SECT. I. (continued 3)

Madam,

Your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

XL.

MADAM,

I cannot perceive the Rational Truth of your Authors opinion, concerning Colours, made by the agitation of little spherical bodies of an Æthereal matter, transmitting the action of Light; for if colours were made after this manner, there would, in my opinion, not be any fixed or lasting colour, but one colour would be so various, and change faster then every minute; the truth is, there would be no certain or perfect colour at all: wherefore it seems altogether improbable, that such liquid, rare and disunited bodies should either keep or make inherent and fixed colours; for liquid and rare bodies, whose several parts are united into one considerable bulk of body, their colours are more apt to change then the colours of those bodies that are dry, solid and dense; the reason is, that rare and liquid bodies are more loose, slack, and agil, then solid and dry bodies, in so much, as in every alteration of motion their colours are apt to change: And if united rare and liquid bodies be so apt to alter and change, how is it probable, that those bodies, which are small and not united, should either keep or make inherent fixed colours? I will not say, but that such little bodies may range into such lines and figures, as make colours, but then they cannot last, being not united into a lasting body, that is, into a solid, substantial body, proper to make such figures as colours. But I desire you not to mistake me, Madam, for I do not mean, that the substance of colours is a gross thick substance, for the substance may be as thin and rare as flame or light, or in the next degree to it; for certainly the substance of light, and the substance of colours come in their degrees very neer each other; But according to the contraction of the figures, colours are paler or deeper, or more or less lasting. And as for the reason, why colours will change and rechange, it is according as the figures alter or recover their forms; for colours will be as animal Creatures, which sometimes are faint, pale, and sick, and yet recover; but when as a particular colour is, as I may say, quite dead, then there is no recovering of it. But colours may seem altered sometimes in our eyes, and yet not be altered in themselves; for our eyes, if perfect, see things as they are presented; and for proof, if any animal should be presented in an unusual posture or shape, we could not judg of it; also if a Picture, which must be viewed side-wards, should be looked upon forwards, we could not know what to make of it; so the figures of colours, if they be not placed rightly to the sight, but turned topsie-turvie as the Phrase is, or upside-down, or be moved too quick, and this quick motion do make a confusion with the lines of Light, we cannot possibly see the colour perfectly. Also several lights or shades may make colours appear otherwise then in themselves they are, for some sorts of lights and shades may fall upon the substantial figures of colours in solid bodies, in such lines and figures, as they may over-power the natural or artificial inherent colours in solid bodies, and for a time make other colours, and many times the lines of light or of shadows will meet and sympathize so with inherent colours, and place their lines so exactly, as they will make those inherent colours more splendorous then in their own nature they are, so that light and shadows will add or diminish or alter colours very much. Likewise some sorts of colours will be altered to our sight, not by all, but onely by some sorts of light, as for example, blew will seem green, and green blew by candle light, when as other colours will never appear changed, but shew constantly as they are; the reason is, because the lines of candle light fall in such figures upon the inherent colours, and so make them appear according to their own figures; Wherefore it is onely the alteration of the exterior figures of light and shadows, that make colours appear otherwise, and not a change of their own natures; And hence we may rationally conclude, that several lights and shadows by their spreading and dilating lines may alter the face or out-side of colours, but not suddenly change them, unless the power of heat, and continuance of time, or any other cause, do help and assist them in that work of metamorphosing or transforming of colours; but if the lines of light be onely, as the phrase is, Skin-deep; that is, but lightly spreading and not deeply penetrating, they may soon wear out or be rubbed off; for though they hurt, yet they do not kill the natural colour, but the colour may recover and reassume its former vigour and lustre: but time and other accidental causes will not onely alter, but destroy particular colours as well as other creatures, although not all after the same manner, for some will last longer then others. And thus, Madam, there are three sorts of Colours, Natural, Artificial, and Accidental; but I have discoursed of this subject more at large in my Philosophical Opinions, to which I refer you, and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XLI.

