by rote4 ,and so to conclude1 ,i am absolutely of their opinion1 who believe1 that there is nothing existent in ,nature1 but what is purely ,corporeal1 for this seems most probable in sense and reason to me1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in the ,pref4 of the ,imm4 of the ,soul4 ,,xvii4 ,,madam1 ,outward ,objects1 as ,i have told you before1 do not make ,sense and ,reason1 but ,sense and ,reason do perceive and judg of outward objects2 ,for the ,sun doth not make sight1 nor doth sight make light2 but sense and reason in a ,man1 or any other creature1 do perceive and know there are such objects as ,sun1 and ,light1 or whatsoever objects are presented to them4 ,neither doth ,dumbness1 ,deafness1 ,blindness1 c4 cause an ,insensibility1 but ,sense through irregular actions causes them2 ,i say1 through ,irregular actions1 because those effects do not properly belong to the nature of that kind of ,creatures2 for every ,creature1 if regularly made1 hath particular motions proper to its figure2 for natural ,matters wisdom makes distinctions by her distinct corporeal motions1 giving every particular ,creature their due ,portion and ,proportion according to the nature of their figures1 and to the rules of her actions1 but not to the rules of ,arts1 ,mathematical ,compasses1 ,lines1 ,figures1 and the like4 ,and thus the ,sun1 ,stars1 ,meteors1 ,air1 ,fire1 ,water1 ,earth1 ,minerals1 ,vegetables and ,animals1 may all have ,sense and ,reason1 although it doth not move in one kind or sort of ,creatures1 or in one particular1 as in another3 ,for the corporeal motions differ not onely in kinds and sorts1 but also in ,particulars1 as is perceivable by human sense and reason2 ,which is the cause1 that ,elements have elemental sense and knowledg1 and ,animals animal sense and knowledg1 and so of ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and the like4 ,wherefore the ,sun and ,stars may have as much sensitive and rational life and knowledg as other ,creatures1 but such as is according to the nature of their figures1 and not animal1 or vegetable1 or mineral sense and knowledg4 ,and so leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xviii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author denying that ,fancy1 ,reason and ,animadversion are seated in the ,brain1 and that the ,brain is figured into this or that ,conception3#a ,i demand1 says he1 in what knot1 loop or interval thereof doth this faculty of free ,fancy and active ,reason reside8 ,my answer is1 that in my opinion1 ,fancy and ,reason are not made in the ,brain1 as there is a ,brain1 but as there is sensitive and rational matter1 which makes not onely the ,brain1 but all ,thoughts1 ,conceptions1 ,imaginations1 ,fancy1 ,understanding1 ,memory1 ,remembrance1 and whatsoever motions are in the ,head1 or ,brain3 neither doth this sensitive and rational matter remain or act in one place of the ,brain1 but in every part thereof2 and not onely in every part of the ,brain1 but in every part of the ,body2 nay1 not onely in every part of a ,mans ,body1 but in every part of ,nature4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i would ask those1 that say the ,brain has neither sense1 reason1 nor self-motion1 and therefore no ,perception2 but that all proceeds from an ,immaterial ,principle1 as an ,incorporeal ,spirit1 distinct from the body1 which moveth and actuates corporeal matter2 ,i would fain ask them1 ,i say1 where their ,immaterial ,ideas reside1 in what part or place of the ,body8 and whether they be little or great8 ,also ,i would ask them1 whether there can be many1 or but one ,idea of ,god8 ,if they say many1 then there must be several1 distinct ,deitical ,ideas2 if but one1 ,where doth this ,idea reside8 ,if they say in the head1 then the heart is ignorant of ,god2 if in the heart1 then the head is ignorant thereof1 and so for all parts of the body2 but if they say1 in every part1 then that ,idea may be disfigured by a lost member2 if they say1 it may dilate and contract1 then ,i say it is not the ,idea of ,god1 for ,god can neither contract nor extend2 nor can the ,idea it self dilate and contract1 being immaterial2 for contraction and dilation belong onely to bodies1 or material beings3 ,wherefore the comparisons betwixt ,nature and a particular ,creature1 and between ,god and ,nature1 are improper2 much more betwixt ,god and ,natures particular motions and figures1 which are various and changeable1 although methodical4 ,the same ,i may ask of the ,mind of ,man1 as ,i do of the ,idea in the ,mind4 ,also ,i might ask them1 what they conceive the natural mind of man to be1 whether material or immaterial8 ,if material1 their opinion is rational1 and so the mind is dividable and composable2 if immaterial1 then it is a ,spirit2 and if a ,spirit1 it cannot possibly dilate nor contract1 having no dimension nor divisibility of parts1 7although your ,author proves it by the example of ,light2 but ,i have exprest my meaning heretofore1 that light is divisible7 and if it have no dimension1 how can it be confined in a material body8 ,wherefore when your ,author says1 the mind is a substance1 it is to my reason very probable2 but not when he says1 it is an immaterial substance1 which will never agree with my sense and reason2 for it must be either something1 or nothing1 there being no medium between1 in ,nature4 ,but pray mistake me not1 ,madam1 when ,i say ,immaterial is nothing2 for ,i mean nothing ,natural1 or so as to be a part of ,nature2 for ,god forbid1 ,i should deny1 that ,god is a ,spiritual ,immaterial substance1 or ,being2 neither do ,i deny that we can have an ,idea1 notion1 conception1 or thought of the existence of ,god2 for ,i am of your ,authors opinion1 ,that there is no ,man under the cope of ,heaven1 that doth not by the light of ,nature1 know1 and believe there is a ,god2 but that we should have such a perfect ,idea of ,god1 as of any thing else in the ,world1 or as of our selves1 as your ,author says1 ,i cannot in sense and reason conceive to be true or possible4 ,neither am ,i against those ,spirits1 which the holy ,scripture mentions1 as ,angels and ,devils1 and the divine ,soul of ,man2 but ,i say onely1 that no ,immaterial ,spirit belongs to ,nature1 so as to be a part thereof2 for ,nature is ,material1 or ,corporeal2 and whatsoever is not composed of matter or body1 belongs not to ,nature2 nevertheless1 ,immaterial ,spirits may be in ,nature1 although not parts of ,nature4 ,but there can neither be an ,immaterial ,nature1 nor a ,natural ,immaterial2 ,nay1 our very thoughts and conceptions of ,immaterial are ,material1 as made of self-moving ,matter4 ,wherefore to conclude1 these opinions in ,men proceed from a ,vain-glory1 as to have found out something that is not in ,nature2 to which ,i leave them1 and their natural ,immaterial ,substances1 like so many ,hobgoblins to fright ,children withal1 resting in the mean time1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 lib4 #a4 c4 #aa4 ,,xix4 ,,madam1 ,there are various opinions concerning the seat of ,common ,sense1 as your ,author rehearseth them in his ,treatise of the ,immortality of the ,soul2#a ,but my opinion is1 ,that common sense hath also a common place2 for as there is not any part of the body that hath not sense and reason1 so sense and reason is in all parts of the body1 as it is observable by this1 that every part is subject to pain and pleasure1 and all parts are moveable1 moving and moved2 also appetites are in every part of the body3 ,as for example1 if any part itches1 it hath an appetite to be scratched1 and every part can pattern out several objects1 and so several touches2 and though the rational part of matter is mixt in all parts of the body1 yet it hath more liberty to make variety of ,motions in the head1 heart1 liver1 spleen1 stomack1 bowels1 and the like1 then in the other parts of the body2 nevertheless1 it is in every part1 together with the sensitive3 but they do not move in every part alike1 but differ in each part more or less1 as it may be observed2 and although every part hath some difference of knowledg1 yet all have life and knowledg1 sense and reason1 some more1 some less1 and the whole body moves according to each part1 and so do all the bodily ,faculties and ,proprieties1 and not according to one single part2 the rational ,soul being in all parts of the body3 for if one part of the body should have a dead ,palsie1 it is not1 that the ,soul is gone from that part1 but that the sensitive and rational matter has altered its motion and figure from animal to some other kind2 for certainly1 the rational ,soul1 and so life1 is in every part1 as well in the ,pores of the skin1 as in the ventricles of the brain1 and as well in the heel as in the head2 and every part of the body knows its own office1 what it ought to do1 from whence follows an agreement of all the parts3 ,and since there is difference of knowledg in every part of one body1 well may there be difference between several kinds and sorts1 and yet there is knowledg in all2 for difference of knowledg is no argument to prove they have no knowledg at all4 ,wherefore ,i am not of the opinion1 that that which moves the whole body1 is as a ,point1 or some such thing in a little kernel or ,glandula of the ,brain1 as an ,ostrich-egge is hung up to the roof of a ,chamber2 or that it is in the stomack like a single penny in a great ,purse2 neither is it in the midst of the heart1 like a ,lady in a ,lobster2 nor in the blood1 like as a ,menow1 or ,sprat in the ,sea2 nor in the fourth ,ventricle of the ,brain1 as a lousie ,souldier in a ,watch-tower4 ,but you may say1 it is like a farthing ,candle in a great ,church3 ,i answer1 ,that ,light will not enlighten the by ,chappels of the ,church1 nor the ,quest-house1 nor the ,belfrey2 neither doth the ,light move the ,church1 though it enlightens it3 ,wherefore the ,soul after this manner doth not move the corporeal body1 no more then the ,candle moves the ,church1 or the ,lady moves the ,lobster1 or the ,sprat the ,sea as to make it ebb and flow4 ,but this ,i desire you to observe1 ,madam1 that though all the body of man or any other ,creature1 hath sense and reason1 which is life and knowledg1 in all parts1 yet these parts being all corporeal1 and having their certain proportions1 can have no more then what is belonging or proportionable to each figure3 ,as for example2 if a ,man should feed1 and not evacuate some ways or other1 he could not live2 and if he should evacuate and not feed1 he could not subsist3 wherefore in all ,natures parts there is ingress and egress1 although not always perceived by one creature1 as ,man2 but all exterior objects do not enter into ,man1 or any other ,creature1 but are figured by the rational1 and some by the sensitive parts or motions in the body2 wherefore it is not rational to believe1 that exterior objects take up any more room1 then if there were none presented to the sensitive organs3 ,nor is there any thing which can better prove the mind to be corporeal1 then that there may be several ,figures in several parts of the body made at one time1 as ,sight1 ,hearing1 ,tasting1 ,smelling1 and ,touching1 and all these in each several organ1 as well at one1 as at several times1 either by patterns1 or not2 which figuring without ,pattern1 may be done as well by the sensitive motions in the organs1 as by the rational in the mind1 and is called remembrance4 ,as for example3 a ,man may hear or see without an object2 which is1 that the sensitive and rational matter repeat such figurative actions1 or make others in the sensitive organs1 or in the mind3 and ,thoughts1 ,memory1 ,imagination1 as also ,passion1 are no less corporeal actions then the motion of the hand or heel2 neither hath the rational matter1 being naturally wise1 occasion to jumble and knock her parts together1 by reason every part knows naturally their office what they ought to do1 or what they may do4 ,but ,i conclude1 repeating onely what ,i have said oft before1 that all ,perceptions1 ,thoughts1 and the like1 are the ,effects1 and ,life and ,knowledg1 the ,nature and ,essence of self-moving ,matter4 ,and so ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,lib4 #b4 c4 #d4 ,,xx4 ,,madam1 ,i am not able to conceive how the ,mind of ,man can be compared to a ,table-book1 in which nothing is writ2#a nor how to a ,musician1 who being asleep1 doth not so much as dream of any ,musick1 but being jogg'd and awakend by another1 who tells him two or three words of a ,song1 and desires him to sing it1 presently recovers himself1 and sings upon so slight an ,intimation3 ,for such intimations are nothing else but outward objects1 which the interior sense consents to1 and obeys2 for interior sense and reason doth often obey outward objects3 and in my opinion there is no rest in ,nature1 and so neither in the ,mind or natural ,soul of ,man1 which is in a perpetual motion1 and needs therefore no jogging to put it into any actual motion2 for it hath actual motion and knowledg in it self1 because it is a self-moving substance1 actually knowing1 and ,material or ,corporeal1 not ,immaterial1 as your ,author thinks3 and this material or corporeal ,mind is nothing else but what ,i call the rational matter1 and the corporeal life is the sensitive matter4 ,but this is to be observed1 that the motions of the corporeal ,mind do often imitate the motions of the sensitive ,life1 and these again the motions of the mind3 ,i say oftentimes2 for they do it not always1 but each one can move without taking any pattern from the other4 ,and all this ,i understand of the ,natural ,soul of ,man2 not of the ,divine ,soul1 and her powers and faculties1 for ,i leave that to ,divines to inform us of2 onely this ,i say1 that men not conceiving the distinction between this natural and divine ,soul1 make such a confusion betwixt those two ,souls and their actions1 which causes so many disputes and opinions4 ,but if ,nature hath power from ,god to produce all kinds of ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 ,elements1 ,animals1 and other sorts of ,creatures1 ,why not also ,man8 ,truly if all ,creatures are natural ,creatures1 ,man must be so too2 and if ,man is a natural ,creature1 he must needs have natural sense and reason1 as well as other ,creatures1 being composed of the same matter they are of4 ,neither is it requisite1 that all ,creatures1 being of the same matter1 must have the same manner of sensitive and rational knowledg2 which if so1 it is not necessary for ,corn to have ,ears to hear the whistling or chirping of ,birds1 nor for ,stones to have such a touch of feeling as animals have1 and to suffer pain1 as they do1 when ,carts go over them2 as your ,author is pleased to argue out of sopes ,tales2 or for the ,heliotrope to have eyes to see the ,sun3 for what necessity is there that they should have humane sense and reason8 which is1 that the rational and sensitive matter should act and move in them as she doth in man or animals3 ,certainly if there must be any variety in nature1 it is requisite she should not2 wherefore all ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 ,elements1 and ,animals1 have their proper motions different from each others1 not onely in their kinds and sorts1 but also in their particulars4 ,and though ,stones have no progressive motion to withdraw themselves from the ,carts going over them1 which your ,author thinks they would do1 if they had sense1 to avoid pain3 nevertheless they have motion1 and consequently sense and reason1 according to the nature and propriety of their figure1 as well as man has according to his4 ,but this is also to be observed1 that not any humane ,creature1 which is accounted to have the perfectest sense and reason1 is able always to avoid what is hurtful or painful1 for it is subject to it by ,nature3 ,nay1 the ,immaterial ,soul it self1 according to your ,author1#b cannot by her self-contracting faculty withdraw her self from pain4 ,wherefore there is no manner of consequence to conclude from the sense of ,animals to the sense of ,minerals1 they being as much different as their ,figures are2 ,and saying this1 ,i have said enough to express the opinion and mind of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 ,book #a4 c4 #e4 #b ,append4 to the ,antid4 ch4 #c4 ,,xxi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author endeavours very much to prove the existency of a ,natural ,immaterial ,spirit1 whom he defines to be an ,incorporeal substance1 ,indivisible1 that can move it self1 can penetrate1 contract and dilate it self1 and can also move and alter the matter4 ,whereof1 if you will have my opinion1 ,i confess freely to you1 that in my sense and reason ,i cannot conceive it to be possible1 that these is any such thing in ,nature2 for all that is a substance in ,nature1 is a body1 and what has a body1 is corporeal2 for though there be several degrees of matter1 as in purity1 rarity1 subtilty1 activity2 yet there is no degree so pure1 rare and subtil1 that can go beyond its nature1 and change from corporeal to incorporeal1 except it could change from being something to nothing1 which is impossible in ,nature4 ,next1 there is no substance in ,nature that is not divisible2 for all that is a body1 or a bodily substance1 hath extension1 and all extension hath parts1 and what has parts1 is divisible4 ,as for self-motion1 contraction and dilation1 these are actions onely of ,natural ,matter2 for ,matter by the ,power of ,god is self-moving1 and all sorts of motions1 as contraction1 dilation1 alteration1 penetration1 c4 do properly belong to ,matter2 so that natural ,matter stands in no need to have some ,immaterial or ,incorporeal substance to move1 rule1 guide and govern her2 but she is able enough to do it all her self1 by the free ,gift of the ,omnipotent ,god2 for why should we trouble our selves to invent or frame other unconceivable substances1 when there is no need for it1 but ,matter can act1 and move as well without them and of it self8 ,is not ,god able to give such power to ,matter1 as to an other ,incorporeal substance8 ,but ,i suppose this opinion of natural ,immaterial ,spirits doth proceed from ,chymistry1 where the extracts are vulgarly called ,spirits2 and from that degree of ,matter1 which by reason of its purity1 subtilty and activity1 is not subject to our grosser senses2 ,however1 these are not ,incorporeal1 be they never so pure and subtil4 ,and ,i wonder much that men endeavour to prove ,immaterial ,spirits by corporeal ,arts1 when as ,art is not able to demonstrate ,nature and her actions2 for ,art is but the effect of ,nature1 and expresses rather the variety1 then the truth of natural motions2 and if ,art cannot do this1 much less will it be able to express what is not in ,nature1 or what is beyond ,nature2 as to trace the ,visible 7or rather ,invisible7 footsteps of the divine ,councel and ,providence1#a or to demonstrate things supernatural1 and which go beyond mans reach and capacity4 ,but to return to ,immaterial ,spirits1 that they should rule and govern infinite corporeal matter1 like so many demy-,gods1 by a dilating nod1 and a contracting frown1 and cause so many kinds and sorts of ,corporeal ,figures to arise1 being ,incorporeal themselves1 is ,impossible for me to conceive2 for how can an ,immaterial substance cause a ,material corporeal substance1 which has no motion in it self1 to form so many several and various figures and creatures1 and make so many alterations1 and continue their kinds and sorts by perpetual successions of ,particulars8 ,but perchance the ,immaterial substance gives corporeal matter motion4 ,i answer1 ,my sense and reason cannot understand1 how it can give motion1 unless motion be different1 distinct and separable from it2 nay1 if it were1 yet being no substance or body it self1 according to your ,authors and others opinion1 the question is1 how it can be transmitted or given away to corporeal matter8 ,your ,author may say1 ,that his ,immaterial and ,incorporeal spirit of ,nature1 having self-motion1 doth form ,matter into several ,figures3 ,i answer1 ,then that ,immaterial substance must be transformed and metamorphosed into as many several figures as there are figures in ,matter2 or there must be as many spirits1 as there are figures2 but when the figures change1 what doth become of the spirits8 ,neither can ,i imagine1 that an ,immaterial substance1 being without body1 can have such a great strength1 as to grapple with gross1 heavy1 dull1 and dead ,matter2 ,certainly1 in my opinion1 no ,angel1 nor ,devil1 except ,god ,impower him1 would be able to move corporeal ,matter1 were it not self-moving1 much less any ,natural ,spirit4 ,but ,god is a ,spirit1 and ,immovable2 and if created natural ,immaterial participate of that ,nature1 as they do of the ,name1 then they must be ,immovable also4 ,your ,author1 ,madam1 may make many several degrees of ,spirits2 but certainly not ,i1 nor ,i think any natural ,creature else1 will be able naturally to conceive them4 ,he may say1 perchance1 ,there is such a close conjunction betwixt ,body and ,spirit1 as ,i make betwixt rational1 sensitive1 and inanimate ,matter4 ,i answer1 ,that these degrees are all but one ,matter1 and of one and the same ,nature as meer ,matter1 different onely in degrees of purity1 subtilty1 and activity1 whereas ,spirit and ,body are things of contrary ,natures4 ,in fine1 ,i cannot conceive1 how a ,spirit should fill up a place or space1 having no body1 nor how it can have the effects of a body1 being none it self2 for the effects flow from the cause2 and as the cause is1 so are its effects3 ,and so confessing my ignorance1 ,i can say no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,antid4 lib4 #b4 ch4 #b4 ,,xxii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author having assigned ,indivisibility to the ,soul or ,spirit that moves and actuates matter1 ,i desire to know1 how one ,indivisible ,spirit can be in so many dividable parts8 ,for there being ,infinite parts in ,nature1 they must either have one ,infinite ,spirit to move them1 which must be dilated infinitely1 or this ,spirit must move severally in every part of ,nature3 ,if the first1 then ,i cannot conceive1 but all motion must be uniform1 or after one and the same manner2 nay1 ,i cannot understand1 how there can be any dilation and contraction1 or rather any motion of the same spirit1 by reason if it dilate1 then1 7being equally spread out in all the parts of ,matter17 it must dilate beyond ,matter2 and if it contract1 it must leave some parts of matter void1 and without motion4 ,but if the ,spirit moves every part severally1 then he is divisible2 neither can ,i think1 that there are so many ,spirits as there are ,parts in ,nature2 for your ,author says1 there is but one ,spirit of ,nature2 ,i will give an easie and plain example3 ,when a ,worm is cut into two or three parts1 we see there is sensitive life and motion in every part1 for every part will strive and endeavour to meet and joyn again to make up the whole body2 now if there were but one indivisible ,life1 ,spirit1 and ,motion1 ,i would fain know1 how these severed parts could move all by one ,spirit4 ,wherefore1 ,matter1 in my opinion1 has self-motion in it self1 which is the onely soul and life of ,nature1 and is dividable as well as composable1 and full of variety of action2 for it is as easie for several parts to act in separation1 as in composition1 and as easie in composition as in separation2 ,neither is every part bound to one kind or sort of ,motions2 for we see in exterior local motions1 that one man can put his body into several shapes and postures1 much more can ,nature4 ,but is it not strange1 ,madam1 that a man accounts it absurd1 ridiculous1 and a prejudice to ,gods ,omnipotency1 to attribute self-motion to ,matter1 or a material ,creature1 when it is not absurd1 ridiculous1 or any prejudice to ,god1 to attribute it to an ,immaterial ,creature8 ,what reason of absurdity lies herein8 ,surely ,i can conceive none1 except it be absurd and ridiculous to make that1 which no man can know or conceive what it is1 viz4 an immaterial natural ,spirit1 7which is as much as to say1 a natural ,no-thing7 to have motion1 and not onely motion1 but self-motion2 nay1 not onely self-motion1 but to move1 actuate1 rule1 govern1 and guide ,matter1 or corporeal ,nature1 and to be the cause of all the most curious varieties and effects in nature3 ,was not ,god able to give self-motion as well to a ,material1 as to an ,immaterial ,creature1 and endow ,matter with a self-moving power8 ,i do not say1 ,madam1 that ,matter hath motion of it self1 so1 that it is the prime cause and principle of its own self-motion2 for that were to make ,matter a ,god1 which ,i am far from believing2 but my opinion is1 ,that the self-motion of ,matter proceeds from ,god1 as well as the self-motion of an ,immaterial ,spirit2 and that ,i am of this opinion1 the last ,chapter of my ,book of ,philosophy will enform you1 where ,i treat of the ,deitical ,centre1 as the ,fountain from whence all things do flow1 and which is the supream ,cause1 ,author1 ,ruler and ,governor of all4 ,perhaps you will say1 it is1 because ,i make ,matter ,eternal4 ',tis true1 ,madam1 ,i do so3 but ,i think ,eternity doth not take off the dependance upon ,god1 for ,god may nevertheless be above ,matter1 as ,i have told you before4 ,you may ask me how that can be8 ,i say1 ,as well as any thing else that ,god can do beyond our understanding3 ,for ,i do but tell you my opinion1 that ,i think it most probable to be so1 but ,i can give you no ,mathematical ,demonstrations for it3 ,onely this ,i am sure of1 ,that it is not impossible for the ,omnipotent ,god2 and he that questions the truth of it1 may question ,gods ,omnipotency4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i wonder how man can say1 ,god is ,omnipotent1 and can do beyond our ,understanding1 and yet deny all that he is not able to comprehend with his reason4 ,however1 as ,i said1 it is my opinion1 ,that ,matter is self-moving by the power of ,god2 ,neither can ,animadversion1 and ,perception1 as also the variety of ,figures1 prove1 that there must be another external ,agent or ,power to work all this in ,matter2 but it proves rather the contrary2 for were there no self-motion in ,matter1 there would be no ,perception1 nor no variety of ,creatures in their ,figures1 ,shapes1 ,natures1 ,qualities1 ,faculties1 ,proprieties1 as also in their ,productions1 ,creations or ,generations1 ,transformations1 ,compositions1 ,dissolutions1 and the like1 as ,growth1 ,maturity1 ,decay1 c4 and for ,animals1 were not ,corporeal ,matter self-moving1 dividable and composable2 there could not be such variety of ,passions1 ,complexions1 ,humors1 ,features1 ,statures1 ,appetites1 ,diseases1 ,infirmities1 ,youth1 ,age1 c4 ,neither would they have any nourishing ,food1 healing ,salves1 soveraign ,medicines1 reviving ,cordials1 or deadly ,poysons4 ,in short1 there is so much variety in ,nature1 proceeding from the self-motion of ,matter1 as not possible to be numbred1 nor thorowly known by any ,creature3 ,wherefore ,i should labour in vain1 if ,i endeavoured to express any more thereof2 and this is the cause that ,i break off here1 and onely subscribe my self1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxiii4 ,,madam1 ,concerning the comparison1 your ,author makes between an ,immaterial ,spirit1 and ,light1#a ,that1 as ,light is contractive and dilative1 and yet not divisible1 so is also an ,immaterial substance4 ,give me leave to tell you1 that in my opinion1 all that is contractive and dilative1 is also dividable1 and so is light3 ,as for example2 when a ,candle is snuff'd1 the ,snuffers do not onely clip the wick1 but also the light3 ,the like when a dark body is interposed1 or crosses the rays of the ,sun2 it cuts those rays asunder1 which by reason they cannot joyn together again1 because of the interposed body1 the light cut off1 suddenly goeth out2 that is1 the matter of light is altered from the figure of light1 to some other thing1 but not annihilated3 ,and since no more light can flow into the room from the ,fountain or ,spring of ,light1 the ,sun1 because the passage is stopt close1 the room remaineth dark3 ,for ,light is somewhat of the nature of ,water2 so long as the ,spring is open1 the ,water flows1 and whatsoever is taken away1 the ,spring supplies2 and if another body onely presses thorow it1 it immediately joyns and closes its severed parts again1 without any difficulty or loss2 ,the same doth ,light2 onely the difference is1 that the substance of ,light is extraordinary rare1 and pure2 for as ,air is so much rarer then ,water1 so ,light is so much rarer and purer then ,air1 and its matter may be of so dilating a nature1 as to dilate from a point into numerous rayes4 ,as for ordinary ,fire-light1 it doth not last longer1 then it hath fuel to feed it1 and so likewise it is with the light of the ,sun2 for ,light is according to the substance that feeds it2 and though it is a substance it self1 yet it increases and decreases1 according as it hath something that succours or nourishes it4 ,but some may object1 that if ,light were a body1 and did contract and dilate1 as ,i say1 it is impossible that it could display it self in so great and vast a compass1 and remove so suddenly and instantly as it doth4 ,to which objection1 ,i answer1 first1 ,that although ,i say1 ,light is a real corporeal substance1 and doth contract and dilate it self from a point into numerous rayes1 as also in another ,letter ,i sent you before1#b ,that ,light and ,darkness do succeed each other2 nevertheless1 as for the perception of ,light1 ,i am not so eager in maintaining this opinion1 as if it was an ,infallible ,truth1 and impossible to be otherwise2 but ,i say onely1 ,that1 to my sense and reason1 it seems very probable1 that it may be so1 that the light of the ,sun doth really dilate it self into so vast a compass as we see1 and that light and darkness do really succeed each other1 as all other ,creatures do3 ,but yet it seems also probable to mee1 that the parts of the ,air may onely pattern out the figure of light1 and that the light we see in the ,air may be onely patterns taken from the real figure of the light of the ,sun3 ,and therefore1 if it be according to the former opinion1 to wit1 ,that the light of the ,sun doth really dilate it self into so vast a compass1 ,my answer is1 ,that contraction and dilation are natural corporeal actions or motions1 and that there is no alteration of motion in ,nature1 but is done in ,time1 that is1 successively1 not instantly2 for ,time is nothing else but the alteration of motion3 ,besides1 ,i do not perceive any so sudden and swift alteration and succession of light1 but that it is done by degrees3 ,as for example2 in the morning1 when it begins to dawn and grow light1 it appears clearly to our sight how light doth come forth1 and darkness remove by degrees2 and so at night1 when it grows dark1 how light removes1 and darkness succeeds2 nay1 if there be any such sudden change of the motions of ,light1 ,i desire you to consider1 ,madam1 that light is a very subtil1 rare1 piercing and active body1 and therefore its motions are much quicker then those of grosser bodies1 and cannot so well be perceived by our gross exterior senses4 ,but if it be1 that the ,air doth pattern out the light of the ,sun1 then the framed objection can prove nothing1 because there is not then such a real dilation or succession of light1 but the corporeal figurative motions of the ,air do make patterns of the light of the ,sun1 and dissolve those patterns or figures again1 more suddenly and quickly then man can shut and open his eyes1 as being more subtil then his gross exterior senses4 ,but it may be said1 that if ,air did pattern out the light of the ,sun1 the light would increase by these numerous patterns4 ,i answer1 that cannot appear to our ,eyes2 for we see onely the pattern'd figure of light1 and that a great compass is enlightned2 also that the further the air is from the ,sun1 the darker it is2 nevertheless1 ,i do verily believe1 that the body of the ,sun is far brighter then the light we see1 and that the substance of light1 and the patterns taken from light1 are not one and the same1 but very different4 ,and thus much of light4 ,as for ,penetration1 ,i conceive it to be nothing else but division2 as when some parts pierce and enter through other parts1 as ,duellers run each other thorow1 or as water runs through a sieve4 ,and this is the opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,in the ,append4 to the ,antid4 c4 #c4 and ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #a4 c4 #e4 #b ,sect4 #a4 ,let4 #bj4 ,,xxiv4 ,,madam1 ,having given you my opinion1 both of the substance and perception of ,light1 in my last ,letter1 ,i perceive your desire is to know how ,shadows are made4 ,truly1 ,madam1 to my sense and reason1 it appears most probable1 that shadows are made by the way of patterning3 ,as for example2 when a ,man's1 or ,trees1 or any other the like ,creature's shadow is made upon the ,ground1 or ,wall1 or the like2 those bodies1 as the ,ground1 or ,wall1 do1 in my opinion1 pattern out the interposing body that is between the light and them3 ,and the reason that the shadow is longer or shorter1 or bigger or less1 is according as the light is nearer or further off2 for when the light is perpendicular1 the interposing body cannot obscure the light1 because the light surrounding the interposing body by its brightness1 rather obscures the body1 then the body the light2 for the numerous and splendorous patterns of light taken from the body of the ,sun1 do quite involve the interposing body4 ,next1 you desire to know1 ,whether the light we see in the ,moon1 be the ,moons own natural light1 or a borrowed light from the ,sun3 ,i answer1 that in my opinion1 it is a borrowed light2 to wit1 that the ,moon doth pattern out the light of the ,sun3 and the proof of it is1 that when the ,sun is in an ,eclipse1 we do plainly perceive that so much of the ,sun is darkned as the ,moon covers2 for though those parts of the ,moon1 that are next the ,sun1 may1 for any thing we know1 pattern out the light of the ,sun1 yet the ,moon is dark on that side which is from the ,sun4 ,i will not say1 but that part of the ,moon which is towards the ,earth1 may pattern out the ,earth1 or the shadow of the ,earth1 which may make the ,moon appear more dark and sullen2 ,but when the ,moon is in an ,eclipse1 then it is plainly perceived that the ,moon patterns out the ,earth1 or the shadow of the ,earth4 ,besides1 those parts of the ,moon that are farthest from the ,sun1 are dark1 as we may observe when as the ,moon is in the ,wane1 and enlightened when the ,sun is nearer4 ,but ,i will leave this argument to observing ,astrologers1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxv4 ,,madam1 ,if according to your ,authors opinion1#a ,in every particular world1 such as ,man is especially1 his own ,soul 7which is a ,spirit7 be the peculiar and most perfective architect of the ,fabrick of his ,body1 as the ,soul of the world is of it3 ,then ,i cannot conceive in my reason1 how the separation is made in death2 for ,i see1 that all animals1 and so man-kind1 have a natural desire to live1 and that life and soul are unwilling to part2 ,and if the power lies in the ,soul1 why doth she not continue with the ,body1 and animate1 move and actuate it1 as she did before1 or order the matter so1 as not to dissolve8 ,but if the dissolution lies in the body1 then the body has self-motion3 ,yet it is most probable1 if the soul be the architect of the body1 it must also be the dissolver of it2 and if there come not another soul into the parts of matter1 the body must either be annihilated1 or lie immoved as long as the world lasts1 which is improbable2 for surely all the bodies of men1 or other animals1 are imployed by ,nature to some use or other3 ,however1 it is requisite1 that the soul must stay so long in the body1 until it be turned into dust and ashes2 otherwise1 the body having no self-motion1 would remain as it was when the soul left it1 that is1 entire and undissolved3 ,as for example2 when a man dies1 if there be no motion in his body1 and the soul1 which was the mover1 be gone1 it cannot possibly corrupt2 for certainly1 that we call corruption1 is made by motion1 and the body requires as much motion to be dissolved or divided1 as it doth to be framed or composed2 ,wherefore a dead body would remain in the same state continually1 it had no self-motion in it3 ,and if another soul should enter into the body1 and work it to another figure1 then certainly there must be many more souls then bodies1 because bodies are subject to change into several forms2 but if the animal spirits1 which are left in the body after the soul is gone1 are able to dissolve it without the help of the soul1 then it is probable they could have fram'd it without the help of the soul2 and so they being material1 it must be granted1 that matter is self-moving3 ,but if corporeal matter have corporeal self-motion1 a self-moving ,immaterial ,spirit1 by reason of their different natures1 would make great obstruction1 and so a general confusion2 for the corporeal and incorporeal motions would hinder and oppose each other1 their natures being quite different2 and though they might subsist together without disturbance of each other1 yet it is not probable they should act together1 and that in such a conjunction1 as if they were one united body2 for it is1 in my opinion1 more probable1 that one material should act upon another material1 or one immaterial upon another immaterial1 then that an immaterial should act upon a material or corporeal4 ,thus the consideration or contemplation of immaterial natural ,spirits puts me always into doubts1 and raises so many contradictions in my sense and reason1 as ,i know not1 nor am not able to reconcile them3 ,however1 though ,i am doubtful of them1 yet ,i can assure your self that ,i continue1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #b4 c4 #aj4 ,,xxvi4 ,,madam1 ,by reason the ,soul is a ,spirit1 and therefore ,contractible and ,dilatable1 your ,authors opinion is1#a ,that it begins within less compass at first in organising the fitly prepared matter1 and so bears it self on in the same tenour of work1 till the body hath attained its full growth2 and that the ,soul dilates it self in the dilating of the ,body1 and so possesses it through all the members thereof4 ,truly1 ,madam1 as for the contraction and dilation of an immaterial ,spirit1 if ,i heard never so many arguments1 ,i should hardly be able to conceive the possibility of it2 ,for in my opinion1 dilating and contracting are motions and actions of ,nature1 which belong to natural material ,creatures1 and to none else2 for dilation and contraction cannot be without extension1 but extension belongs to parts which an immaterial ,spirit hath not3 ,but suppose it be so1 then the ,soul must contract and dilate1 extend and shrink together1 and so grow less and bigger1 according to the extension of the body2 and when the body dies1 the soul1 in my opinion1 must contract to a very point2 and if one part of the body die before the other1 the soul must by degrees withdraw out of those parts3 also when a part of the body is cut off1 the soul must needs contract1 and grow less2 the like when a man is let blood4 ,which contracting of the soul1 by your ,authors leave1 doth seem1 to my imagination1 just like the contracting of ,hodmandod into her shell4 ,besides1 if the soul be individable1 and equally spread all over the body1 then1 to my opinion1 she must necessarily be of a human shape2 and if the body be deformed1 the soul must be deformed also2 and if the body be casually extended1 as by taking ,poyson into the body1 the soul must be so too1 as being individable and filling every part2 and if a man be born with six fingers or toes1 the soul must be so too2 or if a dwarf1 the soul must be a dwarf also2 and if he be born deaf and dumb1 the soul must be so too4 ,but if two ,twins1 as it may fall out1 should be born united in one body1 ,i would fain know then1 whether they would have two souls1 or but one8 ,as for example1 if they should have but one body1 and one stomack1 liver1 heart1 spleen1 lungs1 bowels1 and yet have four legs1 four hands1 and two heads3 ,it seems1 to my opinion1 that then two ,immaterial ,souls must be joyned as into one2 neither do ,i know yet how this could well be1 the monster having but one body1 nor how that ,immaterial ,soul can be divided1 being inseparably double1 when the body dies4 ,but1 ,madam1 all this ,i speak of the ,natural ,soul of ,man1 not of the ,divine ,soul1 which is not subject to natural imperfections1 and corporeal errors1 being not made by ,nature1 but a supernatural and divine gift of the ,omnipotent ,god1 who surely will not give any thing that is not perfect4 ,wherefore it is not probable1 this ,divine ,soul1 being not subject to ,nature1 should be an architect of the body1 as having an higher and more divine imployment1 viz4 to fix her self on her ,creator1 and being indued with supernatural faculties1 and residing in the body in a supernatural manner2 all which ,i leave to the ,church3 for ,i should be loth to affirm any thing contrary to their ,doctrine1 or the ,information of the holy ,scripture1 as grounding my belief onely upon the sacred ,word of ,god1 and its true ,interpretation made by the ,orthodox ,church2 but not upon the opinions of particular persons3 for particular mens opinions are not authentical1 being so different and various1 as a man would be puzled which to adhere to4 ,thus1 ,madam1 ,i avoid1 as much as ever ,i can1 not to mix ,divinity with ,natural ,philosophy2 for ,i consider1 that such a mixture would breed more confusion in the ,church1 then do any good to either2 witness the doctrine of the ,soul of ,man1 whereof are so many different opinions3 ,the onely cause1 in my opinion1 is1 that men do not conceive the difference between the ,divine1 and ,natural material ,soul of ,man1 making them both as one1 and mixing or confounding their faculties and proprieties1 which yet are quite different2 thus they make a ,hodg-podg1 ,bisk or ,olio of both2 proving ,divinity by ,nature1 and ,faith by ,reason2 and bringing ,arguments for ,articles of ,faith1 and sacred ,mysteries out of ,natural ,arts and ,sciences2 whereas yet ,faith and ,reason are two contrary things1 and cannot consist together2 according to the ,proverb1 ,where ,reason ends1 ,faith begins4 ,neither is it possible that ,divinity can be proved by ,mathematical ,demonstrations2 for if ,nature be not able to do it1 much less is ,art3 ,wherefore it is inconvenient to mix supernatural ,spirits with ,air1 ,fire1 ,light1 ,heat1 ,cold1 c4 and to apply corporeal actions and qualities to them2 and the ,divine ,soul1 with the ,brain1 ,blood1 ,flesh1 ,animal ,spirits1 ,muscles1 ,nerves1 ,bones1 c4 of ,man2 all which makes a confusion betwixt the ,mind or ,natural ,soul of ,man1 and the ,supernatural and ,divine ,soul inspired into him by ,god2 for both their faculties and proprieties are different1 and so are their effects1 as proceeding from so different causes4 ,and therefore1 ,madam1 as for ,divinity1 ,i pray devoutly1 and believe without disputing2 but as for ,natural ,philosophy1 ,i reason freely1 and argue without believing1 or adhering to any ones particular opinion1 which ,i think is the best and safest way to choose for1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul1 l4 #b4 c4 #aj4 ,,xxvii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author in the continuation of his discourse concerning the ,immaterial ,soul of ,man1 demonstrating1 that her seat is not bound up in a certain place of the body1 but that she pervades all the body and every part thereof1 takes1 amongst the rest1 an argument from ,passions and ,sympathies3 ,moreover1 says he1#a ,passions and ,sympathies1 in my judgment1 are more easily to be resolved into this hypothesis of the ,soul's pervading the whole ,body1 then in restraining its essential presence to one part thereof4--,but it is evident that they arise in us against both our will and appetite2 ,for who would bear the tortures of fears and jelousies1 if he could avoid it8 ,concerning ,passions1 ,madam1 ,i have given my opinion at large in my ,book of ,philosophy1 and am of your ,authors mind1 that ,passions are made in the ,heart1 but not by an ,immaterial spirit1 but by the ,rational soul which is material2 and there is no doubt1 but that many ,passions1 as ,fear1 ,jealousie c4 arise against our will and appetite2 for so may forreign ,nations invade any ,kingdom without the will or desire of the ,inhabitants1 and yet they are corporeal men3 ,the same may be said of ,passions2 and several parts of matter may invade each other1 whereof one may be afraid of the other1 yet all this is but according as corporeal matter moves1 either ,generally1 or ,particularly3 ,generally1 that is1 when many parts of ,matter unite or joyn together1 having the like appetites1 wills1 designs2 as we may observe1 that there are general agreements amongst several parts1 in ,plagues1 as well as ,wars1 which ,plagues are not onely amongst ,men1 but amongst ,beasts2 and sometimes but in one sort of animals1 as a general ,rot amongst ,sheep1 a general ,mange amongst ,dogs1 a general ,farcy amongst ,horses1 a general ,plague amongst ,men2 all which could not be without a general ,infection1 one part infecting another1 or rather one part imitating the motions of the other1 that is next adjoyning to it2 for such infections come by the neer adhesion of parts1 as is observable1 which immaterial and individable natural ,spirits could not effect2 that is1 to make such a general infection in so many several parts of so many several ,creatures1 to the ,creatures dissolution3 ,also there will be several ,invasions at one time1 as ,plague1 and ,war1 amongst neighbouring and adjoining ,creatures or ,parts4 ,but this is to be observed1 ,that the sensitive corporeal motions make all diseases1 and not the ,rational1 although the ,rational are many times the occasion1 that the sensitive do move into such or such a disease2 for all those that are sick by conceit1 their sicknesses are caused by the rational corporeal motions4 ,but being loth to make tedious repetitions hereof1 having discoursed of diseases1 and passions in my mentioned ,book of ,philosophy1 ,i will refer you thither1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,immort4 of the ,soul4 ,book #b4 c4 #aj ,,xxviii4 ,,madam1 ,concerning ,dimness of ,sight1 which your ,author will have to proceed from the deficiency of the ,animal ,spirits1#a ,my meaning in short is1 ,that when sight is dim1 though the sensitive organs are perfect1 this dimness is caused by the alteration onely of the sensitive motions in the organs1 not moving to the nature of sight4 ,and so is made ,deafness1 ,dumbness1 ,lameness1 and the like1 as also ,weariness2 for the ,relaxation of strength in several parts1 is onely an alteration of such sorts of motions which make the nerves strong2 and if a man be more dull at one time1 then at another1 it is that there are not so many changes of motions1 nor so quick motions at that time1 as at another2 for ,nature may use more or less force as she pleases3 ,also she can and doth often use opposite actions1 and often sympathetical and agreeable actions1 as she pleases2 for ,nature having a free power to move1 may move as she will2 but being wise1 she moves as she thinks best1 either in her separating or uniting motions1 for continuance1 as well as for variety4 ,but if1 according to your ,author1 the ,immaterial ,soul should determinate matter in motion1 it would1 in my opinion1 make a confusion2 for the motions of the ,matter would often oppose and cross the motions of the ,immaterial ,soul1 and so they would disagree1 as a ,king and his ,subjects1 7except ,god had given the ,soul an absolute power of command1 and restrained matter to an irrisistible and necessitated obedience2 which1 in my opinion1 is not probable37 ,by which disagreement1 ,nature1 and all that is in ,nature1 would have been quite ruined at this time2 for no kinds1 sorts1 or particulars1 would keep any distinction1 if ,matter did not govern it self1 and if all the parts did not know their own affairs1 abilities1 offices1 and functions3 ,besides1 it would1 to my thinking1 take up a great deal of time1 to receive commands in every several action1 at least so much1 that for example1 a man could not have so many several thoughts in so short a time1 as he hath4 ,but concerning the ,animal ,spirits1 which your ,author calls the ,instruments1 ,organs and ,engines of the ,incorporeal ,soul2 ,i would fain know1 whether they have no motion but what comes from the ,soul1 or whether they have their own motion of themselves8 ,if the first1 then the ,soul must1 in my opinion1 be like a ,deity1 and have a divine ,power1 to give and impart ,motion2 if the second1 then the spirits being material1 it follows that ,matter hath motion of it self1 or is self-moving2 ,but if the ,immaterial natural ,soul can transfer her gifts upon corporeal matter1 then it must give numerous sorts of motions1 with all their degrees2 as also the faculty of figuring1 or moving figuratively in all corporeal ,matter3 ,which power1 in my judgment1 is too much for a ,creature to give4 ,if you say1 the ,immaterial ,soul hath this power from ,god2 ,i answer1 ,matter may have the same2 and ,i cannot imagine why ,god should make an ,immaterial ,spirit to be the ,proxy or ,vice-gerent of his ,power1 or the ,quarter-master ,general of his ,divine ,providence1 as your ,author is pleased to style it1#b when he is able to effect it without any ,under-,officers1 and in a more easie and compendious way1 as to impart immediately such self-moving power to ,natural ,matter1 which man attributes to an ,incorporeal ,spirit4 ,but to conclude1 if the ,animal ,spirits be the ,instruments of the ,incorporeal ,soul1 then the ,spirits of ,wine are more powerful then the ,animal ,spirits1 nay1 then the ,immaterial ,soul her self2 for they can put them and all their actions quite out of order3 the same may be done by other material things1 ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and the like4 ,and so leaving this discourse to your better consideration1 ,i take my leave for this time1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful and affectionate ,friend1 and ,servant4 #a ,immort4 of the ,soul4 ,book #b4 ch4 #h4 #b ,immort4 of the ,soul4 ,book #c4 c4 #ac4 ,,xxix4 ,,madam1 ,touching the ,state or ,condition of the ,supernatural and ,divine ,soul1 both in1 and after this life1 ,i must crave your excuse that ,i can give no account of it2 for ,i dare affirm nothing2 not onely that ,i am no professed ,divine1 and think it unfit to take any thing upon me that belongs not to me1 but also that ,i am unwilling to mingle ,divinity and ,natural ,philosophy together1 to the great disadvantage and prejudice of either2 for if each one did contain himself within the circle of his own ,profession1 and no body did pretend to be a ,divine ,philosopher1 many absurdities1 confusions1 contentions1 and the like1 would be avoided1 which now disturb both ,church and ,schools1 and will in time cause their utter ruine and destruction2 ,for what is ,supernatural1 cannot naturally be known by any natural ,creature2 neither can any supernatural ,creature1 but the ,infinite and ,eternal ,god1 know thorowly everything that is in ,nature1 she being the ,infinite servant of the ,infinite ,god1 whom no finite ,creature1 of what degree soever1 whether natural or supernatural1 can conceive2 for if no ,angel nor ,devil can know our thoughts1 much less will they know ,infinite ,nature2 nay1 one finite supernatural ,creature cannot1 in my opinion1 know perfectly another supernatural ,creature1 but ,god alone1 who is all-knowing2 ,and therefore all what is said of supernatural ,spirits1 ,i believe1 so far as the ,scripture makes mention of them2 further ,i dare not presume to go2 the like of the supernatural or divine ,soul3 for all that ,i have writ hitherto to you of the ,soul1 concerns the natural ,soul of ,man1 which is material1 and not the supernatural or divine ,soul2 neither do ,i contradict any thing concerning this divine soul1 but ,i am onely against those opinions1 which make the natural soul of man an immaterial natural spirit1 and confound supernatural ,creatures with natural1 believing those spirits to be as well natural ,creatures and parts of ,nature1 as material and corporeal beings are2 when as there is great difference betwixt them1 and nothing in ,nature to be found1 but what is corporeal4 ,upon this account ,i take all their relations of ,dmons1 of the ,genii1 and of the ,souls after the departure from humane ,bodies1 their ,vehicles1 ,shapes1 ,habitations1 ,converses1 ,conferences1 ,entertainments1 ,exercises1 ,pleasures1 ,pastimes1 ,governments1 ,orders1 ,laws1 ,magistrates1 ,officers1 ,executioners1 ,punishments1 and the like1 rather for ,poetical ,fictions1 then ,rational ,probabilities2 containing more ,fancy1 then ,truth and ,reason1 whether they concern the divine or natural ,soul3 for as for the divine ,soul1 the ,scripture makes no other mention of it1 but that immediately after her departure out of this natural life1 she goeth either to ,heaven or ,hell1 either to enjoy ,reward1 or to suffer ,punishment1 according to man's actions in this life4 ,but as for the ,natural ,soul1 she being material1 has no need of any ,vehicles1 neither is natural death any thing else but an alteration of the rational and sensitive motions1 which from the dissolution of one figure go to the formation or production of another4 ,thus the natural soul is not like a ,traveller1 going out of one body into another1 neither is air her lodging2 for certainly1 if the natural humane soul should travel through the airy regions1 she would at last grow weary1 it being so great a journey1 except she did meet with the soul of a ,horse1 and so ease her self with riding on ,horse-back4 ,neither can ,i believe ,souls or ,dmons in the ,air have any ,common-wealth1 ,magistrates1 ,officers and ,executioners in their airy ,kingdom2 for wheresoever are ,governments1 ,magistrates and ,executioners1 there are also ,offences1 and where there is power to offend1 as well as to obey1 there may and will be sometimes ,rebellions and ,civil ,wars2 for there being different sorts of ,spirits1 it is impossible they should all so well agree1 especially the good and evil ,genii1 which certainly will fight more valiantly then ,hector and ,achilles1 nay1 the ,spirits of one sort would have more ,civil ,wars then ever the ,romans had2 and if the ,soul of ,csar and ,pompey should meet1 there would be a cruel fight between those two ,heroical souls2 the like between ,augustus's and ,antonius's ,soul4 ,but1 ,madam1 all these1 as ,i said1 ,i take for fancies proceeding from the ,religion of the ,gentiles1 not fit for ,christians to embrace for any truth2 for if we should1 we might at last1 by avoiding to be ,atheists1 become ,pagans1 and so leap out of the ,frying-pan into the ,fire1 as turning from ,divine ,faith to ,poetical ,fancy2 and if ,ovid should revive again1 he would1 perhaps1 be the chief head or pillar of the ,church4 ,by this you may plainly see1 ,madam1 that ,i am no ,platonick2 for this opinion is dangerous1 especially for married ,women1 by reason the conversation of the ,souls may be a great temptation1 and a means to bring ,platonick ,lovers to a neerer acquaintance1 not allowable by the ,laws of ,marriage1 although by the sympathy of the ,souls4 ,but ,i conclude1 and desire you1 not to interpret amiss this my discourse1 as if ,i had been too invective against ,poetical ,fancies2 for that ,i am a great lover of them1 my ,poetical ,works will witness2 onely ,i think it not fit to bring ,fancies into ,religion3 ,wherefore what ,i have writ now to you1 is rather to express my zeal for ,god and his true ,worship1 then to prejudice any body2 and if you be of that same ,opinion1 as above mentioned1 ,i wish my ,letter may convert you1 and so ,i should not account my labour lost1 but judg my self happy1 that any good could proceed to the advancement of your ,soul1 from1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxx4 ,,madam1 ,i sent you word in my last1 ,i would not meddle with writing any thing of the ,divine ,soul of ,man1 by reason it belongs to ,faith and ,religion1 and not to ,natural ,philosophy2 but since you desire my opinion concerning the ,immortality of the ,divine ,soul1 ,i cannot but answer you plainly1 that first ,i did wonder much you made question of that1 whose truth1 in my opinion1 is so clear1 as hardly any rational man will make a doubt of it2 for ,i think there is almost no ,christian in the world1 but believes the ,immortality of the ,soul1 no not ,christians onely1 but ,mahometans and ,jews3 ,but ,i left to wonder at you1 when ,i saw ,wise and ,learned ,men1 and great ,divines1 take so much pains as to write whole volumes1 and bring so many arguments to prove the ,immortality of the ,soul2 for this was a greater ,miracle to me1 then if ,nature had shewed me some of her secret and hidden effects1 or if ,i had seen an ,immaterial ,spirit4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 it seems as strange to me to prove the ,immortality of the ,soul1 as to convert ,atheists2 for it is impossible1 almost1 that any ,atheist should be found in the ,world3 ,for what ,man would be so senceless as to deny a ,god8 ,wherefore to prove either a ,god1 or the ,immortality of the ,soul1 is to make a man doubt of either3 for as ,physicians and ,surgeons apply strengthening ,medicines onely to those parts of the body which they suppose the weakest1 so it is with proofs and arguments1 those being for the most part used in such subjects1 the truth of which is most questionable4 ,but in things ,divine1 ,disputes do rather weaken ,faith1 then prove ,truth1 and breed several strange opinions2 for ,man being naturally ambitious1 and endeavouring to excel each other1 will not content himself with what ,god has been pleased to reveal in his holy ,word2 but invents and adds something of his own2 and hence arise so many monstrous expressions and opinions1 that a simple man is puzzled1 not knowing which to adhere to2 which is the cause of so many schismes1 sects1 and divisions in ,religion3 ,hence it comes also1 that some pretend to know the very nature and essence of ,god1 his divine ,counsels1 all his ,actions1 ,designs1 ,rules1 ,decrees1 ,power1 ,attributes1 nay1 his ,motions1 ,affections1 and ,passions1 as if the ,omnipotent ,infinite ,god were of a humane shape2 so that there are already more divisions then ,religions1 which disturb the peace and quiet both of mind and body2 when as the ground of our belief consists but in some few and short ,articles1 which clearly explained1 and the moral part of ,divinity well pressed upon the ,people1 would do more good1 then unnecessary and tedious disputes1 which rather confound ,religion1 then advance it3 but if man had a mind to shew ,learning1 and exercise his ,wit1 certainly there are other subjects1 wherein he can do it with more profit1 and less danger1 then by proving ,christian ,religion by ,natural ,philosophy1 which is the way to destroy them both4 ,i could wish1 ,madam1 that every one would but observe the ,command of ,christ1 and give to ,god what is ,gods1 and to ,csar what is ,csars1 and so distinguish what belongs to the actions of ,nature1 and what to the actions of ,religion2 for it appears to my ,reason1 that ,god hath given ,nature1 his eternal ,servant1 a peculiar freedom of working and acting1 as a self-moving ,power from ,eternity2 but when the ,omnipotent ,god acts1 he acts supernaturally1 as beyond ,nature2 of which divine actions none but the holy ,church1 as one united body1 mind and soul1 should discourse1 and declare the truth of them1 according to the ,revelation made by ,god in his holy ,word1 to her ,flock the ,laity1 not suffering any one single person1 of what profession or degree soever1 indifferently to comment1 interpret1 explain1 and declare the meaning or sense of the ,scripture after his own fancy4 ,and as for ,nature's actions1 let those whom ,nature hath indued with such a proportion of ,reason1 as is able to search into the hidden causes of natural effects1 contemplate freely1 without any restraint or confinement2 for ,nature acts freely1 and so may natural ,creatures1 and amongst the rest ,man1 in things which are purely natural2 but as for things supernatural1 man cannot act freely1 by reason they are beyond his sphere of conception and understanding1 so as he is forced to set aside ,reason1 and onely to work by ,faith4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 you see the cause why ,i cannot give you a full description of the ,divine ,soul of ,man1 as ,i mentioned already in my last1 but that ,i do onely send you my opinion of the natural soul1 which ,i call the rational soul2 not that ,i dare say1 the supernatural soul is without natural reason1 but natural reason is not the divine soul2 neither can natural reason1 without ,faith1 advance the divine soul to ,heaven1 or beget a pious zeal1 without divine and supernatural ,grace3 ,wherefore ,reason1 or the rational ,soul is onely the ,soul of ,nature1 which being material1 is dividable1 and so becomes numerous in particular natural ,creatures2 like as the sensitive life being also material and dividable1 becomes numerous1 as being in every ,creature1 and in every part of every ,creature2 for as there is life in every ,creature1 so there is also a soul in every ,creature2 nay1 not onely in every ,creature1 but in every particle of every ,creature1 by reason every ,creature is made of rational and sensitive ,matter2 and as all ,creatures or parts of ,nature are but one infinite body of ,nature1 so all their particular souls and lives make but one infinite soul and life of ,nature2 and this natural soul hath onely natural actions1 not supernatural2 nor has the supernatural soul natural actions2 for although they subsist both together in one body1 yet each works without disturbance to the other2 and both are ,immortal2 for of the supernatural soul there is no question1 and of the natural soul1 ,i have said before1 that nothing is perishable or subject to annihilation in nature1 and so no death1 but what is called by the name of death1 is onely an alteration of the corporeal natural motions of such a figure to another figure2 and therefore as it is impossible1 that one part of ,matter should perish in ,nature1 so is it impossible1 that the natural or rational soul can perish1 being material3 ,the natural humane soul may alter1 so as not to move in an animal way1 or not to have animal motions1 but this doth not prove her destruction or annihilation1 but onely a change of the animal figure and its motions1 all remaining still in ,nature4 ,thus my ,faith of the ,divine1 and my opinion of the ,natural ,soul1 is1 that they are both ,immortal2 as for the immediate actions of the ,divine ,soul1 ,i leave you to the ,church1 which are the ,ministers of ,god1 and the faithful dispensers of the sacred mysteries of the ,gospel1 the true ,expounders of the ,word of ,god1 ,reformers of mens lives1 and ,tutors of the ,ignorant1 to whom ,i submit my self in all that belongs to the salvation of my ,soul1 and the regulating of the actions of my life1 to the honour and glory of ,god4 ,and ,i hope they will not take any offence at the maintaining and publishing my opinions concerning ,nature and ,natural effects1 for they are as harmless1 and as little prejudicial to them1 as my designs2 for my onely and chief design is1 and ever hath been to understand ,nature rightly1 obey the ,church exactly1 ,believe undoubtedly1 ,pray zealously1 ,live vertuously1 and ,wish earnestly1 that both ,church and ,schools may increase and flourish in the sacred knowledg of the true ,word of ,god1 and that each one may live peaceable and happily in this world1 die quietly1 and rise blessedly and gloriously to everlasting ,life and happiness3 ,which happiness ,i pray ,god also to confer upon your ,ladiship2 ,till then1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful and constant ,friend1 to serve you4 ,,xxxi4 ,,madam1 ,i will leave the ,controversie of ,free-,will and ,necessity1 which your ,author is discoursing of1#a to ,divines to decide it1 onely ,i say this1 that ,nature hath a natural ,free-will and power of self-moving1 and is not necessitated2 but yet that this ,free-will proceeds from ,god1 who hath given her both will and power to act freely4 ,but as for the question1 whether there be nothing in the ,universe1 but meer body8#b ,i answer1 ,my opinion is not1 that there is nothing in the world but meer ,body2 but that ,nature is purely material or corporeal1 and that there is no part of ,nature1 or natural ,creature1 which is not ,matter1 or ,body1 or made of ,matter2 also1 that there is not any thing else mixt with body1 as a copartner in natural actions1 which is distinct from ,body or ,matter2 nevertheless1 there may be supernatural spiritual beings or substances in ,nature1 without any hinderance to ,matter or corporeal ,nature4 ,the same ,i may say of the natural material1 and the divine and supernatural ,soul2 for though the divine ,soul is in a natural body1 and both their powers and actions be different1 yet they cause no ruine or disturbance to each other1 but do in many cases agree with each other1 without incroachment upon each others powers or actions2 for ,god1 as he is the ,god of all things1 so the ,god of ,order4 ,wherefore it is not probable1 that created ,immaterial or ,incorporeal beings should order ,corporeal ,nature1 no more then ,corporeal ,nature orders ,immaterial or ,incorporeal ,creatures4 ,neither can1 in my opinion1 ,incorporeal ,creatures be clearly conceived by ,corporeals1 although they may really exist and subsist in ,nature2 onely1 as ,i said before1 it is well to be considered1 that there is difference betwixt being in ,nature1 and being a part of ,nature2 for bodiless things1 and so spiritual substances1 although they may exist in ,nature1 yet they are not natural1 nor parts of ,nature1 but supernatural1 ,nature being meerly corporeal1 and ,matter the ground of ,nature2 and all that is not built upon this material ground1 is nothing in ,nature4 ,but you will say1 ,the divine ,soul is a part of ,man1 and ,man a part of ,nature1 wherefore the divine ,soul must needs be a part of ,nature4 ,i answer1 ,not3 ,for the divine ,soul is not a part of ,nature1 but supernatural1 as a supernatural ,gift from ,god onely to ,man1 and to no other ,creature3 and although in this respect it may be called a part of ,man1 yet it is no natural or material part of ,man2 neither doth this supernatural ,gift disturb ,nature or natural ,matter1 or natural ,matter this supernatural ,gift4 ,and so leaving them both1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,immortality of the ,soul4 l4 #a4 c4 #c4 #b ,lib4 #b4 c4 #b4 ,,xxxii4 ,,madam1 ,if you desire my opinion concerning ,witches1 whereof your ,learned ,author hath many ,discourses and ,stories3#a ,i will tell you really1 that in my sense and reason1 ,i do not believe any1 except it be the witch of ,endor1 which the ,scripture makes mention of2 for though ,i believe that there is a ,devil1 as the ,word of ,god and the ,church inform me1 yet ,i am not of the opinion1 that ,god should suffer him to have such a familiar conjunction1 and make such contracts with ,man1 as to impower him to do mischief and hurt to others1 or to foretell things to come1 and the like2 for ,i believe that all things ,immaterial1 as ,spirits1 ,angels1 ,devils1 and the divine ,soul of ,man1 are no parts of ,nature1 but ,supernatural1 ,nature knowing of no ,creature that belongs to her1 but what is material2 and since incorporeal ,creatures are no parts of ,nature1 they neither have natural actions1 nor are they concerned as co-partners or co-agents in the actions of ,nature and natural ,creatures2 but as their substances1 so their actions are supernatural1 and beyond our conceivement4 ,as for ,faires1 ,i will not say1 but there may be such ,creatures in ,nature1 and have airy bodies1 and be of a humane shape1 and have humane actions1 as ,i have described in my ,book of ,poems2 for there are many things1 in ,nature1 whereof ,man hath no knowledg at all1 and it would be a great folly for any one to deny what he doth not see1 or to ascribe all the unusual effects in ,nature to ,immaterial ,spirits2 for ,nature is so full of variety1 that she can and doth present sometimes such figures to our exterior senses1 as are not familiar to us1 so as we need not to take our refuge to ,immaterial ,spirits3 nay1 even those that are so much for ,incorporeal ,spirits1 must confess1 that they cannot be seen in their own natures1 as being ,invisible1 and therefore have need to take vehicles of some grosser bodies to manifest themselves to men3 and if ,spirits cannot appear without bodies1 the neerest way is to ascribe such unusual effects or apparitions1 as happen sometimes1 rather to matter that is already corporeal1 and not to go so far as to draw ,immaterial ,spirits to ,natural actions1 and to make those ,spirits take vehicles fit for their purposes3 for ,nature takes sometimes delight in unusual ,varieties4 ,concerning those stories which your ,author relates#b of the strange effects of ,food received into a mans body1 how they did work upon the ,imagination1 and change and transform the humors of those that did feed upon them1 those1 ,i say1 seem very probable to me4 ,as for example2 of a ,wench who being struck into an ,epilepsy1 upon the seeing of a ,malefactors ,head cut off1 was advised to drink ,cats-blood2 which being done1 she not long after degenerated into the nature and property of that ,animal1 cried and jump'd like a ,cat1 and hunted ,mice with the same silence and watchfulness as they do4 ,then of a ,man1 being long fed with ,swines-blood1 which took a special pleasure in wallowing and tumbling himself in the mire4 ,also of a ,girle1 which being nourished up with ,goats-milk1 would skip like a ,goat1 and brouze on ,trees as ,goats use to do4 ,and of a ,man1 who by eating the brains of a ,bear1 became of a ,bear-like disposition4 ,all these stories ,i believe to be true2 for naturally the motions of a ,man may sometimes ,sympathize so much with the received food1 as to make an alteration in his humour or disposition4 ,but although it be natural1 yet it is not regular1 at least not usual1 but proceeds from an irregular and unusual change of motions1 like as the conception and generation of a ,monster2 ,for if it were ordinary1 then those which drink much of the blood of beasts1 would also degenerate into a beastly nature1 the contrary whereof is sufficiently known3 ,likewise those that drink much of ,cows-milk1 would change into their humors and natures4 ,but certainly1 some kinds of meats do not onely cause sickness1 but madness1 and strange ,imaginations2 all which unnatural or unusual accidents are