SECT. I.

I.

MADAM,

You have been pleased to send me the Works of four Famous and Learned Authors, to wit, of two most Famous Philosophers of our Age, Des Cartes, and Hobbs, and of that Learned Philosopher and Divine Dr. More, as also of that Famous Physician and Chymist Van Helmont. Which Works you have sent me not onely to peruse, but also to give my judgment of them, and to send you word by the usual way of our Correspondence, which is by Letters, how far, and wherein I do dissent from these Famous Authors, their Opinions in Natural Philosophy. To tell you truly, Madam, your Commands did at first much affright me, for it did appear, as if you had commanded me to get upon a high Rock, and fling my self into the Sea, where neither a Ship, nor a Plank, nor any kind of help was near to rescue me, and save my life; but that I was forced to sink, by reason I cannot swim: So I having no Learning nor Art to assist me in this dangerous undertaking, thought, I must of necessity perish under the rough censures of my Readers, and be not onely accounted a fool for my labour, but a vain and presumptuous person, to undertake things surpassing the ability of my performance; but on the other side I considered first, that those Worthy Authors, were they my censurers, would not deny me the same liberty they take themselves; which is, that I may dissent from their Opinions, as well as they dissent from others, and from amongst themselves: And if I should express more Vanity then Wit, more Ignorance then Knowledg, more Folly then Discretion, it being according to the Nature of our Sex, I hoped that my Masculine Readers would civilly excuse me, and my Female Readers could not justly condemn me. Next I considered with my self, that it would be a great advantage for my Book called Philosophical Opinions, as to make it more perspicuous and intelligible by the opposition of other Opinions, since two opposite things placed near each other, are the better discerned; for I must confess, that when I did put forth my Philosophical Work at first, I was not so well skilled in the Terms or Expressions usual in Natural Philosophy; and therefore for want of their knowledg, I could not declare my meaning so plainly and clearly as I ought to have done, which may be a sufficient argument to my Readers, that I have not read heretofore any Natural Philosophers, and taken some Light from them; but that my Opinions did meerly issue from the Fountain of my own Brain, without any other help or assistance. Wherefore since for want of proper Expressions, my named Book of Philosophy was accused of obscurity and intricacy, I thought your Commands would be a means to explain and clear it the better, although not by an Artificial way, as by Logical Arguments or Mathematical Demonstrations, yet by expressing my Sense and Meaning more properly and clearly then I have done heretofore: But the chief reason of all was, the Authority of your Command, which did work so powerfully with me, that I could not resist, although it were to the disgrace of my own judgment and wit; and therefore I am fully resolved now to go on as far, and as well as the Natural strength of my Reason will reach: But since neither the strength of my Body, nor of my understanding, or wit, is able to mark every line, or every word of their works, and to argue upon them, I shall onely pick out the ground Opinions of the aforementioned Authors, and those which do directly dissent from mine, upon which I intend to make some few Reflections, according to the ability of my Reason; and I shall meerly go upon the bare Ground of Natural Philosophy, and not mix Divinity with it, as many Philosophers use to do, except it be in those places, where I am forced by the Authors Arguments to reflect upon it, which yet shall be rather with an expression of my ignorance, then a positive declaration of my opinion or judgment thereof; for I think it not onely an absurdity, but an injury to the holy Profession of Divinity to draw her to the Proofs in Natural Philosophy; wherefore I shall strictly follow the Guidance of Natural Reason, and keep to my own ground and Principles as much as I can; which that I may perform the better, I humbly desire the help and assistance of your Favour, that according to that real and intire Affection you bear to me, you would be pleased to tell me unfeignedly, if I should chance to err or contradict but the least probability of truth in any thing; for I honor Truth so much, as I bow down to its shadow with the greatest respect and reverence; and I esteem those persons most, that love and honor Truth with the same zeal and fervor, whether they be Ancient or Modern Writers.