MADAM,

My answer to your Authors question, Why flame ascends in a pointed figure?[1] is, That the figure of fire consists in points, and being dilated into a flame, it ascends in lines of points slope-wayes from the fired fuel; like as if you should make two or more sticks stand upright and put the upper ends close together, but let the lower ends be asunder, in which posture they will support each other, which, if both their ends were close together, they could not do. The second question is, Why fire doth not alwayes flame?[2] I answer, Because all fuel is not flameable, some being so moist, as it doth oppose the fires dryness, and some so hard and retentive, as fire cannot so soon dissolve it; and in this contest, where one dissipates, and the other retains, a third figure is produced, viz. smoak, between the heat of one, and the moisture of the other; and this smoak is forced by the fire out of the fuel, and is nothing else but certain parts of fuel, raised to such a degree of rarefaction; and if fire come near, it forces the smoak into flame, the smoak changing it self by its figurative motions into flame; but when smoak is above the flame, the flame cannot force the smoak to fire or enkindle it self, for the flame cannot so well encounter it; which shews, as if smoak had a swifter motion then flame, although flame is more rarified then smoak; and if moisture predominate, there is onely smoak, if fire, then there is flame: But there are many figures, that do not flame, until they are quite dissolved, as Leather, and many other things. Neither can fire work upon all bodies alike, but according to their several natures, like as men cannot encounter several sorts of creatures after one and the same manner; for not any part in nature hath an absolute power, although it hath self-motion; and this is the reason, that wax by fire is melted, and clay hardened. The third question is, Why some few drops of water sprinkled upon fire, do encrease its flame? I answer, by reason of their little quantity, which being over-powred by the greater quantity and force of fire, is by its self-motions converted into fire; for water being of a rare nature, and fire, for the most part, of a rarifying quality, it cannot suddenly convert it self into a more solid body then its nature is, but following its nature by force it turns into flame. The fourth question is, Why the flame of spirit of Wine doth consume the Wine, and yet cannot burn or hurt a linnen cloth? I answer, The Wine is the fuel that feeds the flame, and upon what it feeds, it devoureth, and with the food, the feeder; but by reason Wine is a rarer body then Oyle, or Wood, or any other fuel, its flame is also weaker. And thus much of these questions, I rest,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Servant.

XLII.

MADAM,

To conclude my discourse upon the Opinions of these two famous and learned Authors, which I have hitherto sent you in several Letters, I could not chuse but repeat the ground of my own opinions in this present; which I desire you to observe well, lest you mistake any thing, whereof I have formerly discoursed. First I am for self-moving matter, which I call the sensitive and rational matter, and the perceptive and architectonical part of nature, which is the life and knowledg of nature. Next I am of an opinion, That all Perception is made by corporeal, figuring self-motions, and that the perception of forreign objects is made by patterning them out: as for example, The sensitive perception of forreign objects is by making or taking copies from these objects, so as the sensitive corporeal motions in the eyes copy out the objects of sight, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the ears copy out the objects of sound; the sensitive corporeal motions in the nostrils, copy out the objects of sent; the sensitive corporeal motions in the tongue and mouth, copy out the objects of taste, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the flesh and skin of the body copy out the forreign objects of touch; for when you stand by the fire, it is not that the fire, or the heat of the fire enters your flesh, but that the sensitive motions copy out the objects of fire and heat. As for my Book of Philosophy, I must tell you, that it treats more of the production and architecture of Creatures then of their perceptions, and more of the causes then the effects, more in a general then peculiar way, which I thought necessary to inform you of, and so I remain,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XLIII.