caused by ,matter's irregular motions2 ,whereof ,i have declared my opinion in other places2 and so ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful and constant ,friend1 to serve you4 #a ,antid4 lib4 #c4 #b ,in his discourse of ,enthusiasm4 ,,xxxiii4 ,,madam1 ,you will have my opinion of the ,book that treats of the ,pre-existence of ,souls1 and the ,key that unlocks the ,divine ,providence2 but ,i have told you heretofore1 that there are so many different opinions concerning the ,soul1 as ,i do not know which to embrace1 for the multiplicity confounds my choice3 and the cause of these various opinions1 in my simple judgment1 is1 that most men make no difference between the ,divine1 and ,natural ,soul4 ,as for the ,natural ,soul1 humane sense and reason may perceive1 that it consists of ,matter1 as being ,material2 but as for the ,divine ,soul1 being not material1 no humane sense and reason is able naturally to conceive it2 for there cannot possibly be so much as an ,idea of a natural nothing1 or an immaterial being1 neither can sense and reason naturally conceive the ,creation of an ,immaterial substance2 for as the ,creation of material ,creatures1 as of this ,world1 belongs to ,faith1 and not to ,reason1 so doth also the ,creation of ,immaterial substances1 as ,spirits2 nay1 it is more difficult to understand a ,natural ,nothing to be made out of nothing1 then a ,natural ,something out of nothing4 ,and as for the ,progress of ,immaterial ,souls1 which the same ,author mentions1 ,i cannot conceive how ,no-thing can make a ,progress1 and therefore ,i suppose1 it is an ,improper1 or ,metaphorical expression4 ,the truth is1 what is ,immaterial1 belongs not to a ,natural knowledg or understanding1 but is ,supernatural1 and goes beyond a natural reach or capacity4 ,concerning the ,key of ,divine ,providence1 ,i believe ,god did never give or lend it to any man2 for surely1 ,god1 who is infinitely ,wise1 would never intrust so frail and foolish a ,creature as ,man1 with it1 as to let him know his secret ,counsels1 ,acts1 and ,decrees4 ,but setting aside ,pride and ,presumption1 ,sense and ,reason may easily perceive1 that ,man1 though counted the best of ,creatures1 is not made with such infinite ,excellence1 as to pierce into the least secrets of ,god2 ,wherefore ,i am in a maze when ,i hear of such men1 which pretend to know so much1 as if they had plundered the ,celestial ,cabinet of the ,omnipotent ,god2 for certainly1 had they done it1 they could not pretend to more knowledg then they do4 ,but ,i1 ,madam1 confess my ,ignorance1 as having neither divine ,inspirations1 nor extraordinary ,visions1 nor any divine or humane learning1 but what ,nature has been pleased to bestow upon me2 ,yet in all this ,ignorance1 ,i know that ,i am1 and ought to be1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 ,,xxxiv4 ,,madam1 ,since in my former ,letters ,i have discoursed of ,immaterial ,spirits1 and declared my meaning1 that ,i do not believe them to be natural ,creatures1 or parts of ,nature2 you are of opinion1 as if ,i did contradict my self1 by reason that in the first ,edition of my ,book called ,philosophical ,opinions1 ,i name the rational and sensitive ,matter1 rational and sensitive ,spirits4 ,to which ,i answer1 first1 ,that when ,i did write my first ,conceptions in ,natural ,philosophy1 ,i was not so experienced1 nor had ,i those observations which ,i have had since2 ,neither did ,i give those first ,conceptions time to digest1 and come to a maturity or perfect growth1 but forced them forth as soon as conceived1 and this made the first publishing of them so full of ,imperfections1 which ,i am much sorry for2 ,but since that time1 ,i have not onely reviewed1 but corrected and altered them in several places1 so that the last ,impression of my ,philosophical ,opinions1 you will find more perfect and exact then the former4 ,next1 ,i pray you to take notice1 ,madam1 that in the mentioned first ,edition1 by the word ,spirits1 ,i meant ,material1 not ,immaterial ,spirits2 for observing1 that ,learned ,men do discourse much of ,animal ,spirits1 which are ,material1 and that also high extracts in ,chymistry are called ,spirits2 ,i used that word purposely1 thinking it most proper and convenient to express my sense and meaning of that degree of matter which ,i call rational and sensitive4 ,but considering again1 that my opinions1 being new1 would be subject to misapprehensions and mis-interpretations2 to prevent those1 ,i thought it fitter to leave out the word ,spirits in the second1 as also in the last ,edition of my named ,book of ,philosophy1 lest my ,readers should think ,i meant ,immaterial ,spirits2 for ,i confess really1 that ,i never understood1 nor cannot as yet apprehend ,immaterial ,spirits2 for though ,i believe the ,scripture1 and the ,church1 that there are ,spirits1 and do not doubt the existency of them1 yet ,i cannot conceive the nature of ,immaterial ,spirits1 and what they are2 ,wherefore ,i do onely treat of natural material substances1 and not of incorporeal2 also my discourse is of the ,infinite servant of the ,infinite ,god1 which servant is corporeal or material ,nature3 ,god is onely to be admired1 adored1 and worshipped2 but not ungloriously to be discoursed of2 ,which ,omnipotent ,god1 ,i pray of his ,infinite ,mercy to give me ,faith to believe in him1 and not to let presumption prevail with me so1 as to liken vain and idle conceptions to that ,incomprehensible ,deity4 ,these1 ,madam1 are my humble ,prayers to ,god2 and my request to you is1 that ,i may continue the same in your love and affection1 which ,i have been hitherto2 so shall ,i live content1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,sect4 ,,iii4 ,i4 ,,madam1 ,i have discharged my duty thus far1 that in obedience to your commands1 ,i have given you my answers to the opinions of three of those famous and learned ,authors you sent me1 viz4 ,hobbes1 ,des ,cartes1 and ,more1 and explained my own opinions by examining theirs2 ,my onely task shall be now to proceed in the same manner with that famous ,philosopher and ,chymist1 ,van ,helmont2 ,but him ,i find more difficult to be understood then any of the forementioned1 not onely by reason of the ,art of ,chymistry1 which ,i confess myself not versed in1 but especially1 that he has such strange terms and unusual expressions as may puzle any body to apprehend the sense and meaning of them3 ,wherefore1 if you receive not that full satisfaction you expect from me1 in examining his opinions and arguments1 ,i beg your pardon before-hand1 and desire you to remember1 that ,i sent you word in the beginning1 ,i did undertake this work more out of desire to clear my own opinions1 then a quarrelsome humor to contradict others2 which if ,i do but obtain1 ,i have my aim4 ,and so to the business3 ,when as your ,author discourses of the causes and beginnings of ,natural things1 he is pleased to say1#a ,that ,souls and ,lives1 as they know no ,degrees1 so they know no ,parts2 which opinion is very different from mine3 ,for although ,i confess1 that there is but one kind of ,life1 and one kind of ,soul in ,nature1 which is the sensitive ,life1 and the rational ,soul1 both consisting not onely of ,matter1 but of one kind of ,matter1 to wit1 ,animate2 nevertheless they are of different degrees1 the matter of the rational ,soul being more agil1 subtil and active1 then the matter of the sensitive ,life2 which is the reason that the rational can act in its own substance or degree of matter1 and make figures in it self1 and its own parts2 when as the sensitive1 being of somewhat a grosser degree then the rational1 and not so subtil and active1 is confined to work with and upon the ,inanimate matter4 ,but mistake me not1 ,madam1 for ,i make onely a difference of the degrees of ,subtilty1 ,activity1 ,agility1 ,purity1 betwixt rational and sensitive ,matter2 but as for the rational ,matter it self1 it has no degrees of ,purity1 ,subtilty and ,activity in its own ,nature or ,parts1 but is always one and the same in its substance in all ,creatures1 and so is the sensitive4 ,you will ask me1 ,how comes then the difference of so many ,parts and ,creatures in ,nature1 if there be no degrees of ,purity1 ,activity1 and ,subtilty in the substance of the rational1 and in the substance of the sensitive ,matter8 ,as for example3 if there were no such degrees of the ,parts of rational ,matter amongst themselves1 as also of the ,parts of the sensitive1 there would be no difference betwixt ,animals1 ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,elements1 but all ,creatures would be alike without distinction1 and have the same manner of sense and reason1 life and knowledg4 ,i answer1 ,that although each sort or degree of animate ,matter1 rational as well as sensitive1 has in it self or its own substance no degrees of purity1 rarity1 and subtilty1 but is one and the same in its nature or essence2 nevertheless1 each has degrees of quantity1 or parts1 which degrees of quantity do make the onely difference betwixt the several creatures or parts of ,nature1 as well in their general1 as particular kinds2 for both the rational and sensitive matter being corporeal1 and so dividable into parts1 some creatures do partake more1 some less of them1 which makes them to have more or less1 and so different sense and reason1 each according to the nature of its kind3 ,nay this difference of the degrees of quantity or parts in the substance of the rational and sensitive ,matter1 makes also the difference betwixt particulars in every sort of ,creatures1 as for example1 between several particular ,men3 ,but as ,i said1 the nature or essence of the sensitive and rational ,matter is the same in all2 for the difference consists not in the ,nature of ,matter1 but onely in the degrees of quantity1 and parts of ,matter1 and in the various and different actions or motions of this same ,matter4 ,and thus ,matter being dividable1 there are numerous lives and souls in ,nature1 according to the variousness of her several ,parts and ,creatures4 ,next your ,author1 mentioning the ,causes and ,principles of natural ,bodies1 assigns two first or chief beginnings and corporeal causes of every ,creature1 to wit1 the ,element of ,water1 and the ,ferment or ,leaven2 which ,ferment he calls a formal created being2 neither a substance1 nor an accident1 but a neutral thing4 ,truly1 ,madam1 my reason is not able to conceive this neutral ,being2 for it must either be something or nothing in ,nature3 and if he makes it any thing betwixt both1 it is a strange ,monster2 and will produce monstrous effects3 and for ,water1 if he doth make it a ,principle of ,natural things1 ,i see no reason why he excludes the rest of the ,elements3 ,but1 in my opinion1 ,water1 and the rest of the ,elements1 are but effects of ,nature1 as other ,creatures are1 and so cannot be prime causes4 ,the like the ,ferment1 which1 to my sense and reason1 is nothing else1 but a natural effect of natural matter4 ,concerning his opinion1 ,that ,causes and ,beginnings are all one1 or that there is but little difference betwixt them1 ,i do readily subscribe unto it2 but when he speaks of those things1 which are produced without life1 my reason cannot find out1 what1 or where they should be2 for certainly1 in ,nature they are not1 ,nature being ,life and ,soul her self1 and all her parts being enlivened and soulified1 so that there can be no generation or natural production without ,life4 ,neither is my sense and reason capable to understand his meaning1 when he says1 ,that the ,seeds of things1 and the ,spirits1 as the ,dispensers thereof1 are divided from the ,material ,cause3 ,for ,i do see no difference betwixt the ,seed1 and the material ,cause1 but they are all one thing1 it being undeniable1 that the seed is the matter of that which is produced4 ,but your ,author was pleased to say heretofore1 that there are but two beginnings or causes of natural things1 and now he makes so many more2 for1 says he1 ,of ,efficient and ,seminal ,causes1 some are efficiently effecting1 and others effectively effecting3 which nice distinctions1 in my opinion1 do but make a confusion in natural knowledg1 setting a mans brain on the rack2 for who is able to conceive all those ,chymras and ,fancies of the ,archeus1 ,ferment1 various ,ideas1 ,blas1 ,gas1 and many more1 which are neither something nor no-thing in ,nature1 but betwixt both1 except a man have the same ,fancies1 ,visions and ,dreams1 your ,author had8 ,nature is easie to be understood1 and without any difficulty1 so as we stand in no need to frame so many strange names1 able to fright any body4 ,neither do natural bodies know many prime causes and beginnings1 but there is but one onely chief and prime cause from which all effects and varieties proceed1 which cause is corporeal ,nature1 or natural self-moving ,matter1 which forms and produces all natural things2 and all the variety and difference of natural ,creatures arises from her various actions1 which are the various motions in ,nature2 some whereof are ,regular1 some ,irregular3 ,i mean ,irregular1 as to particular ,creatures1 not as to ,nature her self1 for ,nature cannot be disturbed or discomposed1 or else all would run into confusion2 ,wherefore ,irregularities do onely concern particular ,creatures1 not ,infinite ,nature2 and the ,irregularities of some parts may cause the ,irregularities of other ,parts1 as the ,regularities of some parts do cause the ,regularities of others3 ,and thus according as ,regularities and ,irregularities have power1 they cause either ,peace or ,war1 ,sickness or ,health1 ,delight and ,pleasure1 or ,grief and ,pain1 ,life or ,death1 to particular ,creatures or parts of ,nature2 but all these various actions are but various ,effects1 and not prime ,causes2 which is well to be observed1 lest we confound ,causes with ,effects4 ,and so leaving this discourse for the present1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,van ,helm1 in his ,book intituled1 ,physick ,refined1 ch4 #d4 of the ,causes and beginning of natural things4 ,,ii4 ,,madam1 ,it is no wonder1 your ,author has so many odd and strange opinions in ,philosophy1 since they do not onely proceed from strange ,visions1 ,apparitions1 and ,dreams1 but are built upon so strange grounds and principles as ,ideas1 ,archeus1 ,gas1 ,blas1 ,ferment1 and the like1 the names of which sound so harsh and terrifying1 as they might put any body easily into a fright1 like so many ,hobgoblins or ,immaterial spirits2 but the best is1 they can do no great harm1 except it be to trouble the brains of them1 that love to maintain those opinions2 for though they are thought to be powerful beings1 yet being not corporeal substances1 ,i cannot imagine wherein their power should consist2 for ,nothing can do nothing4 ,but to mention each apart2 first his ,archeus he calls#a the ,spirit of ,life2 a vital gas or ,light2 the ,balsam preferring from ,corruption2 the ,vulcan or ,smith of ,generation2 the stirrer up1 and inward director of generation2 an ,air2 a skiey or airy ,spirit2 cloathing himself presently with a bodily cloathing1 in things soulified1 walking through all the dens and retiring places of the seed1 and transforming the matter according to the perfect act of its own ,image1 remaining the president and overseer or inward ruler of his bounds even till death2 the ,principle of ,life3 the ,inn of ,life1 the onely immediate ,witness1 ,executor1 and ,instrument of ,life2 the ,prince and ,center of ,life2 the ,ruler of the ,stern2 the ,keeper of ,life1 and promoter of ,transmutations2 the ,porter of the ,soul2 a ,fountainous being2 a ,flint4#b ,these1 and many more names your ,author attributes to his ,archeus1 but what properly it is1 and what its ,nature and its peculiar office1 ,i am not able to conceive4 ,in the next place1 ,gas and ,blas are to your ,author also true ,principles of ,natural things2 for#c ,gas is the ,vapour into which ,water is dissolved by ,cold1 but yet it is a far more fine and subtil thing then ,vapour2 which he demonstrates by the ,art of ,chymistry4 ,this ,gas in another place he calls#d a ,wild ,spirit1 or ,breath1 unknown hitherto2 which can neither be constrained by ,vessels1 nor reduced into a visible body2 in some things it is nothing but ,water1 as for example in ,salt1 in ,fruits1 and the like4 ,but#e ,blas proceeds from the local and alterative motion of the ,stars1 and is the general beginning of motion1 producing heat and cold1 and that especially with the changing of the ,winds4 ,there is also#f ,blas in all sublunary things2 witness ,amulets or preserving ,pomanders1 whereby they do constrain objects to obey them2 ,which ,incorporeal ,blas of ,government acts without a ,corporeal ,efflux1 even as the ,moon makes the ,sea to swell2 but the fleshly generation#g hath a ,blas of its own1 and it is twofold1 one which existeth by a natural ,motion1 the other voluntary1 which existeth as a mover to it self by an ,internal ,willing4 ,there is also a ,blas of the ,heart1 which is the fuel of the ,vital ,spirit1 and consequently of its heat4 ,the ,ferment#h he describes to be ,a true ,principle or ,original beginning of things1 to wit1 a ,formal ,created beginning1 which is neither a substance1 nor an accident1 but a ,neutral being1 framed from the beginning of the ,world in the places of its own ,monarchy1 in the manner of ,light1 ,fire1 the magnal or sheath of the ,air1 ,forms1 c4 that it may prepare1 stir up1 and go before the ,seeds4 ,lastly1 his ,ideas are ,certain formal seminal ,lights1#i mutually piercing each other without the adultery of ,union2 ,for1 says he1 although at first1 that1 which is imagined1 is nothing1 but a meer being of reason1 yet it doth not remain such2 for truely the ,fancy is a sealifying vertue1 and in this respect is called ,imaginative1 because it forms the ,images of ,likenesses1 or ,ideas of things conceived1 and doth characterize them in its own ,vital ,spirit1 and therefore that ,idea is made a spiritual or seminal powerful being1 to perform things of great moment4 ,and those ,ideas he makes various and numerous2 as ,archeal ,ideas1 ,ideas of ,diseases1 ,sealifying ,ideas1 ,piercing ,ideas1 ,forreign and strange ,ideas1 ,mad ,ideas1 ,irrational and ,incorrigible ,ideas1 ,staggering ,ideas1 and a hundred others3 the like of ,gas1 ,blas1 and the rest4 ,thus1 ,madam1 ,i have made a rehearsal of your ,authors strange1 and hitherto unknown1 ,principles 7as his ,confession is7 of ,natural things1 which1 to my sense and reason1 are so obscure1 intricate and perplex1 as is almost impossible exactly to conceive them2 when as ,principles ought to be easie1 plain1 and without any difficulty to be understood2 ,wherefore what with his ,spirits1 meer-beings1 non-beings1 and neutral-beings1 he troubles ,nature1 and puzles the brains of his ,readers so1 that1 ,i think1 if all men were of his opinion1 or did follow the way of his ,philosophy1 ,nature would desire ,god she might be annihilated3 ,onely1 of all other1 she doth not fear his ,non-beings1 for they are the weakest of all1 and can do her the least hurt1 as not being able to obstruct real and corporeal actions of ,nature2 for ,nature is a corporeal substance1 and without a substance ,motion cannot be1 and without ,motion opposition cannot be made1 nor any action in ,nature1 whether ,prints1 ,seals1 ,stamps1 ,productions1 ,generations1 ,thoughts1 ,conceptions1 ,imaginations1 ,passions1 ,appetites1 or the like3 and if motions cannot be without substance2 then all ,creatures1 their properties1 faculties1 natures1 c41 being made by corporeal motions1 cannot be ,non-beings1 no nor anything else that is in ,nature2 for non-beings are not in the number of ,natural things1 ,nature containing nothing within her1 but what is substantially1 really1 and corporeally existent4 ,but your ,authors ,ideal ,entity1 7whereof he is speaking in another place of his ,works17#aj which performs all the ,works of ,nature1 seems to me1 as if it were the ,jack of all ,offices1 or like the ,jack in a ,clock1 that makes every ,wheel move2 for it hath an admirable power to put off and on ,corporeality and ,incorporeality1 and to make it self ,something and ,nothing as often as it has occasion2 but if this ,proteus have such power1 it may well be named the ,magick of ,nature4 ,your ,author saith1 it is not the ,devil1 nor any effect thereof3 but certainly1 in my opinion1 according to its description1 and the effects laid to its performance1 it must be more then the ,devil2 wherefore1 in my ,reason1 ,i cannot conceive it1 neither am ,i able to understand his ,phantastick ,activity1 ,fancy of ,forms1 the ,souls acting by an insensible way1 and many more such like expressions4 ,but ,i conceive that all these can be nothing else but the several motions of the sensitive and rational matter1 which is the ,active1 ,ingenious1 ,distinguishing1 ,knowing1 ,wise and ,understanding part of ,infinite corporeal ,nature2 and though ,infinite ,matter hath ,infinite parts in general1 yet there is a finiteness in every part considered by it self3 not that ,i think a ,part can really subsist single and by it self1 but it is onely considered so in the manner of our ,conception1 by reason of the difference and variousness of natural ,creatures3 for these being different from each other in their figures1 and not all alike1 so that we can make a distinction betwixt them2 this difference and distinction causes us to conceive every part of a different figure by it self3 but properly and according to the ,truth of ,nature1 there is no part by it self subsisting2 for all parts are to be considered1 not onely as parts of the whole1 but as parts of other parts1 all parts being joyned in ,infinite ,nature1 and tied by an inseparable tie one way or other1 although we do not altogether perceive it4 ,but to return to ,ideas3 ,i had almost forgot to tell you1 ,madam1 of another kind of ,ideas1 by your ,author named1 ,bewitching or ,inchanting ,ideas1#aa which are for the most part found in ,women1 against which ,i cannot but take exception in the behalf of our ,sex3 ,for1 says he1 ,women stamp ,ideas on themselves1 whereby they1 no otherwise then ,witches driven about with a malignant spirit of despair1 are oftentimes governed or snatched away unto those things1 which otherwise they would not1 and do bewail unto us their own and unvoluntary ,madness3 ,these ,ideas are hurtful to themselves1 and do1 as it were1 ,inchant1 ,infatuate1 and weaken themselves2 for so 7as ,plutarch witnesses7 a desire of death by hanging took hold of all the young ,maids in the ,island ,chios4 ,by this it appears1 that your ,author has never been in ,love1 or else he would have found1 that ,men have as well bewitching ,ideas as ,women1 and that they are as hurtful to ,men1 as to ,women4 ,neither can ,i be perswaded to believe1 that men should not have as well ,mad ,ideas as ,women2 for to mention no other example1 some1 7,i will not speak of your ,author7 their ,writings and strange ,opinions in ,philosophy do sufficiently witness it2 but whence those ,ideas do proceed1 whether from the ,bride-bed of the ,soul1 or the ,splene1 your ,author doth not declare4 ,as for the young ,maids in ,chios1 ,i must confess1 it is a very strange example2 but ,i think there have been as many ,men that have killed themselves1 as ,women1 if not more3 ,however1 ,i hope1 by the ,grace of ,god1 the young ,maids in this ,kingdom are better advised2 for if they should do the like1 it would be a sad fate for all young ,men4 ,to conclude1 ,madam1 all these rehearsed opinions of your ,author1 concerning the ,grounds or ,principles of ,natural ,philosophy1 if you desire my ,unfeigned ,judgment1 ,i can say no more1 but that they shew more ,fancy1 then ,reason and ,truth1 and so do many others2 and1 perhaps1 my opinions may be as far from ,truth as his1 although their ,ground is ,sense and ,reason2 for there is no single ,creature in ,nature1 that is able to know the perfectest ,truth3 but some opinions1 to humane sense and reason1 may have more probability then others1 and every one thinks his to be most probable1 according to his own fancy and imagination1 and so ,i think of mine2 nevertheless1 ,i leave them to the censure of those1 that are endued with solid judgment and reason1 and know how to discern betwixt things of fancy and reason1 and amongst the rest1 ,i submit them to the censure of your ,ladiship1 whose solid and wise ,judgment is the rule of all the actions of1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in his ch4 called ,the ,fiction of ,elementary ,complexions and ,mixtures4 #b ,in the ch4 of the ,birth and ,original of ,forms4 ,in the ch4 ,of the ,ideas of ,diseases4 ,see his ch4 called ,the ,seat of ,diseases in the ,soul is confirmed4 ,ch4 of ,archeal ,diseases4 ,ch4 called ,the ,subject of inhering of ,diseases is in the point of ,life1 c4 #c ,in the ch4 ,of the ,gas of the ,water4 #d ,in the ch4 of the ,fiction of ,elementary ,complexions and ,mixtures4 #e ,in the ch4 ,of the ,blas of ,meteors4 #f ,in the ch4 ,of the unknown action of ,government4 #g ,in the ch4 ,of the ,blas of ,man4 #h ,of the ,causes and beginnings of ,natural things4 #i ,of the ,ideas of ,diseases4 #aj ,of the ,magnetick cure of ,wounds4 #aa ,of things ,conceived1 or ,conceptions4 ,,iii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author relating how he dissents from the false ,doctrine1 as he terms it1 of the ,schools1 concerning the ,elements1 and their ,mixtures1 ,qualities1 ,temperaments1 ,discords1 c4 in order to ,diseases1 is pleased to say as follows3#a ,i have sufficiently demonstrated1 that there are not four ,elements in ,nature1 and by consequence1 if there are onely three1 that four cannot go together1 or encounter2 and that the fruits which ,antiquity hath believed to be mixt bodies1 and those composed from a concurrence of four elements1 are materially of one onely ,element2 also that those three ,elements are naturally cold2 nor that native heat is any where in things1 except from ,light1 ,life1 ,motion1 and an altering ,blas3 ,in like manner1 that all actual moisture is of ,water1 but all virtual moisture from the property of the seeds3 ,likewise1 that dryness is by it self in the ,air and ,earth1 but in ,fruits by reason of the ,seeds and ,coagulations2 and that there are not ,contraries in ,nature4 ,to give you my opinion hereof1 first ,i think it too great a presumption in any man1 to feign himself so much above the rest1 as to accuse all others of ignorance1 and that none but he alone hath the true knowledg of all things as infallible and undeniable1 and that so many ,learned1 ,wise and ,ingenious ,men in so many ages have been blinded with errors2 for certainly1 no particular ,creature in ,nature can have any exact or perfect knowledg of ,natural things1 and therefore opinions cannot be infallible truths1 although they may seem probable2 for how is it possible that a single finite ,creature should know the numberless varieties and hidden actions of ,nature8 ,wherefore your ,author cannot say1 that he hath demonstrated any thing1 which could not be as much contradicted1 and perhaps with more reason1 then he hath brought proofs and demonstrations3 ,and thus when he speaks of ,elements1 that there are not four in ,nature1 and that they cannot go together1 or encounter1 it may be his opinion2 but others have brought as many reasons to the contrary1 and ,i think with more probability2 so as it is unnecessary to make a tedious discourse thereof1 and therefore ,i'le refer you to those that have treated of it more learnedly and solidly then ,i can do4 ,but ,i perceive your ,author is much for ,art1 and since he can make solid bodies liquid1 and liquid bodies solid1 he believes that all bodies are composed out of the ,element of ,water1 and that ,water therefore is the first ,principle of all things2 when as ,water1 in my opinion1 is but an ,effect1 as all other natural ,creatures1 and therefore cannot be a cause or principle of them4 ,concerning the ,natural coldness of ,water1 ,air1 and ,earth1 it may be1 or not be so1 for any thing your ,author can truly know2 but to my sense and reason1 it seems probable that there are things naturally hot and moist1 and hot and dry1 as well as cold and moist1 and cold and dry3 ,but all these are but several effects produced by the several actions of ,natural ,matter1 which ,natural ,matter is the onely ,principle of all ,natural ,effects and ,creatures whatever2 and this ,principle1 ,i am confident your ,author can no more prove to be ,water1 then he can prove that ,heat1 ,light1 ,life1 ,motion1 and ,blas1 are not material4 ,concerning what he saith1 ,that ,native ,heat is no where in things1 except from ,light1 ,life1 ,motion1 and an altering ,blas3 ,i believe that motion of life makes not onely heat1 but all effects whatsoever2 but this native heat is not produced onely from the motions of ,particular lives in particular ,creatures1 but it is made by the motions of ,natures life2 which life1 in all probability1 is the self-moving ,matter1 which no doubt1 can and doth make ,light and ,blas without ,heat1 and ,heat without ,light or ,blas2 ,wherefore ,light and ,blas are not principles of native ,heat1 no more then native ,heat is the principle of ,light and ,blas4 ,neither is ,water the ,principle of ,actual moisture1 nor the propriety of seeds the ,principle of all ,virtual moisture2 but self-moving ,matter is the ,principle of all1 and makes both actual and virtual moisture1 and there is no question but there are many sorts of moistures4 ,as for ,dryness1 which he says1 is by it self in the ,air and ,earth1 and in ,fruits by reason of the ,seeds and ,coagulations3 ,i cannot conceive how any thing can be by it self in ,nature1 by reason there is nothing alone and single in ,nature1 but all are inseparable parts of one body3 perchance1 he means1 it is naturally and essentially inherent in ,air and ,earth2 but neither can that be in my reason1 because all ,creatures and ,effects of ,nature are ,intermixt1 and there is as much dryness in other ,creatures1 as in ,air and ,earth4 ,lastly1 as for his opinion1 ,that there are no ,contraries in ,nature2 ,i believe not in the essence or nature of ,matter2 but sense and reason inform us1 that there are ,contraries in ,natures actions1 which are ,corporeal motions1 which cause mixtures1 qualities1 degrees1 discords1 as also harmonious conjunctions and concords1 compositions1 divisions1 and the like effects whatsoever4 ,but though your ,author seems to be an enemy to the mixtures of ,elements1 yet he makes such a mixture of ,divinity1 and natural ,philosophy1 that all his ,philosophy is nothing but a meer ,hotch-potch1 spoiling one with the other4 ,and so ,i will leave it to those that delight in it1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in his ,treatise called1 ,a passive deceiving of the ,schools of the ,humourists4 ,,iv4 ,,madam1 ,water1 according to your ,authors opinion1#a is frozen into ,snow1 ,ice1 or ,hail1 not by ,cold1 but by its own ,gas4 ,but since ,i am not able to conceive what his ,gas is1 being a term invented by him self1 ,i will briefly declare my own opinion1 which is1 ,that ,snow1 ,ice1 and ,hail1 in my judgment1 are made in the like manner1 as ,passions or ,colours are made and raised in ,man2 for a sad discourse1 or a cruel object will make a ,man pale and cold1 and a fearful object1 will make him tremble2 whereas a wanton and obscene discourse will make some red and hot4 ,but yet these discourses and objects are onely external1 occasional1 and not immediate efficient causes of such alterations4 ,also when a ,man eats or drinks any thing that is actually hot or cold1 or enters into a cold or hot room1 bath1 or air1 he becomes hot or cold by the actions of those external agents that work upon him1 or rather whose motions the sensitive motions of his body do pattern out4 ,the like for diseases2 for they may be caused either by hearing ill reports1 or by taking either hurtful or superfluous food into the ,body1 or by ,infections inwardly or outwardly1 and many other ways4 ,likewise may ,colours be made different ways2 ,and so may ,snow1 ,ice1 and ,hail2 for all loose1 rare1 and porous ,bodies are more apt to alter and change then close1 solid1 and dense bodies2 and not onely to change from what they are1 but to rechange to what they were4 ,but1 ,madam1 many studious persons study ,nature more in her own substance1 then in her various actions1 which is the cause they arrive to no knowledg of ,natures ,works2 for the same parts of ,matter may act or work several ways3 ,like as a ,man1 or other animal creature1 may put one part of his body into various and several postures1 and move it many different ways4 ,your ,author may say1 that although several ,creatures may be changed to our sight or perception1 yet they are not really changed in ,nature4 ,i answer1 ,their ,principle1 which is a natural matter1 of which all ,creatures are made1 cannot be changed1 because it is one1 simple1 and unalterable in its ,nature2 but the figures of several ,creatures are changed continually by the various motions of this matter2 not from being matter1 but onely from such or such a figure into another2 and those figures which do change1 in their room are others produced to keep up the certain kinds of ,creatures by a continual successive alteration4 ,and as there are changes of parts1 so there are also mixtures of several parts1 figures and motions in one and the same ,matter2 for there are not different kinds in the nature of ,matter3 ,but1 although ,matter is of several degrees1 as partly animate and partly inanimate1 and the animate ,matter is partly rational1 and partly sensitive2 ,nevertheless1 in all those degrees it remains the same onely or meer ,matter2 that is1 it is nothing else but ,matter1 and the onely ground in which all changes are made4 ,and therefore ,i cannot perceive it to be impossible in ,nature1 as to your ,author it seems1 ,that ,water should not be transchangeable into ,air2 for1 that he says1 ,the ,air would have increased into a huge bulk1 and all ,water would have long since failed3 ,it is no consequence1 because there is a ,mutual transmutation of all figures and parts of ,nature1 as ,i declared above2 and when one part is transchanged into another1 that part is supplied again by the change of another1 so that there can be no total mutation of kinds or sorts of figures1 but onely a mutual change of the particulars4 ,neither is it of any consequence1 when your ,author says1 ,that if ,water should once be turned into ,air1 it would always remain ,air1 because a returning agent is wanting1 which may turn ,air again into ,water4 ,for he might as well say1 a ,man cannot go or turn backward1 being once gone forward4 ,and although he brings a ,general ,rule1 ,that every thing1 as much as in it lies1 doth desire to remain in it self2 ,yet it is impossible to be done1 by reason there is no rest in ,nature1 she being in a perpetual motion1 either working to the consistance of a figure1 or to the uniting of several parts1 or to the dissolving or dividing of several parts1 or any other ways4 ,by dissolving1 ,i do not mean annihilating1 but such a dissolving of parts as is proper for the altering of such a figure into one or many other figures4 ,but rather then your ,author will consent to the transchanging of ,water into ,air1 he will feign several grounds1 soils or pavements in the ,air1 which he calls ,peroledes1 and so many ,flood-gates and ,folding-dores1 and make the ,planets their ,key-keepers2 which are pretty ,fancies1 but not able to prove any thing in ,natural ,philosophy4 ,and so leaving them to their ,author1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,gas of ,water4 ,v4 ,,madam1 ,i cannot in reason give my consent to your ,authors opinion1#a ,that ,fishes do by the force or vertue of an inbred ,seed transchange simple water into fat1 bones1 and their own flesh1 and that materially they are nothing but water transchanged1 and that they return into water by art4 ,for though my opinion is1 that bodies change and alter from one figure into another1 yet they do not all change into water1 neither is water changed into all other figures2 and certainly ,fishes do not live nor subsist meerly by ,water1 but by several other meats1 as other animals do2 either by feeding upon other ,fishes1 the stronger devouring the weaker1 or upon ,mud1 and ,grass1 and ,weeds1 in the bottom of ,seas1 ,rivers and ,ponds1 and the like3 ,as for example1 put ,fish into a ,pool or ,sluce1 wherein there is not any thing but clear1 pure water1 and in a short time they will be starved to death for want of ,food2 and as they cannot live onely by water1 so neither can they breed by the power of water1 but by the power of their food1 as a more solid substance3 ,and if all ,creatures be nourished by those things whereof they consist1 then ,fishes do not consist of water1 being not nourished by water2 for it is not the transchanging of water1 by which ,fishes live1 and by which they produce2 but it is the transchange of food1 proceeding from other ,creatures1 as ,i mentioned above4 ',tis true1 ,water is a proper element for them to live in1 but not to live on2 and though ,i have neither learning1 nor experience in ,chymistry1 yet ,i believe1 that your ,author1 with all the subtilest ,art he had1 could not turn or convert all ,creatures into pure and simple water1 but there would have been dregs and several mixtures left3 ,i will not say1 that the ,furnace may not rarifie bodies extreamly1 but not convert them into such a substance or form as ,nature can4 ,and although he thinks ,gold is made of ,water1 yet ,i do not believe he could convert it into ,water by the help of ,fire2 he might make it soluble1 fluid and rare1 but all things that are supple1 soluble1 flowing and liquid1 are not ,water2 ,i am confident no ,gas or ,blas will1 or can transform it1 nor no ,art whatsoever2 what ,nature may do1 ,i know not4 ,but since your ,authors opinion is1 that ,air is also a ,primigenial ,element1 and in its nature a substance1 ,why doth he not make it a ,principle of natural bodies1 as well as ,water8 ,i think it had not been so improper to liken ,juices to ,water2 but to make the onely ,principle of the composition and dissolution of all ,creatures to be ,water1 seems to me very improbable4 ,neither can ,i admit in reason that the ,elements should be called1 first1 pure1 and simple beings2 we might as well call all other creatures1 first1 pure1 and simple beings3 for although the word ,element sounds as much as ,principle1 yet they are in my reason no more ,principles of ,nature1 then other ,creatures are1 there being but one ,principle in ,nature1 out of which all things are composed1 viz4 the onely matter1 which is a pure and simple corporeal substance2 and what ,man names impure dregs and filths1 these are onely irregular and cross motions of that matter1 in respect to the nature of such or such a figure2 or such motions as are not agreeable and sympathetical to our ,passions1 ,humors1 ,appetites1 and the like4 ,concerning the ,contrarieties1 ,differences and ,wars in ,nature1 which your ,author denies1 ,i have spoken thereof already1 and though he endeavours in a long discourse to prove1 that there is no ,war in nature2 yet1 in my opinion1 it is to little purpose1 and it makes but a war in the thoughts of the ,reader2 ,i know not what it did in his own4 ,but ,i observe he appeals often to ,divinity to bear him up in ,natural ,philosophy2 but how the ,church doth approve his ,interpretations of the ,scripture1 ,i know not3 ,wherefore ,i will not meddle with them1 lest ,i offend the ,truth of the ,divine ,scripture1 wherein ,i desire to submit to the ,judgment of the ,church1 which is much wiser then ,i1 or any single ,person can be4 ,however1 for all what your ,author says1 ,i do nevertheless verily believe1 there is a war between ,natural motions3 ,for example2 between the ,regular motions of ,health1 and the ,irregular motions of ,sickness2 and that things applied do oftentimes give assistance to one side or other1 but many times in the conflict1 the applied remedies are destroyed1 and sometimes they are forced to be ,neutrals3 ,wherefore though the nature of ,infinite ,matter is simple1 and knows of no discord1 yet her actions may be cross and opposite3 the truth is1 ,nature could never make such variety1 did her actions never oppose each other1 but live in a constant ,peace and ,unity4 ,and thus leaving them to agree1 ,i am confident your ,ladiship and ,i shall never disagree2 for as long as my life doth last1 ,i shall always prove1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,the ,fiction of ,elementary ,complexions and ,mixtures4 ,,vi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author condemns the ,schools for saying1#a ,that ,air is moist1 or that it may be converted into ,water by pressing it together2 bringing an example of an ,iron ,pipe1 wherein ,air has been pressed together1 which afterwards in its driving out has1 like a ,hand-gun discharged with ,gun-powder1 sent a bullet thorow a board or plank4 ,truly1 ,madam1 concerning the moisture of ,air1 ,i am against it1 but the transchanging of ,air into ,water ,i do verily believe1 viz4 that some sorts of ,air may be contracted or condensed into ,water1 and that ,water again may be dilated into ,air1 but not readily1 commonly and easily by ,art1 but onely by ,nature4 ,wherefore your ,authors ,experiment can serve for no proof2 for an artificial trial cannot be an infallible natural demonstration1 the actions of ,art1 and the actions of ,nature being for the most part very different1 especially in productions and transmutations of natural things3 ,neither can an alteration of parts1 cause an utter destruction of the whole1 because when some parts change from their figures1 other parts of matter change again into the like figures1 by which successive change the continuation of the whole is kept up4 ,next your ,author reproves the ,schools for maintaining the opinion1 that ,air is hot2 for says he1 ,water1 ,air1 and ,earth1 are cold by ,creation1 because without ,light1 ,heat1 and the partaking of ,life4 ,he might1 in my opinion1 conclude1 as well1 that ,man is cold by ,creation1 because a ,chameleon1 or a ,fish is cold1 being all of animal kind3 ,but why may not some sorts of ,air1 ,water and ,earth be hot1 and some be cold1 as well as some sorts of ,light are hot1 and some cold2 and so several other ,creatures8 ,his ,reasons prove nothing3 for ,light doth not make ,heat1 nor is it the principle of ,heat2 and it is no consequence to say1 all that is without ,light is without ,heat1 there being many things without ,light1 which nevertheless are ,hot2 ,but to say1 ,water1 ,air1 and ,earth are cold1 because they are without heat1 is no proof1 but a meer begging of the principle2 for it is but the same thing1 as if ,i should say1 this is no ,stone1 because it is no ,glass4 ,and that ,water1 ,air and ,earth1 do not partake of ,life1 must be proved first1 for that is not granted as yet1 there being1 according to my opinion1 not one ,creature that wants ,life in all ,nature4 ,again3 your ,author is of opinion1 ,that ,water is the first and chief ,principle of all ,natural things4 ,but this ,i can no more believe1 then that ,water should never change or degenerate from its essence3 nay1 if your ,author means1 there shall always be ,water in ,nature1 it is another thing2 but if he thinks that not any part of water doth or can change or degenerate in its nature1 and is the principle and chief producer of all other ,creatures2 then he makes ,water rather a ,creator then a ,creature2 and it seems1 that those ,gentiles which did worship ,water1 were of the same opinion1 whereas yet he condemns all ,pagan opinions and all those that follow them4 ,moreover1 ,i cannot subscribe to his opinion1 ,that ,gas and ,blas from the ,stars do make heat3 ,for heat is made several ways1 according to its several sorts2 for there is a dry heat1 and a moist heat1 a burning1 melting1 and evaporating heat1 and many more4 ,but as for ,meteors1 that they are made by ,gas and ,blas1 ,i can say nothing1 by reason ,i am not skilled in ,astrology1 and the science of the ,heavens1 ,stars1 and ,planets2 wherefore if ,i did offer to meddle with them1 ,i should rather express my ,ignorance1 then give your ,ladiship any solid reasons2 and so ,i am willing to leave this speculation to others1 resting content with that knowledg ,nature hath given me without the help of ,learning3 ,which ,i wholly dedicate and offer to your ,ladiship1 as becomes1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in the ch4 of ,air4 ,,vii4 ,,madam1 ,having made mention in my last of your ,authors opinion1 ,that ,air is in its nature ,cold1 ,i thought it fit to take a stricter view of the temper of ,air1 and to send you withal my own opinion thereof4 ,first of all1 ,i would fain know1 what sort of ,air your ,author means2 for if he thinks there is but one sort of ,air1 he might as well say1 that there is but one sort of ,animals1 or ,vegetables2 whereas yet there are not onely different sorts of animal and vegetable kind1 but also different particulars in one and the same sort3 ,as for example2 what difference is not amongst ,horses1 as between a ,barb1 a ,turk1 a ,ginnet1 a ,courser of ,naples1 a ,flanders-horse1 a ,galloway1 an ,english-horse1 and so forth8 not onely in their shapes1 but also in their natures1 tempers and dispositions8 ,the like for ,cows1 ,oxen1 ,sheep1 ,goats1 ,dogs1 as also for ,fowl and ,fish1 nay1 for ,men4 ,and as for ,vegetables1 ,what difference is there not between ,barly and ,wheat1 and between ,french-barly1 ,pine-barly1 and ordinary ,barly2 as also our ,english-wheat1 ,spanish-wheat1 ,turkish-wheat1 ,indian-wheat1 and the like8 ,what difference is there not amongst ,grapes1 as the ,malago1 ,muscadel1 and other ,grapes1 and so of all the rest of ,vegetables8 ,the same may be said of the ,elements2 for there is as much difference amongst the ,elements as amongst other ,creatures4 ,and so of ,air3 for ,air in some places1 as in the ,indies1 especially about ,brasilia1 is very much different from our air1 or from the air that is in other places3 ,indeed1 in every different ,climate1 you shall find a difference of air1 wherefore 'tis impossible to assign a certain temper of heat or cold to air in general4 ,but although my sense and reason inform me1 that air in its own nature or essence is neither hot nor cold1 yet it may become hot or cold1 by hot or cold motions2 for the sensitive perceptive motions of ,air may pattern out heat or cold2 and hence it is1 that in ,summer1 when as heat predominates1 the air is hot2 and in ,winter1 when as cold predominates1 the air is cold4 ,but1 perhaps1 you will say1 air may be cooled by moving it with a ,fan1 or such like thing which can make wind2 wherefore it follows1 that air must needs be naturally cold4 ,i answer1 ,that doth not prove ,air to be in its nature cold3 for this moving or making of wind may contract or condense the air into cold motions1 which may cause a cold wind1 like as ,ventiducts1 where the air running thorow narrow ,pipes makes a cold wind4 ,the same may be done with a mans breath2 for if he contract his lips close1 his breath will be cold1 but if he opens his mouth wide1 his breath will be warm4 ,again3 you may say1 that rain is congealed by the coldness of the air into ,snow1 ,hail and ,ice4 ,i answer2 ,frost1 ,ice1 ,snow and ,hail1 do not proceed from the coldness of the air1 but rather the coldness of the air proceeds from them2 for ,ice1 ,snow1 and ,hail1 proceed from cold contraction and condensation of a vaporous or watery substance2 and1 as ,frost and ,snow cause air to be cold1 so ,thunder and ,lightning cause it to be hot1 so long as they last4 ,thus1 ,madam1 though ,air may be altered either to heat or cold1 yet it is neither hot nor ,cold in it self4 ,and this is all for the present that ,i can say concerning the ,temper of ,air2 ,i conclude1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 ,,viii4 ,,madam1 ,having hitherto considered your ,authors ,elements or ,principles of ,natural things1 you will give me leave to present you now with a short view of his ,opinions concerning ,wind1 ,vacuum1 ,rainbows1 ,thunder1 ,lightning1 ,earth-quakes1 and the like2 which ,i will do as briefly as ,i can1 lest ,i betray my ,ignorance2 for ,i confess my self not to be well versed in the knowledg of ,meteors1 nor in those things which properly belong to the ,mathematicks1 as in ,astrology1 ,geography1 ,opticks1 and the like4 ,but your ,author says1 in the first place1#a ,that ,natural ,wind is nothing but a flowing ,air1 moved by the ,blas of the ,stars4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 if this were so1 then1 in my judgment1 when the ,stars blaze1 we should have constant ,winds1 and the more they blaze1 the more violent winds there would be3 ,but ,i have rather observed the contrary1 that when the ,stars blaze most apparently1 we have the calmest weather either in ,summer or ,winter4 ,perchance your ,author will say1 he doth not mean this apparant and visible ,blas1 but another invisible ,blas4 ,i answer2 ,i know not1 nor cannot conceive any other ,blas in the ,stars1 except ,i had seen it in a ,vision2 neither do ,i think that ,nature her self knows of any other1 ,but your ,author doth refer himself upon the ,authority of ,hypocrates1 who says1 ,that not onely the ,wind is a blast1 but that all ,diseases are from blasts2 and that there is in us a ,spirit stirring up all things by its ,blas2 which ,spirit1 by a ,microcosmical ,analogy1 or the proportion of a little ,world1 he compares to the blasts of the world4 ,as for my particular1 ,madam1 ,i dare say1 ,i could never perceive1 by my sense and reason1 any such blazing ,spirit in me2 but ,i have found by experience1 that when my mind and thoughts have been benighted with ,melancholy1 my ,imagination hath been more active and subtil1 then when my mind has been clear from dark ,melancholy3 ,also ,i find that my thoughts and conceptions are as active1 if not more1 in the night then in the day2 and though we may sometimes dream of several ,lights1 yet ,i cannot perceive a constant light in us2 however ,light1 ,blazes1 and all those effects are no more then other effects of ,nature are2 nor can they have more power on other ,creatures1 then other ,creatures have on them3 ,neither are they made otherwise then by the corporeal motions of ,natural ,matter1 and are dissolved and transchanged as other ,creatures1 out of one form or figure into another4 ,next your ,author discoursing#b whether there be any ,vacuum in ,nature1 doth incline to the affirming party1 that there is a ,vacuum in the ,air2 to wit1 ,there is in the air something1 that is less then a body1 which fills up the emptinesses or little holes and pores in the air1 and which is wholly annihilated by fire2 ,it is actually void of all matter1 and is a middle thing between a body and an ,incorporeal ,spirit1 and almost nothing in respect of bodies2 for it came from ,nothing1 and so may easily be reduced to nothing4 ,all this1 ,madam1 surpasses my capacity2 for ,i can in no ways conceive any thing between something and nothing1 as to be less then something1 and more then nothing2 for all that is corporeal in ,nature1 is to my reason something2 that is1 some really existent thing2 but what is incorporeal in ,nature1 is nothing2 and if there be any absolute vacuum in ,nature1 as your ,author endeavours to prove1 then certainly this ,vacuum cannot be any thing whatsoever2 for a ,vacuum is a pure ,nothing4 ,but many ingenious and learned men have brought as many arguments and reasons against ,vacuum1 as others bring for it1 and so it is a thing which ,i leave to them to exercise their brains withal4 ,the like is the opinion which many maintain concerning ,place1 viz4 that there is a constant succession of ,place and ,parts1 so that when one part removes1 another doth succeed in its place2 the truth and manner whereof ,i was never able to comprehend3 for1 in my opinion1 there can be no place without body1 nor no body without place1 body and place being all but one thing4 ,but as for the perpetual ,creation and annihilation of your ,authors ,vacuities1 give me leave to tell you1 ,madam1 that it would be a more laborious work1 then to make a new ,world1 or then it was to make this present ,world2 for ,god made this ,world in six days1 and rested the seventh day2 but this is a perpetual making of something out of nothing4 ,again3 concerning ,rainbows1 your ,author says1#c ,that a ,rainbow is not a natural effect of a natural ,cause1 but a divine ,mystery in its original2 and that it has no matter1 but yet is in a place1 and has its colours immediately in a place1 but in the air mediately1 and that it is of the nature of ,light4 ,this is indeed a great mystery to my reason2 for ,i cannot conceive1 as ,i said before1 a place without a body1 nor how ,light and ,colours can be bodiless3 ,but as for ,rainbows1 ,i have observed1 when as water hath been blown up into the air into bubles1 that by the reflexion of light on the watery bubles1 they have had the like colours of the ,rainbow2 and ,i have heard1 that there hath been often seen at the rising and setting of the ,sun1 ,clouds of divers colours2 ,wherefore ,i cannot be perswaded to believe that a ,rainbow should not have a natural cause1 and consequently be a natural effect2 ,for that ,god has made it a sign of the ,covenant between him and mortal men1 is no proof1 that it is not a natural effect2 ,neither can ,i believe that it has not been before the ,flood1 and before it was made a sign by ,god1 as your ,author imagines2 for though it was no sign before the ,flood1 yet it may nevertheless have had its being and existence before the ,flood4 ,moreover1 as for ,thunder and ,lightning1 your ,authors opinion is2 ,that although they may have concurring natural ,causes1 yet the mover of them is an ,incorporeal ,spirit1 which is the ,devil2 who having obtained the ,principality of this world1 that he may be a certain executer of the judgments of the chief ,monarch1 and so the ,umpire and ,commissioner of ,lightning and ,thunder1 stirs up a monstrous and sudden ,blas in the ,air1 yet under ,covenanted ,conditions2 for unless his power were bridled by divine ,goodness1 he would shake the ,earth with one stroke so1 as to destroy all mortal men3 and thus the cracking noise or voice of ,thunder is nothing but a spiritual ,blas of the ,evil ,spirit4 ,i will not deny1 ,madam1 that ,thunder and ,lightning do argue the ,power of the most ,glorious ,god1 for so do all the rest of the ,creatures2 but that this is the onely and immediate cause1 which your ,author assigns of ,thunder and ,lightning1 ,i cannot believe2 for surely1 in my opinion1 ,thunder and ,lightning are as much natural effects as other ,creatures in ,nature2 and are not the ,devils ,blas1 for ,i think they may be made without the help of the ,devil2 nay1 ,i believe1 he may be as much affraid of ,thunder1 as those ,creatures that live on ,earth4 ,but what the causes are1 and how ,thunder and ,lightning are made1 ,i have elsewhere declared more at large1 especially in my ,philosophical ,opinions4 ,again your ,author speaking#d of the ,trembling of the ,earth1 thinks it is nothing else but the ,judgment of ,god for the sins of ,impenitent men4 ,for my part1 ,madam1 ,i can say little to it1 either concerning the divine1 or the natural cause of ,earthquakes3 ,as for the divine and supernatural ,cause1 which your ,author gives1 if it was so1 then ,i wonder much1 why ,god should command ,earth-quakes in some parts of the ,world more frequent then in others4 ,as for example2 we here in these parts have very seldom ,earthquakes1 and those we have1 which is hardly one in many ages1 are not so furious1 as to do much harm2 and so in many other places of the ,world1 are as few and as gentle ,earth-quakes as here2 when as in others1 ,earth-quakes are very frequent and dreadful3 ,from whence it must needs follow1 if ,earth-quakes be onely a ,judgment from ,god for the sins of ,impenitent ,men1 and not a natural effect1 that then those places1 where the ,earth is not so apt to tremble1 are the habitations of the blessed1 and that they1 which inhabit those parts that are apt to tremble1 are the accursed2 when as yet1 in those places where ,earthquakes are not usual and frequent1 or none at all1 ,people are as wicked and impious1 if not more1 then in those where ,earthquakes are common4 ,but the question is1 ,whether those parts which suffer frequent and terrible ,earthquakes1 would not be so shaken or have such trembling fits1 were they uninhabited by ,man1 or any other animal ,creature8 ,certainly1 in my opinion1 they would4 ,but as for the ,natural ,cause of ,earthquakes1 you must pardon me1 ,madam1 that ,i cannot knowingly discourse thereof1 by reason ,i am not so well skilled in ,geography1 as to know the several ,soils1 ,climats1 ,parts1 ,regions1 or ,countries1 nor what disposed matter may be within those parts that are subject to frequent ,earthquakes3 ,onely this ,i may say1 that ,i have observed1 that the light of a small ,fire or ,candle1 will dilate it self round about2 or rather that the air round about the ,fire or ,candle1 will pattern out both its light and its heat4 ,also ,i have observed1 ,that a ,man in a raging fit of ,madness will have such an unusual strength1 as ten strong men shall hardly be able to encounter or bind him1 when as1 this violent fit being past1 a single man1 nay a youth1 may over-master him3 ,whence ,i conclude1 that the actions1 as the motions of ,nature1 are very powerful when they use their force1 and that the ordinary actions of ,nature are not so forcible as necessary2 but the extraordinary are more forcible then necessary4 ,lastly1 your ,author takes great pains to prove1#e ,that the ,sun with his light rules the ,day1 and the ,moon with hers the ,night2 and that the ,moon has her own ,native light2 and that ,bats1 ,mice1 ,dormice1 ,owles1 and many others1 as also ,men1 which rise at night1 and walk in their sleep1 see by the light and power of the ,moon2 also that ,plants are more plentifully nourished by the night4 ,but lest it might be concluded1 that all this is said without any probability of ,truth1 by reason the ,moon doth not every night shine upon the ,earth1 he makes a difference between the ,manner of the ,sun's and ,moon's enlightning the ,earth2 to wit1 that the ,sun strikes his beams in a right line towards the ,earth1 but the ,moon doth not respect the ,centre of the ,world1 which is the ,earth1 in a right line2 but her ,centre is always excentrical1 and she respects the ,earth onely by accident1 when she is concentrical with the ,world2 ,and therefore he thinks there is another light under the ,earth even at ,midnight1 whereby many ,eyes do see1 which owes also its rise to the ,moon4 ,this opinion of your ,author ,i leave to be examined by those that have skill in ,astronomy1 and know both the ,light and the ,course of the ,moon3 ,i will onely say thus much1 that when the ,moon is concentrical1 as he calls it1 with the ,world1 as when it is ,full and ,new ,moon1 she doth not shine onely at night1 but also in the day1 and therefore she may rule the day as well as the night1 and then there will be two lights for the ruling of the day1 or at least there will be a strife betwixt the ,sun and the ,moon1 which shall rule4 ,but as for ,men walking asleep by the light of the ,moon1 my opinion is1 ,that blind men may walk as well by the light of the ,sun1 as sleeping men by the light of the ,moon4 ,neither is it probable1 that the ,moon or her ,blas doth nourish ,plants2 for in a cold ,moon-shiny night they will often die2 but it is rather the ,regular motions in well tempered matter that cause fruitful productions and maturity4 ,and so ,i repose my ,pen1 lest it trespass too much upon your ,patience1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,blas of ,meteors4 #b ,ch4 ,of ,vacuum4 #c ,ch4 ,of an ,irregular ,meteor4 #d ,ch4 ,of the ,earthquake4 #e ,ch4 ,of the ,birth or ,original of ,forms4 ,,ix4 ,,madam1 ,in my former1 when ,i related your ,authors opinion1 concerning ,earthquakes1 ,i forgot to tell you1 that he counts the ,doctrine of the ,schools absurd1 when they say that ,air1 or any ,exhalation1 is the cause of them3 ,for1 says he1 ,there is no place in the ,pavements or soils of the ,earth1 wherein any airy body may be entertained1 whether that body be a wind1 or an airy exhalation4 ,but since ,i promised ,i would not offer to appoint or assign any natural causes of ,earthquakes1 ,i have only taken occasion hence to enquire1 whether it may not be probably affirmed1 that there is air in the bowels of the ,earth3 ,and to my reason it seems very probable2 ,i mean not this ,exterior air1 flowing about the circumference of the ,earth we inhabite2 but such an airy matter as is pure1 refined1 and subtil1 there being great difference in the ,elements1 as well as in all other sorts of ,creatures2 for what difference is there not between the natural heat of an animal1 and the natural heat of the ,sun8 and what difference is there not between the natural moisture of an ,animal1 and the natural moisture of ,water8 ,and so for the ,purity of ,air1 ,dryness of ,earth1 and the like3 ,nay1 there is great difference also in the production of those ,effects3 ,as for example2 the heat of the ,earth is not produced from the ,sun1 nor the natural heat in ,animals1 nor the natural heat in ,vegetables2 for if it were so1 then all ,creatures in one ,region or place of the ,earth would be of one temper4 ,as for example3 ,poppy1 ,night-shade1 ,lettuce1 ,thyme1 ,sage1 ,parsly1 c4 would be all of one temper and degree1 growing all in one ,garden1 and upon one patch of ,ground1 whereon the ,sun equally casts his beams1 when as yet they are all different in their natural tempers and degrees4 ,and so certainly there is ,air1 ,fire1 and ,water1 in the bowels of the ,earth1 which were never made by the ,sun1 the ,sea1 and this ,exterior elemental ,air4 ,wherefore those1 in my opinion1 are in gross ,errors1 who imagine that these ,interior ,effects in the ,earth are produced from the mentioned ,exterior ,elements1 or from some other forreign and external ,causes2 for an external cause can onely produce an external effect1 or be an occasion to the production of such or such an effect1 but not be the immediate efficient or essential cause of an interior natural effect in another ,creature1 unless the ,interior natures of different ,creatures have such an active power and influence upon each other1 as to work interiously at a distance1 such effects as are proper and essential to their ,natures1 which is improbable2 for though their natures and dispositions may mutually agree and sympathize1 yet their powers cannot work upon their ,interior ,natures so1 as to produce internal natural effects and proprieties in them4 ,the truth is1 it cannot be2 for as the ,cause is1 so is the ,effect2 and if the ,cause be an exterior ,cause1 the ,effect must prove so too3 ,as for example2 the heat of the ,sun1 and the heat of the ,earth1 although they may both agree1 yet one is not the cause of the other2 for the ,suns heat cannot pierce into the bowels of the ,earth1 neither can the heat of the ,earth ascend so far as to the ,center of the ,sun3 ,as for the heat of the ,earth1 it is certain enough1 and needs no proof2 but as for the heat of the ,sun1 our senses will sufficiently inform us1 that although his beams are shot forth in direct lines upon the face of the ,earth1 yet they have not so much force1 as to pierce into a low ,celler or ,vault2 ,wherefore it is not probable1 that the ,earth hath its natural heat from the ,sun1 and so neither its dryness from the ,air1 nor its moisture from the ,sea1 but these interior effects in the ,earth proceed from some other interior causes4 ,and thus there may be great difference between the heat1 cold1 moisture1 and drought which is in the ,elements1 and between those which are in ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,animals1 not onely in their ,general kinds1 but also in their ,particulars3 ,and not onely a difference in the aforesaid qualities of heat1 cold1 moisture1 and drought1 but also in all other motions1 as ,dilations1 ,contractions1 ,rarefactions1 ,densations1 c4 nay1 in their ,mixtures and ,temperaments3 ,as for example2 the temper of a ,mineral is not the temper of an ,animal1 or of a ,vegetable1 neither is the temper of these the temper of the exterior ,elements1 no more then the temper of the ,elements is the temper of them2 for every ,creature has a temper natural and peculiar to it self1 nay1 every particular ,creature1 has not onely different tempers1 compositions1 or mixtures1 but also different productions2 or else1 if there were no difference in their productions1 every ,creature would be alike1 when as yet there are seldom two that do exactly resemble each other4 ,but ,i desire you to understand me well1 ,madam1 when ,i speak of ,particular heats1 colds1 droughts1 and moistures2 for ,i do not believe that all ,creatures are made out of the four ,elements1 no more1 then that the ,elements are produced from other ,creatures1 for the ,matter of all ,creatures is but one and the same2 but although the ,matter is the same1 nevertheless1 the ,tempers1 compositions1 ,productions1 ,motions1 c4 of particular ,creatures1 may be different1 which is the cause of their different exterior figures1 or shapes1 as also of their different ,interiour ,natures1 ,qualities1 ,properties1 and the like4 ,and so1 to conclude1 there is no impossibility or absurdity in affirming1 that there may be ,air1 ,fire1 and ,water1 in the bowels of the ,earth proper for those ,creatures1 which are in her1 although not such an ,elemental ,air1 ,fire and ,water1 as is subject here to our senses2 but another kind of ,air1 ,fire and ,water1 different from those4 ,but this being a subject for ,learned and ,ingenious men to work and contemplate upon1 better1 perhaps1 then ,i can do1 ,i will leave it to them1 and so remain1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 ,x4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author mentioning in his ,works1 several ,seeds of several ,creatures1 makes me express my opinion thus in short concerning this ,subject3 ,several ,seeds seem to me no otherwise then several ,humours1 or several ,elements1 or several other ,creatures made of one and the same ,matter1 that produce one thing out of another1 and the barrenness of seeds proceeds either from the irregularity of their natural motions1 or from their unaptness or unactivity of producing4 ,but it is to be observed1 ,madam1 that not every thing doth produce always its like1 but one and the same thing1 or one and the same ,creature1 hath many various and different productions2 for sometimes ,vegetables do produce ,animals1 ,animals produce ,minerals1 ,minerals produce ,elements1 and ,elements again ,minerals1 and so forth3 for proof ,i will bring but a mean and common example4 ,do not ,animals produce ,stones1 some in one1 and some in another part of their bodies1 as some in the ,heart1 some in the ,stomack1 some in the ,head1 some in the ,gall1 some in the ,kidnies1 and some in the ,bladder8 ,i do not say1 that this ,generation of ,stone is made the same way as the natural generation of ,animals1 as1 for example1 ,man is born of his ,parents2 but ,i speak of the generation or production of ,creatures in general1 for otherwise all ,creatures would be alike1 if all generations were after one and the same manner and way4 ,likewise do not ,fruits1 ,roots1 ,flowers and ,herbs1 produce ,worms8 ,and do not ,stones produce ,fire8 witness the ,flint4 ,and doth not ,earth produce ,metal8 ',tis true1 some talk of the seed of ,metals1 but who with all his diligent observations could find it out as yet8 ,wherefore it is1 in my opinion1 not probable1 that ,minerals are produced by way of seeds4 ,neither can ,i perceive that any of the ,elements is produced by seed1 unless ,fire1 which seems1 to my sense and reason1 to encrease numerously by its seed1 but not any other of the ,elements4 ,and thus productions are almost as various as ,creatures1 or rather parts of ,creatures1 are2 for we see how many productions there are in one animal body1 as the production of flesh1 bones1 marrow1 brains1 gristles1 veines1 sinews1 blood1 and the like1 and all this comes from ,food1 and ,food from some other ,creatures1 but all have their original from the onely matter1 and the various motions of ,nature4 ,and thus1 in my opinion1 all things are made easily1 and not by such constrained ways as your ,author describes1 by ,gas1 ,blas1 ,ideas1 and the like2 for ,i am confident1 ,nature has more various ways of producing natural things then any ,creature is able to conceive4 ,i'le give another example of ,vegetables1 ,i pray you but to consider1 ,madam1 how many several ways ,vegetables are produced1 as some by seeds1 some by slips1 some by grafts1 c4 ,the graft infuses and commixes with the whole stock and the branches1 and these do the like with the graft3 ,as for example2 an ,apple grafted in ,colewort produces ,apples2 but those ,apples will have a taste and sent of the ,colewort1 which shews that several parts of several ,creatures mix1 joyn1 and act together2 and as for seeds1 they are transchanged wholly1 and every part thereof into the produced fruit1 and every part of the seed makes a several production by the help of the co-working parts of the ,earth1 which is the reason that so many seeds are produced from one single seed2 ,but ,producers1 that waste not themselves in productions1 do not produce so numerously as those that do dissolve2 yet all ,creatures increase more or less1 according to their supplies or assistances2 for seeds will encrease and multiply more in manured and fertile then in barren grounds2 nay1 if the ground be very barren1 no production at all will be2 which shews1 that productions come not barely from the seed1 but require of necessity some assistance1 and therefore neither ,archeus1 nor seminal ,ideas1 nor ,gas1 nor ,blas1 would do any good in ,vegetables1 if the ground did not assist them in their generations or productions1 no more then a house would be built without the assistance of labourers or workmen2 for let the materials lie never so long1 surely they will never joyn together of themselves to the artificial structure of an house4 ,wherefore since there is so much variety in the production of one kind of ,creatures1 nay of every particular in every kind1 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 ,ideas1 or any other far-fetched termes1 since it is impossible to be done8 ,and as for those ,creatures whose producers are of two different sorts1 as a ,mule bred of an ,asse and a ,horse1 and another ,creature bred of a ,cony and a ,dormouse2 all which your ,author thinks#a do take more after their mother then their father1 more after the breeder then the begetter2 ,i will not eagerly affirm the contrary1 although it seems to me more probable3 ,but this ,i can say1 that ,i have observed