Thus, Madam, although I am destitute of the help of Arts, yet being supported by your Favour and wise Directions, I shall not fear any smiles of scorn, or words of reproach; for I am confident you will defend me against all the mischievous and poisonous Teeth of malicious detractors. I shall besides, implore the assistance of the Sacred Church, and the Learned Schools, to take me into their Protection, and shelter my weak endeavours: For though I am but an ignorant and simple Woman, yet I am their devoted and honest Servant, who shall never quit the respect and honor due to them, but live and die theirs, as also,

MADAM,

Your Ladiships

humble and faithful Servant.

M. N.

II.

MADAM,

Before I begin my Reflections upon the Opinions of those Authors you sent me, I will answer first your Objection concerning the Ground of my Philosophy, which is Infinite Matter: For you were pleased to mention, That you could not well apprehend, how it was possible, that many Infinites could be contained in one Infinite, since one Infinite takes up all Place Imaginary, leaving no room for any other; Also, if one Infinite should be contained in an other Infinite, that which contains, must of necessity be bigger then that which is contained, whereby the Nater of Infinite would be lost; as having no bigger nor less, but being of an Infinite quantity.

First of all, Madam, there is no such thing as All in Infinite, nor any such thing as All the Place, for Infinite is not circumscribed nor limited: Next, as for that one Infinite cannot be in an other Infinite, I answer, as well as one Finite can be in another Finite; for one Creature is not onely composed of Parts, but one Part lies within another, and one Figure within another, and one Motion within another. As for example, Animal Kind, have they not Internal and External Parts, and so Internal and External Motions? And are not Animals, Vegetables and Minerals inclosed in the Elements? But as for Infinites, you must know, Madam, that there are several kindes of Infinites. For there is first Infinite in quantity or bulk, that is such a big and great Corporeal substance, which exceeds all bounds and limits of measure, and may be called Infinite in Magnitude. Next there is Infinite in Number, which exceeds all numeration and account, and may be termed Infinite in Multitude; Again there is Infinite in Quality; as for example, Infinite degrees of softness, hardness, thickness, thinness, heat and cold, &c. also Infinite degrees of Motion, and so Infinite Creations, Infinite Compositions, Dissolutions, Contractions, Dilations, Digestions, Expulsions; also Infinite degrees of Strength, Knowledg, Power, &c. Besides there is Infinite in Time, which is properly named Eternal. Now, when I say, that there is but one Infinite, and that Infinite is the Onely Matter, I mean infinite in bulk and quantity. And this Onely matter, because it is Infinite in bulk, must of necessity be divisible into infinite Parts, that is, infinite in number, not in bulk or quantity; for though Infinite Parts in number make up one infinite in quantity, yet they considered in themselves, cannot be said Infinite, because every Part is of a certain linked and circumscribed Figure, Quantity and Proportion, whereas Infinite hath no limits nor bounds: besides it is against the nature of a single Part to be Infinite, or else there would be no difference between the Part and the whole, the nature of a Part requiring that it must be less then its whole, but all what is less hath a determined quantity, and so becomes finite. Therefore it is no absurdity to say, that an Infinite may have both Finite and Infinite Parts, Finite in Quantity, Infinite in Number. But those that say, if there were an Infinite Body, that each of its Parts must of necessity be Infinite too, are much mistaken; for it is a contradiction in the same Terms to say One Infinite Part, for the very Name of a Part includes a Finiteness, but take all parts of an Infinite Body together, then you may rightly say they are infinite. Nay Reason will inform you plainly, for example: Imagine an Infinite number of grains of Corn in one heap, surely if the number of Grains be Infinite, you must grant of necessity the bulk or body, which contains this infinite number of grains, to be Infinite too; to wit, Infinite in quantity, and yet you will find each Grain in it self to be Finite. But you will say, an Infinite Body cannot have parts, for if it be Infinite, it must be Infinite in Quantity, and therefore of one bulk, and one continued quantity, but Infinite parts in number make a discrete quantity. I answer it is all one; for a Body of a continued quantity may be divided and severed into so many Parts either actually, or mentally in our Conceptions or thoughts; besides nature is one continued Body, for there is no such Vacuum in Nature, as if her Parts did hang together like a linked Chain; nor can any of her Parts subsist single and by it self, but all the Parts of Infinite Nature, although they are in one continued Piece, yet are they several and discerned from each other by their several Figures. And by this, I hope, you will understand my meaning, when I say, that several Infinites may be included or comprehended in one Infinite; for by the one Infinite, I understand Infinite in Quantity, which includes Infinite in Number, that is Infinite Parts; then Infinite in Quality, as Infinite degrees of Rarity, Density, Swiftness, Slowness, Hardness, Softness, &c. Infinite degrees of Motions, Infinite Creations, Dissolutions, Contractions, Dilations, Alterations, &c. Infinite degrees of Wisdom, Strength, Power, &c., and lastly Infinite in Time or Duration, which is Eternity, for Infinite and Eternal are inseparable; All which Infinites are contained in the Onely Matter as many Letters are contained in one Word, many Words in one Line, many Lines in one Book. But you will say perhaps, if I attribute an Infinite Wisdom, Strength, Power, Knowledg, &c. to Nature; then Nature is in all coequal with God, for God has the same Attributes: I answer, Not at all; for I desire you to understand me rightly, when I speak of Infinite Nature, and when I speak of the Infinite Deity, for there is great difference between them, for it is one thing a Deitical or Divine Infinite, and another a Natural Infinite; You know, that God is a Spirit, and not a bodily substance, again that Nature is a Body, and not a Spirit, and therefore none of these Infinites can obstruct or hinder each other, as being different in their kinds, for a Spirit being no Body, requires no place, Place being an attribute which onely belongs to a Body, and therefore when I call Nature Infinite, I mean an Infinite extension of Body, containing an Infinite number of Parts; but what doth an Infinite extension of Body hinder the Infiniteness of God, as an Immaterial Spiritual being? Next, when I do attribute an Infinite Power, Wisdom, Knowledg, &c. to Nature, I do not understand a Divine, but a Natural Infinite Wisdom and Power, that is, such as properly belongs to Nature, and not a supernatural, as is in God; For Nature having Infinite parts of Infinite degrees, must also have an Infinite natural wisdom to order her natural Infinite parts and actions, and consequently an Infinite natural power to put her wisdom into act; and so of the rest of her attributes, which are all natural: But Gods Attributes being supernatural, transcend much these natural infinite attributes; for God, being the God of Nature, has not onely Natures Infinite Wisdom and Power, but besides, a Supernatural and Incomprehensible Infinite Wisdom and Power; which in no wayes do hinder each other, but may very well subsist together. Neither doth Gods Infinite Justice and his Infinite Mercy hinder each other; for Gods Attributes, though they be all several Infinites, yet they make but one Infinite.