MADAM,

I received your questions in your last: the first was, Whether there be more body compact together in a heavy then in a light thing? I answer, That purity, rarity, little quantity, exteriour shape, as also motion cause lightnesse; and grossness of bulk, density, much quantity, exterior figure and motion cause heaviness, as it may be confirmed by many examples: but lightness and heaviness are onely conceptions of man, as also ascent and descent; and it may be questioned, whether there be such things really in nature; for change of motions of one and the same body will make lightness, and heaviness, as also rarity and density: besides, the several figures and compositions of bodies will cause them to ascend or descend, for Snow is a light body and yet descends from the clouds, and Water is a heavie body, and yet ascends in springs out of the Earth; Dust is a dense body and yet is apt to ascend, Rain or Dew is a rare body and yet is apt to descend; Also a Bird ascends by his shape, and a small worm although of less body and lighter will fall down; and there can be no other proof of light and heavy bodies but by their ascent and descent; But as really there is no such thing as heavie or light in nature more then words, and comparisons of different corporeal motions, so there is no such thing, as high or low, place or time, but onely words to make comparisons and to distinguish different corporeal motions. The second question was; When a Bason with water is wasted into smoak, which fills up a whole Room, Whether the air in the room doth, as the sensitive motions of the eye, pattern out the figure of the smoak; or whether all the room is really fill'd with the vapour or smoak? I answer, If it be onely the pattern or figure of smoak or vapour, the extension and dilation is not so much as man imagines; but why may not the air, which in my opinion hath self-motion, pattern out the figure of smoak as well as the eye; for that the eye surely doth it, may be proved; because smoak, if it enter the eye, makes it not onely smart and water much, but blinds it quite for the present; wherefore smoak doth not enter the eye, when the eye seeth it, but the eye patterns out the figure of smoak, and this is perception; In the same manner may the air pattern out the figure of smoak. The third question was, Whether all that they name qualities of bodies, as thickness, thinness, hardness, softness, gravity, levity, transparentness and the like, be substances? I answer, That all those, they call qualities, are nothing else but change of motion and figure of the same body, and several changes of motions are not several bodies, but several actions of one body; for change of motion doth not create new matter or multiply its quantity: for though corporeal motions may divide and compose, contract and dilate, yet they cannot create new matter, or make matter any otherwise then it is by nature, neither can they add or substract any thing from its nature. And therefore my opinion is, not that they are things subsisting by themselves without matter, but that there can no abstraction be made of motion and figure from matter, and that matter and motion being but one thing and inseparable, make but one substance. Wherefore density and rarity, gravity and levity, &c. being nothing else but change of motions, cannot be without matter, but a dense or rare, heavie or light matter is but one substance or body; And thus having obeyed your commands, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

XLIV.

MADAM,

I am very ready to give you my opinion of those two questions you sent me, whereof the first was, Whether that, which is rare and subtil, be not withal pure? To which I answer, That all rare bodies are not subtil, nor pure, and that all which is dense is not gross and dull: As for example, Puddle-water, or also clear water, is rarer then Quicksilver, and yet not so subtil and pure as Quicksilver; the like of Gold; for Quicksilver and Gold may be rarified to a transparentness, and yet be so dense, as not to be easily dissolved; and Quicksilver is very subtil and searching, so as to be able to force other bodies to divide as well as it can divide and compose its own parts. Wherefore my opinion is, that the purest and subtilest degree of matter in nature, is that degree of matter which can dilate and contract, compose and divide into any figure by corporeal self-motion. Your second question was, Why a man's hand cannot break a little hard body, as a little nail, whereas yet it is bigger then the nail? I answer, It is not because the hand is softer then the nail, for one hard body will not break suddenly another hard body, and a man may easily break an iron nail with his hand, as I have bin informed; but it is some kind of motion which can easier do it, then another: for I have seen a strong cord wound about both a man's hands, who pulled his hands as hard and strongly asunder as he could, and yet was not able to break it; when as a Youth taking the same cord, and winding it about his hands as the former did, immediately broke it; the cause was, that he did it with another kind of motion or pulling, then the other did, which though he used as much force and strength, as he was able, yet could not break it, when the boy did break it with the greatest ease, and turning onely his hands a little, which shews, that many things may be done by a slight of motion, which otherwise a great strength and force cannot do. This is my answer and opinion concerning your proposed questions; if you have any more, I shall be ready to obey you, as,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and humble Servant.

XLV.