by experience1 that ,faunes and ,foales have taken more after the ,male then after the ,female2 for amongst many several colour'd ,deer1 ,i have seen but one milk white ,doe2 and she never brought forth a white ,faun1 when as ,i have seen a white ,buck beget white and speckled ,faunes of black and several coloured ,does4 ,also in ,foals ,i have observed1 that they have taken more after the ,male then after the ,female1 both in shape and colour4 ,and thus ,i express no more1 but what ,i have observed my self1 others may find out more examples2 these are sufficient for me2 so ,i leave them1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in the ,ch4 the ,position is demonstrated2 and in the ch4 called the ,authority of the ,duumvirate4 ,,xi4 ,,madam1 ,you will cease to wonder1 that ,i am not altogether capable to understand your ,authors opinions in ,natural ,philosophy1 when you do but consider1 that his expressions are for the most part so obscure1 mystical and intricate1 as may puzzle any brain that has not the like ,genius1 or the same ,conceptions with your ,author2 wherefore ,i am forced oftentimes to express my ignorance rather1 then to declare to you the true sense of his opinions4 ,in the number of these is his discourse of a ,middle ,life1#a viz4 ,that the qualities of a middle life do remain in things that are transchanged3 ,for ,i cannot understand what he means by a middle life2 whether it be a life that is between the strongest and weakest1 or whether he means a life between the time of production and dissolution1 or between the time of conception and production2 or whether he means a life that is between two sorts of substances1 as more then an ,animal1 and not so high and excellent as an ,angel2 or whether he means a middle life for places1 as neither in ,heaven nor in ,hell1 but in ,purgatory1 or neither in1 nor out of the world1 or any other kind of life3 ,wherefore ,i'le leave this ,hermaphroditical or neutral life to better understandings then mine4 ,likewise ,i must confess my disability of conceiving the overshadowing of his ,archeus1 and how it brings this middle life into its first life4 ,for concerning ,generation1 ,i know of none that is performed by overshadowing1 except it be the miraculous conception of the blessed ,virgin1 as ,holy ,writ informs us2 and ,i hope your ,author will not compare his ,archeus to the ,holy ,spirit2 ,but how a middle life may be brought again into the first life1 is altogether unconceivable to me3 ,and so is that1 when he says1 that the first life of the ,fruit is the last of the seed2 for ,i cannot imagine1 that the seed dies in the fruit2 but1 in my opinion1 it lives rather in the fruit1 and is numerously increased1 as appears by the production of seed from the fruit4 ,but the most difficult of all to be understood1 are his ,ideas1#b which he makes certain seminal ,images1 ,formal ,lights1 and operative means1 whereby the soul moves and governs the body2 whose number and variety is so great1 as it transcends my capacity1 there being ,ideas of ,inclination1 of ,affection1 of ,consideration or ,judgment1 of ,passion1 and these either mild1 or violent1 besides a great number of ,archeal and forreign ,ideas4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i cannot admire enough the powerful effects of these ,ideas1 they themselves being no substances or material ,creatures2 ,for how that can pierce1 seal1 and print a figure1 which hath neither substance nor matter1 my reason is not able to comprehend1 since there can be no figure without matter or substance1 they being inseparably united together1 so1 that where figure is1 there is also substance1 and where substance is1 there is also figure2 neither can any figure be made without a substance4 ,you may say1 ,ideas1 though they are not material or corporeal beings themselves1 yet they may put on figures1 and take bodies when they please3 ,i answer1 ,that then they can do more then ,immaterial ,spirits2 for the ,learned say1 ,that ,immaterial ,spirits are ,immaterial substances2 but your ,author says1 that ,ideas are no substances2 and ,i think it would be easier for a substance to take a body1 then for that which is no substance3 ,but your ,author might have placed his ,ideas as well amongst the number of ,immaterial ,spirits1 to wit1 amongst ,angels and ,devils1 and then we should not have need to seek far for the causes of the different natures and dispositions of ,mankind1 but we might say1 that ,ill-natured men proceeded from ,evil1 and ,good-natured men from ,good ,spirits or ,ideas4 ,however1 ,madam1 ,i do not deny ,ideas1 ,images1 or ,conceptions of things1 but ,i deny them onely to be such powerful beings and ,principal efficient ,causes of ,natural effects2 especially they being to your ,author neither bodies nor substances themselves4 ,and as for the ,figure of a ,cherry1 which your ,author makes so frequent a repetition of1 made by a longing ,woman on her ,child2 ,i dare say that there have been millions of ,women1 which have longed for some or other thing1 and have not been satisfied with their desires1 and yet their ,children have never had on their bodies the prints or marks of those things they longed for3 but because some such figures are sometimes made by the irregular motions of animate ,matter1 would this be a sufficient proof1 that all ,conceptions1 ,ideas and ,images have the like effects1 after the same manner1 by piercing or penetrating each other1 and sealing or printing such or such a figure upon the body of the ,child8 ,lastly1 ,i cannot but smile when ,i read that your ,author makes a ,disease proceed from a non-being to a substantial being3 ,which if so1 then a disease1 according to his opinion1 is made as the ,world was1 that is1 out of ,nothing2 but surely luxurious persons find it otherwise1 who eat and drink more then their natural digestive motions can dispose2 for those that have infirm bodies1 caused by the irregular motions of animate matter1 find that a disease proceeds from more then a non-being4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i have neither such an ,archeus1 which can produce1 in my mind1 an ,idea of ,consent or approbation of these your ,authors opinions1 nor such a light that is able to produce a beam of ,patience to tarry any longer upon the examination of them2 ,wherefore ,i beg your leave to cut off my discourse here1 and onely to subscribe my self1 as really ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 called ,magnum oporter4 #b ,of the ,ideas of ,diseases4 ,,xii4 ,,madam1 ,i cannot well apprehend your ,authors meaning1 when he says1#a ,that ,nature doth rise from its fall2 for if he understands ,nature in general1 ,i cannot imagine how she should fall and rise2 for though ,man did fall1 yet ,nature never did1 nor cannot fall1 being ,infinite3 ,and therefore in another place1#b when he saith1 that ,nature first being a beautiful ,virgin1 was defiled by sin2 not by her own1 but by ,mans sin1 for whose use she was created2 ,i think it too great a presumption and arrogancy to say that ,infinite ,nature was not onely defiled by the sin of ,man1 but also to make ,man the chief over all ,nature1 and to believe ,nature was onely made for his sake2 when as he is but a small finite part of ,infinite ,nature1 and almost ,nothing in comparison to it4 ,but ,i suppose your ,author doth not understand ,nature in general1 but onely the nature of some ,particulars1 when he speaks of the fall and rise of ,nature2 however1 this fall and rise of the nature of ,particulars1 is nothing but a change of their natural motions4 ,and so likewise1 ,i suppose1 he understands the nature of ,particulars1 when he says in another place1#c ,that ,nature in diseases is standing1 sitting1 and lying2 for surely ,nature in general has more several postures then sitting1 standing1 or lying3 ,as also when he speaks#d of the ,vertues and ,properties that stick fast in the bosom of ,nature1 which ,i conceive to be a ,metaphorical expression2 although ,i think it best to avoid ,metaphorical1 similizing1 and improper expressions in ,natural ,philosophy1 as much as one can2 for they do rather obscure then explain the truth of ,nature2 nay1 your ,author himself is of this opinion1#e and yet he doth nothing more frequent then bring in ,metaphors and similitudes4 ,but to speak properly1 there is not any thing that sticks fast in the bosom of ,nature1 for ,nature is in a perpetual motion3 ,neither can she be heightened or diminished by ,art2 for ,nature will be ,nature in despite of her ,hand-maid4 ,and as for your ,authors opinion1 ,that there are no ,contraries in ,nature1 ,i am quite of a contrary mind1 that there is a ,perpetual war and discord amongst the parts of ,nature1 although not in the nature and substance of ,infinite ,matter1 which is of a simple kind1 and knows no contraries in it self1 but lives in ,peace1 when as the several actions are opposing and crossing each other2 and truly1 ,i do not believe1 that there is any part or ,creature of ,nature1 that hath not met with opposers1 let it be never so small or great4 ,but as ,war is made by the division of ,natures parts1 and variety of natural actions1 so ,peace is caused by the unity and simplicity of the nature and essence of onely ,matter1 which ,nature is peaceable1 being always one and the same1 and having nothing in it self to be crossed or opposed by2 when as the actions of ,nature1 or natural ,matter1 are continually driving against each other1 as being various and different4 ,again your ,author says1 ,that a ,specifical being cannot be altered but by ,fire1 and that ,fire is the ,death of other ,creatures3 also that ,alchymy1 as it brings many things to a degree of greater efficacy1 and stirs up a new being1 so on the other hand again1 it by a privy filching doth enfeeble many things4 ,i1 for my part1 wonder1 that ,fire1 being as your ,author says1 no substantial body1 but substanceless in its nature1 should work such effects2 but however1 ,i believe there are many alterations without ,fire1 and many things which cannot be altered by ,fire4 ,what your ,authors meaning is of a new being1 ,i know not2 for1 to my reason1 there neither is2 nor can be made any new being in ,nature1 except we do call the change of motions and figures a new ,creation2 but then an old suit turned or dressed up may be called new too4 ,neither can ,i conceive his ,filching or ,stealing3 ,for ,nature has or keeps nothing within her self1 but what is her own2 and surely she cannot steal from her self2 nor can ,art steal from ,nature2 she may trouble ,nature1 or rather make variety in ,nature1 but not take any thing from her1 for ,art is the insnarled motions of ,nature3 ,but your ,author1 being a ,chymist1 is much for the ,art of ,fire1 although it is impossible for ,art to work as ,nature doth2 for ,art makes of natural ,creatures artificial ,monsters1 and doth oftner obscure and disturb ,natures ordinary actions1 then prove any ,truth in ,nature4 ,but ,nature loving variety doth rather smile at ,arts follies1 then that she should be angry with her curiosity3 like as for example1 a ,poet will smile in expressing the part or action of a ,fool4 ,wherefore ,pure natural ,philosophers1 shall by natural sense and reason1 trace ,natures ways1 and observe her actions1 more readily then ,chymists can do by ,fire and ,furnaces2 for ,fire and ,furnaces do often delude the ,reason1 blind the ,understanding1 and make the ,judgment stagger4 ,nevertheless1 your ,author is so taken with ,fire1 that from thence he imagines a ,formal ,light1 which he believes to be the ,tip-top of ,life2 but certainly1 he had1 in my opinion1 not so much light as to observe1 that all sorts of light are but ,creatures1 and not ,creators2 for he judges of several ,parts of ,matter1 as if they were several kinds of ,matter1 which causes him often to err1 although he conceits himself without any ,error4 ,in which conceit ,i leave him1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,nature is ignorant of ,contraries4 #b ,in the ,hist4 of ,tartar4 #c ,ch4 ,disease is an unknown guest4 #d ,nature is ignorant of ,contraries4 #e ,ch4 ,the ,image of the ,ferment begets the ,mass with ,child4 ,,xiii4 ,,madam1 ,the ,art of ,fire1 as ,i perceive1 is in greater esteem and respect with your ,author1 then ,nature her self3 ,for he says1#a ,that some things can be done by ,art1 which ,nature cannot do2 nay he calls#b ,art ,the ,mistress of ,nature1 and subjects whole ,nature unto ,chymical speculation2 ,for1 nothing1 says he1#c doth more fully bring a ,man1 that is greedy of knowing1 to the knowledg of all things knowable1 then the ,fire2 for the root or radical knowledg of natural things consists in the ,fire3#d ,it pierces the secrets of ,nature1 and causes a further searching out in ,nature1 then all other ,sciences1 being put together2 and pierces even into the utmost depths of real truth3#e ,it creates things which never were before4 ,these1 and many more the like expressions1 he has in the praise of ,chymistry4 ,and truly1 ,madam1 ,i cannot blame your ,author1 for commending this ,art1 because it was his own profession1 and no man will be so unwise as to dispraise his own ,art which he professes2 but whether those praises and commendations do not exceed truth1 and express more then the ,art of ,fire can perform1 ,i will let those judg1 that have more knowledg therein then ,i3 ,but this ,i may say1 ,that what ,art or ,science soever is in ,nature1 let it be the chief of all1 yet it can never be call'd the ,mistress of ,nature1 nor be said to perform more then ,nature doth1 except it be by a divine and supernatural ,power2 much less to create things which never were before1 for this is an action which onely belongs to ,god3 ,the truth is1 ,art is but a ,particular effect of ,nature1 and as it were1 ,nature's ,mimick or ,fool1 in whose playing actions she sometimes takes delight2 nay1 your ,author confesses it himself1 when he calls#f the ,art of ,chymistry1 ,nature's emulating ,ape1 and her ,chamber-maid1 and yet he says1 she is now and then the ,mistress of ,nature2 which in my opinion doth not agree3 for ,i cannot conceive how it is possible to be a ,chambermaid1 and yet to be the ,mistress too2 ,i suppose your ,author believes1 they justle sometimes each other out1 or take by turns one anothers place4 ,but whatever his opinion be1 ,i am sure1 that the ,art of ,fire cannot create and produce so1 as ,nature doth1 nor dissolve substances so1 as she doth1 nor transform and transchange1 as she doth1 nor do any effect like ,nature3 ,and therefore ,i cannot so much admire this ,art as others do1 for it appears to me1 rather to be a troubler1 then an assistant to ,nature1 producing more ,monsters then perfect ,creatures2 nay1 it rather doth shut the ,gates of ,truth1 then unlock the ,gates of ,nature3 ,for how can ,art inform us of ,nature1 when as it is but an effect of ,nature8 ,you may say1 ,the cause cannot be better known then by its effect2 for the knowledg of the effect1 leads us to the knowledg of the cause4 ,i answer1 ',tis true3 but you will consider1 that ,nature is an ,infinite cause1 and has ,infinite effects2 and if you knew all the ,infinite effects in nature1 then perhaps you might come to some knowledg of the cause2 but to know nature by one single effect1 as art is1 is impossible2 nay1 no man knows this particular effect as yet perfectly2 ,for who is he1 that has studied the art of fire so1 as to produce all that this art may be able to afford8 witness the ,philosophers-stone4 ,besides1 how is it possible to find out the onely cause by so numerous variations of the effects8 ,wherefore it is more easie1 in my opinion1 to know the various effects in ,nature by studying the ,prime cause1 then by the uncertain study of the inconstant effects to arrive to the true knowledg of the prime cause2 truly it is much easier to walk in a ,labyrinth without a ,guide1 then to gain a certain knowledg in any one art or natural effect1 without ,nature her self be the guide1 for ,nature is the onely ,mistress and cause of all1 which1 as she has made all other effects1 so she has also made arts for varieties sake2 but most men study ,chymistry more for imployment1 then for profit2 not but that ,i believe1 there may be some excellent ,medicines found out and made by that art1 but the expence and labour is more then the benefit2 neither are all those ,medicines sure and certain1 nor in all diseases safe2 neither can this art produce so many medicines as there are several diseases in ,nature1 and for the ,universal ,medicine1 and the ,philosophers-stone or ,elixir1 which ,chymists brag of so much2 it consists rather in hope and expectation1 then in assurance2 for could ,chymists find it out1 they would not be so poor1 as most commonly they are1 but richer then ,solomon was1 or any ,prince in the ,world1 and might have done many famous acts with the supply of their vast ,golden ,treasures1 to the eternal and immortal fame of their ,art2 nay1 ,gold being the ,idol of this world1 they would be worshipped as well for the sake of ,gold1 as for their splendorous ,art2 but how many have endeavored and laboured in vain and without any effect8 ,gold is easier to be made1 then to be destroyed1 says your ,author1#g but ,i believe one is as difficult or impossible1 nay more1 then the other2 for there is more probability of dissolving or destroying a natural effect by ,art1 then of generating or producing one2 for ,art cannot go beyond her sphere of activity1 she can but produce an artificial effect1 and ,gold is a natural ,creature2 neither were it ,justice1 that a particular creature of ,nature should have as much power to act or work as ,nature her self2 but because neither ,reason1 nor ,art has found out as yet such a powerful opposite to ,gold1 as can alter its nature2 men therefore conclude that it cannot be done4 ,your ,author relates#h to have seen the ,gold-making stone1 which he says1 was of colour such1 as ,saffron is in its powder1 but weighty and shining like unto powder'd ,glass2 one fourth part of one grain thereof1 7a grain he reckons the six hundredth part of one ounce7 being projected upon eight ounces of ,quicksilver made hot in a ,crucible1 and straight way there were found eight ounces1 and a little less then eleven grains of the purest ,gold2 therefore one onely grain of that powder had transchanged #aiahf parts of ,quicksilver1 equal to it self1 into the best ,gold4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i wish with all my heart1 the poor ,royalists had had some quantity of that powder2 and ,i assure you1 that if it were so1 ,i my self would turn a ,chymist to gain so much as to repair my ,noble ,husbands losses1 that his noble family might flourish the better4 ,but leaving ,gold1 since it is but a vain wish1 ,i do verily believe1 that some of the ,chymical medicines do1 in some desperate cases1 many times produce more powerful and sudden effects then the medicines of ,galenists1 and therefore ,i do not absolutely condemn the art of ,fire1 as if ,i were an enemy to it2 but ,i am of an opinion1 that my ,opinions in ,philosophy1 if well understood1 will rather give a light to that art1 then obscure its worth2 for if ,chymists did but study well the corporeal motions or actions of ,natures substantial body2 they would1 by their observations1 understand ,nature better1 then they do by the observation of the actions of their ,art2 and out of this consideration and respect1 ,i should almost have an ambition1 to become an ,artist in ,chymistry1 were ,i not too lazie and tender for that imployment2 but should ,i quit the one1 and venture the other1 ,i am so vain as to perswade my self1 ,i might perform things worthy my labour upon the ground of my own ,philosophy1 which is substantial ,life1 ,sense1 and ,reason2 for ,i would not study ,salt1 ,sulphur1 and ,mercury1 but the ,natural motions of every ,creature1 and observe the variety of ,natures actions4 ,but1 perchance1 you will smile at my vain conceit1 and1 it may be1 ,i my self1 should repent of my pains unsuccessfully bestowed1 my time vainly spent1 my health rashly endangered1 and my ,noble ,lords ,estate unprofitably wasted1 in fruitless tryals and experiments2 ,wherefore you may be sure1 that ,i will consider well before ,i act2 for ,i would not lose ,health1 ,wealth1 and ,fame1 and do no more then others have done1 which truly is not much1 their effects being of less weight then their words4 ,but in the mean time1 my study shall be bent to your service1 and how to express my self worthily1 ,,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 called1 ,the ,essay of a ,meteor4 #b ,ch4 ,heat doth not digest efficiently1 but excitingly4 #c ,ch4 ,the ignorant natural ,philosophy of ,aristotle and ,galen4 #d ,ch4 ,a modern ,pharmacopoly and dispensatory4 #e ,ch4 ,of the ,power of ,medicines4 #f ,ch4 ,heat doth not digest efficiently1 but excitingly4 #g ,ch4 ,the first ,principles of the ,chymists1 not the ,essences of the same are of the ,army of ,diseases4 #h ,in the ,ch4 ,of ,life ,eternal1 and in the ,ch4 ,of the ,tree of ,life4 ,,xiv4 ,,madam1 ,i have read your ,authors discourse concerning ,sensation1#a but it was as difficult to me to understand it1 ash was tedious to read it2 ,truly1 all the business1 might have been easily declared in a short ,chapter1 and with more clearness and perspicuity3 ,for ,sensation1 is nothing else but the action of sense proceeding from the corporeal sensitive motions1 which are in all ,creatures or parts of ,nature1 and so all have sense and sensation1 although not alike after one and the same manner1 but some more1 some less1 each according to the nature and propriety of its figure4 ,but your ,author speaks of ,motion without ,sense1 and ,sense without ,motion1 which is a meer impossibility2 for there is not1 nor cannot be any ,motion in ,nature without ,sense1 nor any ,sense without ,motion2 there being no ,creature without self-motion1 although not always perceptible by us1 or our external senses2 for all motion is not exteriously local1 and visible4 ,wherefore1 not any part of ,nature1 according to my opinion1 wants ,sense and ,reason1 ,life and ,knowledg2 but not such a substanceless ,life as your ,author describes1 but a substantial1 that is a corporeal ,life4 ,neither is ,light the principle of ,motion1 but ,motion1 is the principle of ,light3 ,neither is ,heat the principle of ,motion1 but its effect as well as ,cold is2 for ,i cannot perceive that ,heat should be more active then ,cold4 ,neither is there any such thing as ,unsensibleness in ,nature1 except it be in respect of some particular ,sensation in some particular ,figure3 ,as for example1 when an ,animal dies1 or its ,figure is dissolved from the ,figure of an ,animal2 we may say it hath not animal sense or motion1 but we cannot say1 it hath no sense or motion at all2 for as long as ,matter is in ,nature1 ,sense and ,motion will be2 so that it is absurd and impossible to believe1 or at least to think1 that ,matter1 as a body1 can be totally deprived of ,life1 ,sense1 and ,motion1 or that ,life can perish and be corrupted1 be it the smallest part of ,matter conceivable1 and the same turned or changed into millions of ,figures2 for the ,life and ,soul of ,nature is self-moving ,matter1 which by ,gods ,power1 and leave1 is the onely ,framer and ,maker1 as also the ,dissolver and ,transformer of all ,creatures in ,nature1 making as well ,light1 ,heat1 and ,cold1 ,gas1 ,blas1 and ,ferments1 as all other natural ,creatures beside1 as also ,passions1 ,appetites1 ,digestions1 ,nourishments1 ,inclination1 ,aversion1 ,sickness and ,health2 nay1 all ,particular ,ideas1 ,thoughts1 ,fancies1 ,conceptions1 ,arts1 ,sciences1 c4 ,in brief1 it makes all that is to be made in ,nature4 ,but many great ,philosophers conceive ,nature to be fuller of ,intricacy1 ,difficulty1 and ,obscurity1 then she is1 puzling themselves about her ordinary actions1 which yet are easie and free1 and making their arguments hard1 constrained1 and mystical1 many of them containing neither sense nor reason2 when as1 in my opinion1 there is nothing else to be studied in ,nature1 but her substance and her actions4 ,but ,i will leave them to their own ,fancies and ,humors1 and say no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,of the ,disease of the ,stone4 ,ch4 #i4 ,,xv4 ,,madam1 ,concerning ,sympathy and ,antipathy1 and attractive or magnetick ,inclinations1 which some do ascribe to the influence of the ,stars1 others to an unknown ,spirit as the ,mover1 others to the ,instinct of ,nature1 hidden ,proprieties1 and certain formal ,vertues2 but your ,author1#a doth attribute to directing ,ideas1 begotten by their ,mother ,charity1 or a desire of ,good ,will1 and calls it#b a ,gift naturally inherent in the ,archeusses of either part3 ,if you please to have my opinion thereof1 ,i think they are nothing else but plain ordinary ,passions and ,appetites4 ,as for example3 ,i take ,sympathy1 as also ,magnetisme or attractive ,power1 to be such agreeable ,motions in one part or ,creature1 as do cause a ,fancy1 love and desire to some other part or ,creature2 and ,antipathy1 when these ,motions are disagreeable1 and produce contrary effects1 as dislike1 hate and aversion to some part or ,creature4 ,and as there are many sorts of such motions1 so there are many sorts of ,sympathyes and ,antipathyes1 or ,attractions and ,aversions1 made several manners or ways2 ,for in some subjects1 ,sympathy requires a certain distance2 as for example1 in ,iron and the ,loadstone2 for if the ,iron be too far off1 the ,loadstone cannot exercise its power1 when as in other subjects1 there is no need of any such certain distance1 as betwixt the ,needle and the ,north-pole1 as also the ,weapon-salve2 for the ,needle will turn it self towards the ,north1 whether it be near or far off from the ,north-pole2 and so1 be the ,weapon which inflicted the wound1 never so far from the wounded ,person1 as they say1 yet it will nevertheless do its effect3 ,but yet there must withal be some conjunction with the blood2 for as your ,author mentions1#c the ,weapon shall be in vain anointed with the ,unguent1 unless it be made bloody1 and the same blood be first dried on the same ,weapon4 ,likewise the sounding of two eights when one is touched1 must be done within a certain distance3 the same may be said of all ,infectious and catching ,diseases amongst ,animals1 where the ,infection1 be it the ,infected ,air1 or a ,poysonous ,vapour1 or any thing else1 must needs touch the body1 and enter either through the ,mouth1 or ,nostrils1 or ,ears1 or ,pores of the body2 for though the like ,antipathies of ,infectious ,diseases1 as of the ,plague1 may be in several places far distant and remote from each other at one and the same time1 yet they cannot infect particular ,creatures1 or ,animals1 without coming near1 or without the sense of ,touch3 ,for example2 the ,plague may be in the ,east ,indies1 and in this ,kingdom1 at one and the same time1 and yet be strangers to each other2 for although all ,men are of ,mankind1 yet all have not ,sympathy or ,antipathy to each other2 the like of several ,plagues1 although they be of the same kind of disease1 yet1 being in several places at one time1 they may not be a kin to each other1 nor one be produced by the other1 except the ,plague be brought over out of an infected ,country1 into a sound ,country1 by some means or other4 ,and thus some ,sympathy and ,antipathy is made by a close conjunction1 or corporeal uniting of parts1 but not all2 neither is it required1 that all ,sympathy and ,antipathy must be mutual1 or equally in both ,parties1 so that that part or party1 which has a ,sympathetical affection or inclination to the other1 must needs receive the like sympathetical affection from that part again2 for one man may have a sympathetical affection to another man1 when as this man hath an antipathetical aversion to him2 and the same may be1 for ought we know1 betwixt ,iron and the ,loadstone1 as also betwixt the ,needle and the ,north2 for the ,needle may have a sympathy towards the ,north1 but not again the ,north towards the ,needle2 and so may the ,iron have towards the ,loadstone1 but not again the ,loadstone towards the ,iron3 ,neither is ,sympathy or ,antipathy made by the issuing out of any invisible rayes1 for then the rays betwixt the ,north and the ,needle would have a great way to reach3 ,but a sympathetical inclination in a ,man towards another1 is made either by sight1 or hearing2 either present1 or absent3 the like of infectious ,diseases4 ,i grant1 that if both ,parties do mutually affect each other1 and their motions be equally agreeable2 then the sympathy is the stronger1 and will last the longer1 and then there is a ,union1 ,likeness1 or ,conformableness1 of their ,actions1 ,appetites1 and ,passions2 ,for this kind of ,sympathy works no other effects1 but a conforming of the actions of one party1 to the actions of the other1 as by way of ,imitation1 proceeding from an internal sympathetical love and desire to please2 for ,sympathy doth not produce an effect really different from it self1 or else the sympathy betwixt ,iron and the ,loadstone would produce a third ,creature different from themselves1 and so it would do in all other ,creatures4 ,but as ,i mentioned above1 there are many sorts of attractions in ,nature1 and many several and various attractions onely in one sort of ,creatures1 nay1 so many in one particular as not to be numbred2 for there are many ,desires1 ,passions1 and ,appetites1 which draw or intice a man to something or other1 as for example1 to ,beauty1 ,novelty1 ,luxury1 ,covetousness1 and all kinds of ,vertues and ,vices2 and there are many particular objects in every one of these1 as for example1 in ,novelty4 ,for there are so many several desires to ,novelty1 as there are ,senses1 and so many ,novelties that satisfie those desires1 as a ,novelty to the ,ear1 a ,novelty to the ,sight1 to ,touch1 ,taste1 and ,smell2 besides in every one of these1 there are many several objects2 ,to mention onely one example1 for the novelty of ,sight2 ,i have seen an ,ape1 drest like a ,cavalier1 and riding on ,horse-back with his sword by his side1 draw a far greater multitude of ,people after him1 then a ,loadstone of the same bigness of the ,ape would have drawn ,iron2 and as the ,ape turn'd1 so did the ,people1 just like as the ,needle turns to the ,north2 and this is but one object in one kind of attraction1 viz4 ,novelty3 but there be ,millions of objects besides4 ,in like manner good cheer draws abundance of ,people1 as is evident1 and needs no ,demonstration4 ,wherefore1 as ,i said in the beginning1 ,sympathy is nothing else but natural ,passions and ,appetites1 as ,love1 ,desire1 ,fancy1 ,hunger1 ,thirst1 c4 and its effects are ,concord1 ,unity1 ,nourishment1 and the like3 ,but ,antipathy is ,dislike1 ,hate1 ,fear1 ,anger1 ,revenge1 ,aversion1 ,jealousie1 c4 and its effects are ,discord1 ,division1 and the like4 ,and such an ,antipathy is between a ,wolf and a ,sheep1 a ,hound and a ,hare1 a ,hawk and a ,partridg1 c4 ,for this ,antipathy is nothing else but fear in the ,sheep to run away from the ,wolf1 in the ,hare to run from the ,hound1 and in the ,partridg to flie from the ,hawk2 for ,life has an ,antipathy to that which is named ,death2 and the ,wolf's stomack hath a sympathy to food1 which causes him to draw neer1 or run after those ,creatures he has a mind to feed on4 ,but you will say1 some ,creatures will fight1 and kill each other1 not for ,food1 but onely out of an ,antipathetical nature4 ,i answer3 ,when as ,creatures fight1 and endeavour to destroy each other1 if it be not out of necessity1 as to preserve and defend themselves from hurt or danger1 then it is out of revenge1 or anger1 or ambition1 or jealousie1 or custom of quarrelling1 or breeding4 ,as for example3 ,cocks of the ,game1 that are bred to fight with each other1 and many other ,creatures1 as ,bucks1 ,staggs1 and the like1 as also ,birds1 will fight as well as ,men1 and seek to destroy each other through jealousie2 when as1 had they no ,females amongst them1 they would perhaps live quiet enough1 rather as sympathetical ,friends1 then antipathetical ,foes2 and all such ,quarrels proceed from a sympathy to their own interest4 ,but you may ask me1 what the reason is1 that some ,creatures1 as for example1 ,mankind1 some of them1 will not onely like one sort of meat better then another of equal goodness and nourishment1 but will like and prefer sometimes a worse sort of meat before the best1 to wit1 such as hath neither a good taste nor nourishment8 ,i answer3 ,this is nothing else1 but a particular1 and most commonly an inconstant ,appetite2 for after much eating of that they like best1 especially if they get a surfeit1 their appetite is chang'd to aversion2 for then all their feeding motions and parts have as much1 if not more antipathy to those meats1 as before they had a sympathy to them4 ,again1 you may ask me the reason1 why a ,man seeing two persons together1 which are strangers to him1 doth affect one better then the other2 nay1 if one of these ,persons be deformed or ill-favoured1 and the other well-shaped and handsom2 yet it may chance1 that the deformed ,person shall be more acceptable in the affections and eyes of the beholder1 then he that is handsom8 ,i answer3 ,there is no ,creature so deformed1 but hath some agreeable and attractive parts1 unless it be a ,monster1 which is never loved1 but for its rarity and novelty1 and ,nature is many times pleased with changes1 taking delight in variety3 and the proof that such a sympathetical affection proceeds from some agreeableness of ,parts1 is1 that if those persons were vail'd1 there would not proceed such a partial choice or judgment from any to them4 ,you may ask me further1 whether ,passion and ,appetite are also the cause of the sympathy which is in the ,loadstone towards ,iron1 and in the ,needle towards the ,north8 ,i answer1 ,yes3 for it is either for nourishment1 or refreshment1 or love and desire of association1 or the like1 that the ,loadstone draws ,iron1 and the ,needle turns towards the ,north4 ,the difference onely betwixt the sympathy in the ,needle towards the ,north1 and betwixt the sympathy in the ,loadstone towards the ,iron is1 that the ,needle doth always turn towards the ,north1 but the ,loadstone doth not always draw ,iron3 ,the reason is1 because the sympathy of the ,needle towards the ,north requires no certain distance1 as ,i said in the beginning2 and the ,north-pole continuing constantly in the same place1 the ,needle knows whither to turn2 when as the sympathy between the ,loadstone and ,iron requires a certain distance1 and when the ,loadstone is not within this compass or distance1 it cannot perform its effect1 to wit1 to draw the ,iron1 but the effect ceases1 although the cause remains in vigour4 ,the same may be said of the ,flower that turns towards the ,sun2 for though the ,sun be out of sight1 yet the ,flower watches for the return of the ,sun1 from which it receives benefit3 ,like as faithful ,servants watch and wait for their ,master1 or hungry ,beggers at a ,rich man's door for relief2 and so doth the aforesaid ,flower2 nay1 not the ,flower onely1 but any thing that has freedom and liberty of motion1 will turn towards those ,places or ,creatures whence it expects relief4 ,concerning ravenous ,beasts that feed on dead ,carcasses1 they1 having more eager appetites then food1 make long flights into far distant ,countries to seek food to live on2 but surely1 ,i think1 if they had food enough at home1 although not dead ,carcasses1 they would not make such great ,journies2 or if a battel were fought1 and many slain1 and they upon their journey should meet with sufficient food1 they would hardly travel further before they had devoured that food first3 ,but many ,birds travel for the temper of the ,air1 as well as for food1 witness ,woodcocks1 ,cranes1 ,swallows1 ,fieldfares1 and the like2 some for cold1 some for hot1 and some for temperate ,air4 ,and as for such ,diseases as are produced by conceit and at distance1 the cause is1 the fearfulness of the ,patient1 which produces ,irregularities in the ,mind1 and these occasion ,irregularities in the ,body1 which produce such a disease1 as the ,mind did fearfully apprehend2 when as without that ,passion and ,irregularity1 the ,patient would1 perhaps1 not fall sick of that disease1 ,but to draw towards an end1 ,i'le answer briefly to your ,authors alledged example#d which he gives of ,wine1 that it is troubled while the ,vine flowreth3 ,the reason1 in my opinion1 may perhaps be1 that the ,wine being the effect of the ,vine1 and proceeding from its stock as the producer1 has not so quite alter'd ,nature1 as not to be sensible at all of the alteration of the ,vine2 ,for many effects do retain the proprieties of their causes2 for example1 many ,children are generated1 which have the same proprieties of their ,parents1 who do often propagate some or other vertuous or vicious qualities with their off-spring2 ,and this is rather a proof that there are sensitive and rational motions1 and sensitive and rational knowledge in all ,creatures1 and so in ,wine1 according to the nature or propriety of its ,figure2 for without motion1 sense and reason1 no effect could be2 nor no sympathy or antipathy4 ,but it is to be observed1 that many do mistake the true ,causes1 and ascribe an effect to some cause1 which is no more the cause of that same effect1 then a particular ,creature is the cause of ,nature2 and so they are apt to take the ,fiddle for the hot ,bricks1 as if the ,fiddle did make the ,ass dance1 when as it was the hot ,bricks that did it2 for several effects may proceed from one cause1 and one effect from several causes2 and so in the aforesaid example1 the ,wine may perhaps be disturbed by the alteration of the weather at the same time of the flowring of the ,vines2 and so may ,animals1 as well as ,vegetables1 and other ,creatures1 alter alike at one and the same point of time1 and yet none be the cause of each others alteration4 ,and thus1 to shut up my discourse1 ,i repeat again1 that sympathy and antipathy are nothing else but ordinary ,passions and ,appetites amongst several ,creatures1 which ,passions are made by the rational animate ,matter1 and the ,appetites by the sensitive1 both giving such or such motions1 to such or such ,creatures2 for cross motions in ,appetites and passions make ,antipathy1 and agreeable motions in ,appetites and ,passions make ,sympathy1 although the ,creatures be different1 wherein these motions1 ,passions and ,appetites are made2 and as without an object a ,pattern cannot be1 so without inherent or natural ,passions and ,appetites there can be no ,sympathy or ,antipathy3 ,and there being also such ,sympathy betwixt your ,ladiship and me1 ,i think my self the happiest ,creature for it2 and shall make it my whole study to imitate your ,ladiship1 and conform all my actions to the rule and pattern of yours1 as becomes1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships faithful ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of ,sympathetical ,mediums4 #b ,in the ,plague-,grave4 #c ,in the ,magnetick care of ,wounds4 #d ,ch4 ,of the ,magnetick ,power4 ,,xvi4 ,,madam1 ,my opinion of ,witches and ,witchcraft1 7of whose ,power and strange effects your ,author is pleased to relate many stories7 in brief1 is this2 ,my ,sense and ,reason doth inform me1 that there is ,natural ,witchcraft1 as ,i may call it1 which is ,sympathy1 ,antipathy1 ,magnetisme1 and the like1 which are made by the sensitive and rational motions between several ,creatures1 as by ,imagination1 ,fancy1 ,love1 ,aversion1 and many the like2 but these ,motions1 being sometimes unusual and strange to us1 we not knowing their causes1 7,for what ,creature knows all motions in ,nature1 and their ways87 do stand amazed at their working power2 and by reason we cannot assign any ,natural cause for them1 are apt to ascribe their effects to the ,devil2 but that there should be any such devillish ,witchcraft1 which is made by a ,covenant and ,agreement with the ,devil1 by whose power ,men do enchaunt or bewitch other ,creatures1 ,i cannot readily believe4 ,certainly1 ,i dare say1 that many a good1 old honest woman hath been condemned innocently1 and suffered death wrongfully1 by the sentence of some foolish and cruel ,judges1 meerly upon this suspition of ,witchcraft1 when as really there hath been no such thing2 for many things are done by slights or juggling ,arts1 wherein neither the ,devil nor ,witches are ,actors4 ,and thus an ,englishman whose name was ,banks1 was like to be burnt beyond the ,seas for a ,witch1 as ,i have been inform'd1 onely for making a ,horse shew tricks by ,art2 ,there have been also several others2 as one that could vomit up several kinds of ,liquors and other things3 and another who did make a ,drum beat of it self4 ,but all these were nothing but slights and jugling tricks2 as also the talking and walking ,bell2 and the ,brazen-,head which spake these words1 ,time was1 ,time is1 and ,time is past1 and so fell down2 ,which may easily have been performed by speaking through a ,pipe conveighed into the said head3 ,but such and the like trifles will amaze many grave and wise men1 when they do not know the manner or way how they are done1 so as they are apt to judg them to be effected by ,witchcraft or ,combination with the ,devil4 ,but1 as ,i said before1 ,i believe there is ,natural ,magick2 which is1 that the sensitive and rational ,matter oft moves such a way1 as is unknown to us2 and in the number of these is also the bleeding of a murdered body at the presence of the ,murderer1 which your ,author1 mentions2#a for the corporeal motions in the murthered body may move so1 as to work such effects1 which are more then ordinary2 for the animal ,figure1 being not so quickly dissolved1 the animal motions are not so soon altered1 7for the dissolving of the ,figure is nothing else but an alteration of its ,motions27 and this dissolution is not done in an instant of time1 but by degrees3 ,but yet ,i must confess1 it is not a common action in ,nature1 for ,nature hath both common1 and singular or particular actions3 ,as for example1 ,madness1 natural ,folly1 and many the like1 are but in some particular persons2 for if those actions were general1 and common1 then all1 or most men would be either mad1 or fools1 but1 though there are too many already1 yet all men are not so2 and so some murthered bodies may bleed or express some alterations at the presence of the ,murtherer1 but ,i do not believe1 that all do so2 for surely in many1 not any alteration will be perceived1 and others will have the same alterations without the presence of the ,murtherer4 ,and thus you see1 ,madam1 that this is done naturally1 without the help of the ,devil2 nay1 your ,author doth himself confess it to be so2 for1 says he1 ,the act of the ,witch is plainly ,natural2 onely the stirring up of the vertue or power in the ,witch comes from ,satan4 ,but ,i cannot understand what your ,author means1 by the departing of spiritual rays from the ,witch into ,man1 or any other animal1 which she intends to kill or hurt2 nor how ,spirits wander about in the ,air1 and have their mansions there2 for men may talk as well of impossibilities1 as of such things which are not composed of ,natural ,matter3 ,if man were an ,incorporeal ,spirit himself1 he might1 perhaps1 sooner conceive the essence of a ,spirit1 as being of the same ,nature2 but as long as he is material1 and composed of ,natural ,matter1 he might as well pretend to know the ,essence of ,god1 as of an ,incorporeal ,spirit4 ,truly1 ,i must confess1 ,i have had some fancies oftentimes of such pure and subtil substances1 purer and subtiler then the ,sky or thereal substance is1 whereof ,i have spoken in my ,poetical ,works2 but these substances1 which ,i conceived within my fancy1 were material1 and had bodies1 though never so small and subtil2 for ,i was never able to conceive a substance abstracted from all ,matter1 for even ,fancy it self is material1 and all ,thoughts and ,conceptions are made by the rational ,matter1 and so are those which ,philosophers call ,animal ,spirits1 but a material ,fancy cannot produce immaterial effects1 that is1 ,ideas of ,incorporeal ,spirits3 ,and this was the cause that in the first impression of my ,philosophical ,opinions1 ,i named the sensitive and rational ,matter1 sensitive and rational ,spirits1 because of its subtilty1 activity and agility2 not that ,i thought them to be immaterial1 but material ,spirits3 but since ,spirits are commonly taken to be immaterial1 and ,spirit and ,body are counted opposite to one another1 to prevent a misapprehension in the thoughts of my ,readers1 as if ,i meant ,incorporeal ,spirits1 ,i altered this expression in the last ,edition1 and call'd it onely sensitive and rational ,matter1 or1 which is all one1 sensitive and rational corporeal motions4 ,you will say1 perhaps1 ,that the divine ,soul in ,man is a ,spirit3 but ,i desire you to call to mind what ,i oftentimes have told you1 to wit1 that when ,i speak of the ,soul of ,man1 ,i mean onely the ,natural1 not the ,divine ,soul2 which as she is supernatural1 so she acts also supernaturally2 but all the effects of the natural ,soul1 of which ,i discourse1 are natural1 and not divine or supernatural4 ,but to return to ,magnetisme2 ,i am absolutely of opinion1 that it is naturally effected by natural means1 without the concurrence of ,immaterial ,spirits either good or bad1 meerly by natural corporeal sensitive and rational motions2 and1 for the most part1 there must be a due approach between the ,agent and the ,patient1 or otherwise the effect will hardly follow1 as you may see by the ,loadstone and ,iron2 ,neither is the influence of the ,stars performed beyond a certain distance1 that is1 such a distance as is beyond sight or their natural power to work2 for if their light comes to our ,eyes1 ,i know no reason against it1 but their effects may come to our bodies4 ,and as for infectious ,diseases1 they come by a corporeal imitation1 as by touch1 either of the infected air1 drawn in by breath1 or entring through the pores of the ,body1 or of some things brought from infected places1 or else by hearing2 but diseases1 caused by ,conceit1 have their beginning1 as all alterations have1 from the sensitive and rational ,motions1 which do not onely make the fear and conceit1 but also the disease2 for as a fright will sometimes cure diseases1 so it will sometimes cause diseases2 but as ,i said1 both fright1 cure1 and the disease1 are made by the rational and sensitive corporeal motions within the body1 and not by ,supernatural ,magick1 as ,satanical ,witchcraft1 entering from without into the body by spiritual rays4 ,but having discoursed hereof in my former ,letter1 ,i will not trouble you with an unnecessary repetition thereof2 ,i conclude therefore with what ,i begun1 viz4 that ,i believe natural ,magick to be natural corporeal motions in natural bodies3 ,not that ,i say1 ,nature in her self is a ,magicianess1 but it may be called natural ,magick or ,witchcraft1 meerly in respect to our ,ignorance2 for though ,nature is old1 yet she is not a ,witch1 but a grave1 wise1 methodical ,matron1 ordering her ,infinite family1 which are her several parts1 with ease and facility1 without needless troubles and difficulties2 for these are onely made through the ignorance of her several parts or particular ,creatures1 not understanding their ,mistress1 ,nature1 and her actions and government1 for which they cannot be blamed2 for how should a part understand the ,infinite body1 when it doth not understand it self2 but ,nature understands her parts better then they do her4 ,and so leaving ,wise ,nature1 and the ,ignorance of her ,particulars1 ,i understand my self so far that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,magnetick cure of wounds4 ,,xvii4 ,,madam1 ,i am not of your ,authors#a opinion1 ,that ,time hath no relation to ,motion1 but that ,time and ,motion are as unlike and different from each other as ,finite from ,infinite1 and that it hath its own essence or being ,immoveable1 ,unchangeable1 ,individable1 and unmixed with things1 nay1 that ,time is plainly the same with ,eternity4 ,for1 in my opinion1 there can be no such thing as ,time in ,nature1 but what ,man calls ,time1 is onely the variation of natural motions2 wherefore ,time1 and the alteration of motion1 is one and the same thing under two different names2 and as ,matter1 ,figure1 and ,motion1 are inseparable1 so is ,time inseparably united1 or rather the same thing with them1 and not a thing subsisting by it self2 and as long as ,matter1 ,motion and ,figure have been existent1 so long hath ,time2 and as long as they last1 so long doth ,time4 ,but when ,i say1 ,time is the variation of motion1 ,i do not mean the motion of the ,sun or ,moon1 which makes ,days1 ,months1 ,years1 but the general motions or actions of ,nature1 which are the ground of ,time2 for were there no ,motion1 there would be no ,time2 and since ,matter is dividable1 and in parts1 ,time is so too2 neither hath ,time any other ,relation to ,duration1 then what ,nature her self hath4 ,wherefore your ,author is mistaken1 when he says1 ,motion is made in ,time1 for ,motion makes ,time1 or rather is one and the same with ,time2 and ,succession is no more a stranger to ,motion1 then ,motion is to ,nature1 as being the action of ,nature1 which is the ,eternal servant of ,god4 ,but1 says he1 ,certain ,fluxes of ,formerlinesses and ,laternesses1 have respect unto frail moveable things in their motions1 wherewith they hasten unto the appointed ends of their period1 and so unto their own death or destruction2 but what relation hath all that to ,time3 for therefore also ought ,time to run with all and every motion8 ,verily so there should be as many times and durations as there are motions4 ,i answer3 ,to my ,reason1 there are as many times and durations as there are motions2 for neither time nor duration can be separated from motion1 no more then motion can be separated from them1 being all one4 ,but ,time is not ,eternity1 for ,eternity hath no change1 although your ,author makes ,time and ,eternity all one1 and a being or substance by it self3 ,yet ,i will rather believe ,solomon1 then him1 who says1 that there is a time to be merry1 and a time to be sad2 a time to mourn1 and a time to rejoyce1 and so forth3 making so many divisions of ,time as there are natural actions2 whenas your ,author makes natural actions strangers to ,nature1 dividing them from their substances3 ,which seemeth very improbable in the opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships faithful ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 #a ,in his ,treatise of ,time4 ,,xviii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authors#a opinion is1 ,that a bright burning ,iron doth not burn a dead ,carcass after an equal manner as it doth a live one2 ,for in live bodies1 saith he1 it primarily hurts the sensitive ,soul1 the which therefore being impatient1 rages after a wonderful manner1 doth by degrees resolve and exasperate its own and vital liquors into a sharp poyson1 and then contracts the fibres of the flesh1 and turns them into an escharre1 yea1 into the way of a coal2 but a dead ,carcass is burnt by bright burning ,iron1 no otherwise1 then if ,wood1 or if any other unsensitive thing should be2 that is1 it burns by a proper action of the fire1 but not of the life4 ,to which opinion1 ,i answer3 ,that my ,reason cannot conceive any thing to be without life1 and so neither without sense2 for whatsoever hath self-motion1 has sense and life2 and that self-motion is in every ,creature1 is sufficiently discoursed of in my former ,letters1 and in my ,philosophical ,opinions2 for self-motion1 sense1 life1 and reason1 are the grounds and principles of ,nature1 without which no ,creature could subsist4 ,i do not say1 ,that there is no difference between the life of a dead ,carcass1 and a live one1 for there is a difference between the lives of every ,creature2 but to differ in the manner of life1 and to have neither life nor sense at all1 are quite different things3 ,but your ,author affirms himself1 that all things have a certain sense of feeling1 when he speaks of ,sympathy and ,magnetisme1 and yet he denies that they have life3 ,and others again1 do grant life to some ,creatures1 as to ,vegetables1 and not sense4 ,thus they vary in their ,opinions1 and divide sense1 life1 and motion1 when all is but one and the same thing2 for no life is without sense and motion1 nor no motion without sense and life2 nay1 not without ,reason2 for the chief ,architect of all ,creatures1 is sensitive and rational ,matter4 ,but the mistake is1 that most men1 do not1 or will not conceive1 that there is a difference and variety of the corporeal sensitive and rational motions in every ,creature2 but they imagine1 that if all ,creatures should have life1 sense1 and reason1 they must of necessity have all alike the same motions1 without any difference2 and because they do not perceive the animal motions in a ,stone or ,tree1 they are apt to deny to them all life1 sense1 and motion4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i think no man will be so mad1 or irrational1 as to say a ,stone is an ,animal1 or an ,animal is a ,tree1 because a ,stone and ,tree have sense1 life1 and motion2 for every body knows1 that their ,natural figures are different1 and if their ,natures be different1 then they cannot have the same ,motions1 for the corporeal motions do make the nature of every particular ,creature1 and their differences2 and as the corporeal motions act1 work1 or move1 so is the nature of every figure1 ,wherefore1 nobody1 ,i hope1 will count me so senseless1 that ,i believe sense and life to be after the like manner in every particular ,creature or part of ,nature2 as for example1 that a ,stone or ,tree has animal motions1 and doth see1 touch1 taste1 smell and hear by such sensitive organs as an ,animal doth2 but1 my opinion is1 that all ,sense is not bound up to the sensitive organs of an ,animal1 nor ,reason to the kernel of a man's brain1 or the orifice of the stomack1 or the fourth ventricle of the brain1 or onely to a mans body2 for though we do not see all ,creatures move in that manner as ,man or ,animals do1 as to walk1 run1 leap1 ride1 c4 and perform exterior acts by various local motions2 nevertheless1 we cannot in reason say1 they are void and destitute of all motion2 ,for what man knows the variety of motions in ,nature3 ,do not we see1 that ,nature is active in every thing1 yea1 the least of her ,creatures4 ,for example2 how some things do unanimously conspire and agree1 others antipathetically flee from each other2 and how some do increase1 others decrease2 some dissolve1 some consist1 and how all things are subject to perpetual changes and alterations2 and do you think all this is done without motion1 life1 sense1 and reason8 ,i pray you consider1 ,madam1 that there are internal motions as well as external1 alterative as well as constitutive2 and several other sorts of motions not perceptible by our senses1 and therefore it is impossible that all ,creatures should move after one sort of motions4 ,but you will say1 ,motion may be granted1 but not ,life1 ,sense1 and ,reason4 ,i answer1 ,i would fain know the reason why not2 for ,i am confident that no man can in truth affirm the contrary3 ,what is ,life1 but sensitive ,motion8 what is ,reason1 but rational motion8 and do you think1 ,madam1 that any thing can move it self without life1 sense and reason8 ,i1 for my part1 cannot imagine it should2 for it would neither know why1 whither1 nor what way1 or how to move4 ,but you may reply1 ,motion may be granted1 but not self-motion2 and life1 sense1 and reason1 do consist in self-motion4 ,i answer3 this is impossible2 for not any thing in ,nature can move naturally without natural motion1 and all natural motion is self-motion4 ,if you say it may be moved by another2 ,my answer is1 first1 that if a thing has no motion in it self1 but is moved by another which has self-motion1 then it must give that immovable body motion of its own1 or else it could not move1 having no motion at all2 for it must move by the power of motion1 which is certain2 and then it must move either by its own motion1 or by a communicated or imparted motion2 if by a communicated motion1 then the self-moveable thing or body must transfer its own motion into the immoveable1 and lose so much of its own motion as it gives away1 which is impossible1 as ,i have declared heretofore at large1 unless it do also transfer its moving parts together with it1 for motion cannot be transfered without substance4 ,but experience and observation witnesseth the contrary4 ,next1 ,i say1 if it were possible that one body did move another1 then most part of natural ,creatures1 which are counted immoveable of themselves1 or inanimate1 and destitute of self-motion1 must be moved by a forced or violent1 and not by a natural motion2 for all motion that proceeds from an external agent or moving power1 is not natural1 but forced1 onely self-motion is natural2 and then one thing moving another in this manner1 we must at last proceed to such a thing which is not moved by another1 but hath motion in it self1 and moves all others2 and1 perhaps1 since man1 and the rest of animals have self-motion1 it might be said1 that the motions of all other inanimate ,creatures1 as they call them1 doth proceed from them2 but man being so proud1 ambitious1 and self-conceited1 would soon exclude all other animals1 and adscribe this power onely to himself1 especially since he thinks himself onely endued with ,reason1 and to have this prerogative above all the rest1 as to be the sole rational ,creature in the ,world4 ,thus you see1 ,madam1 what confusion1 absurdity1 and constrained work will follow from the opinion of denying self-motion1 and so consequently1 life and sense to natural ,creatures4 ,but ,i1 having made too long a digression1 will return to your ,authors discourse3 ,and as for that he says1 ,a dead ,carcass burns by the proper action of the fire1 ,i answer1 ,that if the dissolving motions of the fire be too strong for the consistent motions of that body which fire works upon1 then fire is the cause of its alteration2 but if the consistent motions of the body be too strong for the dissolving motions of the fire1 then the fire can make no alteration in it4 ,again3 he says1 ,calx vive1 at long as it remains dry1 it gnaws not a dead ,carcass2 but it presently gnaws live flesh1 and makes an escharre2 and a dead carcass is by lime wholly resolved into a liquor1 and is combibed1 except the bone and gristle thereof2 but it doth not consume live flesh into a liquor1 but translates it into an escharre4 ,i will say no more to this1 but that ,i have fully enough declared my opinion before1 that the actions or motions of life alter in that which is named a dead ,carcass1 from what they were in that which is called a ,living body2 but although the actions of ,life alter1 yet life is not gone or annihilated2 for life is life1 and remains full the same1 but the actions or motions of life change and differ in every figure2 and this is the cause that the actions of ,fire1 ,time1 and ,calx-vive1 have not the same effects in a dead ,carcass1 as in a living ,body2 for the difference of their figures1 and their different motions1 produce different effects in them2 and this is the cause1 that one and the same fire doth not burn or act upon all bodies alike3 for some it dissolves1 and some not2 and some it hardens1 and some it consumes2 and some later1 some sooner3 ,for put things of several natures into the same ,fire1 and you will see how they will burn1 or how fire will act upon them after several manners2 so that fire cannot alter the actions of several bodies to its own blas2 and therefore1 since a living and a dead ,body 7as they call them7 are not the same1 7for the actions or motions of life1 by their change or alteration1 have altered the nature or figure of the body7 the effects cannot be the same2 for a ,carcass has neither the interior nor exterior motions of that figure which it was before it was a ,carcass1 and so the figure is quite alter'd from what it was1 by the change and alteration of the motions4 ,but to conclude1 the motions of the exterior ,agent1 and the motions of the ,patient1 do sometimes joyn and unite1 as in one action1 or to one effect1 and sometimes the motions of the ,agent are onely an occasion1 but not a co-workman in the production of such or such an effect1 as the motions of the ,patient do work2 neither can the motions of the ,agent work totally and meerly of themselves1 such or such effects1 without the assistance or concurrence of the motions of the ,patient1 but the motions of the ,patient can2 and there is nothing that can prove more evidently that ,matter moves it self1 and that exterior agents or bodies are onely an occasion to such or such a motion in another body1 then to see how several things put into one and the same fire1 do alter after several modes2 which shews1 it is not the onely action of fire1 but the interior motions of the body thrown into the fire1 which do alter its exterior form or figure4 ,and thus1 ,i think ,i have said enough to make my opinions clear1 that they may be the better understood3 which is the onely aim and desire of1 ,madam1 ,your humble and faithful ,servant4 #a ,of the disease of the ,stone1 ,ch4 #i4 ,,xix4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is not a ,natural1 but a ,divine ,philosopher1 for in many places he undertakes to interpret the ,scripture2 wherein1 to my judgment1 he expresseth very strange opinions2 you will give me leave at this present to note some few4 ,first1 in one place1#a interpreting that passage of ,scripture1 where it is said1#b ,that the sons of ,god took to wives the daughters of men3 ,he understands by the ,sons of ,god1 those which came from the ,posterity of ,adam1 begotten of a ,man and a ,woman1 having the true ,image of ,god3 ,but by the ,daughters of ,men1 he understands ,monsters2 that is1 those which through the ,devils mediation1 were conceived in the womb of a ,junior ,witch or ,sorceress3 ,for when ,satan could find no other ways to deprive all the race of ,men of the ,image of ,god1 and extinguish the ,immortal mind out of the flock of ,adams ,posterity1 he stirr'd up detestable copulations1 from whence proceeded savage ,monsters1 as ,faunes1 ,satyrs1 ,sylphs1 ,gnomes1 ,nymphs1 ,driades1 ,najades1 ,nereides1 c4 which generated their off-springs amongst themselves1 and their posterities again contracted their copulations amongst themselves1 and at length began ,wedlocks with ,men2 and from this copulation of ,monsters and ,nymphs1 they generated strong ,gyants4 ,which ,interpretation1 how it agrees with the ,truth of ,scripture1 ,i will leave to ,divines to judg3 ,but1 for my part1 ,i cannot conceive1 how1 or by what means or ways1 those ,monsters and ,nymphs were produced or generated4 ,next1 his opinion is1 ,that ,adam did ravish ,eve1 and defloured her by force1 calling him the first infringer of modesty1 and deflourer of a ,virgin2 and that therefore ,god let hair grow upon his chin1 cheeks1 and lips1 that he might be a ,compere1 ,companion1 and like unto many four-footed ,beasts1 and might bear before him the signature of the same2 and that1 as he was lecherous after their manner1 he might also shew a rough countenance by his hairs2 which whether it be so1 or not1 ,i cannot tell1 neither do ,i think your ,author can certainly know it himself2 for the ,scripture makes no mention of it3 ,but this ,i dare say1 that ,eves ,daughters prove rather the contrary1 viz4 that their ,grandmother did freely consent to their ,grandfather4 ,also he says1 ,that ,god had purposed to generate ,man by the overshadowing of the ,holy ,spirit1 but ,man perverted the ,intent of ,god2 for had ,adam not sinned1 there had been no generation by the copulation of a ,man and ,woman1 but all the off-springs had appear'd out of ,eve1 a ,virgin1 from the ,holy ,spirit1 as conceived from ,god1 and born of a woman1 a virgin1 ,to which1 ,i answer1 first1 ,that it is impossible to know the ,designs and secret purposes of ,god3 ,next1 to make the ,holy ,spirit the common ,generator of all ,man-kind1 is more then the ,scripture expresses1 and any man ought to say3 ,lastly1 it is absurd1 in my opinion1 to say1 that frail and mortal ,men1 can pervert the intent and designs of the ,great ,god2 or that the ,devil is able to prevent ,god's ,intent1 7as his expression is in the same place47 ,but your ,author shews a great affection to the ,female ,sex1 when he says1 that ,god doth love ,women before ,men1 and that he has given them a free gift of devotion before men2 when as others do lay all the fault upon the ,woman1 that she did seduce the ,man2 however in expressing his affection for ,women1 your ,author expresses a partiality in ,god4 ,and1 as for his opinion1 that ,god creates more ,daughters then ,males1 and that more ,males are extinguished by ,diseases1 ,travels1 ,wars1 ,duels1 ,shipwracks1 and the like3 ,truly1 ,i am of the same mind1 that more ,men are kill'd by ,travels1 ,wars1 ,duels1 ,shipwracks1 c4 then ,women2 for ,women never undergo these dangers1 neither do so many kill themselves with intemperate ,drinking1 as ,men do2 but yet ,i believe1 that ,death is as general1 and not more favourable to ,women1 then he is to ,men2 for though ,women be not slain in ,wars like ,men1 7although many are1 by the cruelty of ,men1 who not regarding the weakness of their sex1 do inhumanely kill them17 yet many do die in ,child-bed1 which is a ,punishment onely concerning the ,female sex4 ,but to go on in your ,authors ,interpretations3 ,his knowledg of the ,conception of the ,blessed ,virgin1 reaches so far1 as he doth not stick to describe exactly1 not onely how the blessed ,virgin conceiv'd in the womb1 but first in the heart1 or the sheath of the heart2 and then how the conception removed from the heart1 into the womb1 and in what manner it was performed4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 ,i am amazed1 when ,i see men so conceited with their own perfections and abilities1 7,i may rather say1 with their imperfections and weaknesses7 as to make themselves ,god's privy ,councilors1 and his ,companions1 and partakers of all the sacred ,mysteries1 ,designs1 and hidden secrets of the ,incomprehensible and ,infinite ,god4 ,o the vain ,presumption1 ,pride1 and ,ambition of wretched ,men6 ,there are many more such expressions in your ,authors works1 which1 in my opinion1 do rather detract from the ,greatness of the ,omnipotent ,god1 then manifest his ,glory3 ,as for example2 ,that ,man is the clothing of the ,deity1 and the sheath of the ,kingdom of ,god1 and many the like3 which do not belong to ,god2 for ,god is beyond all expression1 because he is ,infinite2 and when we name ,god1 we name an ,unexpressible1 and ,incomprehensible ,being2 and yet we think we honour ,god1 when we express him after the manner of corporeal ,creatures4 ,surely1 the noblest ,creature that ever is in the ,world1 is not able to be compared to the most ,glorious ,god1 but whatsoever comparison is made1 detracts from his ,glory3 ,and this1 in my opinion1 is the reason1 that ,god forbad any likeness to be made of him1 either in ,heaven1 or upon ,earth1 because he exceeds all that we might compare or liken to him4 ,and as men ought to have a care of such similizing expressions1 so they ought to be careful in making ,interpretations of the ,scripture1 and expressing more then the ,scripture informs2 for what is beyond the ,scripture1 is ,man's own fancy2 and to regulate the ,word of ,god after ,man's fancy1 at least to make his fancy equal with the ,word of ,god1 is ,irreligious4 ,wherefore1 men ought to submit1 and not to pretend to the knowledg of ,god's ,counsels and ,designs1 above what he himself hath been pleased to reveal3 as for example1 to describe of what ,figure ,god is1 and to comment and descant upon the ,articles of ,faith2 as how ,man was ,created2 and what he did in the state of ,innocence2 how he did fall2 and what he did after his fall3 and so upon the rest of the ,articles of our ,creed1 more then the ,scripture expresses1 or is conformable to it4 ,for if we do this1 we shall make a ,romance of the holy ,scripture1 with our ,paraphrastical descriptions3 which alas6 is too common already4 ,the truth is1 ,natural ,philosophers1 should onely contain themselves within the sphere of ,nature1 and not trespass upon the ,revelation of the ,scripture1 but leave this ,profession to those to whom it properly belongs4 ,i am confident1 a ,physician1 or any other man of a certain ,profession1 would not take it well1 if others1 who are not professed in that ,art1 should take upon them to practise the same3 ,and ,i do wonder1 why every body is so forward to encroach upon the holy ,profession of ,divines1 which yet is a greater presumption1 then if they did it upon any other2 for it contains not onely a most hidden and mystical knowledg1 as treating of the ,highest ,subject1 which is the most ,glorious1 and ,incomprehensible ,god1 and the salvation of our ,souls2 but it is also most dangerous1 if not interpreted according to the ,holy ,spirit1 but to the byass of man's fancy4 ,wherefore1 ,madam1 ,i am afraid to meddle with ,divinity in the least thing1 lest ,i incur the hazard of offending the divine ,truth1 and spoil the excellent ,art of ,philosophying2 for a ,philosophical ,liberty1 and a ,supernatural ,faith1 are two different things1 and suffer no co-mixture2 as ,i have declared sufficiently heretofore4 ,and this you will find as much truth1 as that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,the ,position is demonstrated4 #b ,gen4 #f4 #b4 ,,xx4 ,,madam1 ,although your ,author#a is of the opinion of ,plato1 in making ,three sorts of ,atheists3 ,one that believes no ,gods2 ,another1 which indeed admits of ,gods1 yet such as are uncarefull of us1 and despisers of small matters1 and therefore also ignorant of us3 ,and lastly1 a third sort1 which although they believe the ,gods to be expert in the least matters1 yet do suppose that they are flexible and indulgent toward the smallest cold ,prayers or ,petitions3 ,yet ,i cannot approve of this distinction1 for ,i do understand but one sort of ,atheists2 that is1 those which believe no ,god at all2 but those which believe that there is a ,god1 although they do not worship him truly1 nor live piously and religiously as they ought1 cannot1 in truth1 be called ,atheists1 or else there would be innumerous sorts of ,atheists2 to wit1 all those1 that are either no ,christians1 or not of this or that opinion in ,christian ,religion1 besides all them that live wickedly1 impiously and irreligiously2 for to know1 and be convinced in his reason1 that there is a ,god1 and to worship him truly1 according to his holy ,precepts and ,commands1 are two several things3 ,and as for the first1 that is1 for the ,rational knowledg of the ,existence of ,god1 ,i cannot be perswaded to