But you will say, If Nature's Wisdom and Power extends no further then to natural things, it is not Infinite, but limited and restrained. I answer, That doth not take away the Infiniteness of Nature; for there may be several kinds of Infinites, as I related before, and one may be as perfect an Infinite as the other in its kind. For example: Suppose a Line to be extended infinitely in length, you will call this Line Infinite, although it have not an Infinite breadth; Also, if an infinite length and breadth joyn together, you will call it, an infinite Superficies, although it wants an infinite depth; and yet every Infinite, in its kinde, is a Perfect Infinite, if I may call it so: Why then shall not Nature also be said to have an Infinite Natural Wisdom and Power, although she has not a Divine Wisdom and Power? Can we say, Man hath not a free Will, because he hath not an absolute free Will, as God hath? Wherefore, a Natural Infinite, and the Infinite God, may well stand together, without any opposition or hinderance, or without any detracting or derogating from the Omnipotency and Glory of God; for God remains still the God of Nature, and is an Infinite Immaterial Purity, when as Nature is an Infinite Corporeal Substance; and Immaterial and Material cannot obstruct each other. And though an Infinite Corporeal cannot make an Infinite Immaterial, yet an Infinite Immaterial can make an Infinite Corporeal, by reason there is as much difference in the Power as in the Purity: And the disparity between the Natural and Divine Infinite is such, as they cannot joyn, mix, and work together, unless you do believe that Divine Actions can have allay.