MADAM,

I understand by your last, that you are very desirous to know, Whether there be not in nature such animal creatures both for purity and size, as we are not capable to perceive by our sight. Truly, Madam, in my opinion it is very probable there may be animal creatures of such rare bodies as are not subject to our exterior senses, as well, as there are elements which are not subject to all our exterior senses: as for example, fire is onely subject to our sight and feeling, and not to any other sense, water is subject to our sight, taste, touch and hearing, but not to smelling; and earth is subject to our sight, taste, touch and smelling, but not to our hearing; and vapour is onely subject to our sight, and wind onely to our hearing; but pure air is not subject to any of our senses, but onely known by its effects: and so there may likewise be animal creatures which are not subject to any of our senses both for their purity and life; as for example, I have seen pumpt out of a water pump small worms which could hardly be discerned but by a bright Sun-light, for they were smaller then the smallest hair, some of a pure scarlet colour and some white, but though they were the smallest creatures that ever I did see, yet they were more agil and fuller of life, then many a creature of a bigger size, and so small they were, as I am confident, they were neither subject to tast, smell, touch nor hearing, but onely to sight, and that neither without difficulty, requiring both a sharp sight and a clear light to perceive them; and I do verily believe that these small animal creatures may be great in comparison to others which may be in nature. But if it be probable that there may be such small animal creatures in nature, as are not subject to our exterior senses, by reason of their littleness; it is also probable, that there may be such great and big animal creatures in nature as are beyond the reach and knowledg of our exterior senses; for bigness and smallness are not to be judged by our exterior senses, onely; but as sense and reason inform us, that there are different degrees in Purity and Rarity, so also in shapes, figures and sizes in all natural creatures. Next you desired to know, Whether there can be an artificial Life, or a Life made by Art? My answer is, Not; for although there is Life in all natures parts, yet not all the parts are life, for there is one part of natural matter which in its nature is inanimate or without life, and though natural Life doth produce Art, yet Art cannot produce natural Life, for though Art is the action of Life, yet it is not Life it self: not but that there is Life in Art, but not art in life, for Life is natural, and not artificial; and thus the several parts of a watch may have sense and reason according to the nature of their natural figure, which is steel, but not as they have an artificial shape, for Art cannot put Life into the watch, Life being onely natural, not artificial. Lastly your desire was to know, Whether a part of matter may be so small, as it cannot be made less? I answer, there is no such thing in nature as biggest or least, nature being Infinite as well in her actions as in her substance; and I have mentioned in my book of Philosophy, and in a letter, I sent you heretofore concerning Infinite, that there are several sorts of Infinites, as Infinite in quantity or bulk, Infinite in number, Infinite in quality, as Infinite degrees of hardness, softness, thickness, thinness, swiftness, slowness, &c. as also Infinite compositions, divisions, creations, dissolutions, &c. in nature; and my meaning is, that all these Infinite actions do belong to the Infinite body of nature, which being infinite in substance must also of necessity be infinite in its actions; but although these Infinite actions are inherent in the power of the Infinite substance of nature, yet they are never put in act in her parts, by reason there being contraries in nature, and every one of the aforementioned actions having its opposite, they do hinder and obstruct each other so, that none can actually run into infinite; for the Infinite degrees of compositions hinder the infinite degrees of divisions; and the infinite degrees of rarity, softness, swiftness, &c. hinder the infinite degrees of density, hardness, slowness, &c. all which nature has ordered with great wisdom and Prudence to make an amiable combination between her parts; for if but one of these actions should run into infinite, it would cause a horrid confusion between natures parts, nay an utter destruction of the whole body of nature, if I may call it whole: as for example, if one part should have infinite compositions, without the hinderance or obstruction of division, it would at last mount and become equal to the Infinite body of nature, and so from a part change to a whole, from being finite to infinite, which is impossible; Wherefore, though nature hath an Infinite natural power, yet she doth not put this power in act in her particulars; and although she has an infinite force or strength, yet she doth not use this force or strength in her parts. Moreover when I speak of Infinite divisions and compositions, creations and dissolutions, &c. in nature, I do not mean so much the infinite degrees of compositions and divisions, as the actions themselves to be infinite in number; for there being infinite parts in nature, and every one having its compositions and divisions, creations and dissolutions, these actions must of necessity be infinite too, to wit, in number, according to the Infinite number of parts, for as there is an Infinite number of parts in nature, so there is also an infinite number and variety of motions which are natural actions. However let there be also infinite degrees of these natural actions, in the body or substance of infinite nature; yet, as I said, they are never put in act, by reason every action hath its contrary or opposite, which doth hinder and obstruct it from running actually into infinite. And thus I hope, you conceive cleerly now, what my opinion is, and that I do not contradict my self in my works, as some have falsly accused me, for they by misapprehending my meaning, judge not according to the truth of my sense, but according to their own false interpretation, which shews not onely a weakness in their understandings and passions, but a great injustice and injury to me, which I desire you to vindicate when ever you chance to hear such accusations and blemishes laid upon my works, by which you will Infinitely oblige,

Madam,

Your humble and faithful Servant.