believe1 there is any man which has sense and reason1 that doth not acknowledg a ,god2 nay1 ,i am sure1 there is no part of ,nature which is void and destitute of this knowledg of the existence of an ,infinite1 ,eternal1 ,immortal1 and ,incomprehensible ,deity2 for every ,creature1 being indued with sense and reason1 and with sensitive and rational knowledg1 there can no knowledg be more ,universal then the knowledg of a ,god1 as being the root of all knowledg3 ,and as all ,creatures have a natural knowledg of the ,infinite ,god1 so1 it is probable1 they ,worship1 ,adore1 and ,praise his ,infinite ,power and ,bounty1 each after its own manner1 and according to its nature2 for ,i cannot believe1 ,god should make so many kinds of ,creatures1 and not be worshipped and adored but onely by ,man3 ,nature is ,god's ,servant1 and she knows ,god better then any ,particular ,creature2 but ,nature is an ,infinite ,body1 consisting of ,infinite ,parts1 and if she adores and worships ,god1 her ,infinite ,parts1 which are ,natural ,creatures1 must of necessity do the like1 each according to the knowledg it hath3 but ,man in this particular goes beyond others1 as having not onely a natural1 but also a revealed knowledg of the most ,holy ,god2 for he knows ,gods ,will1 not onely by the light of ,nature1 but also by revelation1 and so more then other ,creatures do1 whose knowledg of ,god is meerly ,natural4 ,but this ,revealed ,knowledg makes most men so presumptuous1 that they will not be content with it1 but search more and more into the hidden mysteries of the ,incomprehensible ,deity1 and pretend to know ,god as perfectly1 almost1 as themselves2 describing his ,nature and ,essence1 his ,attributes1 his ,counsels1 his ,actions1 according to the revelation of ,god1 7as they pretend7 when as it is according to their own ,fancies4 ,so proud and presumptuous are many3 ,but they shew thereby rather their weaknesses and follies1 then any truth2 and all their strict and narrow pryings into the secrets of ,god1 are rather unprofitable1 vain and impious1 then that they should benefit either themselves1 or their neighbour2 for do all we can1 ,god will not be perfectly known by any ,creature3 ,the truth is1 it is a meer impossibility for a finite ,creature1 to have a perfect ,idea of an ,infinite ,being1 as ,god is2 be his ,reason never so acute or sharp1 yet he cannot penetrate what is ,impenetrable1 nor comprehend what is ,incomprehensible3 ,wherefore1 in my opinion1 the best way is humbly to adore what we cannot conceive1 and believe as much as ,god has been pleased to reveal1 without any further search2 lest we diving too deep1 be swallowed up in the bottomless depth of his ,infiniteness3 ,which ,i wish every one may observe1 for the benefit of his own self1 and of others1 to spend his time in more profitable ,studies1 then vainly to seek for what cannot be found4 ,and with this hearty wish ,i conclude1 resting1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,image of the ,mind4 ,,xxi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is so much for ,spirits1 that he doth not stick to affirm1#a ,that ,bodies scarce make up a moity or half part of the world2 but ,spirits1 even by themselves1 have or possess their moity1 and indeed the whole world4 ,if he mean bodiless and incorporeal ,spirits1 ,i cannot conceive how ,spirits can take up any place1 for place belongs onely to body1 or a corporeal substance1 and millions of immaterial ,spirits1 nay1 were their number infinite1 cannot possess so much place as a small ,pins point1 for ,incorporeal ,spirits possess no place at all3 which is the reason1 that an ,immaterial and a ,material ,infinite cannot hinder1 oppose1 or obstruct each other2 and such an ,infinite1 ,immaterial ,spirit is ,god alone4 ,but as for ,created ,immaterial ,spirits1 as they call them1 it may be questioned whether they be ,immaterial1 or not2 for there may be material ,spirits as well as immaterial1 that is1 such pure1 subtil and agil substances as cannot be subject to any humane sense1 which may be purer and subtiller then the most refined air1 or purest light2 ,i call them material spirits1 onely for distinctions sake1 although it is more proper1 to call them material substances3 ,but be it1 that there are ,immaterial ,spirits1 yet they are not natural1 but supernatural2 that is1 not substantial parts of ,nature2 for ,nature is material1 or corporeal1 and so are all her ,creatures1 and whatsoever is not material is no part of ,nature1 neither doth it belong any ways to ,nature3 ,wherefore1 all that is called ,immaterial1 is a ,natural ,nothing1 and an ,immaterial ,natural substance1 in my opinion1 is non-sense3 ,and if you contend with me1 that ,created ,spirits1 as good and bad ,angels1 as also the ,immortal ,mind of ,man1 are ,immaterial1 then ,i say they are ,supernatural2 but if you say1 they are ,natural1 then ,i answer they are ,material3 and thus ,i do not deny the existence of ,immaterial ,spirits1 but onely that they are not parts of ,nature1 but supernatural2 for there may be many things above ,nature1 and so above a natural ,understanding1 and ,knowledg1 which may nevertheless have their being and existence1 although they be not ,natural1 that is1 parts of ,nature3 ,neither do ,i deny that those supernatural ,creatures may be amongst natural ,creatures1 that is1 have their subsistence amongst them1 and in ,nature2 but they are not so commixed with them1 as the several parts of ,matter are1 that is1 they do not joyn to the constitution of a material ,creature2 for no ,immaterial can make a ,material1 or contribute any thing to the making or production of it2 but such a co-mixture would breed a meer confusion in ,nature3 wherefore1 it is quite another thing1 to be in ,nature1 or to have its subsistence amongst natural ,creatures in a supernatural manner or way1 and to be a part of ,nature4 ,i allow the first to ,immaterial ,spirits1 but not the second1 viz4 to be parts of ,nature4 ,but what ,immaterial ,spirits are1 both in their ,essence or ,nature1 and their ,essential ,properties1 it being supernatural1 and above natural ,reason1 ,i cannot determine any thing thereof4 ,neither dare ,i say1 they are ,spirits like as ,god is1 that is1 of the same ,essence or ,nature1 no more then ,i dare say or think that ,god is of a humane shape or figure1 or that the ,nature of ,god is as easie to be known as any notion else whatsoever1 and that we may know as much of him as of any thing else in the world4 ,for if this were so1 man would know ,god as well as he knows himself1 but ,god and his ,attributes are not so easily known as man may know himself and his own natural ,proprieties2 for ,god and his ,attributes are not conceiveable or comprehensible by any humane understanding1 which is not onely material1 but also finite2 for though the parts of ,nature be infinite in number1 yet each is finite in it self1 that is1 in its figure1 and therefore no natural ,creature is capable to conceive what ,god is2 for he being infinite1 there is also required an infinite capacity to conceive him2 ,nay1 ,nature her self1 although she is ,infinite1 yet cannot possibly have an exact notion of ,god1 by reason she is ,material1 and ,god is ,immaterial2 and if the ,infinite servant of ,god is not able to conceive ,god1 much less will a finite part of ,nature do it4 ,besides1 the holy ,church doth openly confess and declare the ,incomprehensibility of ,god1 when in the ,athanasian ,creed1 she expresses1 that the ,father is ,incomprehensible1 the ,son ,incomprehensible1 and the ,holy ,ghost ,incomprehensible1 and that there are not three1 but one ,incomprehensible ,god3 ,therefore1 if any one will prove the contrary1 to wit1 that ,god is ,comprehensible1 or 7which is all one7 that ,god is as easie to be known as any ,creature whatsoever1 he surely is more then the ,church3 ,but ,i shall never say or believe so1 but rather confess my ignorance1 then betray my folly2 and leave things ,divine to the ,church2 to which ,i submit1 as ,i ought1 in all ,duty3 and as ,i do not meddle with any ,divine ,mysteries1 but subject my self1 concerning my ,faith or ,belief1 and the regulating of my actions for the obtaining of ,eternal ,life1 wholly under the government and doctrine of the ,church1 so1 ,i hope1 they will also grant me leave to have my liberty concerning the contemplation of ,nature and natural things1 that ,i may discourse of them1 with such freedom1 as meer natural ,philosophers use1 or at least ought1 to do2 and thus ,i shall be both a good ,christian1 and a good ,natural ,philosopher3 ,unto which1 to make the number perfect1 ,i will add a third1 which is1 ,i shall be1 ,madam1 ,your real and faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,magnetick cure of wounds4 ,,xxii4 ,,madam1 ,though ,i am loth 7as ,i have often told you7 to imbarque my self in the discourse of such a subject1 as no body is able naturally to know1 which is the supernatural and divine ,soul in ,man2 yet your ,author having1 in my judgment1 strange opinions1 both of the ,essence1 ,figure1 ,seat and ,production of the ,soul1 and discoursing thereof1 with such liberty and freedom1 as of any other natural ,creature1 ,i cannot chuse but take some notice of his discourse1 and make some reflections upon it2 which yet1 shall rather express my ignorance of the same subject1 then in a positive answer1 declare my opinion thereof2 for1 in things divine1 ,i refer my self wholly to the ,church1 and submit onely to their instructions1 without any further search of natural reason2 and if ,i should chance to express more then ,i ought to do1 and commit some error1 it being out of ignorance rather then set purpose1 ,i shall be ready upon better information1 to mend it1 and willingly subject my self under the censure and correction of the holy ,church1 as counting it no disgrace to be ignorant in the mysteries of ,faith1 since ,faith is of things unknown1 but rather a duty required from every ,layman to believe simply the ,word of ,god1 as it is explained and declared by the ,orthodox ,church1 without making ,interpretations out of his own brain1 and according to his own fancy1 which breeds but ,schismes1 ,heresies1 ,sects1 and ,confusions4 ,but concerning your ,author1 ,i perceive by him1 first1 that he makes no distinction between the ,natural or ,rational ,soul or ,mind of ,man1 and between the ,divine or ,supernatural ,soul1 but takes them both as one1 and distinguishes onely the ,immortal ,soul from the sensitive ,life of ,man1 which he calls the ,frail1 ,mortal1 ,sensitive ,soul4 ,next1 all his knowledg of this ,immortal ,soul is grounded upon ,dreams and ,visions1 and therefore it is no wonder1 if his opinions be somewhat strange and irregular4 ,i saw1 in a ,vision1 says he1#a my ,mind in a humane shape2 but there was a light1 whose whole homogeneal body was actively seeing1 a spiritual substance1 ,chrystalline1 shining with a proper splendor1 or a splendor of its own1 but in another cloudy part it was rouled up as it were in the husk of it self2 which whether it had any splendor of it self1 ,i could not discern1 by reason of the superlative brightness of the ,chrystal ,spirit contain'd within4 ,whereupon he defines the ,soul to be a ,spirit1 beloved of ,god1 homogeneal1 simple1 immortal1 created into the ,image of ,god1 one onely ,being1 whereto death adds nothing1 or takes nothing from it1 which may be natural or proper to it in the ,essence of its simplicity4 ,as for this definition of the ,soul1 it may be true1 for any thing ,i know3 but when your ,author makes the divine ,soul to be a ,light1 ,i cannot conceive how that can agree2 for ,light is a ,natural and ,visible ,creature1 and1 in my opinion1 a corporeal substance2 whereas the ,soul is immaterial and incorporeal3 ,but be it1 that ,light is not a substance1 but a neutral ,creature1 according to your ,author2 then1 nevertheless the ,immortal ,soul cannot be said to be a light1 because she is a substance4 ,he may say1#b ,the ,soul is an ,incomprehensible ,light4 ,but if the ,soul be ,incomprehensible1 how then doth he know that she is a light1 and not onely a light1 but a glorious and splendorous light8 ,you will say1 ,by a ,dream1 or ,vision4 ,truly1 ,madam1 to judg any thing by a ,dream1 is a sign of a weak judgment4 ,nay1 since your ,author calls the soul constantly a light2 if it were so1 and that it were such a splendorous1 bright and shining light1 as he says2 then when the body dies1 and the soul leaves its ,mansion1 it would certainly be seen1 when it issues out of the body4 ,but your ,author calls the ,soul a ,spiritual ,substance1 and yet he says1 she has an homogeneal body1 actively seeing and shining with a proper splendor of her own2 which how it can agree1 ,i leave to you to judg2 for ,i thought1 an ,immaterial spirit and a body were too opposite things1 and now ,i see1 your ,author makes ,material and ,immaterial1 ,spiritual and ,corporeal1 all one4 ,but this is not enough1 but he allows it a ,figure too1 and that of a humane shape2 for says he1 ,i could never consider the ,thingliness of the ,immortal ,mind with an ,individual existence1 deprived of all figure1 neither but that it at least would answer to a humane shape2 but the ,scripture1 as much as is known to me1 never doth express any such thing of the ,immortal ,soul1 and ,i should be loth to believe any more thereof then it declares4 ,the ,apostles1 although they were conversant with ,christ1 and might have known it better1 yet were never so inquisitive into the nature of the ,soul1 as our ,modern divine ,philosophers are2 for our ,saviour1 and they1 regarded more the salvation of ,man's ,soul1 and gave holy and wise ,instructions rather1 how to live piously and conformably to ,god's ,will1 to gain eternal ,life1 then that they should discourse either of the ,essence or ,figure1 or ,proprieties of the ,soul1 and whether it was a light1 or any thing else1 and such like needless questions1 raised in after-times onely by the curiosity of divine ,philosophers1 or ,philosophying ,divines2 ,for though ,light is a glorious ,creature1 yet ,darkness is as well a ,creature as ,light1 and ought not therefore to be despised2 for if it be not so bright1 and shining as ,light1 yet it is a grave ,matron-like ,creature1 and very useful3 ,neither is the ,earth1 which is inwardly dark1 to be despised1 because the ,sun is bright4 ,the like may be said of the soul1 and of the body2 for the body is very useful to the soul1 how dark soever your ,author believes it to be2 and if he had not seen light with his bodily eyes1 he could never have conceived the ,soul to be a ,light3 ,wherefore your ,author can have no more knowledg of the divine soul then other men have1 although he has had more ,dreams and ,visions2 nay1 he himself confesses1 that the ,soul is an ,incomprehensible ,light2 which if so1 she cannot1 be perfectly known1 nor confined to any certain figure2 for a figure or shape belongs onely to a corporeal substance1 and not to an incorporeal3 and so1 ,god being an ,incomprehensible ,being1 is excluded from all figure1 when as yet your ,author doth not stick to affirm1 that ,god is of a humane figure too1 as well as the humane ,soul is2 ,for1 says he1 ,since ,god hath been pleased to adopt the ,mind alone into his own ,image1 it also seems to follow1 that the vast and unutterable ,god is of a humane ,figure1 and that from an argument from the effect1 if there be any force of arguments in this subject4 ,oh6 the audacious curiosity of ,man6 ,is it not blasphemy to make the ,infinite ,god of a frail and humane shape1 and to compare the most ,holy to a sinful ,creature8 ,nay1 is it not an absurdity1 to confine and inclose that ,incomprehensible ,being in a finite figure8 ,i dare not insist longer upon this discourse1 lest ,i defile my thoughts with the entertaining of such a subject that derogates from the glory of the ,omnipotent ,creator2 ,wherefore1 ,i will hasten1 as much as ,i can1 to the seat of the ,soul1 which1 after relating several opinions1 your ,author concludes to be the orifice of the stomack1 where the ,immortal ,soul is involved and entertained in the radical ,inn or ,bride-bed of the sensitive ,soul or vital ,light2 which part of the body is surely more honoured then all the rest3 ,but ,i1 for my part1 cannot conceive why the ,soul should not dwell in the parts of conception1 as well1 as in the parts of digestion1 except it be to prove her a good ,huswife2 however1 your ,author allows her to slide down sometimes3 ,for1 ,the action of the ,mind1 says he1 being imprisoned in the ,body1 doth always tend downwards2 but whether the ,soul tend more downwards then upwards1 ,contemplative ,persons1 especially ,scholars1 and grave ,states-men1 do know best2 certainly1 ,i believe1 they find the soul more in their heads then in their heels1 at least her operations4 ,but1 to conclude1 if the ,soul be pure and single of her self1 she cannot mix with the ,body1 because she needs no assistance2 nor joyn with the ,body1 though she lives in the ,body1 for she needs no support2 and if she be individable1 she cannot divide her self into several ,parts of the ,body2 but if the ,soul spread over all the ,body1 then she is bigger1 or less1 according as the ,body is2 and if she be onely placed in some particular part1 then onely that one part is indued with a ,soul1 and the rest is ,soul-less2 and if she move from place to place1 then some parts of the ,body will be sometimes indued with a ,soul1 sometimes not2 and if any one part requires not the subsistence of the ,soul within it1 then perhaps all the ,body might have been able to spare her2 neither might the ,soul1 being able to subsist without the body1 have had need of it4 ,thus useless questions will trouble men's brains1 if they give their fancies leave to work4 ,i should add something of the ,production of the ,soul2 but being tyred with so tedious a discourse of your ,author1 ,i am not able to write any more1 but repose my ,pen1 and in the mean while rest affectionately1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,image of the ,mind4 #b ,of the ,spirit of ,life4 ,,xxiii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,authors comparison#a of the ,sun1 with the immaterial or divine ,soul in ,man1 makes me almost of opinion1 that the ,sun is the ,soul of this ,world we inhabit1 and that the fixed ,stars1 which are counted ,suns by some1 may be souls to some other worlds2 for every one man has but one immaterial or divine soul1 which is said to be individable and simple in its essence1 and therefore unchangeable2 and if the ,sun be like this immaterial soul1 then the ,moon may be like the material soul4 ,but as for the ,production of this immaterial and divine ,soul in ,man1 whether it come by an immediate ,creation from ,god1 or be derived by a successive propagation from ,parents upon their ,children1 ,i cannot determine any thing1 being supernatural1 and not belonging to my study2 nevertheless1 the ,propagation from ,parents seems improbable to my reason2 for ,i am not capable to imagine1 how an immaterial soul1 being individable1 should beget another4 ,some may say1 by imprinting or sealing1 viz4 that the soul doth print the ,image of its own figure upon the spirit of the seed2 which if so1 then first there will onely be a production of the figure of the soul1 but not of the substance1 and so the ,child will have but the ,image of the soul1 and not a real and substantial soul4 ,secondly1 ,every ,child of the same ,parents would be just alike1 without any distinguishment2 if not in body1 yet in the ,faculties and ,proprieties of their ,minds or ,souls4 ,thirdly1 ,there must be two prints of the two souls of both ,parents upon one ,creature1 to wit1 the ,child2 for both ,parents do contribute alike to the ,production of the ,child1 and then the ,child would either have two souls1 or both must be joyned as into one2 which how it can be1 ,i am not able to conceive4 ,fourthly1 ,if the ,parents print the ,image of their souls upon the ,child1 then the ,childs soul bears not the ,image of ,god1 but the ,image of ,man1 to wit1 his ,parents4 ,lastly1 ,i cannot understand1 how an immaterial substance should make a print upon a corporeal substance1 for ,printing is a corporeal action1 and belongs onely to bodies4 ,others may say1 that the soul is from the ,parents transmitted into the ,child1 like as a beam of ,light2 but then the souls of the ,parents must part with some of their own substance2 for light is a substance dividable1 in my opinion2 and if it were not1 yet the soul is a substance1 and cannot be communicated without losing some of his own substance1 but that is impossible2 for the immaterial soul being individable1 cannot be diminished nor increased in its substance or ,nature4 ,others again1 will have the soul produced by certain ,ideas2 but ,ideas being corporeal1 cannot produce a substance ,incorporeal or ,spiritual4 ,wherefore ,i cannot conceive how the souls of the ,parents1 being individable in themselves1 and not immoveable out of their bodies until the time of death1 should commix so1 as to produce a third immaterial soul1 like to their own4 ,you will say1 ,as the ,sun1 which is the fountain of heat and light1 heats and enlightens1 and produces other ,creatures4 ,but ,i answer1 ,the ,sun doth not produce other ,suns1 at least not to our knowledg4 ',tis true1 there are various and several manners and ways of ,productions1 but they are all natural1 that is1 material1 or corporeal2 to wit1 ,productions of some material beings1 or corporeal substances2 but the immaterial soul not being in the number of these1 it is not probable1 that she is produced by the way of corporeal productions1 but created and infused from ,god1 according to her nature1 which is supernatural and divine3 ,but being the ,image of ,god1 how she can be defiled with the impurity of sin1 and suffer eternal damnation for her wickedness1 without any prejudice to her ,creator1 ,i leave to the ,church to inform us thereof4 ,onely one question ,i will add1 ,whether the ,soul be subject to ,sickness and ,pain8 ,to which ,i answer3 ,as for the supernatural and divine ,soul1 although she be a substance1 yet being not corporeal1 but spiritual1 she can never suffer pain1 sickness1 nor death2 but as for the natural soul1 to speak properly1 there is no such thing in ,nature as pain1 sickness1 or death2 unless in respect to some ,particular ,creatures composed of natural ,matter2 for what ,man calls ,sickness1 ,pain1 and ,death1 are nothing else but the ,motions of ,nature2 for though there is but one onely ,matter1 that is1 nothing but meer ,matter in ,nature1 without any co-mixture of either a spiritual substance1 or any thing else that is not ,matter2 yet this meer ,matter is of several degrees and parts1 and is the body of ,nature2 ,besides1 as there is but one onely ,matter1 so there is also but one onely ,motion in ,nature1 as ,i may call it1 that is1 meer corporeal ,motion1 without any rest or cessation1 which is the soul of that ,natural body1 both being infinite2 but yet this onely corporeal ,motion is infinitely various in its degrees or manners1 and ways of moving2 for it is nothing else but the action of natural ,matter1 which action must needs be infinite1 being the action of an infinite body1 making infinite figures and parts4 ,these motions and actions of ,nature1 since they are so infinitely various1 when men chance to observe some of their variety1 they call them by some proper name1 to make a distinguishment1 especially those motions which belong to the figure of their own kind2 and therefore when they will express the motions of dissolution of their own figure1 they call them ,death2 when they will express the motions of ,production of their figure1 they call them ,conception and ,generation2 when they will express the motions proper for the ,consistence1 ,continuance and ,perfection of their ,figure1 they call them ,health2 but when they will express the motions contrary to these1 they call them ,sickness1 ,pain1 ,death1 and the like3 and hence comes also the difference between regular and irregular motions2 for all those ,motions that belong to the particular nature and consistence of any figure1 they call regular1 and those which are contrary to them1 they call irregular4 ,and thus you see1 ,madam1 that there is no such thing in ,nature1 as ,death1 ,sickness1 ,pain1 ,health1 c4 but onely a variety and change of the corporeal motions1 and that those words express nothing else but the variety of motions in ,nature2 for men are apt to make more distinctions then ,nature doth3 ,nature knows of nothing else but of corporeal figurative ,motions1 when as men make a thousand distinctions of one thing1 and confound and entangle themselves so1 with ,beings1 ,non-beings1 and ,neutral-beings1 ,corporeals and ,incorporeals1 ,substances and ,accidents1 or manners and modes of ,substances1 new ,creations1 and ,annihilations1 and the like1 as neither they themselves1 nor any body else1 is able to make any sense thereof2 for they are like the tricks and slights of ,juglers1 'tis here1 'tis gone2 and amongst those ,authors which ,i have read as yet1 the most difficult to be understood is this ,author which ,i am now perusing1 who runs such divisions1 and cuts ,nature into so small ,parts1 as the sight of my ,reason is not sharp enough to discern them4 ,wherefore ,i will leave them to those that are more quick-sighted then ,i1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 #a ,of the seat of the ,soul4 ,it4 ,of the ,image of the ,mind4 ,,xxiv4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author relates1#a how by some the ,immortal ,soul is divided into two distinct parts2 the ,inferior or more outward1 which by a peculiar name is called the ,soul1 and the other the ,superior1 the more inward1 the which is called the bottom of the ,soul or ,spirit1 in which ,part the ,image of ,god is specially contained2 unto which is no access for the ,devil1 because there is the ,kingdom of ,god3 and each part has distinct ,acts1 ,proprieties1 and ,faculties4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i wonder1 how some men dare discourse so boldly of the ,soul1 without any ground either of ,scripture or ,reason1 nay1 with such contradiction to themselves1 or their own opinions2 ,for how can that be severed into parts1 which in its nature is ,individable8 and how can the ,image of ,god concern but one ,part of the ,soul1 and not the other8 ,certainly1 if the ,soul is the ,image of ,god1 it is his ,image wholly1 and not partially1 or in parts4 ,but your ,author has other as strange and odd opinions as these1 some whereof ,i have mentioned in my former ,letters1 the ,souls being a ,light1 her ,figure1 her ,residence1 and many the like3 ,amongst the rest1 there is one thing which your ,author frequently makes mention of2#b ,i know not what to call it1 whether a thing1 or a being1 or no-thing2 for it is neither of them2 not a substance1 nor an accident2 neither a body1 nor a spirit2 and this ,monster 7for ,i think this is its proper name1 since none other will fit it7 is the ,lacquey of the ,soul1 to run upon all errands2 for the ,soul sitting in her ,princely ,throne or ,residence1 which is the orifice of the stomack1 cannot be every where her self2 neither is it fit she should1 as being a disgrace to her1 to perform all offices her self for want of servants1 therefore she sends out this most faithful and trusty officer1 7your ,author calls him ,ideal ,entity7 who being prepared for his journey1 readily performs all her commands1 as being not tied up to no commands of places1 times or dimensions1 especially in ,women with ,child he operates most powerfully2 for sometime he printed a ,cherry on a ,child1 by a strong ,idea of the ,mother2 but this ,ideal ,entity or servant of the ,soul1 hath troubled my brain more1 then his ,mistress the ,soul her self2 for ,i could not1 nor cannot as yet conceive1 how he might be able to be the ,jack of all offices1 and do ,journies and travel from one part of the body to another1 being no body nor substance himself1 nor tyed to any place1 time1 and dimension1 and therefore ,i will leave him4 ,your ,author also speaks much of the ,inward and ,outward ,man2 but since that belongs to ,divinity1 ,i will declare nothing of it2 onely this ,i say1 that1 in my opinion1 the ,inward and ,outward man do not make a double ,creature1 neither properly1 nor improperly2 properly1 as to make two different men2 improperly1 as we use to call that man double1 whose heart doth not agree with his words4 ,but by the ,outward man ,i understand the sinful actions of flesh and blood1 and by the ,inward man the reformed actions of the ,spirit1 according to the ,word of ,god2 and therefore the ,outward and ,inward man make but one ,man4 ,concerning the ,natural ,soul1 your ,author#c speaks of her more to her disgrace then to her honor2 for he scorns to call her a substance1 neither doth he call her the ,rational ,soul1 but he calls her the ,sensitive ,soul1 and makes the ,divine ,soul to be the ,rational ,natural ,soul1 and the cause of all natural actions2 for he being a ,divine ,philosopher1 mixes ,divine and ,natural things together3 ,but of the ,frail1 ,mortal1 ,sensitive ,soul1 as he names her1 which is onely the sensitive ,life1 his opinions are1 that she is neither a substance1 nor an accident1 but a ,neutral ,creature1 and a ,vital ,light1 which hath not its like in the whole ,world1 but the light of a ,candle2 for it is extinguished1 and goes out like the flame of a ,candle2 it is locally present1 and entertained in a place1 and yet not comprehended in a place4 ,nevertheless1 although this sensitive soul is no substance1 yet it has the honor to be the ,inn or ,lodging-place of the ,immortal ,soul or ,mind2 and these two souls being both lights1 do pierce each other2 but the ,mortal soul blunts the ,immortal soul with its cogitation of the corruption of ,adam4 ,these opinions1 ,madam1 ,i confess really1 ,i do not know what to make of them2 for ,i cannot imagine1 how this ,mortal soul1 being no substance1 can contain the ,immortal soul1 which is a substance2 nor how they can pierce each other1 and the ,mortal soul being substanceless1 get the better over an ,immortal substance1 and vitiate1 corrupt1 and infect it2 neither can ,i conceive1 how that1 which in a manner is nothing already1 can be made less and annihilated4 ,wherefore1 my opinion is1 that the ,natural ,soul1 ,life1 and ,body1 are all substantial parts of ,infinite ,nature1 not subsisting by themselves each apart1 but inseparably united and co-mixed both in their actions and substances2 for not any thing can and doth subsist of it self in ,nature1 but ,god alone2 and things supernatural may1 for ought ,i know3 ',tis true1 there are several ,degrees1 several particular ,natures1 several ,actions or ,motions1 and several ,parts in ,nature1 but none subsists single1 and by it self1 without reference to the whole1 and to one another4 ,your ,author says1 the ,vital ,spirit sits in the ,throne of the ,outward man as ,vice ,roy of the ,soul1 and acts by ,commission of the ,soul2 but it is impossible1 that one single part should be ,king of the whole ,creature1 since ,rational and sensitive ,matter is divided into so many parts1 which have equal power and force of action in their turns and severall imployments2 for though ,nature is a ,monarchess over all her ,creatures1 yet in every particular ,creature is a ,republick1 and not a ,monarchy2 for no part of any ,creature has a sole supreme ,power over the rest4 ,moreover1 your ,author#d says1 ,that an ,angel is not a ,light himself1 nor has an ,internal ,light1 natural and proper to himself1 but is the ,glass of an uncreated ,light3 ,which1 to my apprehension1 seems to affirm1 ,that ,angels are the ,looking-glasses of ,god2 a pretty ,poetical ,fancy1 but not grounded on the ,scripture3 for the ,scripture doth not express any such thing of them1 but onely that they are#e ,ministring ,spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of ,salvation3 ,which1 ,i think1 is enough for us to know here1 and leave the rest until we come to enjoy their company in ,heaven4 ,but it is not to be admired1 that those1 which pretend to know the ,nature and ,secrets of ,god1 should not have likewise knowledg of ,supernatural ,creatures2 ,in which conceit ,i leave them1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your real and faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the ,image of the ,soul4 #b ,ch4 ,of the ,magnetick cure of wounds4 #c ,of the seat of the ,soul4 #d ,ch4 ,of the ,image of the ,mind4 #e ,heb4 #aa4 #ad4 ,,xxv4 ,,madam1 ,reason and ,intellect are two different things to your ,author2#a for ,intellect1 says he1 doth properly belong to the ,immortal ,soul1 as being a ,formal ,light1 and the very substance of the ,soul it self1 wherein the ,image of ,god onely consists2 ,but ,reason is an uncertain1 frail faculty of the ,mortal ,soul1 and doth in no ways belong1 nor has any communion with the ,intellect of the ,mind4 ,which seems to me1 as if your ,author did make some difference between the ,divine1 and the ,natural ,soul in ,man1 although he doth not plainly declare it in the same ,terms2 for that which ,i name the ,divine ,soul1 is to him the ,immortal ,mind1 ,intellect1 or ,understanding1 and the ,seat of the ,image of ,god2 but the ,natural ,soul he calls the ,frail1 ,mortal1 and ,rational ,soul2 and as ,understanding is the ,essence of the ,immortal1 so ,reason is to him the ,essence of the ,mortal ,soul2 which ,reason he attributes not only to ,man1 but also to ,brutes3 ,for ,reason and ,discourse1 says he1 do not obscurely flourish and grow in brute ,beasts1 for an aged ,fox is more crafty then a younger one by rational discourse2 and again1 ,that the ,rational ,part of the ,soul doth belong to brutes1 is without doubt3 ,wherein he rightly dissents from those1 which onely do attribute a sensitive ,soul to brutes2 and ,reason to none but ,man1 whom therefore they call a ,rational ,creature1 and by this ,rational ,faculty do distinguish him from the rest of ,animals4 ,and thus ,i perceive the difference betwixt your ,authors opinion1 and theirs1 is1 ,that other ,philosophers commonly do make the ,rational soul1 to be partly that which ,i call the supernatural and divine ,soul1 as onely belonging to man1 and bearing the ,image of ,god1 not acknowledging any other ,natural1 but a ,sensitive soul in the rest of ,animals1 and a ,vegetative soul in ,vegetables2 and these three souls1 or faculties1 operations1 or degrees1 7call them what you will1 for we shall not fall out about names17 concurr and joyn together in ,man2 but the rest of all ,creatures1 are void and destitute of ,life1 as well as of ,soul1 and therefore called ,unanimate2 and thus they make the natural rational soul1 and the divine soul in man to be all one thing1 without any distinguishment2 but your ,author makes a difference between the ,mortal and ,immortal soul in ,man2 the ,immortal he calls the ,intellect or ,understanding1 and the ,mortal soul he calls ,reason3 but to my judgment he also attributes to the immortal soul1 actions which are both natural1 and supernatural1 adscribing that to the divine soul1 which onely belongs to the natural1 and taking that from the natural1 which properly belongs to her4 ,besides1 he slights and despises the ,rational soul so1 as if she were almost of no value with ,man1 making her no substance1 but a mental intricate and obscure ,being1 and so far from ,truth1 as if there were no affinity betwixt ,truth and ,reason1 but that they disagree in their very roots1 and that the most refined ,reason may be deceitful4 ,but your ,author1 by his leave1 confounds ,reason1 and ,reasoning1 which are two several and distinct things2 for reasoning and arguing differs as much from ,reason1 as doubtfulness from certainty of knowledg1 or a wavering mind from a constant mind2 for ,reasoning is the discoursive1 and ,reason the understanding part in ,man1 and therefore ,i can find no great difference between ,understanding and ,reason3 ,neither can ,i be perswaded1 that ,reason should not remain with ,man after this life1 and enter with him into ,heaven1 although your ,author speaks much against it2 for if ,man shall be the same then1 which he is now1 in body1 why not in soul also8 ',tis true1 the ,scripture says1 he shall have a more glorious body2 but it doth not say1 that some parts of the body shall be cast away1 or remain behind2 and if not of the body1 why of the soul8 ,why shall ,reason1 which is the chief part of the natural ,soul1 be wanting8 ,your ,author is much for ,intellect or ,understanding2 but ,i cannot imagine how ,understanding can be without ,reason4 ,certainly1 when he saw the ,immortal ,soul in a ,vision1 to be a formal ,light1 how could he discern what he saw1 without ,reason8 ,how could he distinguish between ,light and ,darkness1 without ,reason8 ,how could he know the ,image of the ,mind to be the ,image of ,god1 without the distinguishment of ,reason8 ,you will say1 ,truth informed him1 and not ,reason4 ,i answer1 ,reason shews the ,truth4 ,you may reply1 ,truth requires no distinguishment or judgment4 ,i grant1 that perfect ,truth requires not reasoning or arguing1 as whether it be so1 or not2 but yet it requires reason1 as to confirm it to be so1 or not so2 for ,reason is the confirmation of ,truth1 and ,reasoning is but the ,inquisition into ,truth3 ,wherefore1 when our ,souls shall be in the fulness of blessedness1 certainly1 they shall not be so dull and stupid1 but observe distinctions between ,god1 ,angels1 and sanctified ,souls2 as also1 that our glory is above our merit1 and that there is great difference between the ,damned1 and the ,blessed1 and that ,god is an ,eternal and ,infinite ,being1 and onely to be adored1 admired1 and loved1 and that we enjoy as much as can be enjoyed3 ,all which the ,soul cannot know without the distinguishment of ,reason2 otherwise we might say1 the ,souls in ,heaven1 love1 joy1 admire and adore1 but know not what1 why1 or wherefore2 ,for1 shall the blessed ,souls present continual ,praises without reason8 ,have they not reason to praise ,god for their happiness1 and shall they not remember the ,mercies of ,god1 and the ,merits of his ,son8 ,for without remembrance of them1 they cannot give a true acknowledgment1 although your ,author says there is no use of ,memory or remembrance in ,heaven3 but surely1 ,i believe there is2 for if there were not memory in ,heaven1 the ,penitent ,thief upon the ,cross his ,prayers had been in vain2 for he desired our ,saviour to remember him when he did come into his ,kingdom3 ,wherefore if there be ,understanding in ,heaven1 there is also ,reason2 and if there be ,reason1 there is ,memory also3 for all ,souls in ,heaven1 as well as on ,earth1 have reason to adore1 love1 and praise ,god4 ,but1 ,madam1 my study is in natural ,philosophy1 not in ,theology2 and therefore ,i'le refer you to ,divines1 and leave your ,author to his own fancy1 who by his singular ,visions tells us more news of our ,souls1 then our ,saviour did after his ,death and ,resurrection3 ,resting in the mean time1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,the hunting or searching out of ,sciences4 ,it4 ,of the ,image of the ,mind4 ,,xxvi4 ,,madam1 ,concerning those parts and chapters of your ,authors ,works1 which treat of ,physick2 before ,i begin to examine them1 ,i beg leave of you in this present1 to make some reflections first upon his ,opinions concerning the ,nature of ,health and ,diseases3 ,as for ,health1 he is pleased to say1#a ,that it consists not in a just ,temperature of the body1 but in a sound and intire ,life2 for otherwise1 a ,temperature of body is as yet in a dead ,carcass newly kill'd1 where notwithstanding there is now death1 but not life1 not health3 ,also he says1#b ,that no disease is in a dead carcass4 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that1 in my opinion1 ,life is in a dead ,carcass1 as well as in a living ,animal1 although not such a ,life as that ,creature had before it became a ,carcass1 and the ,temperature of that ,creature is altered with the alteration of its particular life2 for the temperature of that particular life1 which was before in the ,animal1 doth not remain in the ,carcass1 in such a manner as it was when it had the life of such or such an ,animal2 nevertheless1 a dead ,carcass hath life1 and such a temperature of life1 as is proper1 and belonging to its own figure3 for there are as many different lives1 as there be different creatures1 and each creature has its particular life and soul1 as partaking of sensitive and rational ,matter4 ,and if a dead ,carcass hath life1 and such a temperature of motions as belong to its own life1 then there is no question1 but these motions may move sometimes irregularly in a dead ,carcass as well1 as in any other ,creature2 and since health and diseases are nothing else but the regularity or irregularity of sensitive corporeal ,motions1 a dead ,carcass having ,irregular motions1 may be said as well to have diseases1 as a living body1 as they name it1 although it is no proper or usual term for other ,creatures1 but onely for ,animals4 ,however1 if there were no such thing as a disease 7or term it what you will1 ,i will call it ,irregularity of sensitive motions7 in a dead ,carcass1 ,how comes it that the infection of a disease proceeds often from dead ,carcasses into living ,animals8 ,for1 certainly1 it is not meerly the odour or stink of a dead body1 for then all stinking ,carcasses would produce an ,infection2 wherefore this ,infection must necessarily be inherent in the ,carcass1 and proceed from the ,irregularity of its motions4 ,next ,i'le ask you1 ,whether a ,consumption be a disease1 or not8 ,if it be1 then a dead ,carcass might be said to have a disease1 as well as a living body2 and the gyptians knew a soveraign remedy against this disease1 which would keep a dead ,carcass intire and undissolved many ages2 but as ,i said above1 a dead ,carcass is not that which it was being a living ,animal1 wherefore their effects cannot be the same1 having not the same causes4 ,next1 your ,author is pleased to call1 with ,hippocrates1 ,nature the onely ,physicianess of ,diseases4 ,i affirm it2 and say moreover1 that as she is the onely ,physicianess1 so she is also the onely ,destroyeress and ,murtheress of all particular ,creatures1 and their particular lives2 for she dissolves and transforms as well as she frames and creates2 and acts according to her pleasure1 either for the increase or decrease1 augmentation or destruction1 sickness or health1 life or death of ,particular ,creatures4 ,but concerning ,diseases1 your ,authors opinion is1 ,that a ,disease is as ,natural as ,health4 ,i answer2 'tis true1 ,diseases are natural2 but if we could find out the art of healing1 as well as the art of killing and destroying2 and the art of uniting and composing1 as well as the art of separating and dividing1 it would be very beneficial to man2 but this may easier be wished for1 then obtained2 for ,nature being a corporeal substance1 has infinite parts1 as well as an infinite body2 and ,art1 which is onely the playing action of ,nature1 and a particular ,creature1 can easier divide and separate parts1 then unite and make parts2 for ,art cannot match1 unite1 and joyn parts so as ,nature doth2 for ,nature is not onely dividable and composeable1 being a corporeal substance1 but she is also full of curiosity and variety1 being partly self-moving3 and there is great difference between forced actions1 and natural actions2 for the one sort is regular1 the other irregular4 ,but you may say1 ,irregularities are as natural as ,regularities4 ,i grant it2 but ,nature leaves the irregular part most commonly to her daughter or creature ,art1 that is1 she makes irregularities for varieties sake1 but she her self orders the regular part1 that is1 she is more careful of her regular actions2 and thus ,nature taking delight in variety suffers irregularities2 for otherwise1 if there were onely regularities1 there could not be so much variety4 ,again your ,author says1#c ,that a disease doth not consist but in living bodies4 ,i answer1 there is not any body that has not life2 for if life is general1 then all figures or parts have life2 but though all bodies have life1 yet all bodies have not diseases2 for diseases are but accidental to bodies1 and are nothing else but irregular motions in particular ,creatures1 which may be not onely in ,animals1 but generally in all ,creatures2 for there may be ,irregularities in all sorts of ,creatures1 which may cause untimely dissolutions2 but yet all dissolutions are not made by irregular motions1 for many creatures dissolve regularly1 but onely those which are untimely4 ,in the same place your ,author mentions1 ,that a ,disease consists immediately in ,life it self1 but not in the dregs and filthinesses1 which are erroneous forreigners and strangers to the life4 ,i grant1 that a ,disease is made by the motions of ,life1 but not such a life as your ,author describes1 which doth go out like the snuff of a ,candle1 or as one of ,lucian's ,poetical ,lights2 but by the life of ,nature1 which cannot go out without the destruction of ,infinite ,nature3 and as the ,motions of ,nature's life make diseases or irregularities1 so they make that which man names dregs and filths2 which dregs1 filths1 sickness1 and death1 are nothing but changes of corporeal motions1 different from those motions or actions that are proper to the health1 perfection and consistence of such or such a figure or creature4 ,but1 to conclude1 there is no such thing as corruption1 sickness1 or death1 properly in ,nature1 for they are made by natural actions1 and are onely varieties in ,nature1 but not obstructions or destructions of ,nature1 or annihilations of particular ,creatures2 and so is that we name ,superfluities1 which bear onely a relation to a particular ,creature1 which hath more ,motion and ,matter then is proper for the nature of its figure4 ,and thus much of this subject for the present1 from1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,call'd the ,authors answers4 #b ,ch4 ,of the subject of inhering of diseases4 #c ,ch4 ,the subject of inhering of diseases is in the point of life4 ,it4 ,ch4 ,of the knowledg of diseases4 ,,xxvii4 ,,madam1 ,in my last1 ,i remember1 ,i told you of your ,authors opinion concerning the seat of ,diseases1 viz4 that ,diseases are properly in living bodies1 and consist in the life it self2 but when ,i consider his definition of ,life1 and of a ,disease1 ,i cannot conceive how they should consist together2 for he describes#a a ,disease to be a real1 material and substantial being1 truly subsisting in a body2 but life to be a meer nothing1 and yet the immediate mansion of a disease1 the inward subject1 yea1 and workman of the same2 and that with the life all diseases depart into nothing4 ,surely1 ,madam1 it exceedeth my understanding2 for1 first1 ,i cannot conceive how life1 which is a meer ,nothing1 can be a lodging to something8 ,next1 how ,nothing can depart and die8 and thirdly how ,something can become ,nothing8 ,i think your ,author might call a dead ,carcass as well ,no-thing1 as ,life2 and since he names ,diseases the ,thieves of ,life1 they must needs be but poor ,thieves1 because they steal ,no-thing4 ,but your ,author compares ,life to ,light1 and calls it an ,extinguishable ,light1 like the light of a ,candle2 which if so1 then the old saying is verified1 ,that life goes out like the snuff of a ,candle4 ,but ,i wonder1 ,madam1 that grave and wise men will seriously make use of a similising old ,proverb1 or of a ,poetical ,fancy1 in matter of natural ,philosophy2 for ,i have observed1 that ,homer1 ,lucian1 ,ovid1 ,virgil1 ,horace1 c4 have been very serviceable to great ,philosophers1 who have taken the ground of their ,fictions1 and transferred them into ,natural ,philosophy1 as ,immaterial substances1 ,non-beings1 and many the like2 but they can neither do any good nor hurt to ,nature1 but onely spoil ,philosophical ,knowledg2 and as ,nature is ignorant of ,immaterials and ,non-beings1 so ,art is ignorant of ,nature2 for ,mathematical ,rules1 ,measures1 and ,demonstrations1 cannot rule1 measure nor demonstrate ,nature1 no more1 then ,chymical ,divisions1 ,dissolutions and ,extractions 7or rather distractions1 nay1 ,i may say destructions7 can divide1 dissolve1 extract1 compose1 and unite1 as ,nature doth2 ,wherefore their ,instruments1 ,figures1 ,furnaces1 ,limbecks1 and ,engines1 cannot instruct them of the truth of ,natures ,principles2 but the best and readiest way to find out ,nature1 or rather some truth of ,nature1 is sense and reason1 which are ,parts of ,natures active substance1 and therefore the truest informers of ,nature2 but the ,ignorance of ,nature has caused ,ignorance amongst ,philosophers1 and the ,ignorance of ,philosophers hath caused numerous ,opinions1 and numerous ,opinions have caused various ,discourses and ,disputes2 which ,discourses and ,disputes1 are not ,sense and ,reason1 but proceed from ,irregular ,motions2 and ,truth is not found in ,irregularities4 ,but to return to ,life3 it seems your ,author hath taken his opinion from ,lucian's ,kingdom of ,lights1 the ,lights being the ,inhabitants thereof2 and when any was adjudged to die1 his ,light was put out1 which was his punishment3 ,and thus this ,heathenish ,fiction is become a ,christian ,verity2 when as yet your ,author rayls much at those1 that insist upon the ,opinions and ,doctrine of ,pagan ,philosophers4 ,wherefore ,i will leave this ,poetical ,fancy of ,life1 and turn to ,death1 and see what opinion your ,author hath of that4 ,first1 concerning the cause or original of ,death2 ,neither ,god1 says he1#b nor the ,evil ,spirit1 is the ,creator of ,death1 but ,man onely1 who made ,death for himself2 ,neither did ,nature make death1 but ,man made death natural4 ,which if it be so1 then ,death being1 to my opinion1 a natural ,creature1 as well as ,life1 ,sickness1 and ,health2 ,man1 certainly1 had great ,power1 as to be the ,creator of a natural ,creature4 ,but1 ,i would fain know the reason1 why your ,author is so unwilling to make ,god the ,author of ,death1 and ,sickness1 as well as of ,damnation8 ,doth it imply any ,impiety or ,irreligiousness8 ,doth not ,god punish1 as well as reward8 and is not death a punishment for our sin8 ,you may say1 ,death came from sin1 but sin did not come from ,god4 ,then some might ask from whence came sin8 ,you will say1 ,from the ,transgression of the ,command of ,god1 as the eating of the ,forbidden ,fruit4 ,but from whence came this ,transgression8 ,it might be answer'd1 ,from the ,perswasion of the ,serpent4 ,from whence came this ,perswasion8 ,from his ill and malitious nature to oppose ,god1 and ruine the race of ,mankind4 ,from whence came this ill ,nature8 ,from his ,fall4 ,whence came his ,fall8 ,from his ,pride and ,ambition to be equal with ,god4 ,from whence came this ,pride8 ,from his ,free-will4 ,from whence came his ,free-will8 ,from ,god4 ,thus1 ,madam1 if we should be too inquisitive into the actions of ,god1 we should commit ,blasphemy1 and make ,god ,cruel1 as to be the ,cause of ,sin1 and consequently of ,damnation4 ,but although ,god is not the ,author of ,sin1 yet we may not stick to say1 that he is the ,author of the ,punishment of ,sin1 as an ,act of his ,divine ,justice2 which ,punishment1 is ,sickness1 and ,death2 nay1 ,i see no reason1 why not of ,damnation too1 as it is a due punishment for the sins of the wicked2 for though ,man effectively works his own punishment1 yet ,gods ,justice inflicts it3 ,like as a just ,judg may be call'd the cause of a ,thief being hang'd4 ,but these questions are too curious2 and some men will be as presumptuous as the ,devil1 to enquire into ,gods secret actions1 although they be sure that they cannot be known by any ,creature4 ,wherefore let us banish such vain thoughts1 and onely admire1 adore1 love1 and praise ,god1 and implore his ,mercy1 to give us grace to shun the punishments for our sins by the righteousness of our actions1 and not endeavour to know his secret designs4 ,next1 ,i dissent from your ,author1#c ,that ,death and all dead things do want roots whereby they may produce3 ,for death1 and dead things1 in my opinion1 are the most active producers1 at least they produce more numerously and variously then those we name living things2 for example1 a dead ,horse will produce more several ,animals1 besides other ,creatures1 then a living ,horse can do2 but what ,archeus and ,ideas a dead ,carcass hath1 ,i can tell no more1 then what ,blas or ,gas it hath2 onely this ,i say1 that it has animate ,matter1 which is the onely ,archeus or ,master-workman1 that produces all things1 creates all things1 dissolves all things1 and transforms all things in ,nature2 but not out of ,nothing1 or into ,nothing1 as to create new ,creatures which were not before in ,nature1 or to annihilate ,creatures1 and to reduce them to nothing2 but it creates and transforms out of1 and in the same ,matter which has been from all ,eternity4 ,lastly1 your ,author is pleased to say1 ,that he doth not behold a disease as an abstracted ,quality2 and that ,apoplexy1 ,leprosie1 ,dropsie1 and ,madness1 as they are ,qualities in the abstract1 are not diseases4 ,i am of his mind1 that a disease is a real and corporeal being1 and do not understand what he and others mean by abstracted qualities2 for ,nature knows of no abstraction of qualities from substances1 and ,i doubt ,man can do no more then ,nature doth3 ,besides1 those abstractions are needless1 and to no purpose2 for no ,immaterial quality will do any hurt1 if it be no substance2 wherefore ,apoplexy1 ,leprosie1 ,dropsie1 and ,madness1 are ,corporeal beings1 as well as the rest of ,diseases1 and not abstracted ,qualities2 and ,i am sure1 ,persons that are affected with those diseases will tell the same4 ,wherefore leaving needless abstractions to fancies abstracted from right sense and reason1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of the knowledg of diseases4 #b ,ch4 ,called the ,position4 #c ,ch4 ,of the knowledg of diseases4 ,,xxviii4 ,,madam1 ,i am very much troubled to see your ,authors ,works fill'd with so many spiteful reproaches and bitter taunts against the ,schools of ,physicians1 condemning both their ,theory and ,practice2 nay1 that not onely the ,modern ,schools of ,physicians1 but also the two ancient and famous ,physicians1 ,galen1 and ,paracelsus1 must sufficiently suffer by him2 especially ,galen2 for there is hardly a ,chapter in all his ,works1 which has not some accusations of blind errors1 sloth1 and sluggishness1 ,ignorance1 ,covetousness1 ,cruelty1 and the like3 ,which ,i am very sorry for2 not onely for the sake of your ,author himself1 who herein doth betray both his rashness1 and weakness1 in not bridling his passions1 and his too great presumption1 reliance and confidence in his own abilities1 and extraordinary ,gifts2 but also for the sake of the ,fame and ,repute of our ,modern ,physicians2 for without making now any difference betwixt the ,galenists and ,paracelsians1 and examining which are the best1 7for ,i think them both excellent in their kinds1 especially when joyned together7 ,i will onely say this in general1 that the ,art of ,physick has never flourish'd better then now1 neither has any age had more skilful1 learned1 and experienced ,physicians1 then this present2 because they have not onely the knowledg and practise of those in ages ,past1 but also their own experience joyned with it1 which cannot but add perfection to their ,art2 and ,i1 for my part1 am so much for the old way of ,practice1 that if ,i should be sick1 ,i would desire rather such ,physicians which follow the same way1 then those1 that by their new ,inventions1 perchance1 cure one1 and kill a hundred4 ,but your ,author#a will have a ,physician to be like a ,handycrafts man1 who being call'd to a work1 promises that work1 and stands to his promise2 and therefore1 ,it is a shame1 says he1 in a ,physician1 being call'd to a sick man in the beginning of the disease1 and when his strength is yet remaining1 to suffer the same man to die4 ,this1 in my opinion1 is a very unreasonable comparison1 to liken a ,handicrafts man to a ,physician1 and the art of ,curing to the art of ,building1 or any the like1 without regard of so many great differences that are between them1 which ,i am loth to rehearse1 for brevities sake1 and are apparant enough to every one that will consider them3 but this ,i may say1 that it is not always for want of skill and industry in a ,physician1 that the cure is not effected1 but it lies either in the ,incureableness of the disease1 or any other external accidents that do hinder the success3 ,not but that the best ,physicians may err in a disease1 or mistake the ,patients inward distemper by his outward temper1 or the interior temper by his outward distemper1 or any other ways2 for they may easily err through the variation of the disease1 which may vary so suddenly and oft1 as it is impossible to apply so fast1 and so many ,medicines1 as the alteration requires1 without certain death2 for the body is not able1 oftentimes1 to dispose and digest several ,medicines so fast1 as the disease may vary1 and therefore what was good in this temper1 may1 perhaps1 be bad in the variation2 insomuch1 that one medicine may in a minute prove a ,cordial1 and ,poyson4 ,nay1 it may be that some ,physicians do err through their own ignorance and mistake1 must we therefore condemn all the skill1 and accuse all the ,schools of ,negligence1 ,cruelty1 and ,ignorance8 ,god forbid3 for it would be a great ,injustice4 ,let us rather praise them for the good they do1 and not rashly condemn them for the evil they could not help3 ,for we may as well condemn those holy and industrious ,divines1 that cannot reform wicked and perverse ,sinners1 as ,physicians1 because they cannot restore every ,patient to his former health1 the ,profession of a ,physician being very difficult2 for they can have but outward signs of inward distempers4 ,besides1 all men are not dissected after they are dead1 to inform ,physicians of the true cause of their death2 nay1 if they were1 perchance they would not give always a true information to the ,physician1 as is evident by many examples2 but oftentimes the blame is laid upon the ,physician1 when as the fault is either in ,nature1 or any other cause1 which ,art could not mend4 ,and if your ,author had had such an extraordinary ,gift from ,god as to know more then all the rest of ,physicians1 why did he not accordingly1 and as the ,scripture speaks of ,faith1 shew his skill by his ,works and ,cures8 certainly1 could he have restored those that were born blind1 lame1 deaf and dumb1 or cured the spotted ,plague1 or ,apoplexy after the third fit1 or the ,consumption of ,vital parts1 or a ,fever in the ,arteries1 or dissolved a ,stone too big to go through the passage1 and many the like2 he would not onely have been cried up for a rare ,physician1 but for a miracle of the ,world1 and worshipped as a ,saint3 ,but if he could not effect more then the ,schools can do1 why doth he inveigh so bitterly against them8 ,wherefore ,i cannot commend him in so doing2 but as ,i respect the ,art of ,physick1 as a singular ,gift from ,god to ,mankind1 so ,i respect and esteem also learned and skilful ,physicians1 for their various ,knowledg1 industrious ,studies1 careful ,practice1 and great ,experiences1 and think every one is bound to do the like1 they being the onely supporters and restorers of humane life and health3 ,for though ,i must confess1 with your ,author1 that ,god is the onely giver of ,good1 yet ,god is not pleased to work ,miracles ordinarily1 but has ordained means for the restoring of health1 which the ,art of ,physick doth apply2 and therefore those ,persons that are sick1 do wisely to send for a ,physician2 for ,art1 although it is but a particular ,creature1 and the handmaid of ,nature1 yet she doth ,nature oftentimes very good service2 and so do ,physicians often prolong their ,patients lives4 ,the like do ,chirurgeons2 for if those ,persons that have been wounded1 had been left to be cured onely by the ,magnetick ,medicine1 ,i believe1 numbers that are alive would have been dead1 and numbers would die that are alive2 insomuch1 as none would escape1 but by miracle1 especially if dangerously hurt4 ,concerning the ,coveteousness of ,physicians1 although sickness is chargeable1 yet ,i think it is not ,charitable to say or to think1 that ,physitians regard more their ,profit1 then their ,patients health2 for we might as well condemn ,divines for taking their ,tithes and ,stipends1 as ,physicians for taking their ,fees3 but the holy ,writ tells us1 that a ,labourer is ,worthy of his hire or reward2 and1 for my part1 ,i think those commit a great sin1 which repine at giving ,rewards in any kind2 for those that deserve well by their endeavours1 ought to have their rewards2 and such ,meritorious ,persons1 ,i wish with all my ,soul1 may prosper and thrive4 ,nevertheless1 as for those persons1 which for want of means are not able to reward their ,physicians1 ,i think ,physicians will not deal so unconscionably1 as to neglect their health and lives for want of their ,fees1 but expect the reward from ,god1 and be recompenced the better by those that have ,wealth enough to spare4 ,and this good opinion ,i have of them4 ,so leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend and faithful ,servant4 #a ,in his ,promises1 ,column4 #c4 ,,xxix4 ,,madam ,i am of your ,authors mind1 ,that heat is not the cause of digestion2 but ,i dissent from him1 when he says1 ,that it is the ,ferment of the stomach that doth cause it3 ,for1 in my opinion1 ,digestion is onely made by regular digestive motions1 and ill digestion is caused by irregular motions1 and when those motions are weak1 then there is no digestion at all1 but what was received1 remains unaltered2 but when they are strong and quick1 then they make a speedy digestion4 ,you may ask me1 what are digestive motions8 ,i answer1 ,they are transchanging1 or transforming motions3 but since there be many sorts of transchanging motions1 digestive motions are those1 which transchange food into the nourishment of the body1 and dispose properly1 fitly and usefully of all the ,parts of the food1 as well of those which are converted into nourishment1 as of those which are cast forth4 ,for give me leave to tell you1 ,madam1 that some parts of natural ,matter1 do force or cause other parts of ,matter to move and work according to their will1 without any change or alteration of their parts2 as for example1 ,fire and ,metal2 for ,fire will cause ,metal to flow1 but it doth not readily alter it from its nature of being ,metal2 neither doth ,fire alter its nature from being ,fire4 ,and again1 some parts of ,matter will cause other parts to work and act to their own will1 by forcing these over-powred parts to alter their own natural motions into the motions of the victorious ,party1 and so transforming them wholly into their own ,figure2 as for example1 ,fire will cause ,wood to move so as to take its figure1 to wit1 the figure of ,fire1 that is1 to change its own figurative motions into the motions of ,fire3 and this latter kind of moving or working is found in digestion2 for the regular digestive motions do turn all food received from its own nature or figure1 into the nourishment1 figure1 or nature of the body1 as into flesh1 blood1 bones1 and the like4 ,but when several parts of ,matter meet or joyn with equal force and power1 then their several natural motions are either quite altered1 or partly mixt3 ,as for example2 some received things not agreeing with the natural constitution of the body1 the corporeal motions of the received1 and those of the receiver1 do dispute or oppose each other3 for the motions of the received1 not willing to change their nature conformable to the desire of the digestive motions1 do resist1 and then a ,war begins1 whereby the body suffers most2 for it causes either a sickness in the stomack1 or a pain in the head1 or in the heart1 or in the bowels1 or the like3 ,nay1 if the received food gets an absolute victory1 it dissolves and alters oftentimes the whole body1 it self remaining entire and unaltered1 as is evident in those that die of surfeits4 ,but most commonly these strifes and quarrels1 if violent1 do alter and dissolve each others forms or natures4 ,and many times it is not the fault of the ,received1 but of the ,receiver2 as for example1 when the digestive and transforming motions are either irregular1 or weak2 for they being too weak1 or too few1 the meat or food received is digested onely by halves2 and being irregular1 it causes that which we call corruption4 ,but it may be observed1 that the ,received food is either agreeable1 or disagreeable1 to the ,receiver2 if agreeable1 then there is a united consent of ,parts1 to act regularly and perfectly in digestion2 if disagreeable1 then the ,received acts to the ,ruine1 that is1 to the alteration or dissolution of the ,nature of the ,receiver2 but if it be neutral1 that is1 neither perfectly agreeable1 nor perfectly disagreeable1 but between both1 then the receiver1 or rather the digestive ,motions of the receiver1 use a double strength to alter and transform the received4 ,but you may ask me1 ,madam1 what the reason is1 that many things received1 after they are dissolved into small parts1 those parts will keep their former colour and savour8 ,i answer2 ,the cause is1 that either the retentive ,motions in the ,parts of the received1 are too strong for the digestive and alterative ,motions of the receiver1 or perchance1 this colour and savour is so proper to them1 as not to be transchanged3 but you must observe1 that those digestive1 alterative and transchanging motions1 do not act or move all after one and the same manner2 for some do dissolve the natural figure of the received1 some disperse its dissolved parts into the parts of the body1 some place the dispersed parts fitly and properly for the use1 benefit1 and consistence of the body2 for there is so much variety in this one act of digestion1 as no man is able to conceive2 and if there be such variety in one ,particular natural action1 what variety will there not be in all ,nature8 ,wherefore1 it is not1 as ,i mentioned in the beginning1 either ,ferment1 or ,heat1 or any other thing1 that causes digestion2 for if all the constitution and nature of our body was grounded or did depend upon ,ferment1 then ,brewers and ,bakers1 and those that deal with ,ferments1 would be the best ,physicians4 ,but ,i would fain know the cause which makes ,ferment8 ,you may say1 saltness1 and sowreness4 ,but then ,i ask1 ,from whence comes saltness and sowreness8 ,you may say1 ,from the ,ferment4 ,but then ,i shall be as wise as before4 ,the best way1 perhaps1 may be to say1 with your ,author1 that ,ferment is a ,primitive ,cause1 and a beginning or ,principle of other things1 and it self proceeds from nothing4 ,but then it is beyond my imagination1 how that can be a ,principle of material things1 which it self is nothing2 that is1 neither a substance1 nor an accident4 ,good ,lord6 what a stir do men make about nothing6 ,i am amazed to see their strange ,fancies and ,conceptions vented for the ,truest ,reasons3 ,wherefore ,i will return to my simple opinion2 and as ,i cannot conceive any thing that is beyond ,matter1 or a ,body2 so ,i believe1 according to my reason1 that there is not any part in ,nature1 be it never so subtil or small1 but is a self-moving substance1 or endued with self-motion2 and according to the regularity and irregularity of these motions1 all natural effects are produced1 either perfect1 or imperfect2 timely births1 or untimely and monstrous births2 death1 health1 and diseases1 good and ill dispositions1 natural and extravagant ,appetites and ,passions1 7,i say natural1 that is1 according to the nature of their figures27 ,sympathy and ,antipathy1 ,peace and ,war1 ,rational and ,phantastical opinions4 ,nevertheless1 all these motions1 whether regular or irregular1 are natural2 for regularity and irregularity hath but a respect to particulars1 and to our conceptions1 because those motions which move not after the ordinary1 common or usual way or manner1 we call ,irregular4 ,but the curiosity and variety in ,nature is unconceiveable by any particular ,creature2 and so leaving it1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxx4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author says1#a it is an ancient ,truth1 ,that whatsoever things1 meats being digested and cast out by vomit1 are of a sowre taste and smell1 yea1 although they were seasoned with much sugar4 ,but ,i do not assent to this opinion2 for ,i think that some ,vomits have no more taste then pure ,water hath4 ,neither am ,i of his mind1 ,that ,digestion is hastened by sharpness or tartness3 ,for do but try it by one simple experiment2 take any kind of flesh-meat1 boyl or stew it with ,vinegar1 or sowre wine1 or with much salt2 and you will find1 that it doth require a longer time1 or rather more motions to dissolve1 then if you boyl it in fair water1 without such ingredients as are sowre1 sharp1 or salt2 also if you do but observe1 you will find the dregs more sandy1 stony and hard1 being drest with much salt1 and sharp wine1 or vinegar1 then when they are not mixt with such contracting and fixing ,ingredients4 ,wherefore1 if the ,ferment of the stomack hath such a restringent and contracting quality1 certainly digestions will be but slow and unprofitable2 but ,nature requires expulsion as much as attraction1 and dilation as much as contraction1 and digestion is a kind of dilation4 ,wherefore1 in my judgment2 contracting tartness and sharpness doth rather hinder digestion then further it4 ,next ,i perceive1 your ,author inclines to the opinion1 ,that ,choler is not made by meat3#b ,but ,i would ask him1 whether any humor be made of meat1 or whether blood1 flesh1 c4 are made and nourished by meat8 ,if they be not1 then my answer is1 ,that we eat to no purpose2 but if they be1 then ,choler is made so too4 ,but if he says1 ,that some are made1 and some not2 then ,i would ask1 what that humor is made of1 that is not made by meat or food received into the body8 ,but we find that humors1 blood1 flesh1 c4 will be sometimes more1 sometimes less1 according either to feeding1 or to digestion1 which digestion is a contribution of food to every several part of the body for its nourishment2 and when there is a decay of those parts1 then it is caused either by fasting1 or by irregular digestion1 or by extraordinary evacuation1 or by distempered matter1 c4 all which1 causes sickness1 paleness1 leanness1 weakness1 and the like4 ,again3 your ,author is against the opinion of the ,schools1 ,that the ,gall is a receptacle of superfluous humors and dregs3 for he says1 it has rather the constitution of a necessary and vital bowel1 and is the balsom of the liver and blood4 ,truly1 it may be so1 for any thing ,i know1 or it may be not2 for your ,author could but guess1 not assuredly know1 unless he had been in a man as big as the ,whale in whose belly ,jonas was three days1 and had observed the interior parts and motions of every part for three years time1 and yet he might perchance have been as ignorant at the coming forth1 as if he never had been there2 for ,natures actions are not onely curious1 but very various2 and not onely various1 but very obscure2 in so much1 as the most ingenious ,artists cannot trace her ways1 or imitate her actions2 for ,art being but a ,creature1 can do or know no more then a ,creature2 and although she is an ingenious ,creature1 which can and hath found out some things profitable and useful for the life of others1 yet she is but a handmaid to ,nature1 and not her ,mistress2 which your ,author1 in my opinion1 too rashly affirms1 when he says1#c ,that the ,art of ,chymistry is not onely the ,chambermaid and emulating ,ape1 but now and then the ,mistress of ,nature3 ,for ,art is an effect of ,nature1 and to prefer the effect before the cause1 is absurd4 ,but concerning ,chymistry1 ,i have spoken in another place2 ,i'le return to my former ,discourse3 and ,i wonder much why your ,author is so opposite to the ,schools1 concerning the doctrine of the ,gall's being a receptacle for superfluities and dregs2 for ,i think there is not any ,creature that has not places or receptacles for superfluous matter1 such as we call dregs2 for even the purest and hardest ,mineral1 as ,gold1 has its dross1 although in a less proportion then some other ,creatures2 nay1 ,i am perswaded1 that even ,light1 which your ,author doth so much worship1 may have some superfluous matter1 which may be named dregs2 and since ,nature has made parts in all ,creatures to receive and discharge superfluous matter1 7which receiving and discharging is nothing else but a joyning and dividing of parts to and from parts17 why may not the ,gall be as well for that use as any other part8 ,but ,i pray mistake me not1 when ,i say superfluous matter or dregs2 for ,i understand by it1 that which is not useful to the nourishment or consistence of such or such a ,creature2 but to speak properly1 there is neither superfluity of matter nor dregs in ,nature4 ,moreover1 your ,author mentions a six-fold digestion1 and makes every digestion to be performed by inbreathing or inspiration2 ,for in the first digestion1 he says1 ,the spleen doth inspire a sowre ,ferment into the ,meat3 ,in the second1 ,the ,gall doth inspire a ferment1 or fermental blas into the slender entrails3 ,in the third1 ,the ,liver doth inspire a bloody ferment into the veins of the ,mensentery1 c4 ,i answer1 first1 ,i am confident ,nature has more ways then to work onely by ,inspirations1 not onely in ,general1 but in every ,particular4 ,next1 ,i believe there are not onely six1 but many more digestions in an animal ,creature2 for not onely every sort of food1 but every bit that is eaten1 may require a several digestion1 and every several part of the body works either to expel1 or preserve1 or for both2 so that there are numerous several ,motions in every ,creature1 and many changes of motions in each particular part2 but ,nature is in them all4 ,and so leaving her1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,of a ,six-fold digestion4 #b ,see ,the passive deceiving of the ,schools1 the humorists1 c4 #a4 #c ,ch4 ,heat doth not digest efficiently4 ,,xxxi4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author1 in opposition to the ,schools1 endeavouring to prove that there are no humors in an animal body1 except blood1 proves many humors in himself4 ,but ,i can see no reason1 why ,nature should not make several humors1 as well as several ,elements1 ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 ,animals1 and other ,creatures2 and that in several parts of the body1 and many several ways2 for to mention but one sort of other ,creatures1 viz4 ,vegetables1 they are1 as we see1 not onely produced many several ways1 but in many several grounds2 either by sowing1 setting1 or grafting1 either in clayie1 limy1 sandy1 chalky1 dry1 or wet grounds3 ,and why may not several humors be produced as well of other ,creatures and parts1 as others are produced of them8 for all parts of ,nature are produced one from another1 as being all of one and the same ,matter1 onely the variation of corporeal motions makes all the difference and variety between them1 which variety of motions is impossible to be known by any particular ,creature2 for ,nature can do more then any ,creature can conceive4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i should not be of such a mind1 as to oppose the ,schools herein so eagerly as your ,author doth2 but artificial actions make men to have erroneous opinions of the actions of ,nature1 judging them all according to the rule and measure of ,art1 when as ,art oft deludes men under the cover of truth1 and makes them many times believe falshood for truth2 for ,nature is pleased with variety1 and so doth make numerous absurdities1 doubts1 opinions1 disputations1 objections1 and the like4 ,moreover1 your ,author is as much against the radical moisture1 as he is against the four humors2 saying1 that according to this opinion of the ,schools1 a fat belly1 through much grease affording more fuel to the radical moisture1 must of necessity live longer4 ,but this1 in my opinion1 is onely a wilful mistake2 for ,i am confident1 that the ,schools do not understand radical moisture to be gross1 fat radical oyl1 but a thin oylie substance4 ,neither do they believe radical heat to be a burning1 fiery and consuming heat1 but such a degree of natural heat1 as is comfortable1 nourishing1 refreshing1 and proper for the life of the animal ,creature3 ,wherefore radical heat and moisture doth not onely consist in the ,grease of the body2 for a lean body may have as much1 and some of them more ,radical moisture1 then fat bodies4 ,but your ,author instead of this radical moisture1 makes a nourishable moisture1 onely1 as ,i suppose1 out of a mind to contradict the ,schools2 when as ,i do not perceive1 that the ,schools mean by ,radical moisture1 any other then a nourishable moisture1 and therefore this distinction is needless4 ,lastly1 he condemns the ,schools1 for making an affinity betwixt the bowels and the brain4 ,but he might as will condemn ,politicians1 for saying there is an affinity betwixt ,governors and ,subjects1 or betwixt command and obedience2 but as the actions of ,particulars1 even from the meanest in a ,commonwealth1 may chance to make a ,publick disturbance1 so likewise in the ,common-wealth of the body1 one single action in a particular part may cause a disturbance of the whole ,body1 nay1 a total ruine and dissolution of the composed2 which dissolution is called ,death2 and yet these causes are neither ,light1 nor ,blas1 nor ,gas1 no more then men are shining ,suns1 or flaming ,torches1 or blazing ,meteors1 or azure ,skies4 ,wherefore leaving your ,author to his contradicting humor1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxxii4 ,,madam1 ,i do verily believe1 with the ,schools1 the ,purging of the ,brain1 against your ,author2#a ,for ,i know no reason1 why all the parts of a man's body should not stand in need of evacuation and ,purging1 as well as some4 ',tis true1 if the substance or nourishment received were all useful1 and onely enough for the maintenance1 subsistance and continuance of the ,creature1 and no more1 then there would be no need of such sort of evacuation2 but ,i believe the corporeal self-motions in a body1 discharge the superfluous matter out of every part of the body1 if the motions of the superfluous matter be not too strong1 and over-power the motions in the parts of the body2 but some parts do produce more superfluities then others1 by reason their property is more to dilate1 then to contract1 and more to attract1 then to retain or fix2 which parts are the brain1 stomack1 bowels1 bladder1 gall1 and the like3 wherefore1 as there is nourishment in all parts of the body1 so there are also excrements in all parts1 for there is no nourishment without excrement4 ,next your ,author says1 ,that the nourishment of the solid parts is made with the transmutation of the whole venal blood into nourishment1 without a separation of the pure from the impure4 ,but ,i pray give me leave to ask1 ,madam1 whether the solid ,parts are not ,instruments for the nourishment of the ,venal blood8 ,truly1 ,i cannot conceive1 how blood should be nourished1 wanting those solid parts1 and their particular motions and imployments4 ,again3 his opinion is1 ,that the brain is nourished by a few and slender veins2 neither doth a passage or channel appear whereby a moist excrement may derive1 or a vapour enter4 ,and by reason of the want of such a passage1 in another place#b he is pleased to affirm1 ,that nothing can fume up from the stomack into the brain1 and therefore ,wine doth not make drunk with fuming from the stomach into the head1 but the ,winie spirit is immediately snatched into the arteries out of the stomach without digestion1 and so into the head1 and there breeds a confusion4 ,first1 ,i am not of the opinion1 that all nourishment comes from the veins1 or from one particular part of the body1 no more do ,excrements2 neither do ,i believe that every passage in the body is visible to ,anatomists1 for ,natures works are too curious and intricate for any particular ,creature to find them out1 which is the cause that ,anatomists and ,chymists are so oft mistaken in natural causes and effects2 for certainly1 they sometimes believe great ,errors for great ,truths4 ,next1 as for ,drunkenness1 ,i believe that many1 who drink much ,wine1 are drunk before such time as the ,wine spirit can get into the ,arteries2 but if there be ,pores to the ,brain1 as it is most probable1 the spirit of ,wine may more easily ascend and enter those ,pores1 then the ,pores of the ,arteries1 or the ,mouth-veins1 and so make a circular journey to the ,head4 ,but as for ,excrements1 whereof ,i spake in the beginning1 as they are made several manners or ways1 and in several parts of the body1 so they are also discharged several ways from several parts1 and several ways from each particular part1 indeed so many several ways and manners1 as would puzzle the wisest man in the world1 nay your ,authors ,interior keeper of the ,brain1 to find them out4 ,wherefore1 to conclude1 he is the best ,physician1 that can tell how to discharge superfluity1 and to retain useful nourishments2 or to restore by the application of proper ,medicines1 decaying parts1 or to put in order ,irregular motions2 and not those that have ,irregular opinions of ,immaterial causes3 ,to which1 ,i leave them1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,ch4 ,call'd ,the ,erring ,watchman1 or ,wandring ,keeper4 #b ,ch4 call'd ,the ,spirit of ,life4 ,,xxxiii4 ,,madam1 ,i do not approve of your ,authors ,doctrine1 forbidding ,phlebotomy or blood-letting in ,fevers1 opposite to the received ,practice of the ,schools2 his reason is1 that he believes there can be no corruption in the blood4 ,corrupted blood1 says he1#a cannot be in the veins1 neither doth a state of ill juice consist in the veins2 for ,gangrenes do teach1 that nothing of ,putrified matter can long persist without a further contagion of it self4 ,also he says1 ,that the blood of the ,veins is no otherwise distinguished by its several colours and signs1 then as wine is troubled when the vine flourisheth4 ,to which ,i answer1 first1 ,that ,i can see no reason why there should not be as well corrupt blood1 or an ill state of juice in the veins1 as ill humors in the body4 ,perchance he will say1 ,there is no corruption in the body4 ,but ,ulcers do teach the contrary4 ,he may reply1 ,ulcers are not parts of the body4 ,i answer1 ',tis true2 but yet they are evil ,inhabitants in the body1 and the like may be in the ,veins4 ,but surely some men may have corrupted parts of their bodies1 and yet live a great while2 witness ,ulcers in the ,lungs1 and other parts4 ,but your ,author may say1 ,when a part of the body is corrupted1 it is no longer an animal ,part4 ,i grant it3 but yet1 as ,i said1 that transformed part may remain in the body some time without destruction of the whole body2 and so likewise1 when some of the blood1 is transchanged from being blood1 so as not to be capable to be reduced again1 it may nevertheless remain in the veins without definition of the veins1 or of the whole body3 ,neither do ,i conceive any reason1 why corrupt blood should ,gangrene in the veins1 and infect the adjoyning parts more then corrupted lungs do4 ,next1 as for the comparison of the various colours and signs of the blood1 with ,wine being troubled when the ,vine is flourishing2 ,i answer1 ,that it doth not prove any thing2 for we speak of such colours1 as are signs of corrupted1 and not such as are signs of troubled blood3 ,besides1 it is an unlike comparison2 for though ,wine may become thick by much fermentation1 yet it doth not turn into water1 as blood in some sick and diseased persons will do4 ,but corrupted blood may be1 not onely in the veins of sick1 but also of healthy persons2 and the story says1 that ,seneca1 when his veins were cut1 they would not bleed1 although in a hot ,bath1 by reason that which was in the veins1 was rather like a white jelly1 then blood1 and yet he was healthy1 though old2 which proves1 that it is not necessary for the blood to be so pure and fluid as your ,author will have it4 ,the truth is1 the more fluid the blood is1 the weaker it is2 like balsam1 the more gummy it is1 the stronger it is3 but veins1 which are the mouth1 to receive or suck in juices1 as also the stomack which digests the meat that after is turned into blood1 may be defective either through weakness1 superfluity1 obstruction1 corruption1 or evil and hurtful diet1 or through the disorders of other particular parts1 which may disturb all the parts in general1 as skilful ,physicians have observed1 and therefore apply remedies accordingly2 for if the defect proceeds from weakness1 they give strengthening remedies2 if from superfluities1 they give evacuating remedies2 if from evil diets1 they prescribe such a course of diet as shall be beneficial1 and conducing for the restoring of health to the whole body4 ,but your ,author1 as ,i perceive1 believes the blood to be the chief vital part of the body2 which surely it is not3 for if it were1 the least disturbance of the blood would endanger the life of the whole body1 and the least diminution would cause a total dissolution of that animal ,creature which has blood3 ,not but that blood is as necessary as breath for respiration1 and food for nourishment of the body2 but too much blood is as dangerous to the life of the animal body1 as too great a piece of food1 which cannot be swallowed down1 but doth stick in the throat1 and stop the breath1 or so much quantity as cannot be digested1 for too great a fulness or abounding makes a stoppage of the blood1 or which is worse1 causes the veins to break1 and an evil digestion1 makes a corruption1 or at least such disorder as to indanger the whole animal ,figure4 ,but some veins breed more blood1 and some less1 and some better1 and some worse blood1 some hotter1 and some colder1 some grosser1 and some purer1 some thicker1 and some thinner2 and some veins breed rather an evil juice or corrupt matter then pure blood2 the truth is1 blood is bred somewhat after the manner of ,excrements1 for the veins are somewhat like the guts1 wherein the excrements are digested4 ,but you will say1 ,a man may live without excrements1 but not without blood4 ,i answer3 a man can live no more without excrements and excremental humors1 then he can without blood3 but yet ,i am not of your ,authors mind1 that bleeding and purging are destructive2 for superfluities are as dangerous as scarcities1 nay more2 like as an house filled with rubbish is in more danger to sink or fall1 then that which is empty2 and when a house is on fire1 it is wisdom to take out the ,moveables1 but a folly to let them increase the flame4 ,but your ,author says1 ,blood-letting takes not onely away the bad1 but also the good blood1 by which it diminishes and impairs much the strength of the body4 ,i will answer by way of question1 ,whether in ,war men would not venture the loss of some few friends1 to gain the victory1 or save the whole body of the ,army3 or whether the destroying of the enemies ,army be not more advantageous1 then the loss of some few friends8 ,for although some good blood may issue out with the bad1 yet the veins have more time1 room1 and some more power to get friendly juices from the several parts of the body1 which will be more obedient1 trusty1 and true to the life and service of the whole body4 ,but neither ,fevers1 nor any other distempers1 will be more afraid of your ,authors words1 ,stones1 ,spirits1 as also ,rings1 ,beads1 ,bracelets1 and the like toys1 fitter for ,children to play withal1 then for ,physicians to use2 then an ,army of men will be of their enemies ,colours1 ,ensigns1 ,feathers1 ,scarfs1 and the like2 knowing it must be ,swords1 ,pistols1 ,guns1 ,powder and ,bullets1 that must do the business to destroy the enemy1 and to gain the victory3 ,wherefore in ,diseases it must be ,bleeding1 ,purging1 ,vomiting1 using of ,clysters1 and the like1 if any good shall be done4 ',tis true1 they must well be ordered1 otherwise they will do more hurt then good2 for ,diseases are like ,enemies1 which sometimes take away our ,armes for their own uses4 ,but your ,author says again1 ,that the ,matter of a ,fever floats not in the veins1 nor sits nigh the heart4 ,i answer3 ,there are several sorts of ,fevers2 for all ,fevers are not produced after one and the same manner1 or from one and the same cause1 as is very well known to wise and experienced ,physicians2 but although some ,fevers are not in the blood1 yet that doth not prove1 that the blood is never in a ,fever2 for sometimes the blood is in a ,fever1 and not the solid parts2 and sometimes the fluid and moveable humors1 and not the blood1 or solid parts2 and sometimes the solid parts1 and not the blood1 nor the liquid and moveable humors2 and sometimes they are all in a ,fever2 and sometimes onely the radical parts1 and neither the blood1 humors1 nor solid parts3 and this last kind of ,fever1 which is a hectick ,fever1 in my opinion1 is incureable2 but the others may be cureable1 if there be not too many varieties of distempers1 or irregular motions4 ,and as for a ,fever in the solid parts1 ,letting of blood1 and taking away the humor1 may cure it2 for the veins being empty1 suck the heat out of the solid parts1 which solid parts cannot draw out a distempered heat in the veins1 and the opening of the veins gives vent to some of the interior heat to issue forth3 ,wherefore it is very requisite1 that in all sorts of ,fevers1 except ,hectick-,fevers1 blood-letting should be used1 not onely once1 but often2 for 'tis better to live with a little blood1 and a little strength1 which will soon be recovered1 then to die with too much1 or too hot and distempered blood4 ,also ,purging1 but especially ,vomiting is very good2 for if the humors be in a ,feaver1 they may infect the vital parts1 as also the blood2 but if they be not in a ,fever1 yet the solid parts or blood may do the same1 and so make the contagion greater2 for the humors are as the moveables in a house1 which ought to be cast out if either they or the house should be on fire2 and if a disorder proceeds from the error of a particular part1 then care must be taken to rectifie that part for the health of the whole3 ,wherefore ,physicians use in some cases ,blood-letting1 in some ,purging1 in some ,vomiting1 in some ,bathing1 in some ,sweating1 in some ,cordials1 especially after much evacuation1 in some they prescribe a good diet1 and in some they mix and prescribe partly one and partly the other1 and in some cases they are forced to use all these remedies2 for though great evacuations may cause weakness1 yet they often save the life2 and there is no ,patient1 but had rather lose some strength1 then life2 for life can gather strength again2 but all strong men are not always long lived1 nor all long-lived men very strong2 for many that are but weak1 will live to a very old age4 ,lastly1 concerning what your ,author says1 that there is but one ,choler and ,phlegme in ,nature2 ,i answer1 ,that is more then he knows3 for all that is in ,nature1 is not nor cannot be known by any ,particular ,creature2 and he might say1 as well1 the same of particular ,metals1 as that there is but one sort of ,gold or ,silver1 when as there is great difference in the weight1 purity1 colour1 and gloss1 of several parts of ,gold and ,silver2 ,neither is all ,gold found in one place2 but some is found in ,rocks1 some in ,sand1 some in ,mines1 some in ,stones2 and so ,silver1 some is found in the bowels of the ,earth1 some in the veins of ,stones1 and some in other ,metals1 as ,lead1 and ,iron1 and some in ,coals4 ,and the like may be said of ,choler and ,phlegme2 for they may be several in several places or parts of the body1 and be of different colours1 tastes1 odours1 and degrees of heat or cold1 thinness or thickness1 or the like2 for though there is but one ,matter in ,nature1 yet this onely ,matter by its several actions or motions changes into several figures1 and so makes several sorts of ,creatures1 and different particulars in every sort4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 ,i have delivered unto you my opinion concerning the cure of ,fevers by ,blood-letting3 ,which ,i submit to the correction of your better judgment1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in his ,treatise of ,fevers1 c4 #d4 ,,xxxiv4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is not onely against ,phlebotomy or ,blood-letting1 but against all ,purging ,medicines1 which he condemns to carry a hidden poyson in them1 and to be a cruel and stupid invention4 ,but certainly he shall not have my assent2 for if they be ,poyson1 they are a very beneficial ,poyson2 and ,physical ,purgations1 in my opinion1 are very necessary and profitable for the prolonging of life1 and taking away of diseases1 provided they be proper for those diseases in which they are used2 and so is ,phlebotomy1 ,vomits1 and the like3 but ,medicines are often wrong applyed1 and many times the disease is so various1 that it is as hard for a ,physician to hit right with several ,medicines1 as for a ,gunner or ,shooter to kill with ,powder and small ,shot a ,bird flying in the ,air2 not that it is not possible to be done1 but it is not ordinary1 or frequent3 neither doth the fault onely lie in the ,gun1 ,powder1 or ,shot1 but in the swiftness of the flight of the ,bird1 or in the various motion of the air1 or in a hidden wind1 or mist1 or the like2 for the same ,gunner may perhaps easily kill a ,bird sitting in a bush1 or hopping upon the ground4 ,the like may be said of ,diseases1 ,physicians1 and ,medicines2 for some diseases have such hidden alterations1 by the sudden changes of motions1 that a wise ,physician will not1 nor cannot venture to apply so many several medicines so suddenly as the alteration requires2 and shall therefore ,physicians be condemned8 and not onely condemned for what cannot be helped by reason of the variety of irregular motions1 but what cannot be helped in ,nature8 ,for some diseases are so deadly1 as no art can cure them1 when as otherwise ,physicians with good and proper medicines1 have1 and do as yet rescue more people from death1 then the ,laws do from ruine4 ,nay1 ,i have known many that have been great enemies to ,physick1 die in the flower of their age1 when as others which used themselves to ,physick1 have lived a very long time4 ,but you may say1 ,country-people and ,labourers1 take little or no ,physick1 and yet grow most commonly old1 whereas on the contrary1 ,great and rich ,persons take much ,physick1 and do not live so long as the common sort of men doth4 ,i answer3 ,it is to be observed1 first1 that there are more ,commons1 then ,nobles1 or ,great and rich persons2 and there is not so much notice taken of the death of a mean1 as of a noble1 great1 or rich person2 so that for want of information or knowledg1 one may easily be deceived in the number of each sort of persons4 ,next1 the ,vulgar sort use laborious exercises1 and spare diet2 when as noble and rich persons are most commonly lazie and luxurious1 which breeds superfluities of humors1 and these again breed many distempers3 ,for example1 you shall find few poor men troubled with the ,gout1 ,stone1 ,pox1 and the like diseases1 nor their ,children with ,rickets2 for all this cometh by luxury1 and no doubt but all other diseases are sooner bred with luxury1 then temperance2 but whatsoever is superfluous1 may1 if not be taken away1 yet mediated with lenitive and laxative medicines4 ,but as for ,physicians1 surely never age knew any better1 in my opinion1 then this present1 and yet most of them follow the rules of the ,schools1 which are such as have been grounded upon ,reason1 ,practice1 and ,experience1 for many ages3 ,wherefore those that will wander from the ,schools1 and follow new and unknown ways1 are1 in my opinion1 not ,orthodoxes1 but ,hereticks in the ,art of ,physick4 ,but to return to your ,author1 give me leave1 ,madam1 to consider what his opinions are concerning the ,purging of ,choler2 ,come on1 says he to the ,schools1#a ,why doth that1 your ,choler following with so swift an efflux1 stink so horribly1 which but for one quarter of an hour before did not stink8 ,to which it may be answered1 ,that though humors may not stink in themselves1 yet the excrements mixt with the humors may stink2 also the very passing thorow the excrements will cause a strong savour4 ,but your ,author thinks1 ,that by passing through so suddenly1 the humors cannot borrow such a smell of stinking dung from the ,intestines4 ,truly1 'tis easily said1 but hardly proved1 and the contrary is manifest by putting clear1 pure water into a stinking vessel1 which straightway is corrupted with an ill smell4 ,he talks also of ,vitriol dissolved in ,wine1 which if it be taken1 presently provokes vomit2 but if after drinking it1 any one shall drink thereupon a draught of ,ale or ,beer1 or ,water1 c4 he indeed shall suffer many stools1 yet wholly without stink4 ,i answer3 ,this expresses ,vitriol to be more poysonous1 by taking away the natural savour of the bowels1 then ,scammony1 ,coloquintida1 ,manna1 ,cassia1 ,sena1 ,rhubarb1 c4 to all which your ,author is a great enemy2 and it is well known to experienced ,physicians1 that ,medicines prepared by the art of fire are more poysonous and dangerous then natural drugs2 nay1 ,i dare say1 that many ,chymical ,medicines1 which are thought to be ,cordials1 and have been given to ,patients for that purpose1 have proved more poysonous then any ,purging ,physick4 ,again your ,author says1 ,it is worthy of ,lamentation1 that ,physicians would have loosening things draw out one humor1 and not another1 by selection or choyce4 ,my answer is1 ,that natural drugs and simples are as wise in their several operations1 as ,chymists in their artificial distillations1 extractions1 sublimations1 and the like2 but it has long been observed by ,physicians1 that one simple will work more upon one part of the body1 then upon another2 the like may be said of humors4 ,but give me leave to tell you1 ,madam1 that if your ,author believes magnetick or attractive cures 7as he doth1 and in whose behalf he makes very long discourses7 he doth in this opinion contradict himself4 ,he may say1 perhaps1 ,there is no such thing as what ,physicians name humors4 ,but grant there be none1 yet he cannot deny that there are offensive juices1 or moveable substances made by evil1 as irregular digestions1 which may be troublesom and hurtful to the nature of the body4 ,or perchance he will say1 ,there are such humors1 but they are beneficial and not offensive to the nature of the body4 ,i answer3 ,then he must make an agreement with every part of the body1 not to make more of these humors then is useful for the body4 ,also he mentions some few that took ,purging ,physick1 and died4 ,truly so they might have done without taking it3 but he doth not tell1 how many have died for want of proper and timely ,purges4 ,in truth1 ,madam1 'tis an easie thing to find fault1 but not so easie to mend it4 ,and as for what he speaks of the weighing of those humors and excrements1 which by purging were brought out of some ,princes body1 and how much by the ,schools rules remained1 and of the place which should maintain the remainder2 ,i onely say this1 that all the several sorts of juices1 humors1 or moveable substances in a body1 do not lie in one place1 but are dispersed1 and spread all about and in several parts and places in the body2 so that the several ,laxative medicines do but draw them together1 or open several parts1 that they may have freedom to travel with their chief ,commanders1 which are the ,purging medicines4 ,but your ,author says1 the ,loadstone doth not draw rust4 ,and ,i say1 no more do ,purging drugs draw out pure ,matter3 for it may be as natural for such medicines to draw or work onely upon superfluities1 that is1 corrupted1 or evil-affected humors1 juices or moveable substances1 as for the ,loadstone to draw ,iron2 and so it may be the property of ,purges to draw onely the rust of the body1 and not the pure metal1 which are good humors4 ,but few do consider or observe sufficiently the variety of ,natures actions1 and the motions of particular natural ,creatures1 which is the cause they have no better success in their cures4 ,and so leaving them to a more diligent inquisition and search into ,nature1 and her actions1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,in his ,treatise of ,fevers1 c4 #e4 ,,xxxv4 ,,madam1 ,i find your ,author to be as great an enemy to ,issues1 ,cauteries1 ,clysters1 and the like1 as he is to ,blood-letting and ,purging2 especially to ,issues1 which he counts to be blasphemous against the ,creator1 and blames much the ,schools for prescribing them4 ,but concerning ,blood-letting and ,purging1 ,i have declared my opinion in my former ,letters2 and if you desire my judgment of ,clysters and ,issues1 ,i must needs tell you1 that it is well known these many ages1 that in such diseases which lie in the guts1 and cause pain in the head1 and stop the ureteres1 ,clysters have been very beneficial1 but wise ,physicians do not prescribe them1 unless upon necessity3 ,as for example2 if the disease in the ,guts proceed from cold or wind1 they prescribe a ,sack-,clyster1 with oyl of ,walnuts2 and if the disease in the guts proceed from a sharp or bitter humor1 then they prescribe ,milk1 or ,posset1 sweetned with ,sugar3 the same if the guts be too full of excrements or slime4 ,but in case of diseases in the head or stomack1 they prescribe attractive ,clysters1 to wit1 such as draw down from the upper into the lower parts1 wherein the ,physical drugs are2 and if the guts be too dry1 or dryer then their nature requires1 they prescribe moistening ,clysters1 such as have not onely wetting1 but slimy qualities4 ,and surely ,clysters properly and timely applyed1 are a safe1 speedy1 easie and profitable medicine1 and far more safe then ,chymical ,salts1 ,tartars1 ,spirits1 or the like4 ,next concerning ,issues and ,cauteries1 your ,author1 ,i say1 is so much against them1 as he counts them a blasphemy2 for says he1#a ,i have beheld always an implicite blasphemy in a ,cautery1 whereby they openly accuse the ,creator of insufficiency in framing the emunctories2 for ,i have bidden above a thousand ,issues to be filled up with flesh4 ,also1 ,that which ,god hath made whole and entire1 that it might be very good1 seems to the ,schools1 that it should be better if it be kept wounded4 ,truly1 ,madam1 in my opinion1 it is no blasphemy at all1 neither directly nor indirectly1 to make ,issues1 but a meer superstition to believe the contrary1 viz4 that they are blasphemy1 and a great folly not to make them when need requires it to the preservation of ones health4 ,god has made our body whole and intire1 says your ,author3 by which he will prove that no holes must be made in the body to let out excrementious matter1 and therefore he thinks that body to be whole and intire which is without an ,issue1 when as yet our bodies have numerous issues1 which are the pores of the skin1 to let out sweat2 and therefore if he counts that body not to be whole and intire that has ,issues1 then no humane body is intire4 ,certainly1 no ,artificial ,issue will make the body maimed1 but it will nevertheless continue whole and intire although it has ,issues4 ,he says it is ,blasphemy2 ,but how will he prove it8 ,surely not by the ,scripture2 and if not by the ,scripture1 then it is a blasphemy according to his own brain and fancy4 ',tis true1 ,god gave no express ,command to make ,issues2 but according to your ,author1 ,god did never create ,diseases1 and so there was no need either to make such ,issues in bodies as to let out distempered ,matter1 or to give any command for them2 but we might as well say1 we must not use any ,physick1 because it is not so natural to man as food1 and serves not for the nourishment of the body1 but onely to keep off1 or drive out diseases3 ,also no stone must be cut1 but man must rather indure torment and death4 ,but setting aside this superstitious doctrine of your ,author1 it is evident enough1 and needs no proof1 that ,cancers1 ,fistulas1 ,wenns1 ,eating-evils1 ,madness1 ,fevers1 ,consumptions1 ,rheumes1 ,pleurisies1 and numerous other diseases1 are not better cured then by ,issues1 or making of wounds1 either by ,lancets1 ,pen-knifes1 ,scissers1 ,rasors1 ,corrosives1 ,causticks1 ,leeches1 or the like4 ,and although your ,author says1 ,that that ,matter which proceeds from1 or out of an ,issue1 is made in the lips of the wound1 and not in the body2 for it cannot possibly drain or draw out any moisture1 either from within or between the skin and the flesh1 having no passages3 ,yet if this were so1 how come ,fistulas1 ,cancers1 and the like diseases1 to have passages from within the body to the exterior parts1 so1 as to make a wound1 out of which much sharp and salt humor issues8 which humor certainly is not made in the lips of the wound1 but in the body3 ,also whence comes the humor that makes the ,gout8 ,for though the swelling and inflammation will sometimes appear exteriously1 yet after some time those tumors and humors retire back into the body from whence they did flow2 but he might as well say that ,pit-falls or ,sluces do not drain ,land from a superfluity of ,water1 as that ,issues do not drain the body of superfluous humors4 ,wherefore ,i am absolutely of opinion1 that the ,practice of the ,schools is the best and wisest ,practice1 as well in making ,issues1 letting blood1 ,purging by ,siege or ,vomits1 as any other means used by them2 for by ,issues ,i have seen many cured1 when no other medicines would do any good with them2 and letting blood1 ,i am confident1 hath rescued more lives1 then the ,universal ,medicine1 could ,chymists find it out1 perchance would do4 ,so also ,clysters and ,vomits1 skilfully applied1 have done great benefits to the life of men2 for every part and member hath its peculiar way to be purged and cleansed2 for example1 ,clysters principally cleanse the ,guts1 ,purges the ,stomack1 ,vomits the ,chest1 ,sneezing the ,head1 ,bleeding the ,veins1 and ,issues drain the whole body of naughty humors3 ,all which remedies1 properly and timely used1 keep the body from being choak'd with superfluities4 ,there are several other ways of cures besides for several diseases1 but ,i leave those to learned and skilful ,physicians1 who know best how and when to use them to the benefit and health of their ,patients1 although your ,author finds much fault with them1 and blames them for suffering men to die miserably2 but ,god has given power to ,nature to make certain dissolutions1 although uncertain diseases1 and uncertain remedies4 ,neither hath she in her power to give ,immortal ,life to particular ,creatures1 for this belongs to ,god alone1 and therefore no ,universal ,medicine will keep out death1 or prolong life further then its thread is spun1 which ,i doubt is but a ,chymra1 and an impossible thing1 by reason there are not onely so many different varieties in several diseases1 but in one and the same disease1 as no ,universal remedy would do any good4 ,but your ,author is much pleased with ,paradoxes1 and ,paradoxes are not certain ,truths3 ,wherefore it is better1 in my judgment1 to follow the old approved and practised way of the ,schools1 grounded upon ,experience and ,reason1 then his ,paradoxical ,opinions4 ,to which ,schools1 as your ,author is a great ,enemy1 so ,i am a great ,friend1 as well as1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble ,servant4 #a ,of ,cauteries4 ,,xxxvi4 ,,madam1 ,i approve well of your ,authors opinion1#a ,that ,drink ought not to be forbidden in ,fevers2 but yet ,i would not allow so much as to drown and oppress the ,patients life1 but onely so much as to refresh and moisten him2 and therefore the best way is to drink little and often4 ,but as for ,wine1 which your ,author commends in ,fevers1 ,i am utterly against it1 unless the ,fever proceed from a cold or crude cause1 otherwise cooling ,ptisans are most beneficial to those that are sick of a continual ,fever1 which for the most part is a general ,fever throughout the whole body1 one part infecting the other1 until they be all infected1 like as in the ,plague4 ,and to let you know the proof of it2 when ,i was once sick beyond the ,seas1 ,i sent for a ,doctor of ,physick who was an ,irish-man3 and hearing of some that knew him1 and his practice1 that he was not successful in his ,cures1 but that his ,patients most commonly died1 ,i asked him what he used to prescribe in such or such diseases8 where amongst the rest1 as ,i remember1 he told me1 ,that he allowed his ,patients to drink ,wine in a ,fever4 ,i thought he was in a great error1 and told him my opinion1 that though ,wine might be profitable1 perhaps1 to some few1 yet for the most part it was very hurtful and destructive1 alledging another famous ,physician in ,france1 ,dr4 ,davison1 who used in continual ,fevers1 to prescribe onely cooling ,ptisan1 made of a little ,barley1 and a great quantity of ,water1 so thin as the ,barley was hardly perceived1 and a spoonfull of syrup of ,limmon put into a quart of the said ,ptisan2 but in case of a ,flux1 he ordered some few seeds of ,pomegranats to be put into it1 and this cold ,ptisan was to be the ,patients onely drink3 ,besides1 once in ,twenty four hours he prescribed a couple of potched ,eggs1 with a little ,verjuice1 and to let the ,patient blood1 if he was dry and hot2 ,i mean dry exteriously1 as from sweat2 and that either often or seldom1 according as occasion was found3 ,also he prescribed two grains of ,laudanum every night1 but neither to give the ,patient meat nor drink two hours before and after3 ,which advice and ,practice of the mentioned ,physician concerning ,fevers1 with several others1 ,i declared to this ,irish ,doctor1 and he observing this rule1 cured many1 and so recovered his lost esteem and repute4 ,but your ,author being all for ,wine1 and against cooling drinks1 or ,julips1 in hot ,fevers1 says1 ,that cooling means are more like to death1 to cessation from motion1 and to defect2 but heat from moderate ,wine is a mean like unto life4 ,to which ,i answer1 first1 ,that cold1 or cooling things1 are as active as hot or heating things2 neither is death more cold then hot1 nor life more hot then cold2 for we see that ,frost is as active and strong as burning heat2 and ,water1 ,air1 and ,earth1 are as full of life1 as ,fire2 and ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,elements1 have life as well as ,animals3 ,but we1 feeling a ,man's flesh cold when he is dissolving from an ,animal1 think death is cold2 and seeing he was hot before the same alteration1 say1 ,life is hot3 ,also finding an animal1 when it is dissolving1 to be without external local ,motion1 we say it is dead2 and when it hath as yet this local motion before its alteration1 we call it alive2 which certainly is not proper4 ,next ,i say1 that a wise ,man when his house is fired1 will fling or squirt water upon it1 to quench it1 and take out all moveables lest they should increase the flame2 likewise he will make vent for the flame to issue forth4 ,but perchance your ,author may say1 that ,fevers are not hot4 ,truly1 in my opinion1 he might say as well that ,fire is cold4 ,again1 he may say1 ,that although the effect be hot1 yet the cause is cold4 ,i answer3 ,that in some diseases1 the effects become so firmly rooted1 and so powerfull1 that they must be more look'd upon then the cause3 for such variety there is in ,nature1 that oftentimes1 that which was now an effect1 turns to be a cause1 and again a cause an effect3 ,for example2 ,a cold cause often produces a hot effect1 and this hot effect becomes again a cause of a cold effect3 ,which variation is not onely a trouble1 but a great obstruction to wise ,physicians2 for ,nature hath more varieties in diseases1 then ,physicians have remedies1 ,and as for drink1 if ,fevers be neither hot1 nor dry1 nor require drink for want of moisture2 then ,i see no reason why drink should be urged1 and those ,physicians blamed that forbid it2 for if thirst proceed from an evil digestion1 drink will rather weaken the stomack2 for heat and driness draw soon away the drink in the stomack1 and putting much into a weak stomack doth rather hurt then good4 ,but if necessity require it1 then ,i approve rather of raw and crude ,water1 then of hot inflaming ,wine4 ,and so taking my leave1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,of ,fevers1 ,ch4 #ab4 ,,xxxvii4 ,,madam1 ,in your ,authors ,treatise of ,fevers1 ,i find one ,chapter#a whose ,inscription is1 ,a ,perfect ,curing of all ,fevers1 wherein he declares the secrets of the ,cures of ,fevers1 consisting all in ,chymical ,medicines4 ,but considering1 that if all ,fevers could be cured by such ,medicines1 then all ,physicians would strive to obtain them2 ,i can hardly believe 7by your ,authors favour7 that any such perfect curing of all ,fevers can be effected1 but that your ,authors prescriptions1 if they should come to the tryal1 might fail as well as any other4 ,likewise he mentions a ,medicine of ,paracelsus1 ,named ,diaceltesson1 or the ,coraline ,secret2 which1 he says1 cures radically the ,gout no less then ,fevers3 ,which if so1 ,i wonder why so many ,great1 ,noble and ,rich ,persons1 groan so much under the pains of the ,gout2 certainly it is not for want of cost to have them prepared1 nor for want of an ingenious and experienced ,chymist2 for this age doth not want skilful workmen in that ,art1 nor worthy and wise ,physicians1 which if they knew such soveraign medicines1 would soon apply them to their ,patients2 but ,i suppose that they finding their effects to be less then the cost and labour bestowed upon them1 forbear to use them4 ,moreover1 he mentions#b another remedy for most diseases1 by him call'd ,driff1 prepared also by the ,art of ,chymistry2 but ,i believe all those remedies will not so often cure1 as fail of cure1 like as the ,sympathetical ,powder2 for if there were such soveraign medicines that did never fail of a successful effect1 certainly men being curious1 inquisitive1 and searching1 would never leave till they had found them out4 ,also amongst ,vegetables1 the herb ,chameleon and ,arsmart are in great request with your ,author2 ,for1 says he1 they by their touching alone1 do presently take away cruel diseases1 or at leastwise ease them4 ,which if so1 ,i wonder that there is not more use made of them1 and they held in greater esteem then they are2 ,also that your ,author doth not declare the vertue of them1 and the manner and way how1 and in what diseases to use them1 for the benefit of his neighbour1 to which end1 he says1 all his labours and actions are directed8 ,but again1 your ,author confirms1 as an ,eye-witness1 ,that the bone of the arm of a ,toad presently has taken away the ,tooth-ach at the first co-touching4 ,which remedy1 if it was constant1 few1 in my opinion1 would suffer such cruel pains1 and cause their teeth to be drawn out1 especially if sound4 ,likewise of the mineral ,electrum or ,amber of ,paracelsus1 he affirms#c to have seen1 that hung about the neck1 it has freed those that were persecuted by unclean spirits1 and that many simples have done the like effects2 but surely1 ,madam1 ,i cannot be perswaded that the ,devil should be put away so easily2 for he being a ,spirit1 will not be chased by corporeal means1 but by spiritual1 which is ,faith1 and ,prayer2 and the cure of dispossessing the ,devil belongs to ,divines1 and not to ,natural ,philosophers or ,physicians4 ,but though exterior remedies1 as ,amulets1 ,pomanders1 and the like1 may perform sometimes such effects as to cure or preserve from some diseases1 yet they are not ordinary and constant1 but meerly by chance4 ,but there are more false remedies then true ones1 and if one remedy chance to work successfully with one distempered person1 it may fail of its success applyed to others in the same kind of distemper2 nay1 it may cure perhaps one and the same person of a distemper once1 and in the return of the same disease effect little or nothing2 witness those remedies that are applyed in ,agues1 ,tooth-aches1 and the like1 especially ,amulets2 for one and the same disease in several persons1 or in one and the same person at several times1 may vary and change so often1 and proceed from so different causes1 and be of so different tempers1 and have such different motions1 as one and the same medicine can do no good3 ,and what would the skill of ,physicians be1 if one remedy should cure all diseases8 ,why should they take so much pains in studying the various causes1 motions1 and tempers of diseases1 if one medicine had a general power over all8 ,nay1 for what use should ,god have created such a number of different simples1 ,vegetables1 and ,minerals1 if one could do all the business8 ,lastly1 your ,author rehearses#d some strange examples of ,child-bearing ,women1 who having seen terrible and cruel sights1 as ,executions of ,malefactors1 and dismembring of their bodies1 have brought forth monstrous births1 without heads1 hands1 arms1 leggs1 c4 according to the objects they had seen4 ,i must confess1 ,madam1 that all ,creatures are not always formed perfect2 for ,nature works irregularly sometimes1 wherefore a ,child may be born defective in some member or other1 or have double members instead of one1 and so may other animal ,creatures2 but this is nevertheless natural1 although irregular to us3 but to have a ,child born perfect in the womb1 and the lost member to be taken off there1 and so brought forth defective1 as your ,author mentions1 cannot enter my belief2 neither can your ,author himself give any reason1 but he makes onely a bare relation of it2 for certainly1 if it was true1 that the member was chopt1 rent or pluckt off from the whole body of the ,child1 it could not have been done without a violent shock or motion of the ,mother1 which ,i am confident would never have been able to endure it2 for such a great alteration in her body1 would of necessity1 besides the death of the ,child1 have caused a total dissolution of her own animal parts1 by altering the natural animal motions3 ,but1 as ,i said above1 those births are caused by irregular motions1 and are not frequent and ordinary2 for if upon every strange sight1 or cruel object1 a ,child-bearing-woman should produce such effects1 ,monsters would be more frequent then they are4 ,in short1 ,nature loves variety1 and this is the cause of all strange and unusual natural effects2 and so leaving ,nature to her will and pleasure1 my onely delight and pleasure is to be1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #ad4 #b ,in the ,ch4 named ,butler4 #c ,ch4 ,of the manner of entrance of things darted into the body4 #d ,ch4 ,of things injected into the body4 ,,xxxviii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author reproving the ,schools1 that they forbid ,salt to some diseased persons1 as pernicious to their health3 ,good ,god1 says he1#a how unsavoury are the ,schools1 and how unsavoury do they bid us to be6 ,but ,i suppose the ,schools do not absolutely forbid all diseased persons to abstein from salt1 but onely not to use it excessively1 or too frequently2 for experience proves1 that salt meats have not onely increased1 but caused diseases1 as the ,stone1 the ,gout1 ,sciatica1 ,fistula's1 ,cancers1 sore ,eyes1 sore ,throats1 and the like3 ,i do not say1 that those diseases are always bred with the excess of salt diets2 for diseases of one and the same kind1 may be bred variously2 but this hath been observed1 that whosoever is affected with such diseases1 shall after a salt meal find himself in more pain then before2 wherefore a constant or common salt diet cannot but be hurtful4 ,neither are those persons that feed much on salt meats1 or use strong drinks1 take number for number1 so healthful or long-lived1 as those that are temperate and abstaining4 ,next1 your ,author#b bewails ,the shameful simplicity of those1 that give their ,patients ,leaf-,gold1 ,pearls1 and bruised or powder'd pretious ,stones1 as ,cordials1 in fainting fits1 and other distempers3 ,for1 says he1 they may be dissolved1 but not altered2 wherefore they cannot produce any powerful effect to the health of the ,patient4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i am not of his mind2 for were it that those remedies or cordials could not be transchanged1 yet their vertues may nevertheless be very beneficial to the sick3 ,for example2 a man that is assaulted by enemies1 or by chance is fallen into a deep ,pit1 or is ready to be strangled1 and in all not able to help himself1 yet by the help of another man1 may be rescued and freed from his danger1 and from death1 using such means as are able to release him1 which either by drawing his ,sword against his enemies1 or by throwing a rope down into the ,pit1 and haling him out1 or by cutting the rope by which he hung1 may save him1 and yet neither the man1 nor any of his ,instruments1 as ,sword1 ,rope1 ,knife1 and the like1 need to be transchanged4 ,the like may be said of the aforementioned medicines or remedies2 which if they be not transchangeable1 yet they may nevertheless do such operations1 as by their natural active qualities and proprieties to over-power the irregular motions in the natural parts of the body of the ,patient2 for many diseases proceed more from irregular motions then irregular parts3 and although there is no motion without matter1 yet one and the same matter may have divers and various changes of motions1 and moving parts will either oppose or assist each other without transchanging4 ,and truly1 ,madam1 ,i wonder that your ,author doth condemn such ,cordials made of ,leaf-gold1 ,pearls1 powdered precious ,stones1 or the like1 and yet verily believe1 that ,amber1 ,saphires1 ,emeraulds1 ,beads1 ,bracelets1 c4 outwardly applied or worn1 can cure more then when inwardly taken2 surely1 if this be so1 they cure more by ,faith1 then by ,reason4 ,but it seems your ,author regulates the actions of ,nature to the artificial actions of his ,furnace1 which although sometimes they produce wonderful effects1 yet not such as ,nature doth2 for if they cure one1 they commonly kill ten2 nay1 the best of their ,medicine is so dangerous1 as it ought not to be applied but in desperate cases3 ,wherefore ,wise ,physicians must needs be ,provident and ,cautious when they use them4 ,and so leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,of the disease of the ,stone1 c4 #c4 #b ,ch4 ,of the reason or consideration of diet4 ,,xxxix4 ,,madam1 ,i will not dispute your ,authors opinion concerning the ,plague of ,men1 which he says1#a doth not infect ,beasts1 neither doth the plague of ,beasts infect ,men2 but rather believe it to be so3 for ,i have observed that ,beasts infect onely each other1 to wit1 those of their own kind1 as ,men do infect other ,men4 ,for example3 the ,plague amongst ,horses continues in their own kind1 and so doth the ,plague amongst ,sheep2 and for any thing we know1 there may be a plague amongst ,vegetables1 as well as amongst ,animals1 and they may not onely infect each other but also those ,animals that do feed on those infectious ,vegetables3 so that ,infections may be caused several ways2 either by inbreathing and attracting or sucking in the ,poyson of the ,plague1 or by eating and converting it into the substance of the body2 for some kinds of poyson are so powerful1 as to work onely by way of inbreathing4 ,also some sorts of ,air may be full of infection1 and infect many ,men1 ,beasts1 ,birds1 ,vegetables1 and the like2 for ,infections are variously produced1 ,internally as well as ,externally1 amongst several particular ,creatures2 for as the ,plague may be made internally1 or within the body of a particular ,creature1 without any exterior infection entring from without into the body1 so an external ,infection again may enter many several ways into the body4 ,and thus there be many contagious diseases caused meerly by the internal motions of the body1 as by fright1 terror1 conceit1 fancy1 imagination1 and the like1 and many by the taking of poysonous matter from without into the body2 but all are made by the natural motions or actions of animate matter1 by which all is made that is in ,nature1 and nothing is new1 as ,solomon says2 but what is thought or seems to be new1 is onely the variation of the ,motions of this old ,matter1 which is ,nature4 ,and this is the reason that not every ,age1 ,nation1 or ,creature1 has always the like diseases2 for as all the actions of ,nature vary1 so also do diseases4 ,but to speak of the ,plague1 although ,i am of opinion1 that the ,plague of ,beasts doth not infect ,men1 unless they be eaten2 nor the plague of ,men1 ,beasts2 yet ,magistrates do wisely in some places1 that in the beginning of the plague of ,men1 they command ,dogs and ,cats to be kill'd1 by reason1 as your ,author saith1 ,the skins and flesh of ,brutes may be defiled with our ,plague1 and they may be pestiferous contagions unto us4 ,i will add one thing more1 which doth concern the ,poyson of ,measels1 whereof your ,author is saying1#b ,that it is onely proper to humane kind4 ,what kind of ,measles he means1 ,i know not2 but certainly ,hogs are often affected with that disease1 as is vulgarly known2 but whether they be different diseases in their kinds1 and proceed from different motions1 ,i will let others inquire4 ,and so ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,in the ,plague-grave1 ch4 #ag4 #b ,ch4 ,call'd1 ,the ,lunar ,tribute4 ,,xl4 ,,madam1 ,concerning the disease of the ,stone1 your ,author seems to be of an opinion1 ,that the stone in the ,bladder1 and the stone in the ,kidnies1 are not made after one and the same manner3 ,for1 says he1#a ,the ,bladder and the same ,urine in number procreates a duelech of another condition1 then that which is made in the ,kidney4 ,and truly1 ,madam1 it may be so2 for there are several ways or modes in irregularities1 as well as regularities1 and not every kind is alike1 no not every ,particular1 but there is some difference between them3 ,wherefore1 it may very well be1 that the corporeal motions that make the stone in the ,kidneys1 are not just alike to those that make the stone in the ,bladder2 and as each sort of stone is different1 so their particular causes ought to be different2 but this is to be observed1 that generally all diseases which produce hardness1 are made by contracting1 condensing and retenting motions1 and therefore the remedies of them must be dilating1 rarifying and dissolving4 ,next your ,author says1 ,the ,stone is not bred by heat1 but heat is rather an effect of the stone2 neither is a certain muscilage1 or a slimy1 snivelly ,phlegme the cause or matter of the stone1 but the stone is the cause of the phlegme4 ,but1 in my judgment1 it seems more probable1 that a slimy matter is more proper for a stone to be made of1 then that a stone should make slime1 except it be in its dissolution2 that is1 when the stone1 as in its generation or production it did change from a slimy or liquid substance to a stone by condensing and contracting motions1 doth1 by dilating and rarifying motions1 dissolve again into such a liquid and slimy body4 ,i will not say always1 to wit1 that the stone must needs be resolved into a slimy matter1 but oftentimes it may be so4 ,neither can ,i absolutely affirm that either heat or cold onely is the cause of a stone2 for some may be produced by hot1 and some by cold contractions and densations1 there being as many several sorts of stones as there are of other ,creatures3 ,but this is to be well noted1 that as some sorts of hot contractions do make stones1 so some sorts of hot dilations do dissolve them3 ,the like of cold contractions and dilations4 ,again3 your ,author speaking of the womb wherein the stone is made2 ,every generated thing or being1 says he1 must of necessity have a certain place or womb where it is produced2 for there must needs be places wherein things may be made before they are bred4 ,i answer3 ,as there is not any body without place1 nor any place without body1 so the womb is not the place of the body generated1 neither before nor after its generation1 no more then a man can be said to be in a room when he is not there1 but every body carries its place along with it4 ,moreover1 concerning the voiding of bloody ,urine1 which happens sometimes in the disease of the ,stone1 my opinion is1 ,that it doth not always proceed from the ,stone1 but many times from the breaking or voluntary opening of some ,veins4 ,but as for the cure of the disease of the ,stone your ,author1#b is pleased to affirm1 ,that no disease is incurable1 and so neither the disease of the ,stone1 ,for he himself has cured many of the ,stone to which they had been obedient for some years4 ,indeed1 ,madam1 ,i fear his words are more cheerful then effectual2 however it may be possible1 if the ,kidneys be no ways impaired1 or the ,bladder hurt2 but if there be some such imperfection in either or both1 then it is as much1 in my opinion1 as to say1 ,man can do more then ,nature doth3 ,neither can ,i believe1 that then any of your ,authors ,chymical preparations1 as ,aroph1 ,ludus1 ,alkahest1 and the like1 if they were to be had1 would do any good1 no nor ,daucus1 or wild ,carrot-seed1 if the disease be as yet curable1 will prove an effectual remedy for it1 although your ,author is pleased to relate an example of a man1 to whom it did much good2 for ,i can affirm the contrary by other the like ,examples1 that it never did any good to those that used it2 nor the liquor of the ,birch-tree1 whose venue and efficacy ,i do not believe to be so great as your ,author describes3#c ,but for the stoppage of ,urine1 ,marsh-mallow and oyl of ,almonds1 which he despises1 ,i approve to be good1 and better then any of his ,unknown1 ,chymical ,secrets2 for those ,chymical ,medicines1 as he himself confesses1 are hard to be had1 especially ,alkahest1 which is onely to be obtained by a ,particular favour from ,heaven1 and is rather a supernatural ,gift1 then a natural remedy4 ,but your ,author doth wisely1 to commend such remedies as can never1 or with great difficulty be obtained1 and then to say that no disease is incurable4 ,and so leaving him to his unknown secrets1 and those to them that will use them1 ,i am resolved to adhere to the ,practice of the ,schools1 which ,i am confident will be more beneficial to the health of1 ,madam1 ,your real and faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,of the ,stone1 ch4 #f4 ,see the ch4 called1 ,a ,numero-,critical ,paradox of supplies4 #b ,ch4 #g4 #c ,ch4 #h4 ,,xli4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author speaking of the ,gout1 and of that kind of ,gout which is called ,hereditary1 says1 ,it consists immediately in the ,spirit of ,life4 ,first1 as for that which is called an ,hereditary ,disease1 propagated from ,parents upon their ,children2 my opinion is1 ,that it is nothing else but the same actions of the animate matter1 producing the same effect in the ,child as they did in the ,parent3 ,for example2 the same motions which made the ,gout in the ,parent1 may make the same disease in the ,child2 but every ,child has not his ,parents diseases1 and many ,children have such diseases as their ,parents never had2 neither is any disease tied to a particular ,family by ,generation1 but they proceed from irregular motions1 and are generally in all ,mankind2 and therefore properly there is no such thing as an hereditary propagation of diseases2 for one and the same kind of disease may be made in different persons1 never a kin to one another1 by the like motions2 but because ,children have such a neer relation to their ,parents by ,generation1 if they chance to have the same diseases with their ,parents1 men are apt to conclude it comes by inheritance2 but we may as well say1 that all diseases are hereditary2 for there is not any disease in ,nature but is produced by the actions of ,nature's substance2 and if we receive life and all our bodily substance by ,generation from our ,parents1 we may be said to receive diseases too2 for diseases are inherent in the matter or substance of ,nature1 which every ,creature is a part of1 and are real beings made by the corporeal motions of the animate matter1 although irregular to us2 for as this matter moves1 so is ,life or ,death1 ,sickness or ,health1 and all natural effects2 and we consisting of the same natural matter1 are naturally subject as well to diseases as to health1 according as the ,matter moves4 ,thus all diseases are hereditary in ,nature2 nay1 the ,scripture it self confirms it1 informing us1 that diseases1 as well as death1 are by an hereditary propagation derived from ,adam upon all ,posterity4 ,but as for the ,gout1 your ,authors doctrine is1#a ,that ,life is not a body1 nor proper to a body1 nor the off-spring of corporeal ,proprieties1#b but a meer ,no-thing2 and that the ,spirit of ,life is a real being1 to wit1 the arterial blood resolved by the ,ferment of the heart into salt air1 and enlightned by life1#c and that the ,gout doth immediately consist in this spirit of life4 ,all which how it doth agree1 ,i cannot conceive2 for that a real being should be enlightned by ,nothing1 and be a spirit of ,nothing1 is not imaginable1 nor how the ,gout should inhabit in the spirit of life2 for then it would follow1 that a ,child1 as soon as it is brought forth into the world1 would be troubled with the ,gout1 if it be as natural to him as life1 or have its habitation in the ,spirit of ,life4 ,also your ,author is speaking of an ,appoplexy in the head1 which takes away all sense and motion4 ,but surely1 in my opinion1 it is impossible that all sense and motion should be out of the head2 onely that sense and motion1 which is proper to the head1 and to the nature of that ,creature1 is altered to some other sensitive and rational motions1 which are proper to some other figure2 for there is no part or particle of matter that has not motion and sense4 ,i pray consider1 ,madam1 is there any thing in ,nature that is without motion8 ,perchance you will say1 ,minerals2 but that is proved otherwise2 as for example1 by the sympathetical motion between the ,loadstone and ,iron1 and between the ,needle and the ,north1 as also by the operation of ,mercury1 and several others2 ,wherefore there is no doubt1 but all kinds1 sorts and particulars of ,creatures have their natural motions1 although they are not all visible to us1 but not such motions as are made by ,gas1 or ,blas1 or ,ideas1 c4 but corporeal sensitive and rational motions1 which are the actions of ,natural ,matter4 ,you may say1 ,some are of opinion1 that ,sympathy and ,antipathy are not ,corporeal motions4 ,truly1 whosoever says so1 speaks no reason2 for ,sympathy and ,antipathy are nothing else but the actions of bodies1 and are made in bodies2 the ,sympathy betwixt ,iron and the ,loadstone is in bodies2 the ,sympathy between the ,needle and the ,north is in bodies2 the ,sympathy of the ,magnetic powder is in bodies4 ,the truth is1 there is no motion without a body1 nor no body without motion4 ,neither doth ,sympathy and ,antipathy work at distance by the power of ,immaterial ,spirits1 or rays1 issuing out of their bodies1 but by agreeable or disagreeable corporeal motions2 for if the motions be agreeable1 there is ,sympathy2 if disagreeable1 there is ,antipathy2 and if they be equally found in two bodies1 then there is a mutual ,sympathy or ,antipathy2 but if in one body onely1 and not in the other1 there is but ,sympathy or ,antipathy on one side1 or in one ,creature4 ,lastly1 concerning swoonings or fainting fits1 your ,authors opinion is1 that they proceed from the stomack3 ,which ,i can hardly believe2 for many will swoon upon the sight of some object1 others at a sound1 or report1 others at the smell of some disagreeable odour1 others at the taste of some or other thing that is not agreeable to their nature1 and so forth3 also some will swoon at the apprehension or conceit of something1 and some by a disorder or irregularity of motions in exterior parts4 ,wherefore1 my opinion is1 that swoonings may proceed from any part of the body1 and not onely from the stomack4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i being no ,physicianess may perhaps be in an error1 and therefore ,i will leave this discourse to those that are thorowly learned and practised in this ,art1 and rest satisfied that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble ,servant4 #a ,of the disease of the ,stone1 c4 #i4 #b ,of the subject of inhering of diseases in the point of life4 #c ,of the ,spirit of ,life4 ,,xlii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author#a is inquiring whether some cures of diseases may be effected by bare co-touchings2 and ,i am of his opinion1 they may2 for co-touchings of some exterior objects may cause alterations of some particular motions in some particular parts of matter1 without either transferring their own motions into those parts1 7for that this is impossible1 ,i have heretofore declared7 or without any corporeal departing from their own parts of matter into them1 and alterations may be produced both in the motions and figures of the affected parts3 but these cures are not so frequent as those that are made by the entring of medicines into the diseased parts1 and either expel the malignant matter1 or rectifie the irregular and disordered motions1 or strengthen the weak1 or reduce the straying1 or work any other ways according to the nature and propriety of their own substance1 and the disposition of the distempered parts3 ,nevertheless1 those cures which are performed exteriously1 as to heal inward affects by an outward bare co-touching1 are all made by natural motions in natural substances1 and not by ,non-beings1 substancelesse ,ideas1 or spiritual ,rays2 for those that will cure diseases by ,non-beings1 will effect little or nothing2 for a disease is corporeal or material1 and so must the remedies be1 there being no cure made but by a conflict of the remedy with the disease2 and certainly1 if a non-being fight against a being1 or a corporeal disease1 ,i doubt it will do no great effect2 for the being will be too strong for the non-being3 ,wherefore my constant opinion is1 that all cures whatsoever1 are perfected by the power of corporeal motions1 working upon the affected parts either interiously or exteriously1 either by applying external remedies to external wounds1 or by curing internal distempers1 either by medicines taken internally1 or by bare external co-touchings4 ,and such a remedy1 ,i suppose1 has been that which your ,author speaks of1 a stone of a certain ,irish-man1 which by a meer external contact hath cured all kinds of diseases1 either by touching outwardly the affected parts1 or by licking it but with the tip of the ,tongue1 if the disease was ,internal3 ,but if the vertue of the ,stone was such1 as your ,author describes1 certainly1 what man soever he was that possessed such a jewel1 ,i say1 he was rather of the nature of the ,devil1 then of man1 that would not divulge it to the general benefit of all mankind2 and ,i wonder much1 that your ,author1 who otherwise pretends such extraordinary ,devotion1 ,piety1 and ,religiousness1 as also ,charity1 viz4 that all his works he has written1 are for the benefit of his neighbour1 and to detect the errors of the ,schools meerly for the good of man1 doth yet plead his cause1 saying1 ,that secrets1 as they are most difficultly prepared1 so they ought to remain in secret forever in the possession of the ,privy ,councel1 what ,privy ,counsels he means1 ,i know not2 but certainly some are more difficult to be spoken to1 or any thing to be obtained from1 then the preparation of a ,physical ,arcanum4 ,however1 a general good or benefit ought not to be concealed or kept in privy ,councels1 but to be divulged and publickly made known1 that all sorts of ,people1 of what condition1 degree1 or ,nation soever1 might partake of the general blessing and bounty of ,god4 ,but1 ,madam1 you may be sure1 that many1 who pretend to know ,physical secrets1 most commonly know the least1 as being for the most part of the rank of them that deceive the simple with strange tales which exceed truth2 and to make themselves more authentical1 they use to rail at others1 and to condemn their skill1 onely to magnifie their own3 ,i say1 many1 ,madam1 as ,i have observed1 are of that nature1 especially those1 that have but a superficial knowledg in the ,art of ,physick2 for those that are thorowly learned1 and sufficiently practised in it1 scorn to do the like2 which ,i wish may prosper and thrive by their skill4 ,and so ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble ,servant4 #a ,in the ch4 call'd ,butler4 ,,xliii4 ,,madam1 ,your ,author is pleased to relate a story#a of one that died suddenly1 and being dissected1 there was not the least sign of decay or disorder found in his body4 ,but ,i cannot add to those that wonder1 when no sign of distemper is found in a man's body after he is dead2 because ,i do not believe1 that the subtillest1 learnedst1 and most practised ,anatomist1 can exactly tell all the ,interior ,government or motions1 or can find out all obscure and invisible passages in a mans body2 for concerning the motions1 they are all altered in death1 or rather in the dissolution of the animal figure2 and although the exterior animal figure or shape doth not alter so soon1 yet the animal motions may alter in a moment of time2 which sudden alteration may cause a sudden death1 and so the motions being invisible1 the cause of death cannot be perceived2 for no body can find that which is not to be found1 to wit1 animal motions in a dead man2 for ,nature hath altered these motions from being animal motions to some other kind of motions1 she being as various in dissolutions1 as in productions1 indeed so various1 that her ways cannot be traced or known thorowly and perfectly1 but onely by piece-meals1 as the saying is1 that is1 but partly3 ,wherefore man can onely know that which is visible1 or subject to his senses2 and yet our senses do not always inform us truly1 but the alterations of grosser parts are more easily known1 then the alterations of subtil corporeal motions1 either in general1 or in particular2 neither are the invisible passages to be known in a dead ,carcass1 much less in a living body4 ,but1 ,i pray1 mistake me not1 when ,i say1 that the animal motions are not subject to our exterior senses2 for ,i do not mean all exterior animal motions1 nor all interior animal motions2 for though you do see no interior motion in an animal body1 yet you may feel some1 as the motion of the ,heart1 the motion of the ,pulse1 the motion of the ,lungs1 and the like2 but the most part of the interior animal motions are not subject to our exterior senses2 nay1 no man1 he may be as observing as he will1 can possibly know by his exterior senses all the several and various interior motions in his own body1 nor all the exterior motions of his exterior parts3 and thus it remains still1 that neither the subtillest motions and parts of matter1 nor the obscure passages in several ,creatures1 can be known but by several parts2 for what one part is ignorant of1 another part is knowing1 and what one part is knowing1 another part is ignorant thereof2 so that unless all the ,parts of ,infinite ,matter were joyned into one ,creature1 there can never be in one particular ,creature a perfect knowledg of all things in ,nature4 ,wherefore ,i shall never aspire to any such knowledg1 but be content with that little particular knowledg1 ,nature has been pleased to give me1 the chief of which is1 that ,i know my self1 and especially that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 #a ,ch4 #fa4 called1 ,the ,preface4 ,,xliv4 ,,madam1 ,i perceive you are desirous to know the cause1 ,why a man is more weak at the latter end of a disease then at the beginning1 and is a longer time recovering health1 then loosing health2 as also the reason of relapses and intermissions8 ,first1 as for weakness and strength1 my opinion is1 they are caused by the regular and irregular motions in several parts1 each striving to over-power the other in their conflict2 and when a man recovers from a disease1 although the regular motions have conquered the irregular1 and subdued them to their obedience1 yet they are not so quite obedient as they ought1 which causes weakness3 ,neither do the regular motions use so much force in ,peace1 as in ,war2 for though animate matter cannot lose force1 yet it doth not always use force2 neither can the parts of ,nature act beyond their natural power1 but they do act within their natural power2 neither do they commonly act to the utmost of their power4 ,and as for ,health1 why it is sooner lost then recovered2 ,i answer1 ,that it is easier to make disorders then to rectifie them3 as for example1 in a ,common-wealth1 the ruines of ,war are not so suddenly repaired1 as made4 ,but concerning ,relapses and ,intermissions of diseases1 ,intermissions are like truces or cessations from ,war for a time2 and ,relapses are like new stirs or tumults of ,rebellion2 for ,rebels are not so apt to settle in peace as to renew the war upon slight occasions2 and if the regular motions of the body be stronger1 they reduce them again unto obedience4 ,but diseases are occasioned many several ways2 for some are made by a home ,rebellion1 and others by forreign enemies1 and some by natural and regular dissolutions1 and their cures are as different2 but the chief ,magistrates or ,governors of the animal body1 which are the regular motions of the parts of the body1 want most commonly the assistance of forreign ,parts1 which are ,medicines1 ,diets1 and the like2 and if there be factions amongst these chief ,magistrates1 or motions of the parts of the body1 then the whole body suffers a ruine4 ,but since there would be no variety in ,nature1 nor no difference between ,natures several parts or ,creatures1 if her actions were never different1 but always agreeing and constant1 a war or rebellion in ,nature cannot be avoided3 ,but1 mistake me not1 for ,i do not mean a war or rebellion in the nature or substance of ,matter1 but between the several parts of ,matter1 which are the several ,creatures1 and their several ,motions2 for ,matter being always one and the same in its nature1 has nothing to war withal2 and surely it will not quarrel with its own ,nature4 ,next you desire to know1 that if ,nature be in a ,perpetual motion1 ,whence comes a duration of some things1 and a ,tiredness1 ,weariness1 ,sluggishness1 or ,faintness8 ,i answer1 first1 ,that in some bodies1 the ,retentive motions are stronger then the dissolving motions2 as for example1 ,gold1 and ,quicksilver or ,mercury2 the separating and dissolving motions of ,fire have onely power to melt and rarifie them for a time1 but cannot alter their nature3 so a ,hammer1 or such like instrument1 when used1 may beat ,gold1 and make it thin as a ,cobweb1 or as dust1 but cannot alter its interior nature3 ,but yet this doth not prove it to be either without motion1 or to be altogether unalterable1 and not subject to any dissolution2 but onely that its retentive motions are too strong for the dissolving motions of the ,fire1 which by force work upon the ,gold2 and we might as well say1 that ,sand1 or an ,earthen ,vessel1 or ,glass1 or ,stone1 or any thing else1 is unalterable1 and will last eternally1 if not disturbed4 ,but some of ,natures actions are as industrious to keep their figures1 as others are to dissolve1 or alter them2 and therefore ,retentive motions are more strong and active in some figures1 then dissolving motions are in others1 or producing motions in other ,figures4 ,next1 as for ,tiredness1 or ,faintness of motions1 there is no such thing as tiredness or faintness in ,nature1 for ,nature cannot be tired1 nor grow faint1 or sick1 nor be pained1 nor die1 nor be any ways defective2 for all this is onely caused through the change and variety of the corporeal motions of ,nature1 and her several parts2 neither do irregular motions prove any defect in ,nature1 but a prudence in ,natures actions1 in making varieties and alterations of ,figures2 for without such motions or actions1 there could not be such varieties and alterations in ,nature as there are3 neither is slackness of some motions a defect1 for ,nature is too wise to use her utmost force in her ordinary works2 and though ,nature is infinite1 yet it is not necessary she should use an infinite force and power in any particular act4 ,lastly1 you desire my opinion1 ,whether there be motion in a dead animal ,creature4 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,i have declared heretofore1 that there is no such thing as death in ,nature1 but what is commonly named death1 is but an alteration or change of corporeal motions1 and the death of an animal is nothing else but the dissolving motions of its figure2 for when a man is dying1 the motions which did formerly work to the consistence of his figure do now work to the dissolution of his figure1 and to the production of some other figures1 changing and transforming every part thereof2 but though the figure of that dead animal is dissolved1 yet the parts of that dissolved figure remain still in ,nature although they be infinitely changed1 and will do so eternally1 as long as ,nature lasts by the ,will of ,god2 for nothing can be lost or annihilated in ,nature4 ,and this is all1 ,madam1 that ,i can answer to your questions1 wherein1 ,i hope1 ,i have obeyed your commands1 according to the duty of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,xlv4 ,,madam1 ,i have thus far discharged my duty1 that according to your commands1 ,i have given you my judgment of the works of those four famous ,philosophers of our age1 which you did send me to peruse1 and have withal made reflexions upon some of their opinions in ,natural ,philosophy1 especially those1 wherein ,i did find them dissent from the ,ground and ,principles of my own ,philosophy4 ,and since by your leave ,i am now publishing all those ,letters which ,i have hitherto written to you concerning those aforesaid ,authors1 and their ,works1 ,i am confident ,i shall not escape the censures of their followers2 ,but1 ,i shall desire them1 that they will be pleased to do me this ,justice1 and to examine first my opinions well1 without any partiality or wilful misinterpretation of my sence1 before they pass their censure3 ,next1 ,i desire them to consider1 ,that ,i have no skill in ,school-learning1 and therefore for want of terms of ,art may easily chance to slip1 or at least1 not express my opinions so clearly as my readers expected2 ,however1 ,i have done my endeavour1 and to my sense and reason they seem clear and plain enough1 especially as ,i have expressed them in those ,letters ,i have sent you2 for concerning my other ,work1 called ,philosophical ,opinions1 ,i must confess1 that it might have been done more exactly and perspicuously1 had ,i been better skilled in such words and expressions as are usual in the ,schools of ,philosophers2 and therefore1 if ,i be but capable to learn names and terms of ,art1 7although ,i find my self very untoward to learn1 and do despair of proving a ,scholar7 ,i will yet endeavour to rectifie that work1 and make it more intelligible2 for my greatest ambition is to express my conceptions so1 that my ,readers may understand them3 ,for which ,i would not spare any labour or pains1 but be as industrious as those that gain their living by their work2 and ,i pray to ,god1 that ,nature may give me a capacity to do it4 ,but as for those that will censure my works out of spite and malice1 rather then according to justice1 let them do their worst2 for if ,god do but bless them1 ,i need not to fear the power of ,nature1 much less of a part of ,nature1 as ,man4 ,nay1 if ,i have but your ,ladiships approbation1 it will satisfie me2 for ,i know you are so wise and just in your judgment1 that ,i may safely rely upon it3 ,for which ,i shall constantly and unfeignedly remain as long as ,i live1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships most faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,sect4 ,,iv4 ,i4 ,,madam1 ,i perceive1 you take great delight in the study of ,natural ,philosophy1 since you have not onely sent me some ,authors to peruse1 and give my judgment of their opinions1 but are very studious your self in the reading of ,philosophical ,works3 and truly1 ,i think you cannot spend your time more honourably1 profitably1 and delightfully1 then in the study of ,nature1 as to consider how ,variously1 ,curiously1 and ,wisely1 she acts in her ,creatures2 for if the particular knowledg of a mans self be commendable1 much more is the knowledg of the general actions of ,nature1 which doth lead us to the knowledg of our selves4 ,the truth is1 by the help of ,philosophy our minds are raised above our selves1 into the knowledg of the ,causes of all natural effects4 ,but leaving the commending of this noble study1 you are pleased to desire my opinion of a very difficult and intricate argument in ,natural ,philosophy1 to wit1 of ,generation1 or ,natural ,production4 ,i must beg leave to tell you1 first1 that some 7though foolishly7 believe1 it is not fit for ,women to argue upon so subtil a ,mystery3 ,next1 there have been so many learned and experienced ,philosophers1 ,physicians1 and ,anatomists1 which have treated of this subject1 that it might be thought a great presumption for me1 to argue with them1 having neither the learning nor experience by practice which they had3 ,lastly1 ,there are so many several ways and manners of ,productions in ,nature1 as it is impossible for a single ,creature to know them all3 ,for there are ,infinite variations made by self-motion in ,infinite ,matter1 producing several ,figures1 which are several ,creatures in that same ,matter4 ,but you would fain know1 how ,nature1 which is ,infinite ,matter1 acts by self-motion8 ,truly1 ,madam1 you may as well ask any one part of your body1 how every other part of your body acts1 as to ask me1 who am but a small part of ,infinite ,matter1 how ,nature works4 ,but yet1 ,i cannot say1 that ,nature is so obscure1 as her ,creatures are utterly ignorant2 for as there are two of the outward sensitive organs in animal bodies1 which are more intelligible then the rest1 to wit1 the ,ear1 and the ,eye2 so in ,infinite ,matter1 which is the body of ,nature1 there are two parts1 which are more understanding or knowing then the rest1 to wit1 the ,rational and ,sensitive part of ,infinite ,matter2 for though it be true1 ,that ,nature1 by self-division1 made by self-motion into self-figures1 which are self-parts1 causes a self-obscurity to each part1 motion1 and figure2 nevertheless1 ,nature being infinitely wise and knowing1 its infinite natural wisdom and knowledg is divided amongst those infinite parts of the infinite body3 and the two most intelligible parts1 as ,i said1 are the sensitive and rational parts in ,nature1 which are divided1 being infinite1 into every ,figure or ,creature2 ,i cannot say equally divided1 no more1 then ,i can say1 all creatures are of equal shapes1 sizes1 properties1 strengths1 quantities1 qualities1 constitutions1 semblances1 appetites1 passions1 capacities1 forms1 natures1 and the like2 for ,nature delights in variety1 as humane sense and reason may well perceive3 for seldom any two creatures are just alike1 although of one kind or sort1 but every creature doth vary more or less4 ,wherefore it is not probable1 that the production or generation of all or most ,creatures1 should be after one and the same manner or way1 for else all ,creatures would be just alike without any difference4 ,but this is to be observed1 that though ,nature delights in variety1 yet she doth not delight in confusion1 but1 as it is the propriety of ,nature to work variously1 so she works also wisely2 which is the reason1 that the rational and sensitive parts of ,nature1 which are the designing and architectonical parts1 keep the species of every kind of ,creatures by the way of ,translation in ,generation1 or natural ,production2 for whatsoever is transferred1 works according to the nature of that figure or figures from whence it was transferred1 ,but mistake me not2 for ,i do not mean always according to their exterior ,figure1 but according to their interior ,nature2 for different motions in one and the same parts of matter1 make different figures1 wherefore much more in several parts of matter and changes of motion2 ,but1 as ,i said1 ,translation is the chief means to keep or maintain the species of every kind of ,creatures1 which ,translation in natural production or generation1 is of the purest and subtilest substances1 to wit1 the sensitive and rational1 which are the designing and architectonical parts of ,nature4 ,you may ask me1 ,madam1 what this wise and ingenious ,matter is4 ,i answer3 ,it is so pure1 subtil1 and self-active1 as our humane shares of sense and reason cannot readily or perfectly perceive it2 for by that little part of knowledg that a humane creature hath1 it may more readily perceive the strong action then the purer substance2 for the strongest action of the purest substance is more perceivable then the matter or substance it self2 which is the cause1 that most men are apt to believe the motion1 and to deny the matter1 by reason of its subtilty2 for surely the sensitive and rational matter is so pure and subtil1 as not to be expressed by humane sense and reason4 ,as for the rational matter1 it is so pure1 fine1 and subtil1 that it may be as far beyond lucent matter1 as lucent matter is beyond gross vapours1 or thick clouds2 and the sensitive matter seems not much less pure3 also there is very pure inanimate matter1 but not subtil and active of it self2 for as there are degrees in the animate1 so there are also degrees in the inanimate matter2 so that the purest degree of inanimate matter comes next to the animate1 not in motion1 but in the purity of its own degree2 for it cannot change its nature so1 as to become animate1 yet it may be so pure in its own nature1 as not to be perceptible by our grosser senses4 ,but concerning the two degrees of animate ,matter1 to wit1 the sensitive and rational1 ,i say that the sensitive is much more acute then ,vitriol1 ,aqua-fortis1 ,fire1 or the like2 and the rational much more subtil and active then ,quicksilver1 or ,light1 so as ,i cannot find a comparison fit to express them1 onely that this sensitive and rational self-moving ,matter is the life and soul of ,nature2 ,but by reason this ,matter is not subject to our gross senses1 although our senses are subject to it1 as being made1 subsisting and acting through the power of its actions1 we are not apt to believe it1 no more then a simple ,country-wench will believe1 that ,air is a substance1 if she neither hear1 see1 smell1 taste1 or touch it1 although ,air touches and surrounds her3 ,but yet the effects of this animate matter prove that there is such a matter2 onely1 as ,i said before1 this self-moving matter causing a self-division as well as a general action1 is the cause of a self-obscurity1 which obscurity causes doubts1 disputes1 and inconstancies in humane opinions1 although not so much obscurity1 as to make all ,creatures blind-fold1 for surely there is no ,creature but perceives more or less4 ,but to conclude1 ,the ,rational degree of ,matter is the most intelligible1 and the wisest part of ,nature1 and the ,sensitive is the most laborious and provident part in ,nature1 both which are the ,creators of all ,creatures in ,infinite ,matter2 and if you intend to know more of this ,rational and ,sensitive ,matter1 you may consult my ,book of ,philosophy1 to which ,i refer you4 ,and so taking my leave for the present1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,ii4 ,,madam1 ,i understand by your last1 that you have read the ,book of that most learned and famous ,physician and ,anatomist1 ,dr4 ,harvey1 which treats of ,generation2 and in the reading of it1 you have mark'd several scruples1 which you have framed into several questions concerning that subject1 to which you desire my answer4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i am loth to imbarque my self in this difficult argument1 not onely for the reasons ,i have given you heretofore1 but also that ,i do not find my self able enough to give you such a satisfactory answer as perhaps you do expect4 ,but since your ,commands are so powerful with me1 that ,i can hardly resist them1 and your ,nature so good that you easily pardon any thing that is amiss1 ,i will venture upon it according to the strength of my ,natural ,reason1 and endeavour to give you my opinion as well and as clearly as ,i can4 ,your first question is2 ,whether the action of one or more producers be the onely cause of ,natural ,production or ,generation1 without imparting or transferring any of their own substance or ,matter4 ,i answer3 ,the sole co-action of the ,producers may make a change of exterior forms or figures1 but not produce another ,creature2 for if there were not substance or matter1 as well as action1 both transferred together1 there would not be new ,creatures made out of old ,matter1 but every production would require new ,matter1 which is impossible1 if there be but one ,matter1 and that infinite2 and certainly1 humane sense and reason may well perceive1 that there can be but one ,matter1 for several kinds of ,matter would make a confusion2 and thus if new ,creatures were made onely by substanceless motion1 it would not onely be an infinite trouble to ,nature1 to create something out of nothing perpetually1 but1 as ,i said1 it would make a confusion amongst all ,nature's works1 which are her several ,parts or ,creatures4 ,but by reason there is but one ,matter1 which is ,infinite and ,eternal1 and this ,matter has self-motion in it1 both ,matter and ,motion must of necessity transmigrate1 or be transferred together without any separation1 as being but one thing1 to wit1 ,corporeal ,motion4 ',tis true1 one part of animate or self-moving ,matter1 may without ,translation move1 or rather occasion other parts to move2 but one ,creature cannot naturally produce another without the transferring of its corporeal motions4 ,but it is well to be observed1 that there is great difference between the actions of ,nature2 for all actions are not generating1 but some are patterning1 and some transforming1 and the like2 and as for the transforming action1 that may be without translation1 as being nothing else but a change of motions in one and the same part or parts of ,matter1 to wit1 when the same parts of ,matter do change into several figures1 and return into the same figures again4 ,also the action of ,patterning is without ,translation2 for to pattern out1 is nothing else but to imitate1 and to make a figure in its own substance or parts of ,matter like another figure4 ,but in generation every producer doth transfer both ,matter and ,motion1 that is1 ,corporeal ,motion into the produced2 and if there be more producers then one1 they all do contribute to the produced2 and if one ,creature produces many ,creatures1 those many ,creatures do partake more or less of their producer4 ,but you may say1 ,if the producer transfers its own ,matter1 or rather its own corporeal motions into the produced1 many productions will soon dissolve the producer1 and he will become a sacrifice to his off-spring4 ,i answer2 ,that doth not follow3 for as one or more ,creatures contribute to one or more other ,creatures1 so other ,creatures do contribute to them1 although not after one and the same manner or way1 but after divers manners or ways2 but all manners and ways must be by translation to repair and assist2 for no ,creature can subsist alone and of it self1 but all ,creatures traffick and commerce from and to each other1 and must of necessity do so1 since they are all parts of the same ,matter3 ,neither can ,motion subsist without ,matter1 nor quit ,matter1 nor act without ,matter1 no more1 then an ,artificer can work without materials1 and without self-motion ,matter would be dead and useless2 ,wherefore ,matter and ,motion must upon necessity not onely be inseparable1 but be one body1 to wit1 corporeal motion2 which motion by dividing and composing its several parts1 and acting variously1 is the cause of all ,production1 ,generation1 ,metamorphosing1 or any other thing that is done in ,nature4 ,but if1 according to your ,author1 the sole action be the cause of ,generation without transferring of substance1 then ,matter is useless1 and of none or little effect2 which1 in my opinion1 is not probable4 ,your second question is1 ,whether the ,production or ,generation of animals is as the ,conceptions of the ,brain1 which the ,learned say are ,immaterial8 ,i answer3 ,the ,conceptions of the ,brain1 in my opinion1 are not ,immaterial1 but ,corporeal2 for though the corporeal motions of the brain1 or the matter of its conceptions1 is invisible to humane ,creatures1 and that when the brain is dissected1 there is no such matter found1 yet that doth not prove1 that there is no ,matter1 because it is not so gross a substance as to be perceptible by our exterior senses3 ,neither will your ,authors example hold1 that as a builder erects a house according to his conception in the brain1 the same happens in all other natural productions or generations2 for1 in my opinion1 the house is materially made in the brain1 which is the conception of the builder1 although not of such gross materials1 as ,stone1 ,brick1 ,wood1 and the like1 yet of such matter as is the ,rational ,matter1 that is1 the house when it is conceived in the brain1 is made by the rational corporeal figurative motions of their own substance or degree of ,matter2 ,but if all ,animals should be produced by meer fancies1 and a ,man and a ,woman should beget by fancying themselves together in copulation1 then the produced would be a true ,platonick ,child2 ,but if a ,woman being from her ,husband should be so got with ,child1 the question is1 whether the ,husband would own the ,child2 and if amorous ,lovers 7which are more contagious for appetite and fancy then ,married persons7 should produce ,children by ,immaterial contagions1 there would be more ,children then ,parents to own them4 ,your third question is1 ,whether ,animals may not be produced1 as many ,diseases are1 by contagion8 ,i answer3 ,although contagions may be made at a distance1 by perception2 yet those diseases are not begotten by immaterial motions1 but by the rational and sensitive corporeal motions1 which work such diseases in the body of a ,creature1 by the association of parts1 like as the same disease is made in another body3 ,neither are diseases always produced after one and the same manner1 but after divers manners2 whereas animals are produced as animals1 that is1 after one natural and proper way2 for although all the effects in particular be not alike1 yet the general way or manner to produce those effects is the same3 ,as for example2 there is no other way to produce a fruitful ,egg1 but by a ,cock and a ,hen2 ,but a ,contagious disease1 as the small-,pox1 or the like1 may be produced by the way of ,surfeits or by ,conceit1 which may cause the sensitive corporeal parts1 through the irregular motions of the rational corporeal parts1 to work and produce such a disease1 or any other ways4 ,but neither a disease1 nor no creature else can be produced without matter1 by substanceless motion2 for wheresoever is motion1 there is also matter1 matter and motion being but one thing4 ,your fourth question is1 ,whether an ,animal ,creature is perfectly shaped or formed at the first ,conception8 ,i answer3 ,if the ,creature be composed of many and different parts1 my opinion is1 it cannot be4 ,you may say1 ,that if it hath not all his parts produced at there will be required many acts of generation to beget or produce every part1 otherwise the producers would not be the ,parents of the produced in whole1 but in part4 ,i answer3 ,the ,producer is the designer1 architect1 and founder of the whole ,creature produced2 for the sensitive and rational corporeal motions1 which are transferred from the producer or producers1 joyn to build the produced like to the producer in specie1 but the transferred parts may be invisible and insensible to humane ,creatures1 both through their purity and little quantity1 until the produced is framed to some visible degree2 for a stately building may proceed from a small beginning1 neither can humane sense tell what manner of building is designed at the first foundation4 ,but you may say1 ,that many ,eggs may be made by one act of the producers1 to wit1 the ,cock and the ,hen1 and those many ,eggs may be laid at several times1 as also hatched at several times1 and become ,chickens at several times4 ,i answer2 ,it may well and easily be so3 for the rational and sensitive parts or corporeal motions which were transferred in one act1 designed many produced through that one act2 for those transferred corporeal motions1 although they have not a sufficient quantity of themselves to make all the produced in their perfect shapes at once1 yet they are the chief designer1 architect and founder of all that are to be produced2 for the corporeal motions which are transferred1 joyn with those they are transferred to1 and being associates1 work to one design1 the sensitive being the architect1 the rational the designer1 which together with the inanimate parts of matter1 can never want materials1 neither can the materials want labourers2 for the degrees of matter are inseparable1 and do make but one body or substance4 ,again you may say1 ,that some parts of ,matter may produce another ,creature not like to the producer in its species1 as for example1 ,monsters4 ,i answer1 ,that is possible to be done1 but yet it is not usual2 for ,monsters are not commonly born1 but those corporeal motions which dwell in one species1 work according to the nature of the same species2 and when the parts of ,matter are transferred from ,creature to ,creature1 that is1 are separated from some parts1 and joyned to other parts of the same species1 and the same nature2 those transferred parts of matter1 although invisible in quantity1 by reason of their purity and subtilty1 begin the work of the produced according to its natural species1 and the labourers in other parts of matter work to the same end2 just as it is in the artificial building of a house1 where the house is first designed by the ,architect1 or ,master1 and then the labourers work not after their own fancy1 7else it would not be the same house that was designed1 nor any uniformity in it7 but according to the architects or surveyors design2 so those parts of matter or corporeal motions that are transferred from the producer1 are like the architect1 but the labourers or workmen are the assisting and adjoyning parts of matter4 ,but you will say1 ,how comes it1 that many creatures may be made by one or two8 ,i answer3 ,as one owner or two partners may be the cause of many buildings1 so few or more transferred rational and sensitive corporeal motions may make and produce as many creatures as they can get materials and labourers2 for if they get one1 they get the other1 by reason the degrees of matter1 viz4 animate and inanimate1 are inseparably mixt1 and make but one body or substance2 and the proof of it is1 that all animals are not constant in the number of their off-spring1 but sometimes produce more1 and sometimes fewer1 and sometimes their off-spring is less1 and sometimes larger1 according to the quantity of matter4 ,again you may say1 ,that in some ,creatures there is no passage to receive the transferred matter into the place of the architecture4 ,i answer3 ,that all passages are not visible to humane sense2 and some humane ,creatures have not a sufficient humane reason to conceive1 that most of ,natures works are not so gross as to be subject to their exterior senses2 but as for such parts and passages1 whether exterior or interior1 visible or invisible1 as also for copulation1 conception1 formation1 nourishment1 and the like in ,generation1 ,i leave you to ,physicians and ,anatomists4 ,and to conclude this question1 we may observe1 that not any animal ,creatures shape dissolveth in one instant of time1 but by degrees2 why should we believe then1 that ,animals are generated or produced in their perfect shape in one instant of time1 and by one act of ,nature8 ,but sense and reason knows by observation1 that an animal ,creature requires more time to be generated1 then to be dissolved1 like as an house is sooner and with less pains pull'd down1 then built up4 ,your ,fifth question is1 ,whether ,animals are not generated by the way of ,metamorphosing8 ,to which ,i answer1 ,that it is not possible that a third ,creature can be made without translation of corporeal motions2 and since ,metamorphosing is onely a change of motions in the same parts of ,matter1 without any translation of corporeal motions1 no animal ,creature can be produced or generated by the way of ,metamorphosing4 ,your ,sixth question is1 ,whether a whole may be made out of a part8 ,i answer3 ,there is no whole in ,nature1 except you will call ,nature her self a whole2 for all ,creatures are but parts of ,infinite ,matter4 ,your ,seventh question is1 ,whether all ,animals1 as also ,vegetables1 are made or generated by the way of ,eggs8 ,i have said heretofore1 ,that it is not probable1 that different sorts1 nay1 different kinds of ,creatures1 should all have but one manner or way of production2 for why should not ,nature make different ways of productions1 as well as different ,creatures8 ,and as for ,vegetables1 if all their ,seeds be likened unto ,eggs1 then ,eggs may very well be likened to ,seeds2 which if so1 then a ,peas-cod is the ,hen1 and the ,peas in the ,cod is the cluster of ,eggs3 the like of ears of ,corn4 ,and those animals that produce but one creature or seed at a time1 may be like the kernel of a ,nut1 when the shell is broke1 the creature comes forth4 ,but how this will agree with your ,author1 who says1 that the creature in the shell must make its own passage1 ,i cannot tell2 for if the ,nut be not broken by some external means or occasion1 the kernel is not like to get forth4 ,and as for humane ,eggs1 ,i know not what to answer2 for it is said1 that the first ,woman was made of a mans ribb2 but whether that ribb was an egg1 ,i cannot tell4 ,and why may not ,minerals and ,elements be produced by the way of ,eggs as well as ,vegetables and ,animals8 ,nay1 why may not the whole ,world be likened unto an ,egg8 ,which if so1 the two ,poles are the two ends the ,egg2 and for the ,elements1 the ,yolk is the ,fire1 the ,white1 the ,water2 the ,film1 the ,air2 and the ,shell it self will very well serve for the ,earth3 ,but then it must first be broken1 and pounded into one lump or solid mass1 and so sink or swim into the midst of the liquid parts1 as to the ,center2 and as for the several foetuses in this great ,egg1 they are the several ,creatures in it4 ,or it might be said1 that the ,chaos was an ,egg1 and the ,universe1 the ,chicken4 ,but leaving this similizing1 it is like1 that some studious ,men may by long study upon one part of the body1 conceive and believe that all other parts are like that one part2 like as those that have gazed long upon the ,sun1 all they see for a time1 are ,suns to them2 or like as those which having heard much of ,hobgoblins1 all they see are ,hobgoblins1 their fancies making such things4 ,but1 ,madam1 to make a conclusion also of this question1 ,i repeat what ,i said before1 that all ,creatures have not one way of production2 and as they have not all one way of production1 so they have neither one instant of time either for perfection or dissolution1 but their perfection and dissolution is made by degrees4 ,your ,eighth question is1 ,whether it may not be1 that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions in an ,egg do pattern out the figure of the ,hen and ,cock1 whilest the ,hen sits upon the ,egg1 and so bring forth ,chickens by the way of patterning8 ,i answer3 ,the action of patterning1 is not the action of ,generation2 for as ,i said heretofore1 the actions of ,nature are different1 and ,generation must needs be performed by the way of translation1 which translation is not required in the action of ,patterning2 but according as the ,producers are1 which transfer their own matter into the produced1 so is the produced concerning its species2 which is plainly proved by common examples2 for if ,pheasants1 or ,turky1 or ,goose-eggs1 be laid under an ordinary ,hen1 or an ordinary ,hens-egg be laid under a ,pheasant1 ,turky1 or ,goose1 the ,chickens of those ,eggs will never be of any other species then of those that produced the ,egg2 for an ordinary ,hen1 if she sit upon ,pheasants1 ,turky1 or ,goose-eggs1 doth not hatch ,chickens of her own species1 but the ,chickens will be of the species either of the ,pheasant1 or ,turky1 or ,goose1 which did at first produce the ,egg2 which proves1 that in ,generation1 or ,natural production1 there is not onely required the action of the ,producers1 but also a ,transferring of some of their own parts to form the produced4 ,but you may say1 ,what doth the sitting ,hen contribute then to the production of the ,chicken8 ,i answer3 ,the sitting ,hen doth onely assist the ,egg in the production of the ,chicken1 as the ,ground doth the ,seed4 ,your ,ninth question is1 ,concerning the ,soul of a particular ,animal ,creature1 as whether it be wholly of it self and subsists wholly in and by it self8 ,but you must give me leave first to ask you what ,soul you mean1 whether the ,divine1 or the ,natural ,soul1 for there is great difference betwixt them1 although not the least that ever ,i heard1 rightly examined and distinguished2 and if you mean the ,divine ,soul1 ,i shall desire you to excuse me1 for that belongs to ,divines1 and not to ,natural ,philosophers2 neither am ,i so presumptuous as to intrench upon their sacred order4 ,but as for the ,natural ,soul1 the ,learned have divided it into three parts1 to wit1 the ,vegetative1 ,sensitive1 and ,rational ,soul2 and according to these three ,souls1 made three kinds of lives1 as the ,vegetative1 ,sensitive1 and ,rational ,life4 ,but they might as well say1 there are infinite bodies1 lives1 and souls1 as three2 for in ,nature there is but one life1 soul1 and body1 consisting all of one ,matter1 which is corporeal ,nature4 ,but yet by reason this life and soul is material1 it is divided into numerous parts1 which make numerous lives and souls in every particular ,creature2 for each particular part of the rational self-moving ,matter1 is each particular soul in each particular ,creature1 but all those parts considered in general1 make but one soul of ,nature2 and as this self-moving ,rational ,matter hath power to unite its parts1 so it hath ability or power to divide its united parts4 ,and thus the rational soul of every particular ,creature is composed of parts1 7,i mean parts of a material substance2 for whatsoever is substanceless and incorporeal1 belongs not to ,nature1 but is ,supernatural27 for by reason the ,infinite and ,onely matter is by self-motion divided into self-parts1 not any ,creature can have a soul without parts2 neither can the souls of ,creatures subsist without commerce of other rational parts1 no more then one body can subsist without the assistance of other bodies2 for all parts belong to one body1 which is ,nature3 nay1 if any thing could subsist of it self1 it were a ,god1 and not a ,creature3 ,wherefore not any ,creature can challenge a soul absolutely to himself1 unless ,man1 who hath a divine soul1 which no other ,creature hath4 ,but that which makes so many confusions and disputes amongst learned men is1 that they conceive1 first1 there is no rational soul but onely in man2 next1 that this rational soul in every man is individable4 ,but if the rational soul is material1 as certainly to all sense and reason it is1 then it must not onely be in all material ,creatures1 but be dividable too2 for all that is material or corporeal hath parts1 and is dividable1 and therefore there is no such thing in any one ,creature as one intire soul2 nay1 we might as well say1 there is but one ,creature in ,nature1 as say1 there is but one individable natural soul in one ,creature4 ,your ,tenth question is1 ,whether ,souls are producible1 or can be produced8 ,i answer3 in my opinion1 they are producible1 by reason all parts in ,nature are so4 ,but mistake me not2 for ,i do not mean that any one part is produced out of ,nothing1 or out of new matter2 but one ,creature is produced by another1 by the dividing and uniting1 joyning and disjoyning of the several parts of ,matter1 and not by substanceless ,motion out of new ,matter4 ,and because there is not any thing in ,nature1 that has an absolute subsistence of it self1 each ,creature is a producer1 as well as a produced1 in some kind or other2 for no part of ,nature can subsist single1 and without reference and assistance of each other1 or else every single part would not onely be a whole of it self1 but be as a ,god without controle2 and though one part is not another part1 yet one part belongs to another part1 and all parts to one whole1 and that whole to all the parts1 which whole is one corporeal ,nature4 ,and thus1 as ,i said before1 productions of one or more creatures1 by one or more producers1 without matter1 meerly by immaterial motions1 are impossible1 to wit1 that something should be made or produced out of nothing2 for if this were so1 there would consequently be an annihilation or turning into nothing1 and those creatures1 which produce others by the way of immaterial motions1 would rather be as a ,god1 then a part of ,nature1 or ,natural ,matter4 ,besides1 it would be an endless labour1 and more trouble to create particular ,creatures out of nothing1 then a ,world at once2 whereas now it is easie for ,nature to create by production and transmigration2 and therefore it is not probable1 that any one ,creature hath a particular life1 soul1 or body to it self1 as subsisting by it self1 and as it were precised from the rest1 having its own subsistence without the assistance of any other2 nor is it probable1 that any one ,creature is new1 for all that is1 was1 and shall be1 till the ,omnipotent ,god disposes ,nature otherwise4 ,as for the rest of your questions1 as whether the ,sun be the cause of all motions1 and of all natural productions2 and whether the life of a ,creature be onely in the blood1 or whether it have its beginning from the blood1 or whether the blood be the chief architect of an animal1 or be the seat of the soul2 sense and reason1 in my opinion1 doth plainly contradict them2 for concerning the blood1 if it were the seat of the ,soul1 then in the circulation of the blood1 if the ,soul hath a brain1 it would become very dizzie by its turning round2 but perchance some may think the ,soul to be a ,sun1 and the ,blood the ,zodiack1 and the body the ,globe of the ,earth1 which the ,soul surrounds in such time as the ,blood is flowing about4 ,and so leaving those similizing ,fancies1 ,i'le add no more1 but repeat what ,i said in the beginning1 that ,i rely upon the goodness of your ,nature1 from which ,i hope for pardon1 if ,i have not so exactly and solidly answered your desire2 for the argument of this discourse being so difficult1 may easily lead me into an error1 which your better judgment will soon correct2 and in so doing you will add to those favours for which ,i am already1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships most obliged ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,iii4 ,,madam1 ,you thought verily1 ,i had mistaken my self in my last1 concerning the ,rational ,souls of every particular ,creature1 because ,i said1 all ,creatures had numerous ,souls2 and not onely so1 but every particular ,creature had numerous ,souls4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i did not mistake my self1 for ,i am of the same opinion still2 for though there is but one ,soul in infinite ,nature1 yet that soul being dividable into parts1 every part is a soul in every single creature1 were the parts no bigger in quantity then an atome4 ,but you ask whether ,nature hath ,infinite souls8 ,i answer3 ,that ,infinite ,nature is but one ,infinite body1 divided into ,infinite parts1 which we call ,creatures2 and therefore it may as well be said1 ,that ,nature is composed of ,infinite ,creatures or ,parts1 as she is divided into ,infinite ,creatures or ,parts2 for ,nature being ,material1 is dividable1 and composable4 ,the same may be said of ,nature's ,soul1 which is the ,rational part of the onely infinite ,matter1 as also of ,nature's ,life1 which is the sensitive part of the onely ,infinite self-moving ,matter2 and of the ,inanimate part of the onely ,infinite ,matter1 which ,i call the body for distinction sake1 as having no self-motion in its own nature1 for ,infinite ,material ,nature hath an ,infinite ,material ,soul1 ,life1 and ,body4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i desire you to observe what ,i said already1 viz4 that the parts of ,nature are as apt to divide1 as to unite2 for the chief actions of ,nature are to divide1 and to unite2 which division is the cause1 that it may well be said1 every particular ,creature hath numerous souls2 for every part of rational ,matter is a particular ,soul1 and every part of the sensitive ,matter is a particular ,life2 all which1 mixed with the ,inanimate ,matter1 though they be ,infinite in parts1 yet they make but one ,infinite whole1 which is ,infinite ,nature2 and thus the ,infinite division into ,infinite parts is the cause1 that every particular ,creature hath numerous ,souls1 and the transmigration of parts from1 and to parts1 is the reason1 that not any ,creature can challenge a single soul1 or souls to it self2 the same for life4 ,but most men are unwilling to believe1 that ,rational ,souls are material1 and that this rational ,matter is dividable in ,nature2 when as humane sense and reason may well perceive1 that ,nature is active1 and full of variety2 and action1 and variety cannot be without motion1 division1 and composition3 but the reason that variety1 division1 and composition1 runs not into confusion1 is1 that first there is but one kind of ,matter2 next1 that the division and composition of parts doth ballance each other into a union in the whole4 ,but1 to conclude1 those ,creatures which have their rational parts most united1 are the wisest2 and those that have their rational parts most divided1 are the wittiest2 and those that have much of this rational matter1 are much knowing2 and those which have less of this rational matter1 are less knowing2 and there is no ,creature that hath not some2 for like as all the parts of a humane body are indued with life1 and soul2 so are all the parts of ,infinite ,nature2 and though some parts of ,matter are not animate in themselves1 yet there is no part that is not mixt with the animate matter2 so that all parts of ,nature are moving1 and moved4 ,and thus1 hoping ,i have cleared my self in this point1 to your better understanding1 ,i take my leave1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,iv4 ,,madam1 ,in the ,works of that most famous ,philosopher and ,mathematician of our age ,gal4 which you thought worth my reading1 ,i find1 he discourses much of upwards and downwards1 backwards and forwards2 but to tell you really1 ,i do not understand what he means by those words1 for1 in my opinion1 there is properly no such thing as upwards1 downwards1 backwards1 or forwards in ,nature1 for all this is nothing else but natural corporeal motions1 to which in respect of some particulars we do attribute such or such names2 for if we conceive a ,circle1 ,i pray where is upwards and downwards1 backwards and forwards8 ,certainly1 it is1 in my opinion1 just like that1 they name ,rest1 ,place1 ,space1 ,time1 c4 when as ,nature her self knows of no such things1 but all these are onely the several and various motions of the onely ,matter4 ,you will say1 ,how can ,rest be a motion8 ,i answer3 ,rest is a word which expresses rather mans ignorance then his knowledg2 for when he sees1 that a particular ,creature has not any external local motion perceptible by his sight1 he says it resteth1 and this rest he calls a cessation from motion1 when as yet there is no such thing as cessation from motion in ,nature2 for motion is the action of natural ,matter1 and its ,nature is to move perpetually2 so that it is more probable for motion to be annihilated1 then to cease4 ,but you may say1 ,it is a cessation from some particular motion4 ,i answer3 ,you may rather call it an alteration of a particular motion1 then a cessation2 for though a particular motion doth not move in that same manner as it did before1 nevertheless it is still there1 and not onely there1 but still moving2 onely it is not moving after the same manner as it did move heretofore1 but has changed from such a kind of motion to another kind of motion1 and being still moving it cannot be said to cease3 ,wherefore what is commonly called cessation from motion1 is onely a change of some particular motion1 and is a mistake of change for rest4 ,next1 ,i find in the same ,author a long discourse of circular and strait motions2 to wit1 ,that they are simple motions1 and that all others are composed out of them1 and are mixt motions2 ,also1 ,that the ,circular ,motion is perfect1 and the ,right imperfect2 and that all the parts of the world1 if moveable of their own nature1 it is impossible1 that their motions should be ,right1 or any other then ,circular3 ,that a ,circular motion is never to be gotten naturally1 without a preceding right motion3 ,that a ,right motion cannot naturally be perpetual3 ,that a ,right motion is impossible in the ,world well ordered3 and the like4 ,first1 ,i cannot conceive why natural ,matter should use the ,circle-figure more then any other in the motions of her ,creatures2 for ,nature1 which is ,infinite ,matter1 is not bound to one particular motion1 or to move in a ,circle more then any other figure1 but she moves more variously then any one part of hers can conceive2 ,wherefore it is not requisite that the natural motions of natural bodies should be onely ,circular4 ,next1 ,i do not understand1 why a ,circular ,motion cannot be gotten naturally without a precedent right motion2 for1 in my opinion1 corporeal motions may be round or circular1 without being or moving straight before2 and if a straight line doth make a circle1 then an imperfect figure makes a perfect2 but1 in my opinion1 a circle may as well make a straight line1 as a strait line a circle2 except it be like a ,gordian knot1 that it cannot be dissolved1 or that ,nature may make some corporeal motions as constant as she makes others inconstant1 for her motions are not alike in continuance and alteration4 ,and as for right motion1 that naturally it cannot be perpetual2 my opinion is1 that it cannot be1 if ,nature be finite2 but if ,nature be infinite1 it may be3 ,but the circular motion is more proper for a finite1 then an infinite1 because a circle-figure is perfect and circumscribed1 and a straight line is infinite1 or at least producible in infinite2 and there may be other worlds in infinite ,nature1 besides these round ,globes perceptible by our sight1 which may have other figures2 for though it be proper for ,globes or ,spherical bodies to move round1 yet that doth not prove1 that ,infinite ,matter moves round1 or that all worlds must be of a ,globous figure2 for there may be as different ,worlds1 as other ,creatures4 ,he says1 ,that a ,right motion is impossible in the ,world well ordered2 ,but ,i cannot conceive a ,right motion to be less orderly then a ,circular in ,nature1 except it be in some ,particulars2 but oftentimes that1 which is well ordered in some cases1 seems to some mens understandings and perceptions ill ordered in other cases2 for man1 as a part1 most commonly considers but the ,particulars1 not the ,generals1 like as every one in a ,commonwealth considers more himself and his ,family1 then the ,publick4 ,lastly1 ,concerning the simplicity of ,motions1 as that onely circular and straight motions are simple motions1 because they are made by simple ,lines2 ,i know not what they mean by simple ,lines2 for the same ,lines which make straight and circular figures1 may make as well other figures as those2 but1 in my opinion1 all motions may be called simple1 in regard of their own nature2 for they are nothing else but the sensitive and rational part of ,matter1 which in its own nature is pure1 and simple1 and moves according to the ,nature of each ,figure1 either swiftly or slowly1 or in this or that sort of motion2 but the most simple1 purest and subtillest part is the rational part of matter1 which though it be mixed with the sensitive and inanimate in one body1 yet it can and doth move figuratively in its own matter1 without the help or assistance of any other4 ,but ,i desire you to remember1 ,madam1 that in the compositions and divisions of the parts of ,nature1 there is as much unity and agreement as there is discord and disagreement2 for in ,infinite1 there is no such thing1 as most1 and least2 neither is there any such thing as more perfect1 or less perfect in ,matter4 ,and as for ,irregularities1 properly there is none in ,nature1 for ,nature is ,regular2 but that1 which ,man 7who is but a small part of ,nature1 and therefore but partly knowing7 names ,irregularities1 or ,imperfections1 is onely a change and alteration of motions2 for a part can know the variety of motions in ,nature no more1 then ,finite can know ,infinite1 or the bare exterior shape and figure of a mans body can know the whole body1 or the head can know the mind2 for ,infinite natural knowledg is incorporeal2 and being corporeal1 it is dividable2 and being dividable1 it cannot be confined to one part onely2 for there is no such thing as an absolute determination or subsistence in parts without relation or dependance upon one another4 ,and since ,matter is ,infinite1 and acts wisely1 and all for the best1 it may be as well for the best of ,nature1 when parts are divided antipathetically1 as when they are united sympathetically3 ,also ,matter being ,infinite1 it cannot be perfect1 neither can a part be called perfect1 as being a part4 ,but mistake me not1 ,madam2 for when ,i say1 there is no perfection in ,nature1 as ,i do in my ,philosophical ,opinions1#a ,i mean by ,perfection1 a finiteness1 absoluteness1 or compleatness of figure2 and in this sense ,i say ,nature has no perfection by reason it is ,infinite2 but yet ,i do not deny1 but that there is a perfection in the nature or essence of ,infinite ,matter2 for ,matter is perfect ,matter2 that is1 pure and simple in its own substance or nature1 as meer ,matter1 without any mixture or addition of some thing that is not ,matter1 or that is between ,matter and no ,matter2 and material motions are perfect motions although ,infinite3 just as a line may be called a perfect line1 although it be endless1 and ,gold1 or other ,mettal1 may be called perfect ,gold1 or perfect ,metal1 although it be but apart1 ,and thus it may be said of ,infinite ,nature1 or ,infinite ,matter1 without any contradiction1 that it is both perfect1 and not perfect2 perfect in its nature or substance1 not perfect in its exterior figure4 ,but you may say1 ,if ,infinite ,matter be not perfect1 it is imperfect1 and what is imperfect1 wants something4 ,i answer1 ,that doth not follow3 for we cannot say1 that what is not perfect1 must of necessity be imperfect1 because there is something else1 which it may be1 to wit1 ,infinite2 for as imperfection is beneath perfection1 so perfection is beneath ,infinite2 and though ,infinite ,matter be not perfect in its figure1 yet it is not imperfect1 but ,infinite2 for ,perfection and ,imperfection belongs onely to ,particulars1 and not to ,infinite4 ,and thus much for the present4 ,i conclude1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships most obliged ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,part4 #a4 c4 #ad4 ,v4 ,,madam1 ,the ,author1 mentioned in my former ,letter1 says1 ,that ,quietness is the degree of ,infinite slowness1 and that a moveable body passing from quietness1 passes through all the degrees of slowness without staying in any4 ,but ,i cannot conceive that all the ,parts of ,matter should be necessitated to move by degrees2 for though there be degrees in ,nature1 yet ,nature doth not in all her actions move by degrees4 ,you may say1 for example1 from one to twenty1 there are eighteen degrees between ,one1 and ,twenty2 and all these degrees are included in the last degree1 which is twenty4 ,i answer2 ,that may be3 but yet there is no progress made through all those degrees2 for when a body doth move strong at one time1 and the next time after moves weak2 ,i cannot conceive how any degrees should really be made between4 ,you may say1 by ,imagination4 ,but this ,imagination of degrees1 is like the conception of ,space and ,place1 when as yet there is no such thing as ,place or ,space by it self2 for all is but one body1 and ,motion is the action of this same body1 which is corporeal ,nature2 and because a particular body can and doth move after various manners1 according to the change of its corporeal motion1 this variety of motions man call's ,place1 ,space1 ,time1 ,degrees1 c4 considering them by themselves1 and giving them peculiar names1 as if they could be parted from body1 or at least be conceived without body2 for the ,conception or ,imagination it self is corporeal1 and so are they nothing else but corporeal motions4 ,but it seems as if this same ,author conceived also motion to be a thing by it self1 and that motion begets motion1 when he says1 ,that a body by moving grows stronger in motion by degrees1 when as yet the strength was in the matter of the body eternally2 for ,nature was always a grave ,matron1 never a sucking ,infant3 and though parts by dissolving and composing may lose and get acquaintance of each other1 yet no part can be otherwise in its nature1 then ever it was2 ,wherefore change of corporeal motions is not losing nor getting strength or swiftness2 for ,nature doth not lose force1 although she doth not use force in all her various actions2 neither can any natural body get more strength than by nature it hath1 although it may get the assistance of other bodies joyned to it4 ,but swiftness and slowness are according to the several figurative actions of self-moving matter2 which several actions or motions of ,nature1 and their alterations1 cannot be found out by any particular ,creature3 as for example1 the motions of ,lead1 and the motions of ,wood1 unless ,man knew their several causes2 for ,wood1 in some cases1 may move slower then ,lead2 and ,lead1 in other cases1 slower then ,wood4 ,again3 the same ,author says1 ,that an heavy moveable body descending1 gets force enough to bring it back again to as much height4 ,but ,i think1 it might as well be said1 ,that a ,man walking a mile1 gets as much strength as to walk back that mile2 when 'tis likely1 that having walked ten miles1 he may not have so much strength as to walk back again one mile2 neither is he necessitated to walk back1 except some other more powerful body do force him back3 for though ,nature is self-moving1 yet every part has not an absolute power1 for many parts may over-power fewer2 also several corporeal motions may cross and oppose as well as assist each other2 for if there were not opposition1 as well as agreement and assistance amongst ,nature's parts1 there would not be such variety in ,nature as there is4 ,moreover1 he makes mention of a ,line1 with a weight hung to its end1 which being removed from the perpendicular1 presently falls to the same again4 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that it is the appetite and desire of the ,line1 not to move by constraint1 or any forced exterior motion2 but that which forces the ,line to move from the ,perpendicular1 doth not give it motion1 but is onely an occasion that it moves in such a way2 neither doth the line get that motion from any other exterior body1 but it is the lines own motion2 for if the motion of the hand1 or any other exterior body1 should give the line that motion1 ,i pray1 from which doth it receive the motion to tend to its former state8 ,wherefore1 when the ,line moves backwards or forwards1 it is not1 that the ,line gets what it had not before1 that is1 a new corporeal motion1 but it uses its own motion2 onely1 as ,i said1 that exterior body is the occasion that it moves after such a manner or way1 and therefore this motion of the line1 although it is the lines own motion1 yet in respect of the exterior body that causes it to move that way1 it may be called a forced1 or rather an occasioned motion4 ,and thus no body can get motion from another body1 except it get matter too2 for all that motion that a body has1 proceeds from the self-moving part of matter1 and motion and matter are but one thing2 neither is there any inanimate part of matter in ,nature1 which is not co-mixed with the animate1 and consequently1 there is no part which is not moving1 or moved2 the ,animate part of matter is the onely self-moving part1 and the ,inanimate the moved3 not that the animate matter doth give away its own motion to the inanimate1 and that the inanimate becomes self-moving2 but the animate1 by reason of the close conjunction and commixture1 works together with the inanimate1 or causes the inanimate to work with it2 and thus the inanimate remains as simple in its own nature1 as the animate doth in its nature1 although they are mixt2 for those mixtures do not alter the simplicity of each others ,nature4 ,but having discoursed of this subject in my former ,letters1 ,i take my leave1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,vi4 ,,madam1 ,it seems1 my former ,letter concerning ,motion1 has given you occasion to propound this following question to me1 to wit1 ,when ,i throw a bowl1 or strike a ball with my hand2 whether the motion1 by which the bowl or ball is moved1 be the hands1 or the balls own motion8 or whether it be transferred out of my hand into the ball8 ,to which ,i return this short answer3 ,that the motion by which 7for example7 the bowl is moved1 is the bowls own motion1 and not the hands that threw it3 for the hand cannot transfer its own motion1 which hath a material being1 out of it self into the bowl1 or any other thing it handles1 touches1 or moves2 or else if it did1 the hand would in a short time become weak and useless1 by losing so much substance1 unless new motions were as fast created1 as expended4 ,you'll say1 perhaps1 that the hand and the bowl may exchange motions1 as that the bowls own motion doth enter into the hand1 and supply that motion which went out of the hand into the bowl1 by a close joyning or touch1 for in all things moving and moved1 must be a joyning of the mover to the moved1 either immediate1 or by the means of another body4 ,i answer3 ,that this is more probable1 then that the hand should give out1 or impart motion to the bowl1 and receive none from the bowl2 but by reason motion cannot be transferred without matter1 as being both inseparably united1 and but one thing2 ,i cannot think it probable1 that any of the animate or self-moving matter in the hand1 quits the hand1 and enters into the bowl2 nor that the animate matter1 which is in the bowl1 leaves the bowl1 and enters into the hand1 because that self-moving substance is not readily prepared for so sudden a ,translation or ,transmigration4 ,you may say1 ,it may as easily be done as food is received into an animal body and excrement discharged1 or as air is taken in1 and breath sent out1 by the way of respiration2 and that all ,creatures are not onely produced from each other1 but do subsist by each other1 and act by each others assistance4 ,i answer3 ,it is very true1 that all ,creatures have more power and strength by a joyned assistance1 then if every part were single1 and subsisted of it self4 ,but as some parts do assist each other1 so on the other side1 some parts do resist each other2 for though there be a unity in the nature of ,infinite ,matter1 yet there are divisions also in the ,infinite parts of ,infinite ,matter1 which causes ,antipathy as much as ,sympathy2 but they being equal in assistance as well as in resistance1 it causes a conformity in the whole nature of ,infinite ,matter2 for if there were not contrary1 or rather1 ,i may say1 different effects proceeding from the onely cause1 which is the onely matter1 there could not possibly be any1 or at least1 so much variety in ,nature1 as humane sense and reason perceives there is4 ,but to return to our first argument3 ,you may say1 that motion may be transferred out of one body into another1 without transferring any of the ,matter4 ,i answer3 ,that is impossible1 unless motion were that which some call ,no-thing1 but how ,no-thing can be transferred1 ,i cannot imagine3 ,indeed no sense and reason in ,nature can conceive that which is ,no-thing2 for how should it conceive that which is not in ,nature to be found4 ,you'll say1 perhaps1 ,it is a substanceless thing1 or an incorporeal1 immaterial being or form4 ,i answer3 ,in my opinion1 it is a meer contradiction1 to say1 a substanceless thing1 form1 or being1 for surely in ,nature it cannot be4 ,but if it be not possible that motion can be divided from matter1 you may say1 that body from whence the motion is transferred1 would become less in bulk and weight1 and weaker with every act of motion2 and those bodies into which corporeal motion or self-moving matter was received1 would grow bigger1 heavier1 and stronger4 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that this is the reason1 which denies that there can be a translation of motion out of the moving body into the moved2 for questionless1 the one would grow less1 and the other bigger1 that by loosing so much substance1 this by receiving4 ,nay if it were possible1 as it is not1 that motion could be transferred without matter1 the body out of which it goes1 would nevertheless grow weaker2 for the strength lies in the motion1 unless you believe1 this motion which is transferred to have been useless in the mover1 and onely useful to the moved2 or else it would be superfluous in the moved1 except you say1 it became to be annihilated after it was transferr'd and had done its effect2 but if so1 then there would be a perpetual and infinite creation and annihilation of substanceless motion1 and how there could be a creation and annihilation of nothing1 my reason cannot conceive1 neither is it possible1 unless ,nature had more power then ,god1 to create ,nothing1 and to annihilate ,nothing4 ,the truth is1 it is more probable for sense and reason to believe a ,creation of ,something out of ,nothing1 then a ,creation of ,nothing out of ,nothing4 ,wherefore it cannot in sense and reason be1 that the motion of the hand is transferr'd into the bowl4 ,but yet ,i do not say1 that the motion of the hand doth not contribute to the motion of the bowl2 for though the bowl hath its own natural motion in itself1 7for ,nature and her creatures know of no rest1 but are in a perpetual motion1 though not always exterior and local1 yet they have their proper and certain motions1 which are not so easily perceived by our grosser senses7 nevertheless the motion of the bowl would not move by such an exterior local motion1 did not the motion of the hand1 or any other exterior moving body give it occasion to move that way2 ,wherefore the motion of the hand may very well be said to be the cause of that exterior local motion of the bowl1 but not to be the same motion by which the bowl moves4 ,neither is it requisite1 that the hand should quit its own motion1 because it uses it in stirring up1 or putting on the motion of the bowl2 for it is one thing to use1 and another to quit2 as for example1 it is one thing to offer his life for his friends service1 another to imploy it1 and another to quit or lose it4 ,but1 ,madam1 there may be infinite questions or exceptions1 and infinite answers made upon one truth2 but the wisest and most probable way is1 to rely upon sense and reason1 and not to trouble the mind1 thoughts1 and actions of life1 with improbabilities1 or rather impossibilities1 which sense and reason knows not of1 nor cannot conceive4 ,you may say1 ,a ,man hath sometimes improbable1 or impossible ,fancies1 ,imaginations1 or ,chymra's1 in his mind1 which are ,no-things4 ,i answer1 ,that those ,fancies and ,imaginations are not ,no-things1 but as perfectly imbodied as any other ,creatures2 but by reason1 they are not so grossly imbodied1 as those creatures that are composed of more sensitive and inanimate matter1 man thinks or believes them to be no bodies2 but were they substanceless figures1 he could not have them in his mind or thoughts3 ,the truth is1 the purity of reason is not so perspicuous and plain to sense1 as sense is to reason1 the sensitive matter being a grosser substance then the rational4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 ,i have answered your proposed question1 according to the ability of my ,reason1 which ,i leave to your better examination1 and rest in the mean while1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,vii4 ,,madam1 ,having made some mention in my former ,letter of the ,receiving of ,food1 and discharging of ,excrements1 as also of ,respiration1 which consists in the sucking in of air1 and sending out of breath in an animal body2 you desire to know1 ,whether ,respiration be common to all animal ,creatures8 ,truly1 ,i have not the experience1 as to tell you really1 whether all animals respire1 or not2 for my life being1 for the most part1 solitary and contemplative1 but not active1 ,i please my self more with the motions of my thoughts1 then of my senses2 and therefore ,i shall give you an answer according to the conceivement of my reason onely1 which is1 ,that ,i believe1 all animals require ,respiration2 not onely those1 which live in the air1 but those also1 which live in waters1 and within the earth2 but they do not respire all after one and the same manner2 for the matter which they imbreath1 is not every where the same1 nor have they all the same organs1 or parts1 nor the same motions4 ,as for example3 ,some ,creatures require a more thin and rarer substance for their imbreathing or inspiring1 then others1 and some a more thick and grosser substance then others1 according to their several ,natures2 for as there are several kinds of ,creatures1 according to their several habitations or places they live in1 so they have each a distinct and several sort of matter or substance for their inspiration4 ,as for example3 ,some live in the ,air1 some upon the face of the ,earth1 some in the bowels ,earth1 and some in ,waters4 ,there is some report of a ,salamander1 who lives in the ,fire2 but it being not certainly known1 deserves not our speculation4 ,and1 as in my opinion1 all animal ,creatures require ,respiration1 so ,i do verily believe1 that also all other kinds of ,creatures1 besides animals1 have some certain manner of imbreathing and transpiring1 viz4 ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,elements1 although not after the same way as ,animals1 yet in a way peculiar and proper to the nature of their own kind4 ,for example3 ,take away the earth from ,vegetables1 and they will die1 as being1 in my opinion1 stifled or smothered1 in the same manner1 as when the ,air is taken away from some ,animals4 ,also1 take ,minerals out of the bowels of the ,earth1 and though we cannot say1 they die1 or are dead1 because we have not as yet found out the alterative motions of ,minerals1 as well as of ,vegetables1 or ,animals1 yet we know that they are dead from production and increase1 for not any ,metal increases being out of the ,earth4 ,and as for ,elements1 it is manifest that ,fire will die for want of vent2 but the rest of the ,elements1 if we could come to know the matter1 manner1 and ways of their ,vital ,breathing1 we might kill or revive them as we do ,fire4 ,and therefore all ,creatures1 to my ,reason1 require a certain matter and manner of inspiration and expiration1 which is nothing else but an adjoyning and disjoyning of parts to and from parts2 for not any natural part or creature can subsist single1 and by it self1 but requires assistance from others1 as this1 and the rest of my opinions in ,natural ,philosophy1 desire the assistance of your favour1 or else they will die1 to the grief of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,viii4 ,,madam1 ,th'other day ,i met with the ,work of that ,learned ,author ,dr4 ,ch4 which treats of ,natural ,philosophy2 and amongst the rest1 in the ,chapter of ,place1 ,i found that he blames ,aristotle for saying1 there are none but corporeal dimensions1 ,length1 ,breadth1 and ,depth in ,nature1 making besides these corporeal1 other incorporeal dimensions which he attributes to ,vacuum4 ,truly1 ,madam1 an incorporeal dimension or extension1 seems1 in my opinion1 a meer contradiction2 for ,i cannot conceive how nothing can have a dimension or extension1 having nothing to be extended or measured4 ,his words are these3 ,imagine we therefore1 that ,god should please to annihilate the whole stock or mass of ,elements1 and all concretions resulting therefrom1 that is1 all corporeal substances now contained within the ambit or concave of the lowest ,heaven1 or ,lunar sphear2 and having thus imagined1 can we conceive that all the vast space or region circumscribed by the concave superfice of the ,lunar sphere1 would not remain the same in all its dimensions1 after as before the reduction of all bodies included therein to nothing8 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that1 in my opinion1 he makes ,nature ,supernatural2 for although ,god's ,power may make ,vacuum1 yet ,nature cannot2 for ,god's and ,nature's ,power are not to be compared1 neither is ,god's invisible ,power perceptible by ,natures parts2 but according to ,natural ,perception1 it is impossible to conceive a ,vacuum1 for we cannot imagine a ,vacuum1 but we must think of a body1 as your ,author of the ,circle of the ,moon2 neither could he think of space but from one side of the ,circle to the other1 so that in his mind he brings two sides together1 and yet will have them distant2 but the motions of his thoughts being subtiler and swifter then his senses1 skip from side to side without touching the middle parts1 like as a ,squirrel from bough to bough1 or an ,ape from one table to another2 without touching the ground1 onely cutting the air4 ,next1 he says1 ,that an absolute ,vacuum1 is neither an ,accident1 nor a ,body1 nor yet ,nothing1 but ,something1 because it has a being2 which opinion seems to me like that of the divine ,soul2 but ,i suppose ,vacuum is not the divine ,soul1 nor the divine ,soul1 ,vacuum2 or else it could not be sensible of the blessed happiness in ,heaven1 or the ,torments in ,hell4 ,again he says1 ,let us screw our supposition one pin higher1 and farther imagine1 that ,god1 after the annihilation of this vast machine1 the ,universe1 should create another in all respects equal to this1 and in the same part of space wherein this now consists3 ,first1 we must conceive1 that as the spaces were immense before ,god created the world1 so also must they eternally persist of infinite extent1 if he shall please at any time to destroy it2 next1 that these immense spaces are absolutely immoveable4 ,by this opinion1 it seems1 that ,gods ,power cannot so easily make or annihilate ,vacuum1 as a substance2 because he believes it to be before all ,matter1 and to remain after all ,matter1 which is to be eternal2 but ,i cannot conceive1 why ,matter1 or fulness of body1 should not as well be ,infinite and ,eternal1 as his ,conceived ,vacuum2 for if ,vacuum can have an eternal and infinite being1 why may not fulness of body1 or ,matter8 ,but he calls ,vacuum ,immovable1 which in my opinion is to make it a ,god2 for ,god is onely ,immoveable and ,unalterable1 and this is more ,glorious then to be dependant upon ,god2 wherefore to believe ,matter to be ,eternal1 but yet dependent upon ,god1 is a more humble opinion1 then his opinion of ,vacuum2 for if ,vacuum be not created1 and shall not be annihilated1 but is ,uncreated1 ,immaterial1 ,immoveable1 ,infinite1 and ,eternal1 it is a ,god2 but if it be created1 ,god being not a ,creator of ,nothing1 nor an annihilator of ,nothing1 but of ,something1 he cannot be a ,creator of ,vacuum2 for ,vacuum is a pure ,nothing4 ,but leaving ,nothing to those that can make something of it1 ,i will add no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,ix4 ,,madam1 ,that ,learned ,author1 of whom ,i made mention in my last1 is pleased to say in his ,chapter of ,time1 that ,time is the ,twin-brother to ,space2 but if ,space be as much as ,vacuum1 then ,i say1 they are ,twin-nothings2 for there can be no such thing as an empty or immaterial space1 but that which man calls space1 is onely a distance betwixt several corporeal parts1 and time is onely the variation of corporeal motions2 for were there no body1 there could not be any space1 and were there no corporeal motion1 there could not be any time4 ,as for ,time1 considered in ,general1 it is nothing else but the corporeal motions in ,nature1 and ,particular times are the ,particular corporeal motions2 but ,duration is onely a continuance1 or continued subsistence of the same parts1 caused by the consistent motions of those parts2 ,neither are ,time1 ,duration1 ,place1 ,space1 ,magnitude1 c4 dependents upon corporeal motions1 but they are all one and the same thing2 ,neither was ,time before1 nor can be after corporeal motion1 for none can be without the other1 being all one3 ,and as for ,eternity1 it is one fixed instant1 without a flux1 or motion4 ,concerning his argument of ,divisibility of ,parts1 my opinion is1 ,that there is no ,part in ,nature ,individable1 no not that so small a part1 which the ,epicureans name an ,atome2 neither is ,matter separable from ,matter1 nor ,parts from ,parts in ,general1 but onely in ,particulars2 for though parts can be separated from parts1 by self-motion1 yet upon necessity they must joyn to parts1 so as there can never be a single part by it self4 ,but hereof1 as also of ,place1 ,space1 ,time1 ,motion1 ,figure1 ,magnitude1 c4 ,i have sufficiently discoursed in my former ,letters1 as also in my ,book of ,philosophy2 and as for my opinion of ,atoms1 their figures and motions1 7if any such things there be7 ,i will refer you to my ,book of ,poems1 out of which give me leave to repeat these following lines1 containing the ground of my opinion of ,atomes3#a ,all ,creatures1 howsoe're they may be nam'd1 ,are of long1 square1 flat1 or sharp ,atoms fram'd4 ,thus several figures several tempers make1 ,but what is mixt1 doth of the four partake4 ,the onely cause1 why things do live and die1 ',s according as the mixed ,atomes lie4 ,thus life1 and death1 and young1 and old1 ,are as the several ,atoms hold3 ,wit1 understanding in the brain ,are as the several atomes reign3 ,and dispositions1 good1 or ill1 ,are as the several atomes still2 ,and every ,passion1 which doth rise1 ,is as each several atome lies4 ,thus sickness1 health1 and peace1 and war1 ,are as the several atomes are4 ,if you desire to know more1 you may read my mentioned ,book of ,poems whose first ,edition was printed in the year1 #afec4 ,and so taking my leave of you1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 #a ,pag4 #g4 in the second ,impression4 ,pag4 #i4 ,pag4 #bb4 ,pag4 #bd4 ,x4 ,,madam1 ,i received the ,book of your new ,author that treats of ,natural ,philosophy1 which ,i perceive is but lately come forth2 but although it be new1 yet there are no new opinions in it2 for the ,author doth follow the opinions of some old ,philosophers1 and argues after the accustomed ,scholastical way1 with hard1 intricate1 and nonsensical words3 ,wherefore ,i shall not take so much pains as to read it quite over1 but onely pick out here and there some few discourses1 which ,i shall think most convenient for the clearing of my own opinion2 in the number of which1 is1 first1 that of ,matter1 whereof the ,author is pleased to proclaim the opinion that holds ,matter to be ,infinite1 not onely absurd1 but also impious4 ,truly1 ,madam1 it is easily said1 but hardly proved2 and not to trouble you with unnecessary repetitions1 ,i hope you do remember as yet what ,i have written to you in the beginning concerning the infiniteness of ,nature1 or natural ,matter1 where ,i have proved that it implies no impiety1 absurdity1 or contradiction at all1 to believe that ,matter is ,infinite2 for your ,authors argument1 concluding from the finiteness of particular ,creatures to ,nature her self1 is of no force2 for though no part of ,nature is ,infinite in bulk1 figure1 or quantity1 nevertheless1 all the parts of ,infinite ,nature are ,infinite in number1 which infinite number of parts must needs make up one ,infinite body in bulk1 or quantity2 for as a finite body or substance is dividable into finite parts1 so an ,infinite body1 as ,nature1 or natural ,matter1 must of necessity be dividable into infinite parts in number1 and yet each part must also be finite in its exterior figure1 as ,i have proved in the beginning by the example of a heap of grains of corn4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 ,i see no reason1 but since1 according to your ,author1 ,god1 as the prime ,cause1 ,agent1 and ,producer of all things1 and the action by which he produced all things1 is ,infinite2 the ,matter out of which he produced all particular ,creatures may be ,infinite also4 ,neither doth it1 to my sense and reason1 imply any contradiction or impiety2 for it derogates nothing from the ,glory and ,omnipotency of ,god1 but ,god is still the ,god of ,nature1 and ,nature is his ,servant1 although ,infinite1 depending wholly upon the will and pleasure of the ,all-powerful ,god3 ,neither do these two ,infinites obstruct each other2 for ,nature is corporeal1 and ,god is a supernatural and spiritual ,infinite ,being1 and although ,nature has an ,infinite power1 yet she has but an ,infinite ,natural power1 whereas ,gods ,omnipotency is infinitely extended beyond ,nature4 ,but your ,author is pleased to refute that argument1 which concludes from the effect to the cause1 and proves ,matter to be infinite1 because ,god as the ,cause is ,infinite1 saying1 that this ,rule doth onely hold in ,univocal things1 7by which1 ,i suppose1 he understands things of the same kind and nature7 and not in opposites4 ,truly1 ,madam1 by this he limits ,god's power1 as if ,god were not able to work beyond ,nature1 and ,natural ,reason or ,understanding2 and measures ,gods actions according to the rules of ,logick2 which whether it be not more impious1 you may judg your self4 ,and as for opposites1 ,god and ,nature are not opposites1 except you will call opposites those which bear a certain relation to one another1 as a ,cause1 and its ,effect2 a ,parent1 and a ,child2 a ,master1 and a ,servant2 and the like4 ,nay1 ,i wonder how your ,author can limit ,gods action1 when as he confesses himself1 that the ,creation of the ,world is an ,infinite action4 ,god acted finitely1 says he1 by an ,infinite action2 which1 in my opinion1 is meer non-sense1 and as much as to say1 a man can act weakly by a strong action1 basely by an honest action1 cowardly by a stout action4 ,the truth is1 ,god being ,infinite1 cannot work finitely2 for1 as his ,essence1 so his ,actions cannot have any limitation1 and therefore it is most probable1 that ,god made ,nature ,infinite2 for though each part of ,nature is finite in its own figure1 yet considered in general1 they are ,infinite1 as well in number1 as duration1 except ,god be pleased to destroy them2 nay1 every particular may in a certain sense be said ,infinite1 to wit1 ,infinite in time or duration2 for if ,nature be ,infinite and ,eternal1 and there be no annihilation or perishing in ,nature1 but a perpetual successive change and alteration of natural figures1 then no part of ,nature can perish or be annihilated2 and if no part of ,nature perishes1 then it lasts infinitely in ,nature1 that is1 in the substance of natural ,matter2 for though the corporeal motions1 which make the figures1 do change1 yet the ground of the figure1 which is natural matter1 never changes4 ,the same may be said of corporeal motions3 for though motions change and vary infinite ways1 yet none is lost in ,nature1 but some motions are repeated again3 ,as for example2 the natural motions in an ,animal ,creature1 although they are altered in the dissolution of the figure1 yet they may be repeated again by piece-meals in other ,creatures2 like as a ,commonwealth1 or united body in society1 if it should be dissolved or dispersed1 the particulars which did constitute this ,commonwealth or society1 may joyn to the making of another society2 and thus the natural motions of a body do not perish when the figure of the body dissolves1 but joyn with other motions to the forming and producing of some other figures4 ,but to return to your ,author4 ,i perceive his discourse is grounded upon a false supposition1 which appears by his way of arguing from the course of the ,starrs and ,planets1 to prove the finiteness of ,nature2 for by reason the ,stars and ,planets rowl about1 and turn to the same point again1 each within a certain compass of time1 he concludes ,nature or ,natural ,matter to be finite too4 ,and so he takes a part for the whole1 to wit1 this visible ,world for all ,nature1 when as this ,world is onely a part of ,nature1 or ,natural ,matter1 and there may be more1 and ,infinite worlds besides2 ,wherefore his conclusion must needs be false1 since it is built upon a false ground4 ,moreover1 he is as much against the ,eternity of ,matter1 as he is against ,infiniteness2 concluding likewise from the parts to the whole2 ,for1 says he1 since the parts of ,nature are subject to a beginning and ending1 the whole must be so too4 ,but he is much mistaken1 when he attributes a beginning and ending to parts1 for there is no such thing as a beginning and ending in ,nature1 neither in the whole1 nor in the parts1 by reason there is no new creation or production of ,creatures out of new ,matter1 nor any total destruction or annihilation of any part in ,nature1 but onely a change1 alteration and transmigration of one figure into another2 which change and alteration proves rather the contrary1 to wit1 that ,matter is ,eternal and ,incorruptible2 for if particular figures change1 they must of necessity change in the ,infinite ,matter1 which it self1 and in its nature1 is not subject to any change or alteration3 besides1 though particulars have a finite and limited figure1 and do change1 yet their species do not2 for ,mankind never changes1 nor ceases to be1 though ,peter and ,paul die1 or rather their figures dissolve and divide2 for to die is nothing else1 but that the parts of that figure divide and unite into some other figures by the change of motion in those parts4 ,concerning the ,inanimate ,matter1 which of it self is a dead1 dull1 and idle matter1 your ,author denies it to be a co-agent or assistant to the animate matter3 ,for1 says he1 how can dead and idle things act8 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that your ,author being1 or pretending to be a ,philosopher1 should consider that there is difference betwixt a ,principal and ,instrumental cause or agent2 and although this inanimate1 or dull matter1 doth not act of it self as a principal agent1 yet it can and doth act as an ,instrument1 according as it is imploy'd by the animate matter3 for by reason there is so close a conjunction and commixture of animate and inanimate ,matter in ,nature1 as they do make but one body1 it is impossible that the animate part of matter should move without the inanimate2 not that the inanimate hath motion in her self1 but the animate bears up the inanimate in the action of her own substance1 and makes the inanimate work1 act1 and move with her1 by reason of the aforesaid union and commixture4 ,lastly1 your ,author speaks much of ,minima's1 viz4 ,that all things may be resolved into their minima's1 and what is beyond them1 is nothing1 and that there is one maximum1 or biggest1 which is the world1 and what is beyond that1 is ,infinite4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i must ingeniously confess1 ,i am not so high learned1 as to penetrate into the true sense of these words2 for he says1 they are both divisible1 and indivisible1 and yet no atomes1 which surpasses my ,understanding2 for there is no such thing1 as biggest and smallest in ,nature1 or in the ,infinite matter2 for who can know how far this ,world goes1 or what is beyond it8 ,there may be ,infinite ,worlds1 as ,i said before1 for ought we know2 for ,god and ,nature cannot be comprehended1 nor their works measured1 if we cannot find out the nature of particular things1 which are subject to our exterior senses1 how shall we be able to judg of things not subject to our senses4 ,but your ,author doth speak so presumptuously of ,gods ,actions1 ,designs1 ,decrees1 ,laws1 ,attributes1 ,power1 and secret ,counsels1 and describes the manner1 how ,god created all things1 and the mixture of the ,elements to an hair1 as if he had been ,gods ,counsellor and assistant in the work of ,creation2 which whether it be not more impiety1 then to say1 ,matter is ,infinite1 ,i'le let others judg4 ,neither do ,i think this expression to be against the holy ,scripture2 for though ,i speak as a natural ,philosopher1 and am unwilling to cite the ,scripture1 which onely treats of things belonging to ,faith1 and not to ,reason2 yet ,i think there is not any passage which plainly denies ,matter to be ,infinite1 and ,eternal1 unless it be drawn by force to that sense3 ,solomon says1 ,that there is not any thing new3 and in another place it is said1 ,that ,god is all fulfilling2 that is1 that the ,will of ,god is the fulfilling of the actions of ,nature3 also the ,scripture says1 ,that ,gods ways are unsearchable1 and past finding out4 ,wherefore1 it is easier to treat of ,nature1 then the ,god of ,nature2 neither should ,god be treated of by vain ,philosophers1 but by holy ,divines1 which are to deliver and interpret the ,word of ,god without sophistry1 and to inform us as much of ,gods ,works1 as he hath been pleased to declare and make known4 ,and this is the safest way1 in the opinion of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xi4 ,,madam1 ,your new ,author endeavours to prove1 that ,water in its own proper nature is thicker then ,earth2 which1 to my sense and reason1 seems not probable2 for although water is less porous then earth in its exterior figure1 yet 'tis not so thick as earth in its interior nature3 ,neither can ,i conceive it to be true1 that water in its own nature1 and as long as it remains water1 should be as hard as ,crystal1 or stone1 as his opinion is2 for though ,elements are so pliant 7being not composed of many different parts and figures7 as they can change and rechange their exterior figures1 yet they do not alter their interior nature without a total dissolution2 but your ,author may as well say1 that the interior nature of man is dust and ashes1 as that water in its interior nature is as thick as earth1 and as hard as ,christal1 or stone2 whereas yet a man1 when he becomes dust and ashes1 is not a man2 and therefore1 when water is become so thick as earth1 or so hard as stone1 it is not water2 ,i mean when it is so in its interior nature1 not in its exterior figure2 for the exterior figure may be contracted1 when yet the interior nature is dilative2 and so the exterior may be thick or hard1 when the interior is soft and rare4 ,but you may say1 that water is a close1 and heavy1 as also a smooth and glossy body4 ,i answer3 ,that doth not prove its interior nature to be hard1 dense1 thick1 or contracted2 for the interior nature and parts of a body may be different from the exterior figure or parts2 neither doth the close joyning of parts hinder dilatation2 for if so1 a line or circle could not dilate or extend3 ,but this close uniting of the parts of water is caused through its wet and glutinous quality1 which wet and sticking quality is caused by a watery dilatation2 for though water hath not interiously so rare a dilatation as ,air1 ,fire1 and ,light1 yet it hath not so close a contraction as ,earth1 ,stone1 or ,metal2 neither are all bodies that are smooth and shining1 more solid and dense1 then those that are rough and dark2 for light is more smooth1 glossy1 and shining1 then ,water1 ,metal1 ,earth1 or ,transparent-stones1 and yet is of a dilative nature4 ,but because some bodies and figures which are transparent and smooth1 are dense1 hard1 and thick1 we cannot in reason1 or sense1 say1 that all bodies and figures are so4 ,as for ,transparency1 it is caused through a purity of substance1 and an evenness of parts3 the like is glossiness1 onely glossiness requires not so much regularity1 as transparency4 ,but to return to ,water2 its exterior ,circle-figure may dilate beyond the degree of the propriety or nature of water1 or contract beneath the propriety or nature of water4 ,your ,author may say1 ,water is a globous body1 and all globous bodies tend to a ,center4 ,i answer3 ,that my sense and reason cannot perceive1 but that ,circles and ,globes do as easily dilate1 as contract3 for if all ,globes and ,circles should endeavour to draw or fall from the circumference to the ,center1 the ,center of the whole ,world1 or at least of some parts of the ,world1 would be as a ,chaos3 besides1 it is against sense and reason1 that all ,matter should strive to a ,center2 for humane sense and reason may observe1 that all ,creatures1 and so ,matter1 desire liberty1 and a ,center is but a ,prison in comparison to the ,circumference2 wherefore if ,matter crowds1 it is rather by force1 then a voluntary action4 ,you will say1 ,all ,creatures desire rest1 and in a ,center there's rest4 ,i answer2 ,humane sense and reason cannot perceive any rest in ,nature3 for all things1 as ,i have proved heretofore1 are in a perpetual motion4 ,but concerning ,water1 you may ask me1 ,madam1 ,whether congeal'd ,water1 as ,ice1 if it never thaw1 remains ,water8 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that the interior nature of ,water remains as long as the ,ice remains1 although the outward form is changed2 but if ,ice be contracted into the firmness and density of ,crystal1 or ,diamond1 or the like1 so as to be beyond the nature of ,water1 and not capable to be that ,water again1 then it is transformed into another ,creature1 or thing1 which is neither ,water1 nor ,ice1 but a ,stone2 for the ,icy contraction doth no more alter the interior nature of ,water1 which is dilating1 then the binding of a man with ,chains alters his nature from being a man2 and it might be said as well1 that the nature of ,air is not dilating1 when inclosed in a bladder1 as that ,water doth not remain ,water in its interior nature1 when it is contracted into ,ice4 ,but you may ask1 ,whether one extreme can change into another8 ,i answer3 ,to my sense and reason it were possible1 if extremes were in ,nature2 but ,i do not perceive that in ,nature there be any1 although my sense and reason doth perceive alterations in the effects of ,nature2 for though one and the same part may alter from contraction to dilation1 and from dilation to contraction2 yet this contraction and dilation are not extremes1 neither are they performed at one and the same time1 but at different times4 ,but having sufficiently declared my opinion hereof in my former ,letters1 ,i'l add no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xii4 ,,madam1 ,my discourse of ,water in my last ,letter has given you occasion to enquire after the reason1 ,why the weight of a great body of water doth not press so hard and heavily as to bruise or crush a body1 when it is sunk down to the bottom8 ,as for example3 ,if a man should be drowned1 and afterwards cast out from the bottom of a great ,sea1 or ,river1 upon the shore2 he would onely be found smother'd or choak'd to death1 and not press'd1 crush'd1 or bruised1 by the weight of water4 ,i answer2 ,the reasons are plain3 for1 first1 the nature of a mans respiration requires such a temperature of breath to suck in1 as is neither too thick1 nor too thin for his lungs1 and the rest of his interior parts1 as also for the organs and passages of his exterior senses1 but fit1 proper1 and proportionable to those mentioned parts of his body3 ,as for example2 in a too thin and rarified air1 man will be as apt to die for want of breath1 as in a too gross and thick air he is apt to die with a superfluity of the substance he imbreaths2 for thick smoak1 or thick vapour1 as also too gross air1 will soon smother a man to death2 and as for choaking1 if a man takes more into his throat then he can swallow1 he will die2 and if his stomack be filled with more food then it is able to digest1 if it cannot discharge it self1 he will die with the excess of food2 and if there be no food1 or too little put into it1 he will also die for want of food4 ,so the eye1 if it receives too many1 or too gross1 or too bright objects1 it will be dazled or blinded1 and some objects through their purity are not to be seen at all3 ,the same for ,hearing1 and the rest of the exterior senses3 ,and this is the reason1 why man1 or some animal ,creatures are smother'd and choak'd with water2 because water is thicker then the grossest air or vapour2 for if smoak1 which is rarer then water1 will smother and choak a man1 well may water1 being so much thicker4 ,but yet this smothering or choaking doth not prove1 that water hath an interior or innate density 7as your ,authors opinion is7 no more then smoak1 or thick and gross air hath2 but the density of water is caused more through the wet and moist exterior parts1 joyning and uniting closely together2 and the interior nature of smoak being more moist or glutinous then thin air1 and so more apt to unite its exterior parts1 it makes it to come in effect nearer to water2 for though water and smoak are both of rare natures1 yet not so rare as clear and pure air2 neither is water or smoak so porous as pure air1 by reason the exterior parts of water and smoak are more moist or glutinous then pure air4 ,but the thickness of water and smoak is the onely cause of the smothering of men1 or some animals1 as by stopping their breath1 for a man can no more live without air1 then he can without food2 and a well tempered or middle degree of air is the most proper for animal ,respiration2 for if the air be too thick1 it may soon smother or choak him2 and if too thin1 it is not sufficient to give him breath3 ,and this is the reason that a man being drown'd1 is not onely smother'd1 but choak'd by water2 because there enters more through the exterior passages into his body then can be digested2 for water is apt to flow more forcibly and with greater strength then air2 not that it is more dilating then air1 but by reason it is thicker1 and so stronger1 or of more force2 for the denser a body is1 the stronger it is2 and a heavy body1 when moved1 is more forcible then a light body4 ,but ,i pray by this expression mistake not the nature of water2 for the interior nature of water hath not that gravity1 which heavy or dense bodies have1 its nature being rare and light1 as air1 or fire2 but the weight of water1 as ,i said before1 proceeds onely from the closeness and compactness of its exterior parts1 not through a contraction in its interior nature2 and there is no argument1 which proves better1 that water in its interior nature is dilating1 then that its weight is not apt to press to a point2 for though water is apt to descend1 through the union of its parts1 yet it cannot press hard1 by reason of its dilating nature1 which hinders that heavy pressing quality2 for a dilating body cannot have a contracted weight1 ,i mean1 so as to press to a ,center1 which is to a point2 and this is the reason1 that when a grave or heavy body sinks down to the bottom of water1 it is not opprest1 hurt1 crusht1 or bruised by the weight of water2 for1 as ,i said1 the nature of water being dilating1 it can no more press hard to a center1 then vapour1 air1 or fire3 ,the truth is1 water would be as apt to ascend as descend1 if it were not for the wet1 glutinous and sticking1 cleaving quality of its exterior parts2 but as the quantity and quality of the exterior parts makes water apt to sink1 or descend1 so the dilating nature makes it apt to flow1 if no hinderance stop its course2 also the quantity and quality of its exterior parts is the cause1 that some heavy bodies do swim without sinking3 as for example2 a great heavy ,ship will not readily sink1 unless its weight be so contracted as to break asunder the united parts of water2 for the wet quality of water causing its exterior parts to joyn close1 gives it such an united strength1 as to be able to bear a heavy burden1 if the weight be dilated1 or level1 and not piercing or penetrating2 for those bodies that are most compact1 will sink sooner1 although of less weight then those that are more dilated although of greater weight3 ,also the exterior and outward shape or form makes some bodies more apt to sink then others2 ,indeed1 the outward form and shape of ,creatures is one of the chief causes of either sinking or swimming4 ,but to conclude1 water in its interior nature is of a mean or middle degree1 as neither too rare1 nor too grave a body2 and for its exterior quality1 it is in as high a degree for wetness1 as fire is for heat2 and being apt both to divide1 and to unite1 it can bear a burden1 and devour a burden1 so that some bodies may swim1 and others sink2 and the cause1 that a sunk body is not opprest1 crush'd1 or squeesed1 is the dilating nature and quality of water1 which hinders its parts from pressing or crowding towards a point or center2 for although water is heavy1 and apt to descend1 yet its weight is not caused by a contraction of its substance1 but by a union of its parts4 ,thus1 ,madam1 ,i have obeyed your commands1 in giving you my reasons to your propounded question1 which if you approve1 ,i have my aim2 if not1 ,i submit to your better judgment3 for you know ,i am in all respects1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend to serve you4 ,,xiii4 ,,madam1 ,i am glad1 you are pleased with my reasons ,i gave to your propounded question concerning the weight of ,water2 and since you have been pleased to send me some more of that subject1 ,i shall be ready also to give my answer to them1 according to the capacity of my judgment4 ,first1 you desire to know1 ,how it comes1 that ,water will by degrees ascend through a narrow pipe1 when the pipe is placed straight upright2 or perpendicular8 ,the reason1 in my opinion is1 that ,water1 having a dilative nature1 when it finds an obstruction to descend or flow even1 will dilate it self ascendingly1 according as it hath liberty1 or freedom1 and strength1 or quantity2 the truth is1 water would be more apt to ascend then to descend1 were it not for the close uniting of its liquid ,parts1 which causes its exterior density1 and this density makes it of more weight then its nature is2 and the proof that water is apt in its nature to ascend1 is1 that some sorts of vapours are made onely by the dilation and rarefaction of ascending ,water4 ,your second question is1 ,why the surface of water seems to be concave in its middle1 and higher on every side8 ,i answer1 ,the interior figure of water is a circular figure1 which being a round figure1 is both concave1 and convex2 for where one is1 the other must be2 and the motions of ebbing and flowing1 and ascending or descending1 are partly of that figure2 and so according to the exterior dilating strength or weakness1 the exterior parts of water become either concave or convex2 for in a full strength1 as a full stream1 the exterior parts of water flow in a convex figure1 but when they want strength1 they ebb in a concave figure4 ,your third question is1 ,what makes frozen water apt to break those ,vessels wherein it is contained1 in the act of freezing or congealing8 ,i answer3 ,the same cause that makes water clear1 as also more swell'd then usually it is3 which cause is the inherent dilative nature of water2 for water being naturally dilative1 when as cold attractions do assault it1 the moist dilations of water in the conflict use more then their ordinary strength to resist those cold contracting motions1 by which the body of water dilates it self into a larger compass1 according as it hath liberty or freedom1 or quantity of parts2 and the cold parts not being able to drive the water back to its natural compass1 bind it as it is extended1 like as if a beast should be bound when his legs and neck are thrust out at the largest extent1 in striving to kick or thrust away his enemies and imprisoners3 ,and so the reason why water breaks these vessels wherein it is inclosed1 in the act of its freezing or congealing is1 that when the cold contractions are so strong as they endeavour to extinguish the dilating nature of water1 the water refilling1 forces its parts so1 as they break the vessel which incloses them3 ,the same reason makes ,ice clear and transparent2 for it is not the rarefaction of water that doth it1 but the dilation1 which causes the parts of water to be not onely more loose and porous1 but also more smooth and even1 by resisting the cold contractions2 for every part endeavours to defend their borders with a well ordered and regular flowing or streaming1 and not onely to defend1 but to enlarge their compass against their enemies4 ,your fourth question is1 ,how it comes that ,snow and ,salt mixt together doth make ,ice8 ,the reason1 in my judgment1 is1 that ,salt being very active1 and partly of the nature of fire1 doth sometimes preserve1 and sometimes destroy other bodies1 according to its power1 or rather according to the nature of those bodies it works on2 and salt being mixt with snow1 endeavours to destroy it2 but having not so much force1 melts it onely by its heat1 and reduces it into its first principle1 which is water1 altering the figure of snow2 but the cold contractions remaining in the water1 and endeavouring to maintain and keep their power1 straight draw the water or melted snow into the figure of ice1 so as neither the salts heat1 nor the waters dilative nature1 are able to resist or destroy those cold contractions2 for although they destroy'd the first figure1 which is snow1 yet they cannot hinder the second1 which is ,ice4 ,your last question is1 ,how the ,clouds can hang so long in the ,skie without falling down8 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i do not perceive that ,clouds1 being come to their full weight and gravity1 do keep up in the air1 but some of them fall down in showres of rain1 others in great and numerous flakes of snow2 some are turned into wind1 and some fall down in thick mists1 so that they onely keep up so long1 until they are of a full weight for descent1 or till their figure is altered into some other body1 as into air1 wind1 rain1 lightning1 thunder1 snow1 hail1 mist1 and the like4 ,but many times their dilating motions keep or hinder them from descending1 to which contracting motions are required4 ,in my opinion1 it is more to be admired1 that the ,sea doth not rise1 then that ,clouds do not fall2 for1 as we see1 ,clouds fall very often1 as also change from being ,clouds1 to some other figure3 ,wherefore it is neither the ,sun1 nor ,stars1 nor the ,vapours1 which arise from the ,earth1 and cause the ,clouds1 nor the porosity of their bodies1 nor the ,air1 that can keep or hinder them from falling or changing to some other body2 but they being come to their full weight1 fall or change according as is fittest for them4 ,and these are all the reasons ,i can give you for the present2 if they do not satisfie you1 ,i will study for others1 and in all occasions endeavour to express my self1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 ,,xiv4 ,,madam1 ,since in my last1 ,i made mention of the ,congealing of ,water into ,ice and ,snow1 ,i cannot choose1 but by the way tell you1 that ,i did lately meet with an ,author1 who is of opinion1 ,that ,snow is nothing else but ,ice broken or ground into small pieces4 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that this opinion may serve very well for a ,fancy1 but not for a ,rational ,truth1 or at least for a ,probable ,reason2 ,for why may not the cold motions make snow without beating or grinding1 as well as they make ,ice8 ,surely ,nature is wiser then to trouble her self with unnecessary labour1 and to make an easie work difficult1 as ,art her ,creature doth1 or as some dull humane capacities conceive2 for it is more easie for ,nature to make ,snow by some sorts of cold contractions1 as she makes ,ice by other sorts of cold contractions1 then to force ,air and ,wind to beat1 grinde1 or pound ,ice into ,snow1 which would cause a confusion and disturbance through the ,irregularity of several parts1 being jumbled in a confused manner together4 ,the truth is1 it would rather cause a ,war in ,nature1 then a natural production1 alteration1 or transformation3 ,neither can ,i conceive1 in what region this turbulent and laborious work should be acted2 certainly not in the caverns of the ,earth1 for snow descends from the upper ,region4 ,but1 perchance1 this ,author believes1 that ,nature imploys ,wind as a ,hand1 and the ,cold air as a ,spoon1 to beat ,ice like the white of an ,egg into a froth of ,snow4 ,but the great quantity of ,snow1 in many places1 doth prove1 that ,snow is not made of the fragments of ,ice1 but that some sorts of cold contractions on a watery body1 make the figure of snow in the substance of water1 as other sorts of cold contractions make the figure of ice2 which motions and figures ,i have treated of in my ,book of ,philosophy1 according to that ,judgment and ,reason which ,nature has bestowed upon me4 ,the ,author of this ,fancy1 gives the same reason for ,snow being white3 ,for ,ice1 says he1 is a transparent body1 and all transparent bodies1 when beaten into powder1 appear white2 and since ,snow is nothing else but ,ice powder'd small1 it must of necessity shew white4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i am not so experienced1 as to know that all transparent bodies1 being beaten small1 shew white2 but grant it be so1 yet that doth not prove1 that the whiteness of snow proceeds from the broken parts of ,ice1 unless it be proved that the whiteness of all bodies proceeds from the powdering of transparent bodies1 which ,i am sure he cannot do2 for ,silver1 and millions of other things are white1 which were never produced from the powder of transparent bodies3 ,neither do ,i know any reason against it1 but that which makes a ,lilly white1 may also be the cause of the whiteness of ,snow1 that is1 such a figure as makes a white colour2 for different figures1 in my opinion1 are the cause of different colours1 as you will find in my ,book of ,philosophy1 where ,i say1 that ,nature by contraction of lines draws such or such a ,figure1 which is such or such a ,colour2 as such a ,figure is red1 and such a ,figure is green1 and so of all the rest3 ,but the ,palest colours1 and so white1 are the loosest and slackest figures2 ,indeed1 white1 which is the nearest colour to light1 is the smoothest1 evenest and straightest figure1 and composed of the smallest lines3 ,as for example2 suppose the figure of #h4 were the colour of ,red1 and the figure of #a4 the colour of ,white2 or suppose the figure of ,red to be a z4 and the figure of an r4 to be the figure of ,green1 and a straight l4 the figure of ,white2 ,and mixt figures make mixt colours3 ,the like examples may be brought of other ,figures1 as of a ,harpsichord and its strings1 a ,lute and its strings1 a ,harp and its strings1 c4 ,by which your ,reason shall judg1 whether it be not easier for ,nature1 to make ,snow and its whiteness by the way of contraction1 then by the way of dissolution3 ,as for example2 ,nature in making ,snow1 contracts or congeals the exterior figure of ,water into the figure of a ,harp1 which is a ,triangular figure with the figure of straight strings within it2 for the exterior figure of the ,harp represents the exterior figure of ,snow1 and the figure of the strings extended in straight lines represent the figure of its whiteness4 ,and thus it is easier to make ,snow and its whiteness at one act1 then first to contract or congeal water into ,ice1 and then to cause wind and cold air to beat and break that ,ice into powder1 and lastly to contract or congeal that powder into flakes of ,snow4 ,which would be a very troublesom work for ,nature1 viz4 to produce one effect by so many violent actions and several labours1 when the making of two figures by one action will serve the turn4 ,but ,nature is wiser then any of her ,creatures can conceive2 for she knows how to make1 and how to dissolve1 form2 and transform1 with facility and ease1 without any difficulty2 for her actions are all easie and free1 yet so subtil1 curious and various1 as not any part or creature of ,nature can exactly or throughly trace her ways1 or know her wisdom4 ,and thus leaving her1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xv4 ,,madam1 ,i have taken several questions out of your new ,author1 which ,i intend to answer in this present ,letter according to the conceptions of my own sense and reason1 and to submit them to your censure2 which if you vouchsafe to grant me without partiality1 ,i shall acknowledg my self much obliged to you for this favour4 ,the first question is1 ,why wet ,linnen is dried in the ,air8 ,i answer2 ,that1 according to my sense and reason1 the water which is spred upon the linnen1 being not united in a full and close body1 dilates beyond the ,circle-degree of water and wetness1 and so doth easily change from water to vapour1 and from vapour to air1 whereby the linnen becomes as dry1 as it was before it became wet4 ,the second question is1 ,why ,water and ,wine intermix so easily and suddenly together8 ,i answer3 ,all wet liquors1 although their exterior figures do differ1 yet their interior natures1 figures and forms are much alike1 and those things that are of the same interior nature1 do easily and suddenly joyn as into one3 ,wherefore ,wine and ,water having both wet natures1 do soon incorporate together1 whereas1 were they of different natures1 they would not so peaceably joyn together1 but by their contrary natures become enemies1 and strive to destroy each other2 but this is to be observed1 that the sharp points of the ,circle-lines of ,wine1 by passing through the smooth ,circle-lines of ,water1 help to make a more hasty and sudden conjunction4 ,the third question1 is1 ,why ,light1 which in its nature is white1 shining through a coloured ,glass1 doth appear of the same colour which the ,glass is of1 either ,blew1 ,green1 ,red1 or the like8 ,i answer3 ,the reason is1 that though ,light in its nature be white1 and the ,glass clear and transparent1 yet when as the ,glass is stained or painted with colours1 both the clearness of the glass1 and the whiteness of the light1 is obstructed by the figure of that colour the glass is stained or painted withal1 and the light spreading upon or thorow the glass1 represents it self in the figure of that same colour2 indeed1 in all probability to sense and reason1 it appears1 that the lines or beams of light1 which are straight1 small1 even1 and parallel1 do contract in their entrance through the glass into the figure of the colour the glass is stained or painted with1 so that the light passes through the glass figuratively1 in so much1 as it seems to be of the same colour the glass is of1 although in it self it is white1 lucent1 and clear2 and as the light appears1 so the eye receives it1 if the sight be not destructive4 ,the fourth question1 is1 ,whether 7as your ,authors opinion is7 kisses feel pleasing and delightful by the thinness of the parts1 and a gentle stirring and quavering of the tangent spirits1 that give a pleasing tact8 ,i answer3 ,if this were so1 then all kisses would be pleasing1 which surely are not2 for some are thought very displeasing1 especially from thin lips2 wherefore1 in my opinion1 it is neither the thinness of the parts of the lips1 nor the quavering of the tangent spirits1 but the appetites and passions of life1 reason1 and soul1 that cause the pleasure2 ,nevertheless1 ,i grant1 the stirring up of the spirits may contribute to the increasing1 heightening1 or strengthning of that tact1 but it is not the prime cause of it4 ,the fifth question1 is1 ,whether the greatest man have always the greatest strength8 ,i answer1 ,not3 for strength and greatness of bulk doth not always consist together1 witness experience3 for a little man may be1 and is oftentimes stronger then a tall man4 ,the like of other animal ,creatures3 ,as for example1 some ,horses of a little or middle size1 have a great deal more strength then others which are high and big2 for it is the quantity of sensitive matter that gives strength1 and not the bigness or bulk of the body4 ,the sixth question1 is1 ,whether this ,world or ,universe be the biggest ,creature8 ,i answer3 ,it is not possible to be known1 unless ,man could perfectly know its dimension or extension1 or whether there be more ,worlds then one3 ,but1 to speak properly1 there is no such thing as biggest or least in ,nature4 ,the seventh question1 is1 ,whether the ,earth be the ,center of ,matter1 or of the ,world8 ,as for ,matter1 it being ,infinite1 has no ,center1 by reason it has no ,circumference2 and1 as for this ,world1 its ,center cannot be known1 unless man knew the utmost parts of its circumference1 for no ,center can be known without its circumference2 and although some do imagine this world so little1 that in comparison to ,infinite ,matter1 it would not be so big as the least ,pins head1 yet their knowledg cannot extend so far as to know the circumference of this little ,world2 by which you may perceive the ,truth of the old saying1 ,man talks much1 but knows little4 ,the eighth question is1 ,whether all ,centers must needs be full1 and close1 as a stufft ,cushion2 and whether the matter in the ,center of the ,universe or ,world be dense1 compact1 and heavy8 ,i answer3 ,this can no more be known1 then the circumference of the ,world2 for what man is able to know1 whether the ,center of the world be rare1 or dense1 since he doth not know where its ,center is2 and as for other particular ,centers1 some ,centers may be rare1 some dense1 and some may have less matter then their circumferences4 ,the ninth question is1 ,whether ,finite ,creatures can be produced out of an ,infinite material cause8 ,i answer3 ,that1 to my sense and reason1 an ,infinite cause must needs produce ,infinite effects1 though not in each ,particular1 yet in ,general2 that is1 ,matter1 being ,infinite in substance1 must needs be dividable into ,infinite parts in number1 and thus ,infinite ,creatures must needs be produced out of ,infinite ,matter2 but ,man being but a finite part1 thinks all must be finite too1 not onely each particular ,creature1 but also the ,matter out of which all ,creatures are produced1 which is corporeal ,nature4 ,nevertheless1 those ,infinite effects in ,nature are equalized by her different motions which are her different actions2 for it is not non-sence1 but most demonstrable to sense and reason that there are equalities or a union in ,infinite4 ,the tenth question is1 ,whether the ,elements be the onely matter out of which all other ,creatures are produced8 ,i answer3 ,the ,elements1 as well as all other ,creatures1 as it appears to humane sense and reason1 are all of one and the same ,matter1 which is the onely ,infinite ,matter2 and therefore the ,elements cannot be the ,matter of all other ,creatures1 for several sorts of ,creatures have several ways of productions1 and ,i know no reason to the contrary1 but that ,animals1 ,vegetables1 and ,minerals1 may as well derive their essence from each other1 as from the ,elements1 or the ,elements from them2 for as all ,creatures do live by each other1 so they are produced from each other1 according to the several ways or manners of productions4 ,but mistake me not1 ,madam1 for ,i speak of production in ,general1 and not of such natural production whereby the several species of ,creatures are maintained3 ,as for example1 ,generation in ,animals2 for an ,element cannot generate an ,animal in that manner as an ,animal can generate or produce its like2 for as ,nature is wise1 so her actions are all wise and orderly1 or else it would make a horrid confusion amongst the ,infinite parts of ,nature4 ,the eleventh question is1 ,what is meant by ,natural ,theology8 ,i answer3 ,natural ,theology1 in my opinion1 is nothing else but ,moral ,philosophy2 for as for our belief1 it is grounded upon the ,scripture1 and not upon ,reason4 ,these1 ,madam1 are the questions which ,i have pickt out of your new ,author1 together with my answers1 of which ,i desire your impartial ,judgment3 ,but ,i must add one thing more before ,i conclude1 which is1 ,i am much pleased with your ,authors opinion1 ,that ,sound may be perceived by the ,eye1 ,colour by the ,ear1 and that ,sound and ,colour may be smell'd and tasted2 and ,i have been of this opinion eleven years since1 as you will find in my ,book of ,poems1 whose first ,edition was printed in the ,year1 #afec4 ,and thus ,i take my leave of you1 and remain constantly1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend to serve you4 ,,xvi4 ,,madam1 ,concerning your question of the ascending nature of fire1 ,i am absolutely of ,aristotle's ,opinion1 that it is as natural for ,fire to ascend1 as it is for ,earth to descend2 ,and why should we believe the nature of one1 and doubt the nature of the other8 ,for if it be granted1 that there are as well ascending1 as descending bodies in ,nature1 as also low and high places1 7according to the situation of ,particulars7 and ,circumferences1 as well as ,centers1 7considering the shape of bodies7 ,i cannot perceive by humane reason1 but that the ,nature of fire is ascending1 and that it is very improbable1 it should have a descending or contracting nature1 as to tend or endeavour to a ,center4 ,but1 ,madam1 give me leave to ask what sort of ,fire you mean1 whether a ,celestial1 or a ,terrestrial ,fire1 viz4 that which is named an ,elemental fire1 or any other sort of fire8 for there may be as many several sorts of fire1 as of other ,creatures2 or whether you mean onely that sort of fire that belongs to this terrestrial ,globe1 or all the fire in general that is in ,infinite ,nature8 and if you mean onely that sort of fire which belongs to this ,terrestrial ,world we live upon2 ,i answer1 ,there are many several sorts of that fire too2 for all the fire belonging to this ,earthly ,globe1 doth not lie in one place1 body1 or part1 no more then all metal1 or but one sort of metal1 as ,gold1 lies in one mine1 or all ,mankind in one womb4 ,neither can ,i believe1 that the ,sun is the onely ,celestial ,fire in ,nature1 but that there may be as numerous ,suns1 as there are other sorts of ,creatures in ,nature4 ,but as for the ascending propriety of this terrestrial ,fire1 you may say1 ,that the ,elements do commix and unite in this worldly ,globe1 and if ,fire should have an ascending motion1 it would pierce into other ,globes1 or ,worlds1 and never leave ascending4 ,i answer3 ,that1 first of all1 the strength of fire is to be considered1 consisting not onely in its quantity1 but also in its quality2 as whether it can ascend to those bodies and places which are far above it3 ,for example2 ,a ,man1 or any other ,creature1 hath never so much strength1 or ability1 or length of life1 as to travel to the utmost parts of the ,universe1 were the way never so plain and free1 and the number of men never so great3 the like for ,elementary fire1 which hath life and death1 that is1 generation and dissolution1 and successive motion1 as well as other ,creatures4 ,but you would fain know1 whether fire1 if it were left at liberty1 would not turn to a ,globous figure8 ,i answer2 ,that1 to my sense and reason1 it would not3 but some men1 seeing the flame of fire in an arched ,oven1 descend round the sides of the ,oven in a ,globous figure1 do perhaps imagine the nature of fire to be descending1 and its natural figure round as a ,globe1 which is ridiculous2 for the fire in the ,oven1 although every where incompassed and bound1 yet1 according to its nature1 ascends to the top of the ,oven2 and finding a stoppage and suppression1 offers to descend perpendicularly2 but by reason of a continual ascending of the following flame1 the first1 and so all the following parts of flame are forced to spread about1 and descend round the sides of the ,oven1 so that the descension of the flame is forced1 and not natural1 and its ,globous figure is caused1 as it were1 by a mould1 which is the ,oven4 ,but some are of opinion1 that all bodies have descending motions towards the ,center of this worldly ,globe1 and therefore they do not believe1 that any bodies do ascend naturally3 ,but what reason have they to believe one1 and not the other8 ,besides1 how do they know that all bodies would rest in the ,center of this terrestrial ,globe1 if they came thither8 ,for if it was possible1 that a hole could be digged from the superficies of this ,earthly ,globe thorow the middle or ,center of it unto the opposite superficies1 and a stone be sent thorow2 the question is1 whether the stone would rest in the ,center1 and not go quite thorow8 ,wherefore this is but an idle ,fancy2 and the proof that ,fire tends not to a ,center1 is1 because it cannot be poised or weighed1 not onely by reason of its rarity1 but of its dilative and aspiring ,nature2 and as fire is ascending1 or aspiring1 so likewise do ,i1 ,madam1 aspire to the top of your favour1 and shall never descend from the ambition to serve you1 but by the suppression of death4 ,till then1 ,i remain1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend1 and faithful ,servant4 ,,xvii4 ,,madam1 ,in your last1 you were pleased to desire my answer to these following questions3 ,first1 ,what the reason is1 that a ,vessel1 although it be of a solid and compact substance1 yet will retain the smell or odour of a forreign substance poured into it1 for a long time8 ,i answer3 ,the ,vessel1 or rather the perceptive corporeal motions of the ,vessel1 having patterned out the figure of the sent of the odorous substance1 retain that same figure of sent1 although the odorous substance is gone2 and as long as that patterned figure is perfect1 the sent will remain in the ,vessel1 either more or less1 according as the figure doth last or alter4 ,but you must consider1 ,madam1 that although it be the natural motions that make those patterns of odours1 yet those patterned figures are but as it were artificial1 like as a man who draws a ,copy from an ,original2 for ,nature has divers and several ways of such motions as we call ,art1 for whatsoever is an imitation1 is that which man calls ,art4 ,your second question was1 ,how it came1 that the mind and understanding in many did die or dissolve before the body8 ,i answer3 ,the reason is1 because the rational corporeal motions alter before the sensitive2 for as in some1 as for example1 in ,natural fools1 the rational motions never move to a regular humane understanding1 so in some dying ,persons they do make a general alteration before the sensitive4 ,your third question was1 ,why a man1 being bitten by a mad ,dog1 is onely distempered in his mind1 and not in his body8 ,the reason1 according to my judgment1 is1 that the rational part of ,matter is onely disturbed1 and not the sensitive4 ,the fourth question was1 ,why a ,basilisk will kill with his eyes8 ,i answer3 ,it is the sensitive corporeal motions in the organ of sight in the man1 which upon the printing of the figure of the eyes of the ,basilisk1 make a sudden alteration4 ,your fifth question was1 ,why an ,asp will kill insensibly by biting8 ,the reason1 in my opinion1 is1 ,that the biting of the ,asp hath the same efficacy as deadly ,opium hath1 yea1 and much stronger4 ,your sixth question was1 ,why a ,dog that rejoyces1 swings his tail1 and a ,lyon when angry1 or a ,cat when in a fear1 do lift up their tails8 ,i answer3 ,the several motions of the mind may produce either but one1 or several sorts of motions in some part or parts of the body2 and as the sensitive motions of anger will produce tears1 so will the motions of joy2 but grief made by the rational motions of the mind1 may by excess disturb and make a general alteration of the sensitive motions in an animal3 the same may excessive joy4 ,but1 ,madam1 you may perhaps find out better reasons for your own questions then these are2 for my endeavour was onely to frame my answer to the ground of my own opinions1 and so to satisfie your desire1 which was1 and is still the ambition of1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xviii4 ,,madam1 ,in your last1 you were pleased to desire an account1 how far1 or how much ,i did understand the ancient and modern ,philosophers in their ,philosophical ,writings4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i can more readily tell you what ,i do not understand1 then what ,i do understand3 for1 first1 ,i do not understand their sophistical ,logick1 as to perswade with arguments that black is white1 and white is black2 and that fire is not hot1 nor water wet1 and other such things2 for the glory in ,logick is rather to make doubts1 then to find truth2 indeed1 that ,art now is like thick1 dark clouds1 which darken the light of truth4 ,next3 ,i do not understand in particular1 what they mean by second matter2 for if they name figures and forms second matter1 they may as well say1 all several motions1 which are the several actions of ,nature1 are several matters1 and so there would be infinite several matters1 which would produce a meer confusion in ,nature4 ,neither do ,i understand1 when they say1 a body dissolves into the first matter2 for ,i am not able to conceive their first matter1 nor what they mean by magna and major materia2 for ,i believe there is but one matter1 and the motion of that matter is its action by which it produces several figures and effects2 so that the nature of the matter is one and the same1 although its motions1 that is1 its actions1 be various1 for the various effects alter not the nature or unity of the onely matter4 ,neither do ,i understand what they mean by corruption1 for surely ,nature is not corruptible4 ,nor do ,i understand their individables in ,nature1 nor a bodiless form1 nor a privation1 nor a being without a body2 nor any such thing as they call rest1 for there's not any thing without motion in ,nature3 ,some do talk of moving minima's1 but they do not tell what those minima's or their motions are1 or how they were produced1 or how they came to move4 ,neither do ,i understand when they say there is but one ,world1 and that finite2 for if there be no more ,matter then that which they call the whole ,world1 and may be measured by a ,jacob's staff1 then certainly there is but little matter1 and that no bigger then an atome in comparison to ,infinite4 ,neither can my reason comprehend1 when they say1 that not any thing hath power from its interior nature to move exteriously and locally2 for common sense and reason1 that is sight and observation1 doth prove the contrary4 ,neither do ,i know what they mean by making a difference between matter and form1 power and act2 for there can be no form without matter1 nor no matter without form2 and as act includes power1 so power is nothing without act3 ,neither can ,i conceive ,reason to be separable from matter2 nor what is meant when they say1 that1 onely that is real1 which moves the understanding without4 ,nor do ,i understand what they mean by intentionals1 accidentals1 incorporeal beings1 formal ratio1 formal unity1 and hundreds the like2 enough to puzle truth1 when all is but the several actions of one cause1 to wit1 the onely matter4 ,but most men make such cross1 narrow1 and intricate ways in ,nature1 with their over-nice distinctions1 that ,nature appears like a ,labyrinth1 whenas really she is as plain as an un-plowed1 ditched1 or hedged champion3 ,nay1 some make ,nature so full1 that she can neither move nor stir2 and others again will have her so empty1 as they leave not any thing within her2 and some with their penetrations1 pressings1 squeezings1 and the like1 make such holes in her1 as they do almost wound1 press and squeeze her to death3 ,and some are so learned1 witty1 and ingenious1 as they understand and know to discourse of the true compass1 just weight1 exact rules1 measures and proportions of the ,universe1 as also of the exact division of the ,chaos1 and the architecture of the world1 to an atome4 ,thus1 ,madam1 ,i have made my confession to you of what ,i understand not1 and have endeavoured to make my ignorance as brief as ,i could2 but the great ,god knows1 that my ignorance is longer then that which is named life and death2 and as for my understanding1 ,i can onely say1 that ,i understand nothing better1 but my self to be1 ,madam1 ,your most faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,xix4 ,,madam1 ,since ,i have given you1 in my last1 an account how much ,i did understand the ,philosophical works of both the ancient and modern ,philosophers1 or rather what ,i did not understand of them1 you would fain have my opinion now of the persons themselves4 ,truly1 ,madam1 as for those that are dead1 or those that are living1 ,i cannot say any thing1 but that ,i believe they all were or are worthy persons1 men of vast understandings1 subtil conceptions1 ingenious wits1 painful students1 and learned writers4 ,but as for their works1 as ,i told you heretofore1 ,i confess ingeniously1 ,i understand them not1 by reason ,i am ignorant in their ,scholastical ,arts1 as ,logick1 ,metaphysick1 ,mathematicks1 and the like3 ,for to my simple apprehension1 when as ,logicians argue of natural causes and effects1 they make natural causes to produce natural effects with more difficulty and enforcement then ,nature knows of2 and as for ,mathematicians1 they endeavour to inchant ,nature with ,circles1 and bind her with lines so hard1 as if she were so mad1 that she would do some mischief1 when left at liberty4 ,geometricians weigh ,nature to an ,atome1 and measure her so exactly1 as less then a hairs breadth2 besides1 they do press and squeeze her so hard and close1 as they almost stifle her4 ,and ,natural ,philosophers do so stuff her with dull1 dead1 senceless minima's1 like as a sack with meal1 or sand1 by which they raise such a ,dust as quite blinds ,nature and natural reason4 ,but ,chymists torture ,nature worst of all2 for they extract and distil her beyond substance1 nay1 into no substance1 if they could4 ,as for natural ,theologers1 ,i understand them least of any2 for they make such a gallamalfry of ,philosophy and ,divinity1 as neither can be distinguished from the other4 ,in short1 ,madam1 ,they all with their intricate definitions and distinctions set my brain on the rack3 but some ,philosophers are like some ,poets1 for they endeavour to write strong lines4 ,you may ask me1 what is meant by strong lines8 ,i answer3 ,weak sense4 ,to which leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xx4 ,,madam1 ,i am not of your opinion1 ,that nice distinctions and ,logistical arguments discover truth1 dissolve doubts1 and clear the understanding2 but ,i say1 they rather make doubts of truth1 and blind-fold the understanding2 ,indeed1 nice distinctions and sophistical arguments1 are very pernicious both in ,schools1 ,church1 and ,state3 ,as for the ,church1 although in ,divinity there is but one ,truth1 yet nice distinctions1 and ,logistical sophistry1 have made such confusion in it1 as has caused almost as many several opinions as there are words in the ,scripture2 and as for natural ,theology1 which is moral ,philosophy1 they have divided vertues and vices into so many parts1 and minced them so small1 that neither can be clearly distinguished4 ,the same in ,government2 they endeavour to cut between command and obedience to a hairs breadth4 ,concerning causes of ,law1 they have abolish'd the intended benefit1 and banish'd equity2 and instead of keeping ,peace1 they make ,war1 causing enmity betwixt men3 ,as for ,natural ,philosophy1 they will not suffer sense and reason to appear in that study3 ,and as for ,physick1 they have kill'd more men then ,wars1 ,plagues1 or ,famine4 ,wherefore from nice distinctions and ,logistical sophistry1 ,good ,god deliver us1 especially1 from those that concern ,divinity2 for they weaken ,faith1 trouble ,conscience1 and bring in ,atheism3 ,in short1 they make controversies1 and endless disputes4 ,but least the opening of my meaning in such plain terms should raise a controversie also between you and me1 ,i'le cut off here1 and rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxi4 ,,madam1 ,yesterday ,i received a visit from the ,lady ,n4 ,m4 who you know hath a quick wit1 rational opinions1 and subtil conceptions2 all which she is ready and free to divulge in her discourse4 ,but when she came to my ,chamber1 ,i was casting up some small accounts2 which when she did see1 ,what1 said she1 are you at ,numeration8 ,yes1 said ,i3 but ,i cannot number well1 nor much1 for ,i do not understand ,arithmetick4 ,said she1 ,you can number to three4 ,yes1 said ,i1 ,i can number to four3 ,nay1 faith1 said she1 the number of three is enough1 if you could but understand that number well1 for it is a mystical number4 ,said ,i1 ,there is no great mystery to count that number2 for one1 and two1 makes three4 ,said she1 ,that is not the mystery2 for the mystery is1 ,that three makes one3 and without this mystery no man can understand ,divinity1 ,nature1 nor himself4 ,then ,i desired her to make me understand that mystery4 ,she said1 ,it required more time to inform me1 then a short visit1 for this mystery was such1 as did puzle all wise men in the world2 and the not understanding of this mystery perfectly1 had caused endless divisions and disputes4 ,i desired1 if she could not make me understand the mystery1 she would but inform me1 how three made one in ,divinity1 ,nature1 and ,man4 ,she said1 ,that was easie to do2 for in ,divinity there are three ,persons in one ,essence1 as ,god the ,father1 the ,son1 and the holy ,ghost1 whose ,essence being individable1 they make but one ,god2 ,and as for ,philosophy1 there is but ,matter1 ,motion1 and ,figure1 which being individable1 make but one ,nature2 ,and as for ,man1 there is ,soul1 ,life1 and ,body1 all three joyned in one ,man4 ,but ,i replied1 ,man's ,life1 ,soul and ,body1 is dividable4 ,that is true1 said she1 but then he is no more a ,man2 for these three are his essential parts1 which make him to be a man2 and when these parts are dissolved1 then his interior nature is changed1 so that he can no longer be call'd a man3 ,as for example2 ,water being turned into ,air1 and having lost its interior nature1 can no more be called ,water1 but it is perfect ,air2 the same is with ,man3 ,but as long as he is a ,man1 then these three forementioned parts which make him to be of that figure are individably united as long as man lasts4 ,besides1 said she1 this is but in the particular1 considering man single1 and by himself2 but in general1 these three1 as life1 soul1 and body1 are individably united1 so that they remain as long as mankind lasts4 ,nay1 although they do dissolve in the particulars1 yet it is but for a time2 for they shall be united again at the last day1 which is the time of their resurrection2 so that also in this respect we may justly call them individable1 for man shall remain with an united soul1 life1 and body1 eternally4 ,and as she was thus discoursing1 in came a ,sophisterian1 whom when she spied1 away she went as fast as she could2 but ,i followed her close1 and got hold of her1 then asked her1 why she ran away8 ,she answer'd1 if she stayed1 the ,logician would dissolve her into nothing1 for the profession of ,logicians is to make something nothing1 and nothing something4 ,i pray'd her to stay and discourse with the ,logician3 ,not for a world1 said she1 for his discourse will make my brain like a confused ,chaos1 full of senseless minima's2 and after that1 he will so knock1 jolt1 and jog it1 and make such whirls and pits1 as will so torture my brain1 that ,i shall wish ,i had not any3 ,wherefore1 said she1 ,i will not stay now1 but visit you again to morrow4 ,and ,i wish with all my heart1 ,madam1 you were so near as to be here at the same time1 that we three might make a ,triumvirate in discourse1 as well as we do in friendship4 ,but since that cannot be1 ,i must rest satisfied that ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxii4 ,,madam1 ,you were pleased to desire my opinion of the works of that ,learned and ,ingenious ,writer ,b4 ,truly1 ,madam1 ,i have read but some part of his works2 but as much as ,i have read1 ,i have observed1 he is a very civil1 eloquent1 and rational ,writer2 the truth is1 his style is a ,gentleman's style4 ,and in particular1 concerning his experiments1 ,i must needs say this1 that1 in my judgment1 he hath expressed himself to be a very industrious and ingenious person2 for he doth neither puzle ,nature1 nor darken truth with hard words and compounded languages1 or nice distinctions2 besides1 his experiments are proved by his own action4 ,but give me leave to tell you1 that ,i observe1 he studies the different parts and alterations1 more then the motions1 which cause the alterations in those parts2 whereas1 did he study and observe the several and different motions in those parts1 how they change in one and the same part1 and how the different alterations in bodies are caused by the different motions of their parts1 he might arrive to a vast knowledg by the means of his experiments2 for certainly experiments are very beneficial to man4 ,in the next place1 you desire my opinion of the ,book call'd1 ,the ,discourses of the ,virtuosi in ,france3 ,i am sorry1 ,madam1 this book comes so late to my hands1 that ,i cannot read it so slowly and observingly1 as to give you a clear judgment of their opinions or discourses in particular2 however1 in general1 and for what ,i have read in it1 ,i may say1 it expresses the ,french to be very learned and eloquent ,writers1 wherein ,i thought our ,english had exceeded them1 and that they did onely excel in wit and ingenuity2 but ,i perceive most ,nations have of all sorts4 ,the truth is1 ingenious and subtil wit brings news2 but learning and experience brings proofs1 at least1 argumental discourses2 and the ,french are much to be commended1 that they endeavour to spend their time wisely1 honourably1 honestly1 and profitably1 not onely for the good and benefit of their own1 but also of other ,nations4 ,but before ,i conclude1 give me leave to tell you1 that concerning the curious and profitable ,arts mentioned in their discourses1 ,i confess1 ,i do much admire them1 and partly believe they may arrive to the use of many of them2 but there are two arts which ,i wish with all my heart ,i could obtain3 the first is1 to argue without error in all kinds1 modes1 and figures1 in a quarter of an hour2 and the other is to learn a way to understand all languages in six hours4 ,but as for the first1 ,i fear1 if ,i want a thorow understanding in every particular argument1 cause1 or point1 a general art or mode of words will not help me1 especially1 if ,i1 being a woman1 should want discretion3 ,and as for the second1 my memory is so bad1 that it is beyond the help of ,art1 so that ,nature has made my understanding harder or closer then ,glass1 through which the ,sun of verity cannot pass1 although its light doth2 and therefore ,i am confident ,i shall not be made1 or taught to learn this mentioned ,art in six hours1 no not in six months4 ,but ,i wish all ,arts were as easily practised1 as mentioned2 and thus ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxiii4 ,,madam1 ,concerning your question1 ,whether a ,point be something1 or nothing1 or between both2 ,my opinion is1 that a natural point is material2 but that which the learned name a ,mathematical point1 is like their ,logistical ,egg1 whereof there is nothing in ,nature any otherwise1 but a word1 which word is material1 as being natural2 for concerning immaterial beings1 it is impossible to believe there be any in ,nature2 and though witty ,students1 and subtil ,arguers have both in past1 and this present age1 endeavoured to prove something1 nothing2 yet words and disputes have not power to annihilate any thing that is in ,nature1 no more then to create something out of nothing2 and therefore they can neither make something1 nothing2 nor nothing to be something3 for the most witty student1 nor the subtilest disputant1 cannot alter ,nature1 but each thing is and must be as ,nature made it4 ,as for your other question1 ,whether there be more then five ,senses8 ,i answer3 ,there are as many senses as there are sensitive motions1 and all sensation or perception is by the way of patterning2 and whosoever is of another opinion1 is1 in my judgment1 a greater friend to contradiction1 then to truth1 at least to probability4 ,lastly1 concerning your question1 why a ,gun1 the longer its barrel is made1 the further it will shoot1 until it come to a certain degree of length2 after which1 the longer it is made1 the weaker it becomes1 so that every degree further1 makes it shoot shorter and shorter1 whereas before it came to such a degree of length1 it shot further and further3 ,give me leave to tell you1 ,madam1 that this question would be put more properly to a ,mathematician1 then to me1 who am ignorant in the ,mathematicks3 ,however1 since you are pleased to desire my opinion thereof1 ,i am willing to give it you4 ,there are1 in my judgment1 but three reasons which do produce this alteration3 ,the one may be the compass of the stock1 or barrel1 which being too wide for the length1 may weaken the force1 or being too narrow for the length1 may retard the force2 the one giving liberty before the force is united1 the other inclosing it so long by a streight passage1 as it loses its force before it hath liberty2 so that the one becomes stronger with length1 the other weaker with length4 ,the second reason1 in my opinion1 is1 ,that degrees of strength may require degrees of the medium4 ,lastly1 ,it may be1 that ,centers are required for degrees of strength2 if so1 every medium may be a ,center1 and the middle length to such a compass may be a ,center of such a force4 ,but many times the force being weaker or stronger1 is caused by the good or ill making of the ,powder1 or ,locks1 or the like4 ,but1 ,madam1 such questions will puzle me as much as those of ,mr4 ,v4 ,z4 concerning those glasses1 one of which being held close in ones hand1 and a little piece being broke of its tail1 makes as great a noise as the discharging of a ,gun3 ,wherefore ,i beseech you1 ,madam1 do not trouble my brain with ,mathematical questions1 wherein ,i have neither skill1 learning1 nor experience by ,practice2 for truly ,i have not the subtilty to find out their mystery1 nor the capacity to understand arts1 no more then ,i am capable to learn several languages4 ,if you command me any thing else ,i am able to do1 assure your self1 there is none shall more readily and cheerfully serve you then my self2 who am1 and shall ever continue1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxiv4 ,,madam1 ,i have heard that ,artists do glory much in their ,glasses1 ,tubes1 ,engines1 and ,stills1 and hope by their ,glasses and ,tubes to see invisible things1 and by their ,engines to produce incredible effects1 and by their ,stills1 ,fire1 and ,furnaces1 to create as ,nature doth2 but all this is impossible to be done3 ,for ,art cannot arrive to that degree1 as to know perfectly ,natures secret and fundamental actions1 her purest matter1 and subtilest motions2 and it is enough if ,artists can but produce such things as are for mans conveniencies and use1 although they never can see the smallest or rarest bodies1 nor great and vast bodies at a great distance1 nor make or create a ,vegetable1 ,animal1 or the like1 as ,nature doth2 for ,nature being ,infinite1 has also ,infinite degrees of figures1 sizes1 motions1 densities1 rarities1 knowledg1 c4 as you may see in my ,book of ,philosophy1 as also in my book of ,poems1 especially that part that treats of little1 minute ,creatures1 which ,i there do name1 for want of other expressions1 ,fairies2 for ,i have considered much the several sizes of ,creatures1 although ,i gave it out but for a fancy in the mentioned book1 lest ,i should be thought extravagant to declare that conception of mine for a rational truth3 ,but if some small bodies cannot be perfectly seen but by the help of magnifying glasses1 and such as they call ,microscopia2 ,i pray1 ,nature being ,infinite1 ,what figures and sizes may there not be1 which our eyes with all the help of ,art are not capable to see8 for certainly1 ,nature hath more curiosities then our exterior senses1 helped by ,art1 can perceive3 ,wherefore ,i cannot wonder enough at those that pretend to know the least or greatest parts or creatures in ,nature1 since no particular ,creature is able to do it4 ,but concerning ,artists1 you would fain know1 ,madam1 whether the ,artist be beholden to the conceptions of the ,student8 ,to which ,i return this short answer3 ,that1 in my judgment1 without the ,students conceptions1 the ,artist could not tell how to make experiments3 ,the truth is1 the conceptions of studious men set the ,artists on work1 although many ,artists do ungratefully attribute all to their own industry4 ,neither doth it always belong to the studious ,concepter to make trials or experiments1 but he leaves that work to others1 whose time is not so much imployed with thoughts or speculations1 as with actions2 for the the ,contemplator is the ,designer1 and the ,artist the ,workman1 or ,labourer1 who ought to acknowledg him his ,master1 as ,i do your ,ladiship1 for ,i am in all respects1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble and faithful ,servant4 ,,xxv4 ,,madam1 ,your ,command in your last was to send you my opinion concerning the division of ,religions1 or of the several opinions in ,religions1 ,i suppose you mean the division of the ,religion1 not of ,religions2 for certainly1 there is but one divine ,truth1 and consequently but one true ,religion3 ,but natural men being composed of many divers parts1 as of several motions and figures1 have divers and several ,ideas1 which the grosser corporeal motions conceive to be divers and several gods1 as being not capable to know the ,great and ,incomprehensible ,god1 who is above ,nature4 ,for example3 ,do but consider1 ,madam1 what strange opinions the ,heathens had of ,god1 and how they divided him into so many several ,persons1 with so many several bodies1 like men2 whereas1 surely ,god considered in his ,essence1 he being a ,spirit1 as the ,scripture describes him1 can neither have ,soul nor body1 as he is a ,god1 but is an ,immaterial ,being2 ,onely the ,heathens did conceive him to have parts1 and so divided the ,incomprehensible ,god into several ,deities1 at least they had several ,deitical ,ideas1 or rather ,fancies of him4 ,but1 ,madam1 ,i confess my ignorance in this great mystery1 and honour1 and praise the ,omnipotent1 ,great1 and ,incomprehensible ,god1 with all fear and humility as ,i ought2 beseeching his infinite mercy to keep me from such presumption1 whereby ,i might prophane his holy ,name1 and to make me obedient to the ,church1 as also to grant me life and health1 that ,i may be able to express how much ,i am1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxvi4 ,,madam1 ,since ,i spake of ,religion in my last1 ,i cannot but acquaint you1 that ,i was the other day in the company of ,sir ,p4 ,h4 and ,sir ,r4 ,l4 where amongst other discourses they talk'd of ,predestination and ,free-will4 ,sir ,p4 ,h4 accounted the opinion of ,predestination not onely absurd1 but blasphemous2 for1 said he1 ,predestination makes ,god appear ,cruel1 as first to create ,angels and ,man1 and then to make them fall from their ,glory1 and damn them eternally3 ,for ,god1 said he1 knew before he made them1 they would fall2 ,neither could he imagine1 from whence that ,pride and ,presumption did proceed1 which was the cause of the ,angels fall1 for it could not proceed from ,god1 ,god being infinitely ,good4 ,sir ,r4 ,l4 answer'd1 ,that this ,pride and ,presumption did not come from ,god1 but from their own ,nature4 ,but1 replyed ,sir ,p4 ,h4 ,god gave them that ,nature1 for they had it not of themselves1 but all what they were1 their ,essence and ,nature1 came from ,god the ,creator of all things1 and to suffer that1 which was in his power to hinder1 was as much as to act4 ,sir ,r4 ,l4 said1 ,god gave both ,angels and ,man a ,free-will at their ,creation4 ,sir ,p4 ,h4 answered1 that a ,free-will was a part of a divine attribute1 which surely ,god would not give away to any ,creature3 ,next1 said he1 he could not conceive why ,god should make ,creatures to cross and oppose him2 for it were neither an act of ,wisdom to make ,rebels1 nor an act of ,justice to make ,devils2 so that neither in his ,wisdom1 ,justice1 nor ,mercy1 ,god could give leave1 that ,angels and ,man should fall through sin2 neither was ,god ignorant that ,angels and ,man would fall2 for surely1 said he1 ,god knew all things1 past1 present1 and to come2 wherefore1 said he1 ,free-will doth weaken the ,power of ,god1 and ,predestination doth weaken the power of man1 and both do hinder each other3 ,besides1 said he1 since ,god did confirm the rest of the ,angels in the same state they were before1 so as they could not fall afterwards1 he might as well have created them all so at first4 ,but ,sir ,r4 ,l4 replied1 ,that ,god suffered ,angels and ,man to fall for his ,glory1 to shew his ,justice in ,devils1 and his ,mercy in ,man2 and that the ,devils express'd ,god's ,omnipotency as much as the ,blessed4 ,to which ,sir ,p4 ,h4 answered1 ,that they expressed more ,god's severity in those horrid torments they suffer through their ,natural ,imperfections1 then his power in making and suffering them to sin4 ,thus they discoursed3 ,and to tell you truly1 ,madam1 my mind was more troubled1 then delighted with their discourse2 for it seemed rather to detract from the honour of the great ,god1 then to increase his ,glory2 and no ,creature ought either to think or to speak any thing that is detracting from the ,glory of the ,creator3 ,wherefore ,i am neither for ,predestination1 nor for an absolute ,free-will1 neither in ,angels1 ,devils1 nor ,man2 for an absolute ,free-will is not competent to any ,creature3 and though ,nature be ,infinite1 and the ,eternal ,servant to the ,eternal and ,infinite ,god1 and can produce ,infinite ,creatures1 yet her ,power and ,will is not absolute1 but limited2 that is1 she has a natural free-will1 but not a supernatural1 for she cannot work beyond the power ,god has given her4 ,but those mystical discourses belong to ,divines1 and not to any ,lay-person1 and ,i confess my self very ignorant in them4 ,wherefore ,i will nor dare not dispute ,god's actions1 being all infinitely wise1 but leave that to ,divines1 who are to inform us what we ought to believe1 and how we ought to live4 ,and thus taking my leave of you for the present1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxvii4 ,,madam1 ,you are pleased to honor me so far1 that you do not onely spend some time in the perusing of my ,book called ,philosophical ,opinions1 but take it so much into your consideration1 as to examine every opinion of mine which dissents from the common way of the ,schools1 marking those places which seem somewhat obscure1 and desiring my explanation of them2 ,all which1 ,i do not onely acknowledg as a great favour1 but as an infallible testimony of your true and unfeigned friendship2 and ,i cannot chuse but publish it to all the world2 both for the honour of your self1 as to let every body know the part of so true a friend1 who is so much concerned for the honour and benefit of my poor ,works2 as also for the good of my mentioned ,book1 which by this means will be rendred more intelligible2 for ,i must confess that my ,philosophical ,opinions are not so plain and perspicuous as to be perfectly understood at the first reading1 which ,i am sorry for4 ,and there be two chief reasons why they are so3 ,first1 ,because they are new1 and never vented before2 for the have their original meerly from my own conceptions1 and are not taken out of other ,philosophers4 ,next1 because ,i being a ,woman1 and not bred up to ,scholarship1 did want names and terms of ,art1 and therefore being not versed in the ,writings of other ,philosophers1 but what ,i knew by hearing1 ,i could not form my named ,book so methodically1 and express my opinions so artificially and clearly1 as ,i might have done1 had ,i been studious in the reading of ,philosophical ,books1 or bred a ,scholar2 for then ,i might have dressed them with a fine coloured ,covering of ,logick and ,geometry1 and set them out in a handsome array2 by which ,i might have also cover'd my ignorance1 like as ,stage-,players do cover their mean persons or degrees with fine ,cloathes4 ,but1 as ,i said1 ,i being void of ,learning and ,art1 did put them forth according to my own conceptions1 and as ,i did understand them myself2 but since ,i have hitherto by the reading of those famous and learned ,authors you sent me1 attained to the knowledg of some artificial ,terms1 ,i shall not spare any labour and pains to make my opinions so intelligible1 that every one1 who without partiality1 spleen1 or malice1 doth read them1 may also easily understand them3 ,and thus ,i shall likewise endeavour to give such answers to your scruples1 objections1 or questions1 as may explain those passages which seem obscure1 and satisfie your desire4 ,in the first place1 and in general1 you desire to know1 ,whether any truth may be had in ,natural ,philosophy3 for since all this study is grounded upon probability1 and he that thinks he has the most probable reasons for his opinion1 may be as far off from truth1 as he who is thought to have the least2 nay1 what seems most probable to day1 may seem least probable to morrow1 especially if an ingenious opposer1 bring rational arguments against it3 ,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 had4 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that the undoubted truth in ,natural ,philosophy1 is1 in my opinion1 like the ,philosopher's ,stone in ,chymistry1 which has been sought for by many learned and ingenious ,persons1 and will be sought as long as the ,art of ,chymistry doth last2 but although they cannot find the ,philosophers ,stone1 yet by the help of this ,art they have found out many rare things both for use and knowledg4 ,the like in ,natural ,philosophy1 although ,natural ,philosophers cannot find out the absolute truth of ,nature1 or ,natures ground-works1 or the hidden causes of natural effects2 nevertheless they have found out many necessary and profitable ,arts and ,sciences1 to benefit the life of man2 for without ,natural ,philosophy we should have lived in dark ignorance1 not knowing the motions of the ,heavens1 the cause of the ,eclipses1 the influences of the ,stars1 the use of ,numbers1 ,measures1 and ,weights1 the vertues and effects of ,vegetables and ,minerals1 the ,art of ,architecture1 ,navigation1 and the like3 ,indeed all ,arts and ,sciences do adscribe their original to the study of ,natural ,philosophy2 and those men are both unwise and ungrateful1 that will refuse rich gifts because they cannot be masters of all ,wealth2 and they are fools1 that will not take remedies when they are sick1 because ,medicines can onely recover them from death for a time1 but not make them live for ever4 ,but to conclude1 ,probability is next to truth1 and the search of a hidden cause finds out visible effects2 and this truth do natural ,philosophers find1 that there are more fools1 then wise men1 which fools will never attain to the honour of being ,natural ,philosophers4 ,and thus leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships humble and faithful ,servant4 ,,xxviii4 ,,madam1 ,your desire is to know1 since ,i say ,nature is ,wise1 ,whether all her parts must be wise also8 ,to which1 ,i answer2 ,that 7by your favour7 all her parts are not fools3 but yet it is no necessary consequence1 that because ,nature is infinitely wise1 all her parts must be so too1 no more then if ,i should say1 ,nature is ,infinite1 therefore every part must be ,infinite3 ,but it is rather necessary1 that because ,nature is ,infinite1 therefore not any single part of hers can be ,infinite1 but must be finite4 ,next1 you desire to know1 ,whether ,nature or the self-moving matter is subject to err1 and to commit mistakes8 ,i answer3 ,although ,nature has naturally an ,infinite wisdom and knowledg1 yet she has not a most pure and intire perfection1 no more then she has an absolute power2 for a most pure and intire perfection belongs onely to ,god3 and though she is infinitely naturally wise in her self1 yet her parts or particular creatures may commit errors and mistakes2 the truth is1 it is impossible but that parts or particular ,creatures must be subject to errors1 because no part can have a perfect or general knowledg1 as being but a part1 and not a whole2 for knowledg is in parts1 as parts are in ,matter3 ,besides several corporeal motions1 that is1 several self-moving parts do delude and oppose each other by their opposite motions2 and this opposition is very requisite in ,nature to keep a mean1 and hinder extreams2 for were there not opposition of parts1 ,nature would run into extreams1 which would confound her1 and all her parts4 ,and as for delusion1 it is part of ,natures delight1 causing the more variety2 but there be some actions in ,nature which are neither perfect mistakes1 nor delusions1 but onely want of a clear and thorow perception3 ,as for example2 when a man is sailing in a ,ship1 he thinks the shore moves from the ship1 when as it is the ship that moves from the shore3 ,also when a man is going backward from a ,looking-glass1 he thinks1 the figure in the ,glass goeth inward1 whereas it is himself that goes backward1 and not his figure in the glass4 ,the cause of it is1 ,that the perception in the eye perceives the distanced body1 but not the motion of the distance or medium2 for though the man may partly see the motion of the visible parts1 yet he doth not see the parts or motion of the distance or medium1 which is invisible1 and not subject to the perception of sight2 and since a pattern cannot be made if the object be not visible1 hence ,i conclude1 that the motion of the medium cannot make perception1 but that it is the perceptive motions of the eye1 which pattern out an object as it is visibly presented to the corporeal motions in the eye2 for according as the object is presented1 the pattern is made1 if the motions be regular3 ,for example2 a fired end of a stick1 if you move it in a circular figure1 the sensitive corporeal motions in the eye pattern out the figure of fire1 together with the exterior or circular motion1 and apprehend it as a fiery circle2 and if the stick be moved any otherwise1 they pattern out such a figure as the fired end of the stick is moved in2 so that the sensitive pattern is made according to the exterior corporeal figurative motion of the object1 and not according to its interior figure or motions4 ,and this1 ,madam1 is in short my answer to your propounded questions1 by which1 ,i hope1 you understand plainly the meaning of1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxix4 ,,madam1 ,the scruples or questions you sent me last1 are these following4 ,first1 you desire to be informed what ,i mean by ,phantasmes and ,ideas8 ,i answer3 ,they are figures made by the purest and subtilest degree of self-moving matter1 that is to say1 by the rational corporeal motions1 and are the same with thoughts or conceptions4 ,next1 your question is1 what ,i do understand by ,sensitive ,life8 ,i answer3 ,it is that part of self-moving matter1 which in its own nature is not so pure and subtil as the rational1 for it is but the labouring1 and the rational the designing part of matter4 ,your third question is1 ,whether this sensitive self-moving matter be dense or rare8 ,i answer3 density and rarity are onely effects caused by the several actions1 that is1 the corporeal motions of ,nature2 wherefore it cannot properly be said1 that sensitive matter is either dense1 or rare2 for it has a self-power to contract and dilate1 compose and divide1 and move in any kind of motion whatsoever1 as is requisite to the framing of any figure2 and thus ,i desire you to observe well1 that when ,i say the rational part of matter is purer in its degree then the sensitive1 and that this is a rare and acute matter1 ,i do not mean that it is thin like a rare egg1 but that it is subtil and active1 penetrating and dividing1 as well as dividable4 ,your fourth question is1 ,what this sensitive matter works upon8 ,i answer3 ,it works with and upon another degree of matter1 which is not self-moving1 but dull1 stupid1 and immoveable in its own nature1 which ,i call the inanimate part or degree of matter4 ,your fifth question is1 ,whether this inanimate ,matter do never rest8 ,i answer2 ,it doth not3 for the self-moving matter being restless in its own nature1 and so closely united and commixed with the inanimate1 as they do make but one body1 will never suffer it to rest2 so that there is no part in ,nature but is moving2 the animate matter in it self1 or its own nature1 the inanimate by the help or means of the animate4 ,your sixth question is1 ,if there be a thorow mixture of the parts of animate and inanimate matter1 whether those parts do retain each their own nature and substance1 so that the inanimate part of matter remains dull and stupid in its essence or nature1 and the animate full of self-motion1 or all self-motion8 ,i answer3 ,although every part and particle of each degree are closely intermixed1 nevertheless this mixture doth not alter the interior nature of those parts or degrees2 ,as for example2 a man is composed of ,soul1 and ,body1 which are several parts1 but joyned as into one substance1 viz4 ,man1 and yet they retain each their own proprieties and natures2 for although soul and body are so closely united as they do make but one ,man1 yet the soul doth not change into the body1 nor the body into the soul1 but each continues in its own nature as it is4 ,and so likewise in ,infinite ,matter1 although the degrees or parts of ,matter are so throughly intermixed as they do make but one body or substance1 which is corporeal ,nature1 yet each remains in its nature as it is1 to wit1 the animate part of matter doth not become dull and stupid in its nature1 but remains self-moving2 and the inanimate1 although it doth move by the means of the animate1 yet it doth not become self-moving1 but each keeps its own interior nature and essence in their commixture4 ,the truth is1 there must of necessity be degrees of matter1 or else there would be no such various and several effects in ,nature1 as humane sense and reason do perceive there are2 and those degrees must also retain each their own nature and proprieties1 to produce those various and curious effects3 ,neither must those different degrees vary or alter the nature of ,infinite ,matter2 for ,matter must and doth continue one and the same in its ,nature1 that is1 ,matter cannot be divided from being ,matter3 ,and this is my meaning1 when ,i say in my ,philosophical ,opinions1 ,there is but one kind of ,matter3 ,not that ,matter is not dividable into several parts or degrees1 but ,i say1 although ,matter has several parts and degrees1 yet they do not alter the nature of ,matter1 but ,matter remains one and the same in its own kind1 that is1 it continues still ,matter in its own nature notwithstanding those degrees2 and thus ,i do exclude from ,matter all that which is not ,matter1 and do firmly believe1 that there can be no commixture of ,matter and no ,matter in ,nature2 for this would breed a meer confusion in ,nature4 ,your seventh question is1 ,whether that1 which ,i name the rational part of self-moving ,matter makes as much variety as the sensitive8 ,to which ,i answer3 ,that1 to my sense and reason1 the rational part of animate or self-moving ,matter moves not onely more variously1 but also more swiftly then the sensitive2 for thoughts are sooner made1 then words spoke1 and a certain proof of it are the various and several ,imaginations1 ,fancies1 ,conceptions1 ,memories1 ,remembrances1 ,understandings1 ,opinions1 ,judgments1 and the like3 as also the several sorts of ,love1 ,hate1 ,fear1 ,anger1 ,joy1 ,doubt2 and the like ,passions4 ,your eighth question is1 ,whether the ,sensitive ,matter can and doth work in it self and its own substance and degree8 ,my answer is1 ,that there is no inanimate matter without animate1 nor no animate without inanimate1 both being so curiously and subtilly intermixt1 as they make but one body2 ,nevertheless the several parts of this one body may move several ways4 ,neither are the several degrees bound to an equal mixture1 no more then the several parts of one body are bound to one and the same size1 bigness1 shape1 or motion2 or the ,sea is bound to be always at the high tide2 or the ,moon to be always at the ,full2 or all the ,veins or ,brains in animal bodies are bound to be of equal quantity2 or every ,tree of the same kind to bear fruit1 or have leaves of equal number2 or every ,apple1 ,pear1 or ,plum1 to have an equal quantity of juice2 or every ,bee to make as much honey and wax as the other4 ,your nineth question is1 ,whether the ,sensitive ,matter can work without taking patterns8 ,my answer is1 ,that all corporeal motion is not patterning1 but all patterning is made by corporeal motion2 and there be more several sorts of corporeal motions then any single ,creature is able to conceive1 much less to express3 ,but the perceptive corporeal motions are the ground-motions in ,nature1 which make1 rule1 and govern all the parts of ,nature1 as to move to ,production1 or ,generation1 ,transformation1 and the like4 ,your tenth question is1 ,how it is possible1 that numerous figures can exist in one part of matter8 for it is impossible that two things can be in one place1 much less many4 ,my answer in short is1 ,that it were impossible1 were a part of ,matter1 and the numerous figures several and distinct things2 but all is but one thing1 that is1 a part of ,matter moving variously2 for there is neither ,magnitude1 ,place1 ,figure1 nor ,motion1 in ,nature1 but what is ,matter1 or ,body2 ,neither is there any such thing as ,time3 ,wherefore it cannot properly be said1 ,there was1 and ,there shall be2 but onely1 ,there is4 ,neither can it properly be said1 from this to that place2 but onely in reference to the several moving parts of the onely ,infinite ,matter4 ,and thus much to your questions2 ,i add no more1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your faithful ,friend and humble ,servant4 ,,xxx4 ,,madam1 ,in your last1 you were pleased to express1 that some men1 who think themselves wise1 did laugh in a scornful manner at my opinion1 when ,i say that every ,creature hath life and knowledg1 sense and reason2 counting it not onely ridiculous1 but absurd2 and asking1 whether you did or could believe1 a piece of wood1 metal1 or stone1 had as much sense as a beast1 or as much reason as a man1 having neither brain1 blood1 heart1 nor flesh2 nor such organs1 passages1 parts1 nor shapes as animals8 ,to which1 ,i answer3 ,that it is not any of these mentioned things that makes life and knowledg1 but life and knowledg is the cause of them1 which life and knowledg is animate matter1 and is in all parts of all ,creatures3 and to make it more plain and perspicuous1 humane sense and reason may perceive1 that wood1 stone1 or metal1 acts as wisely as an animal3 ,as for example2 ,rhubarb1 or the like drugs1 will act very wisely in ,purging2 and ,antimony1 or the like1 will act very wisely in ,vomiting2 and ,opium will act very wisely in ,sleeping2 also ,quicksilver or ,mercury will act very wisely1 as those that have the ,french disease can best witness3 likewise the ,loadstone acts very wisely1 as ,mariners or ,navigators will tell you3 ,also ,wine made of ,fruit1 and ,ale of ,malt1 and distilled ,aqua-vit will act very subtilly2 ask the ,drunkards1 and they can inform you2 ,thus ,infinite examples may be given1 and yet man says1 all ,vegetables and ,minerals are insensible and irrational1 as also the ,planets and ,elements2 when as yet the ,planets move very orderly and wisely1 and the ,elements are more active1 nay1 more subtil and searching then any of the animal ,creatures2 witness ,fire1 ,air1 and ,water3 ,as for the ,earth1 she brings forth her fruit1 if the other ,elements do not cause abortives1 in due season2 and yet man believes1 ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,elements1 are dead1 dull1 senseless1 and irrational ,creatures1 because they have not such shapes1 parts1 nor passages as ,animals1 nor such exterior and local motions as ,animals have3 but ,man doth not consider the various1 intricate and obscure ways of ,nature1 unknown to any particular ,creature2 for what our senses are not capable to know1 our reason is apt to deny4 ,truly1 in my opinion1 ,man is more irrational then any of those ,creatures1 when he believes that all knowledg is not onely confined to one sort of ,creatures1 but to one part of one particular ,creature1 as the head1 or brain of man2 for who can in reason think1 that there is no other sensitive and rational knowledg in ,infinite ,matter1 but what is onely in ,man1 or animal ,creatures8 ,it is a very simple and weak conclusion to say1 ,other ,creatures have no eyes to see1 no ears to hear1 no tongues to taste1 no noses to smell1 as animals have2 wherefore they have no sense or sensitive knowledg2 or because they have no head1 nor brain as ,man hath1 therefore they have no reason1 nor rational knowledg at all3 for sense and reason1 and consequently sensitive and rational knowledg1 extends further then to be bound to the animal eye1 ear1 nose1 tongue1 head1 or brain2 but as these organs are onely in one kind of ,natures ,creatures1 as ,animals1 in which organs the sensitive corporeal motions make the perception of exterior objects1 so there may be infinite other kinds of passages or organs in other ,creatures unknown to ,man1 which ,creatures may have their sense and reason1 that is1 sensitive and rational knowledg1 each according to the nature of its figure2 for as it is absurd to say1 that all ,creatures in ,nature are ,animals1 so it is absurd to confine sense and reason onely to ,animals2 or to say1 that all other ,creatures1 if they have sense and reason1 life and knowledg1 it must be the same as is in ,animals3 ,i confess1 it is of the same degree1 that is1 of the same animate part of matter1 but the motions of life and knowledg work so differently and variously in every kind and sort1 nay1 in every particular ,creature1 that no single ,creature can find them out3 ,but1 in my opinion1 not any ,creature is without life and knowledg1 which life and knowledg is made by the self-moving part of matter1 that is1 by the sensitive and rational corporeal motions2 and as it is no consequence1 that all ,creatures must be alike in their exterior shapes1 figures1 and motions1 because they are all produced out of one and the same matter1 so neither doth it follow1 that all ,creatures must have the same interior motions1 natures1 and proprieties1 and so consequently the same life and knowledg1 because all life and knowledg is made by the same degree of matter1 to wit1 the animate4 ,wherefore though every kind or sort of ,creatures has different perceptions1 yet they are not less knowing2 for ,vegetables1 ,minerals1 and ,elements1 may have as numerous1 and as various perceptions as ,animals1 and they may be as different from animal perceptions as their kinds are2 but a different perception is not therefore no perception3 ,neither is it the animal organs that make perception1 nor the animal shape that makes life1 but the motions of life make them4 ,but some may say1 it is ,irreligious to believe any ,creature has rational knowledg but ,man4 ,surely1 ,madam1 the ,god of ,nature1 in my opinion1 will be adored by all ,creatures1 and adoration cannot be without sense and knowledg4 ,wherefore it is not probable1 that onely ,man1 and no ,creature else1 is capable to adore and worship the ,infinite and ,omnipotent ,god1 who is the ,god of ,nature1 and of all ,creatures3 ,i should rather think it irreligious to confine sense and reason onely to ,man1 and to say1 that no ,creature adores and worships ,god1 but ,man2 which1 in my judgment1 argues a great pride1 self-conceit1 and presumption4 ,and thus1 ,madam1 having declared my opinion plainly concerning this subject1 ,i will detain you no longer at this present1 but rest1 ,madam1 ,your constant ,friend and faithful ,servant4 ,,xxxi4 ,,madam1 ,i perceive you do not well apprehend my meaning1 when ,i say in my ,philosophical ,opinions1#a ,that the ,infinite degrees of ,infinite ,matter are all ,infinite3 ,for1 say you1 the degrees of ,matter cannot be ,infinite1 by reason there cannot be two ,infinites1 but one would obstruct the other4 ,my answer is2 ,i do not mean that the degrees of ,matter are ,infinite each in its self1 that is1 that the animate and inanimate are several ,infinite matters1 but my opinion is1 that the animate degree of matter is in a perpetual motion1 and the inanimate doth not move of it self1 and that those degrees are infinite in their effects1 as producing and making infinite figures2 for since the cause1 which is the onely matter1 is infinite1 the effects must of necessity be infinite also2 the cause is infinite in its substance1 the effects are ,infinite in number4 ,and this is my meaning1 when ,i say1#b that1 although in ,nature there is but one kind of matter1 yet there are ,infinite degrees1 ,infinite motions1 and ,infinite parts in that onely matter2 and though ,infinite and ,eternal matter has no perfect or exact figure1 by reason it is ,infinite1 and therefore unlimited1 yet there being infinite parts in number1 made by the infinite variations of motions in infinite ,matter1 these parts have perfect or exact figures1 considered as parts1 that is1 single1 or each in its particular figure3 ,and therefore if there be ,infinite degrees1 considering the effects of the animate and inanimate matter1 infinite motions for changes1 infinite parts for number1 infinite compositions and divisions for variety and diversity of ,creatures2 then there may also be infinite sizes1 each part or figure differing more or less1 infinite smallness and bigness1 lightness and heaviness1 rarity and density1 strength and power1 life and knowledg1 and the like3 ,but by reason ,nature or ,natural matter is not all animate or inanimate1 nor all composing or dividing1 there can be no ,infinite in a part1 nor can there be something biggest or smallest1 strongest or weakest1 heaviest or lightest1 softest or hardest in ,infinite ,nature1 or her parts1 but all those several ,infinites are as it were included in one ,infinite1 which is ,corporeal ,nature1 or ,natural ,matter4 ,next1 you desire my opinion of ,vacuum1 whether there be any1 or not8 for you say ,i determine nothing1 of it in my ,book of ,philosophical ,opinions4 ,truly1 ,madam1 my sense and reason cannot believe a ,vacuum1 because there cannot be an empty ,nothing2 but change of motion makes all the alteration of figures1 and consequently all that which is called place1 magnitude1 space1 and the like2 for matter1 motion1 figure1 place1 magnitude1 c4 are but one thing4 ,but some men perceiving the alteration1 but not the subtil motions1 believe that bodies move into each others place1 which is impossible1 because several places are onely several parts1 so that1 unless one part could make it self another part1 no part can be said to succeed into anothers place2 but it is impossible that one part should make it self another part1 for it cannot be another1 and it self1 no more then ,nature can be ,nature1 and not ,nature2 wherefore change of place is onely change of motion1 and this change of motion makes alteration of ,figures4 ,thirdly1 you say1 ,you cannot understand what ,i mean by ,creation1 for you think that ,creation is a production or making of ,something out of ,nothing4 ,to tell you really1 ,madam1 this word is used by me for want of a better expression2 and ,i do not take it in so strict a sense as to understand by it1 a ,divine or supernatural ,creation1 which onely belongs to ,god2 but a natural ,creation1 that is1 a natural production or ,generation2 for ,nature cannot create or produce ,something out of ,nothing3 ,and this ,production may be taken in a double sence2 ,first1 in ,general1 as for example1 when it is said1 that all ,creatures are produced out of ,infinite ,matter2 and in this respect every particular ,creature which is finite1 that is1 of a circumscribed and limited figure1 is produced of ,infinite ,matter1 as being a part thereof3 ,next1 ,production is taken in a more strict sense1 to wit1 when one single ,creature is produced from another2 and this is either ,generation properly so called1 as when in every kind and sort each particular produces its like2 or it is such a ,generation whereby one creature produces another1 each being of a different kind or species1 as for example1 when an ,animal produces a ,mineral1 as when a ,stone is generated in the ,kidneys1 or the like2 and in this sence one finite creature generates or produces another finite creature1 the producer as well as the produced being finite2 but in the first sence finite creatures are produced out of infinite matter4 ,fourthly1 you confess1 ,you cannot well apprehend my meaning1 when ,i say1#c that the several kinds are as ,infinite as the particulars2 for your opinion is1 ,that the number of particulars must needs exceed the number of kinds4 ,i answer3 ,i mean in general the ,infinite effects of ,nature which are ,infinite in number1 and the several kinds or sorts of ,creatures are ,infinite in duration1 for nothing can perish in ,nature4 ,fifthly1 ,when ,i say1#d that ascending and descending is often caused by the exterior figure or shape of a body2 witness a ,bird1 who although he is of a much bigger size and bulk then a ,worm1 yet can by his shape lift himself up more agilly and nimbly then a ,worm2 ,your opinion is1 ,that his exterior shape doth not contribute any thing towards his flying1 by reason a ,bird being dead retains the same shape1 but yet cannot fly at all4 ,but1 truly1 ,madam1 ,i would not have you think that ,i do exclude the proper and interior natural motion of the figure of a ,bird1 and the natural and proper motions of every part and particle thereof2 for that a ,bird when dead1 keeps his shape1 and yet cannot fly1 the reason is1 that the natural and internal motions of the ,bird1 and the ,birds wings1 are altered towards some other shape or figure1 if not exteriously1 yet interiously2 but yet the interior natural motions could not effect any flying or ascending without the help of the exterior shape2 for a ,man1 or any other animal1 may have the same interior motions as a ,bird hath1 but wanting such an exterior shape1 he cannot fly2 whereas had he wings like a ,bird1 and the interior natural motions of those wings1 he might without doubt fly as well as a ,bird doth4 ,sixthly1 ,concerning the descent of heavy bodies1#e that it is more forcible then the ascent of light bodies1 you do question the ,truth of this my opinion4 ,certainly1 ,madam1 ,i cannot conceive it to be otherwise by my sense and reason2 for though ,fire that is rare1 doth ascend with an extraordinary quick motion1 yet this motion is1 in my opinion1 not so strong and piercing as when grosser parts of ,creatures do descend2 but there is difference in strength and quickness2 for had not ,water a stronger motion1 and another sort of figure then ,fire1 it could not suppress ,fire1 much less quench it4 ,but ,smoak1 which is heavier then ,flame1 flies up1 or rises before1 or rather1 above it3 ,wherefore ,i am still of the same opinion1 that heavy bodies descend more forcibly then light bodies do ascend1 and it seems most rational to me4 ,lastly1 ,i perceive you cannot believe that all bodies have weight2 by reason1 if this were so1 the ,sun1 and the ,stars would have long since cover'd the ,earth4 ,in answer to this objection1 ,i say1 ,that as there can be no body without figure and magnitude1 so consequently not without weight1 were it no bigger then an atome2 and as for the ,sun's and the ,stars not falling down1 or rising higher1 the reason is1 not their being without weight1 but their natural and proper motion1 which keeps them constantly in their spheres2 and it might as well be said1 a ,man lives not1 or is not1 because he doth not fly like a ,bird1 or dive and catch fish like a ,cormorant1 or dig and undermine like a ,mole1 for those are motions not proper to his nature4 ,and these1 ,madam1 are my answers to your objections1 which if they do satisfie you1 it is all ,i desire1 if not1 ,i shall endeavour hereafter to make my meaning more intelligible and study for other more rational arguments then these are1 to let you see how much ,i value both the credit of my named ,book1 and your ,ladiships ,commands2 which assure you self1 shall never be more faithfully performed1 then by1 ,madam1 ,your ,ladiships most obliged ,friend and humble ,servant4 #a ,part4 #a4 c4 #d4 #b ,ch4 #h4 #c ,part4 #d4 c4 #aj4 #d ,ch4 #bj4 #e ,ch4 #ba4 ,,xxxii4 ,,madam1 ,since my opinion is1 that the ,animate part of ,matter1 which is sense and reason1 life and knowledg1 is the designer1 architect1 and creator of all figures in ,nature2 you desire to know1 whence this ,animate ,matter1 sense and reason1 or life and knowledg 7call it what you will1 for it is all one and the same thing7 is produced8 ,i answer3 ,it is eternal4 ,but then you say1 it is coequal with ,god4 ,i answer1 ,that cannot be3 for ,god is above all ,natural sense and reason1 which is ,natural life and knowledg2 and therefore it cannot be coequal with ,god1 except it be meant in ,eternity1 as being without beginning and end4 ,but if ,gods ,power can make ,man's ,soul1 as also the good and evil ,spirits to last eternally without end1 he may1 by his ,omnipotency make as well things without beginning4 ,you will say1 ,if ,nature were ,eternal1 it could not be created1 for the word ,creation is contrary to ,eternity4 ,i answer1 ,madam1 ,i am no ,scholar for words2 for if you will not use the word ,creation1 you may use what other word you will2 for ,i do not stand upon nice words and terms1 so ,i can but express my conceptions3 ,wherefore1 if it be 7as in ,reason it cannot be otherwise7 that nothing in ,nature can be annihilated1 nor any thing created out of nothing1 but by ,gods special and all-powerful ,decree and ,command1 then ,nature must be as ,god has made her1 until he destroy her4 ,but if ,nature be not ,eternal1 then the ,gods of the ,heathens were made in time1 and were no more then any other ,creature1 which is as subject to be destroyed as created2 for they conceived their ,gods1 as we do men1 to have ,material ,bodies1 but an ,immaterial ,spirit1 or as some ,learned men imagine1 to be an ,immaterial ,spirit1 but to take several shapes1 and so to perform several corporeal actions2 which truly is too humble and mean a conception of an ,immaterial ,being1 much more of the ,great and ,incomprehensible ,god2 which ,i do firmly believe is a most pure1 all-powerful ,immaterial ,being1 which doth all things by his own ,decree and ,omnipotency without any ,corporeal actions or shapes1 such as some fancy of ,dmons and the like ,spirits4 ,but to return to the former question2 you might as well enquire how the world1 or any part of it was created1 or how the variety of creatures came to be1 as ask how ,reason and sensitive corporeal ,knowledg was produced4 ,nevertheless1 ,i do constantly believe1 that both sensitive and rational ,knowledg in ,matter was produced from ,god2 but after what manner or way1 is impossible for any creature or part of ,nature to know1 for ,gods wayes are incomprehensible and supernatural4 ,and thus much ,i believe1 ,that as ,god is an ,eternal ,creator1 which no man can deny1 so he has also an ,eternal ,creature1 which is ,nature1 or natural ,matter4 ,but put the case ,nature or natural ,matter was made when the ,world was created1 might not ,god give this ,natural ,matter self-motion1 as well as he gave self-motion to ,spirits and ,souls8 and might not ,god endue this ,matter with ,sense and ,reason1 as well as he endued ,man8 ,shall or can we bind up ,gods actions with our weak opinions and foolish arguments8 ,truly1 if ,god could not act more then ,man is able to conceive1 he were not a ,god of an infinite ,power2 but ,god is ,omnipotent1 and his actions are infinite1 supernatural1 and past finding out2 wherefore he is rather to be admired1 adored and worshipped1 then to be ungloriously discoursed of by vain and ambitious men1 whose foolish pride and presumption drowns their ,natural ,judgment and ,reason2 to which leaving them1 ,i rest1 ,madam1 ,your ,faithful ,friend and ,servant4 ,,xxxiii4 ,,madam1 ,in obedience to your commands1 ,i here send you also an explanation and clearing of those places and passages in my ,book of ,philosophy1 which in your last ,letter you were pleased to mark1 as containing some obscurity and difficulty of being understood4 ,first1 ,when ,i say1#a ,nature is an ,individable ,matter1 ,i do not mean as if ,nature were not dividable into parts2 for because ,nature is material1 therefore she must also needs be dividable into parts3 ,but my meaning is1 that ,nature cannot be divided from ,matter1 nor ,matter from ,nature1 that is1 ,nature cannot be ,immaterial1 nor no part of ,nature1 but if there be any thing ,immaterial1 it doth not belong to ,nature4 ,also when ,i call ,nature a ,multiplying ,figure2#b ,i mean1 that ,nature makes infinite changes1 and so infinite figures4 ,next1 when ,i say1#c ,there are ,infinite ,divisions in ,nature2 my meaning is not1 that there are infinite divisions of one single part1 but that ,infinite ,matter has ,infinite parts1 sizes1 figures1 and motions1 all being but one ,infinite ,matter1 or corporeal ,nature4 ,also when ,i say single parts1 ,i mean not parts subsisting by themselves1 precised from each other1 but single1 that is1 several or different1 by reason of their different figures4 ,likewise1 when ,i name ,atomes1 ,i mean small parts of ,matter2 and when ,i speak of ,place and ,time1 ,i mean onely the variation of corporeal figurative motions4 ,again3 when ,i say1#d ,nature has not an absolute ,power1 because she has an ,infinite power2 ,i mean by absolute1 as much as finite1 or circumscribed2 and in this sense ,nature cannot have an absolute power1 for the ,infiniteness hinders the absoluteness2 but when in my former ,letters ,i have attributed an absolute ,power onely to ,god1 and said that ,nature has not an absolute power1 but that her power1 although it be ,infinite1 yet cannot extend beyond ,nature1 but is an ,infinite natural power2 ,i understand by an absolute ,power1 not a finite power1 but such a power which onely belongs to ,god1 that is1 a supernatural and divine power1 which power ,nature cannot have1 by reason she cannot make any part of her body immaterial1 nor annihilate any part of her ,creatures1 nor create any part that was not in her from ,eternity1 nor make her self a ,deity2 for though ,god can impower her with a supernatural gift1 and annihilate her when he pleases1 yet she is no ways able to do it her self4 ,moreover1 when ,i say1#e ,that one ,infinite is contained within another2 ,i mean1 the several sorts of ,infinites1 as ,infinite in number1 ,infinite in duration2 as also the ,infinite degrees1 motions1 figures1 sizes1 compositions1 divisions1 c4 all which are contained in the ,infinite body of ,nature1 which is the onely ,infinite in quantity or substance1 neither can the parts of ,nature go beyond ,infinite4 ,also when ,i say1#f ,that ,matter would have power over ,infinite1 and ,infinite over ,matter1 and ,eternal over both2 ,i mean1 that some corporeal actions endeavour to be more powerful then others1 and thus the whole strives to over-power the parts1 and the parts the whole3 ,as for example1 if one end of a string were tied about the little finger of ones hand1 and the other end were in the power of the other whole hand1 and both did pull several and opposite ways2 certainly1 the little finger would endeavour to over-power the hand1 and the hand again would strive to over-power the little finger3 ,the same may be said of two equal figures1 as two hands1 and other the like examples may be given4 ,and this is also my meaning1 when ,i say1 that some shapes have power over others1 and some degrees and temperaments of matter over others2 whereby ,i understand nothing else1 but that some parts have power over others4 ,also when ,i say1#g that outward things govern1 and a ,creature has no power over it self1 ,i mean1 that which is stronger1 by what means soever1 is superior in power4 ,when ,i say1#h ,that the ,animate part of ,matter is not so gross an ,infinite as the ,inanimate1 ,i do not attribute an ,infiniteness to a part1 as if animate matter considered as a part were infinite2 but my meaning is1 that the ,animate matter produces infinite effects3 ,for1 it being the ,designer1 ,architect1 and ,creator of all ,figures1 as also the ,life and ,soul of all ,creatures1 it must needs be infinite in its effects1 as also infinite in its duration4 ,but you may object1 ,that a part cannot produce infinite effects4 ,i answer1 ,it is true1 if animate matter should be considered in it self without the inanimate1 it could not produce infinite effects1 having nothing to work upon and withal2 but because there is such a close and inseparable conjunction of those parts of matter1 as they make but one body1 and that ,infinite1 none can be or work without the other1 but both degrees of matter1 which make but one infinite ,nature1 are required in the production of the infinite effects and figures in ,nature3 ,nevertheless1 since the ,animate part of ,matter is the onely architect1 creator1 or producer of all those effects1 by reason it is the self-moving part1 and the ,inanimate is onely the instrument which the ,animate works withal1 and the materials it works upon1 the ,production of the infinite effects in ,nature is more fitly ascribed to the ,animate then the ,inanimate part of matter2 as for example1 ,if an architect should build an house1 certainly he can do nothing without materials1 neither can the materials raise themselves to such a figure as a house without the help of the architect and workmen1 but both are of necessity required to this artificial production2 nevertheless1 the building of the house is not laid to the materials1 but to the architect3 the same may be said of animate and inanimate matter in the production of natural effects4 ,again1 you may reply1 ,that the animate and inanimate parts of matter are but two parts1 and the number of ,two is but a finite number1 wherefore they cannot make one infinite body1 such as ,i call ,nature or natural ,matter4 ,i answer1 ,madam1 ,i confess1 that a finite number is not nor cannot make an infinite number2 but ,i do not say1 that the animate and inanimate parts or degrees of matter are two finite parts each subsisting by it self as circumscribed1 and having its certain bounds1 limits and circumference2 for if this were so1 certainly they being finite themselves1 could not produce but finite effects2 but my meaning is1 that both the animate and inanimate matter do make but one ,infinite bulk1 body1 or substance and are not two several and dividable bodies in themselves1 and thus they may be divided not into two but into ,infinite parts2 ,neither are they two different ,matters1 but they are but one ,matter2 for by the animate ,matter ,i do understand self-motion2 and that ,i call this self-motion ,matter1 the reason is1 that no body shall think as if self-motion were immaterial2 for my opinion is1 that ,nature is nothing but meer ,matter1 and that nothing is in ,nature which is a part of ,nature1 that is not material2 wherefore to avoid such a misapprehension 7seeing that most learned men are so much for abstractions and immaterial beings7 ,i called self-motion animate matter1 or the animate part of matter2 not as if they were two several matters1 but that all is but one natural ,matter1 or corporeal ,nature in one bulk1 body1 or substance1 just like as the soul and body do make but one man2 and to avoid also this misapprehension1 lest they might be taken for several matters1 ,i have upon better consideration1 in this volume of ,philosophical ,letters1 call'd the animate matter corporeal self-motion1 which expression1 ,i think1 is more proper1 plain1 and intelligible then any other3 ,neither would ,i have you to scruple at it1 when ,i say1 that both parts or degrees of animate and inanimate matter do retain their own interior natures and proprieties in their commixture1 as if those different natures and proprieties1 where one is self-moving1 and the other not1 did cause them to be two different matters2 for thus you might say as well1 that several figures which have several and different interior natures and proprieties1 are so many several matters4 ,the truth is1 if you desire to have the truest expression of animate and inanimate matter1 you cannot find it better then in the definition of ,nature1 when ,i say1 ,nature is an infinite self-moving body2 where by the body of ,nature ,i understand the inanimate matter1 and by self-motion the animate1 which is the life and soul of ,nature1 not an immaterial life and soul1 but a material1 for both life1 soul and body are and make but one self-moving body or substance which is corporeal ,nature4 ,and therefore when ,i call ,animate matter an ,extract1#i ,i do it by reason of its purity1 subtilty and agility1 not by reason of its immateriality4 ,also when ,i name the word ,motion by it self1 and without any addition1 ,i understand corporeal ,motion2 and when ,i name ,motion1 ,matter and ,figure1 ,i do not mean three several and distinct things1 but onely figurative corporeal motion1 or figurative self-moving matter1 all being but one thing2 the same when ,i speak of ,place1 ,time1 ,magnitude1 and the like4 ,concerning ,natural ,production or ,generation2 when ,i say1#aj ,the same matter or figure of the producers doth not always move after one and the same manner in producing1 for then the same producers would produce one and the same creature by repetition1 ,i do not mean the very same creature in number1 unless the same motions and parts of matter did return into the producers again1 which is impossible2 but ,i understand the like creature1 to wit1 that one and the same sort of particular motions would make all particular figures resemble so1 as if they were one and the same creature without any difference4 ,when ,i say1#aa ,sensitive and ,rational knowledg lives in sensitive and rational ,matter1 and ,animate liveth in ,inanimate matter1 ,i mean they are all several parts and actions of the onely infinite matter inseparable from each other2 for wheresoever is matter1 there is also self-motion1 and wheresoever is self-motion1 there is sense and reason1 and wheresoever is sense and reason1 there is sensitive and rational knowledge1 all being but one body or substance1 which is ,nature4 ,when ,i say1#ab ,the death of particular ,creatures causes an obscurity of ,knowledge1 and that particular ,knowledges increase and decrease1 and may be more or less1 ,i mean onely that parts divide themselves from parts1 and joyn to other parts2 for every several ,motion is a several ,knowledge1 and as motion varies1 so doth knowledge2 but there is no annihilation of any motion1 and consequently not of knowledge in ,nature4 ,and as for more or less knowledge1 ,i mean more or less alteration and variety of corporeal figurative motions1 not onely rational but sensitive1 so that that creature which has most variety of those perceptive motions is most knowing1 provided they be regular1 that is1 according to the nature and propriety of the figure1 whether animal1 vegetable1 mineral1 or elemental2 for though a large figure is capable of most knowledge1 yet it is not commonly or alwayes so wise or witty as a less1 by reason it is more subject to disorders and irregularities2 like as a private ,family is more regular and better ordered then a great ,state or ,common-wealth4 ,also when ,i say1 ,that some particular ,knowledge lasts longer then some other1 ,i mean that some corporeal motions in some parts do continue longer then in others4 ,when ,i say1#ac ,a little head may be full1 and a great head may be empty of rational matter1 ,i mean there may be as it were an ebbing or flowing1 that is more or less of ,rational ,matter joyned with the ,sensitive and ,inanimate3 ,and when ,i say1 ,that1 if all the heads of ,mankind were put into one1 and sufficient quantity of ,rational ,matter therein1 that ,creature would not onely have the knowledge of every particular1 but that ,understanding and ,knowledge would increase like ,use-money1 my meaning is1 that if there were much of those parts of rational matter joyned1 they would make more variety by self-change of corporeal motions4 ,when ,i name ,humane sense and reason1 ,i mean such sensitive and rational perception and knowledge as is proper to the nature of ,man2 and when ,i say ,animal sense and reason1 ,i mean such as is proper to the nature of all ,animals2 for ,i do not mean that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions which do make a man1 or any ,animal1 are bound to such figures eternally1 but whilest they work and move in such or such figures1 they make such perceptions as belong to the nature of those figures2 but when those self-moving parts dissolve the figure of an ,animal into a ,vegetable or any other ,creature1 then they work according to the nature of that same figure1 both exteriously and interiously4 ,when ,i say1#ad ,that ,place1 ,space1 ,measure1 ,number1 ,weight1 ,figures1 c4 are mixed with ,substance1 ,i do not mean they are incorporeal1 and do inhere in substance as so many incorporeal modes or accidents2 but my meaning is1 they are all corporeal parts and actions of ,nature1 there being no such thing in ,nature that may be called incorporeal2 for ,place1 ,figure1 ,weight1 ,measure1 c4 are nothing without ,body1 but ,place and ,body are but one thing1 and so of the rest4 ,also when ,i say1#ae ,that sometimes ,place1 sometimes ,time1 and sometimes ,number gives advantage1 ,i mean1 that several parts of ,matter are getting or losing advantage4 ,when ,i say1#af an ,animal or any thing else that has exterior local motion1 goeth or moveth to such or such a place1 ,i mean1 to such or such a body2 and when such a ,creature doth not move out of its place1 ,i mean1 it doth not remove its body from such or such parts adjoyning to it4 ,when ,i say1#ag ,the rational animate matter divides it self into as many parts1 and after as many several manners as their place or quantity will give way to1 ,i mean their own place and quantity3 also1 as other parts will give way to those parts1 for some parts will assist others1 and some do obstruct others4 ,when ,i say1#ah ,that the ,nature of extension or dilation strives or endeavours to get space1 ground1 or compass1 ,i mean those corporeal motions endeavour to make place and space by their extensions1 that is1 to spread their parts of matter into a larger compass or body4 ,and when ,i say1 ,that ,contractions endeavour to cast or thrust out space1 place1 ground1 or compass1 ,my meaning is1 ,that those corporeal motions endeavour to draw their parts of matter into a more close and solid body1 for there is no place nor space without body4 ,also when ,i name#ai several tempered substances and matters1 ,i mean several changes and mixtures of corporeal motions4 ,also when ,i speak of ,increase and ,decrease1 ,i mean onely an alteration of corporeal figurative motions1 as uniting parts with parts1 and dissolving or separating parts from parts4 ,when ,i say1#bj ,that the motions of cold1 and the motions of moisture1 when they meet1 make cold and moist effects1 and when the motions of heat and moisture meet1 make hot and moist effects2 and so for the motions of cold and dryness3 ,i mean1 that when several parts do joyn in such several corporeal motions1 they cause such effects2 and when ,i say cold and heat presses into every particular ,creature1 ,i mean1 that every ,creatures natural and inherent perceptive motions make such patterns as their exterior objects are1 viz4 hot or cold1 if they do but move regularly1 for if they be irregular1 then they do not3 as for example2 those in an ,ague will shake for cold in a hot ,summers day1 and those that are in a ,fever will burn with heat1 although they were at the ,poles4 ,when ,i say1#ba that hot motions1 and burning motions1 and hot figures1 and burning figures do not associate or joyn together in all ,creatures3 ,i mean1 that the corporeal motions in some figures or creatures1 do act in a hot1 but not in a burning manner2 and when ,i say1 some creatures have both hot and burning motions and figures1 ,i mean1 the corporeal motions act both in a hot and burning manner2 for though heat is in a degree to burning1 yet it is not always burning1 for burning is the highest degree of heat1 as wetness is the highest degree of moisture4 ,when ,i say1#bb ,warmth feeds other ,creatures after a spiritual manner1 not a corporeal1 ,my meaning is1 not as if heat were not corporeal1 but that those corporeal motions which make heat work invisibly1 and not visibly like as fire feeds on fuel1 or man on meat4 ,also when ,i say1 ,excercise amongst animals gets strength1 ,i mean1 that by excercise the inherent natural motions of an animal body are more active1 as being more industrious4 ,when ,i say1#bc ,that the passage whence cold and sharp winds do issue out1 is narrow1 ,i mean1 when as such or such parts disjoyn or separate from other parts2 as for example1 when dilating parts disjoyn from contracting parts2 and oftentimes the disjoyning parts do move according to the nature of those parts they disjoyn from4 ,concerning the actions of ,nature1 my meaning is1 that there is not any action whatsoever1 but was always in ,nature1 and remains in ,nature so long as it pleases ,god that ,nature shall last1 and of all her actions ,perception and self-love are her prime and chief actions2 wherefore it is impossible but that all her particular creatures or parts must be knowing as well as self-moving1 there being not one part or particle of ,nature that has not its share of animate or self-moving matter1 and consequently of knowledg and self-love1 each according to its own kind and nature2 but by reason all the parts are of one matter1 and belong to one body1 each is unalterable so far1 that although it can change its figure1 yet it cannot change or alter from being matter1 or a part of ,infinite ,nature2 and this is the cause there cannot be a confusion amongst those parts of ,nature1 but there must be a constant union and harmony betwixt them2 for cross and opposite actions make no confusion1 but onely a variety1 and such actions which are different1 cross and opposite1 not moving always after their usual and accustomed way1 ,i name ,irregular1 for want of a better expression2 but properly there is no such thing as ,irregularity in ,nature1 nor no weariness1 rest1 sleep1 sickness1 death or destruction1 no more then there is place1 space1 time1 modes1 accidents1 and the like1 any thing besides body or matter4 ,when ,i speak of unnatural ,motions1#bd ,i mean such as are not proper to the nature of such or such a ,creature1 as being opposite or destructive to it1 that is1 moving or acting towards its dissolution4 ,also when ,i call ,violence supernatural1 ,i mean that ,violence is beyond the particular nature of such a particular ,creature1 that is1 beyond its natural motions2 but not supernatural1 that is beyond ,infinite ,nature or natural ,matter4 ,when ,i say1 ,a thing is forced1 ,i do not mean that the forced body receives strength without ,matter2 but that some ,corporeal ,motions joyn with other ,corporeal ,motions1 and so double the strength by joyning their parts1 or are at least an occasion to make other parts more industrious4 ,by ,prints ,i understand the figures of the objects which are patterned or copied out by the sensitive and rational corporeal figurative ,motions2 as for example1 when the sensitive corporeal motions pattern out the figure of an exteriour object1 and the rational motions again pattern out a figure made by the sensitive motions1 those figures of the objects that are patterned out1 ,i name ,prints2 as for example1 ,the sense of ,seeing is not capable to receive the ,print1#be that is1 the figure or pattern of the object of the whole ,earth4 ,and again1 ,the rational ,motions are not alwayes exactly after the sensitive ,prints1 that is1 after the figures made by the sensitive motions4 ,thus by ,prints ,i understand ,patterns1 and by printing patterning2 not that the exteriour object prints its figure upon the exteriour sensitive organs1 but that the sensitive motions in the organs pattern out the figure of the object3 but though all printing is done by the way of patterning1 yet all patterning is not printing4 ,therefore when ,i say1#bf that solid bodies print their figures in that which is more porous and soft1 and that those solid bodies make new prints perpetually2 and as they remove1 the prints melt out1 like verbal or vocal sounds1 which print words and set notes in the ,air2 ,i mean1 the soft body by its own self-motion patterns out the figure of the solid body1 and not that the solid body makes its own print1 and so leaves the place of its own substance with the print in the soft body2 for place remains always with its own body1 and cannot be separated from it1 they being but one thing3 for example2 when a ,seal is printed in ,wax1 the ,seal gives not any thing to the ,wax1 but is onely an object patterned out by the figurative motions of the ,wax in the action of printing or sealing4 ,when ,i make mention#bg of what the ,senses bring in1 ,i mean what the sensitive ,motions pattern out of forreign objects3 ,and when ,i say1#bh that the pores being shut1 touch cannot enter1 ,i mean1 the sensitive corporeal motions cannot make patterns of outward objects4 ,also when ,i say1 our ,ears may be as knowing as our ,eyes1 and so of the rest of the sensitive organs2 ,i mean the sensitive motions in those parts or organs4 ,when ,i say1#bi ,the more the ,body is at rest1 the more active or busie is the ,mind1 ,i mean when the sensitive ,motions are not taken up with the action of patterning out forreign objects4 ,when ,i say1#cj the ,air is fill'd with sound1 and that words are received into the ears1 as figures of exterior objects are received into the eyes1 ,i mean1 the sensitive motions of the ,air pattern out sound1 and the sensitive motions of the ,ears pattern out words1 as the sensitive figurative motions of the ,eyes pattern out the figures of external objects4 ,also when ,i speak of ,thunder and ,lightning1 to wit1 ,that ,thunder makes a great noise by the breaking of lines3 ,my meaning is1 ,that the ,air patterns out this sound or noise of the lines2 and by reason there are so many patterns made in the air by its sensitive motions1 the ,ear cannot take so exact a copy thereof1 but somewhat confusedly2 and this is the reason why ,thunder is represented1 or rather pattern'd out with some terrour2 for ,thunder is a confused noise1 because the patterns are made confusedly4 ,but concerning ,sound and ,light1 ,i am forced to acquaint you1 ,madam1 that my meaning thereof is not so well expressed in my ,book of ,philosophy1 by reason ,i was not of the same opinion at that time when ,i did write that ,book which ,i am now of2 for upon better consideration1 and a more diligent search into the causes of natural effects1 ,i have found it more probable1 that all sensitive perception is made by the way of ,patterning1 and so consequently the perception of ,sound and of ,light2 wherefore1 ,i beseech you1 when you find in my mentioned ,book any thing thereof otherwise expressed1 do not judg of it as if ,i did contradict my self1 but that ,i have alter'd my opinion since upon more probable reasons4 ,thus1 ,madam1 you have a true declaration of my sence and meaning concerning those places1 which in my ,philosophical ,opinions you did note1 as being obscure2 but ,i am resolved to bestow so much time and labour as to have all other places in that ,book rectified and cleared1 which seem not perspicuous1 lest its obscurity may be the cause of its being neglected3 ,and ,i pray ,god of his mercy to assist me with his ,grace1 and grant that my ,works may find a favourable acceptance4 ,in the mean time1 ,i confess my self infinitely bound to your ,ladyship1 that you would be pleased to regard so much the ,honour of your ,friend1 and be the chief occasion of it2 for which ,i pray ,heaven may bless1 prosper1 and preserve you1 and lend me some means and ways to express my self1 ,madam1 ,your thankfull ,friend1 and humble ,servant4 #a ,part4 #c4 c4 #ac4 #b ,ibid4 #c ,part4 #a4 c4 #aa4 #d ,part4 #a4 c4 #ac1 #ad4 #e ,p4 #a4 c4 #h4 #f ,p4 #f4 c4 #c4 #g ,p4 #c4 c4 #aj4 #h ,p4 #a4 ,ch4 #c4 #i ,p4 #d4 c4 #c1 #cb4 #aj ,p4 #a4 c4 #bb4 #aa ,p4 #c4 c4 #ae4 #ab ,ibid4 #ac ,p4 #f4 c4 #aa4 #ad ,p4 #c4 c4 #ba4 #ae c4 #ad4 #af ,p4 #e4 c4 #ea4 #ag ,p4 #f4 c4 #h4 #ah ,p4 #d4 c4 #cd4 #ai ,ibid4 #bj ,p4 #e4 c4 #d4 #ba ,p4 #e4 c4 #ac4 #bb ,p4 #e4 c4 #bg4 #bc ,p4 #e4 c4 #de4 #bd ,p4 #g4 c4 #aa4 #be ,p4 #c4 c4 #b4 #bf ,p4 #e4 c4 #bc4 #bg ,p4 #f4 c4 #ac4 #bh ,p4 #g4 c4 #ab4 #bi ,p4 #f4 c4 #ac4 #cj ,p4 #f4 c4 #bi4 ,eternal ,god1 ,infinite ,deity1 ,thy ,servant1 ,,nature1 humbly prays to ,thee1 ,that thou wilt please to favour ,her1 and give ,her parts1 which are ,her ,creatures1 leave to live1 ,that in their shapes and forms1 what e're they be1 ,and all their actions they may worship thee2 ,for 'tis not onely ,man that doth implore1 ,but all ,her parts1 ,great ,god1 do thee adore2 ,a finite ,worship cannot be to thee1 ,thou art above all finites in degree3 ,then let thy ,servant ,nature mediate ,between thy ,justice1 ,mercy1 and our state1 ,that thou may'st bless all ,parts1 and ever be ,our ,gracious ,god to all ,eternity4 ,,finis4