But you may say, Purity belongs onely to natural things, and none but natural bodies can be said purified, but God exceeds all Purity. 'Tis true: But if there were infinite degrees of Purity in Matter, Matter might at last become Immaterial, and so from an Infinite Material turn to an Infinite Immaterial, and from Nature to be God: A great, but an impossible Change. For I do verily believe, that there can be but one Omnipotent God, and he cannot admit of addition, or diminution; and that which is Material cannot be Immaterial, and what is Immaterial cannot become Material, I mean, so, as to change their natures; for Nature is what God was pleased she should be; and will be what she was, until God be pleased to make her otherwise. Wherefore there can be no new Creation of matter, motion, or figure; nor any annihilation of any matter, motion, or figure in Nature, unless God do create a new Nature: For the changing of Matter into several particular Figures, doth not prove an annihilation of particular Figures; nor the cessation of particular Motions an annihilation of them: Neither doth the variation of the Onely Matter produce an annihilation of any part of Matter, nor the variation of figures and motions of Matter cause an alteration in the nature of Onely Matter: Wherefore there cannot be new Lives, Souls or Bodies in Nature; for, could there be any thing new in Nature, or any thing annihilated, there would not be any stability in Nature, as a continuance of every kind and sort of Creatures, but there would be a confusion between the new and old matter, motions, and figures, as between old and new Nature; In truth, it would be like new Wine in old Vessels, by which all would break into disorder. Neither can supernatural and natural effects be mixt together, no more then material and immaterial things or beings: Therefore it is probable, God has ordained Nature to work in her self by his Leave, Will, and Free Gift. But there have been, and are still strange and erroneous Opinions, and great differences amongst Natural Philosophers, concerning the Principles of Natural things; some will have them Atoms, others will have the first Principles to be Salt, Sulphur and Mercury; some will have them to be the four Elements, as Fire, Air, Water, and Earth; and others will have but one of these Elements also some will have Gas and Blas, Ferments, Ideas and the like; but what they believe to be Principles and Causes of natural things, are onely Effects; for in all Probability it appears to humane sense and reason, that the cause of every particular material Creature is the onely and Infinite Matter, which has Motions and Figures inseparably united; for Matter, Motion and Figure, are but one thing, individable in its Nature. And as for Immaterial Spirits, there is surely no such thing in Infinite Nature, to wit, so as to be Parts of Nature; for Nature is altogether Material, but this opinion proceeds from the separation or abstraction of Motion from Matter, viz. that man thinks matter and motion to be dividable from each other, and believes motion to be a thing by its self, naming it an Immaterial thing, which has a being, but not a bodily substance: But various and different effects do not prove a different Matter or Cause, neither do they prove an unsetled Cause, onely the variety of Effects hath obscured the Cause from the several parts, which makes Particular Creatures partly Ignorant, and partly knowing. But in my opinion, Nature is material, and not any thing in Nature, what belongs to her, is immaterial; but whatsoever is Immaterial, is Supernatural, Therefore Motions, Forms, Thoughts, Ideas, Conceptions, Sympathies, Antipathies, Accidents, Qualities, as also Natural Life, and Soul, are all Material: And as for Colours, Sents, Light, Sound, Heat, Cold, and the like, those that believe them not to be substances or material things, surely their brain or heart (take what place you will for the forming of Conceptions) moves very Irregularly, and they might as well say, Our sensitive Organs are not material; for what Objects soever, that are subject to our senses, cannot in sense be denied to be Corporeal, when as those things that are not subject to our senses, can be conceived in reason to be Immaterial? But some Philosophers striving to express their wit, obstruct reason; and drawing Divinity to prove Sense and Reason, weaken Faith so, as their mixed Divine Philosophy becomes meer Poetical Fictions, and Romancical expressions, making material Bodies immaterial Spirits, and immaterial Spirits material Bodies; and some have conceived some things neither to be Material nor Immaterial but between both. Truly, Madam, I wish their Wits had been less, and their Judgments more, as not to jumble Natural and Supernatural things together, but to distinguish either clearly, for such Mixtures are neither Natural nor Divine; But as I said, the Confusion comes from their too nice abstractions, and from the separation of Figure and Motion from Matter, as not conceiving them individable; but if God, and his servant Nature were as Intricate and Confuse in their Works, as Men in their Understandings and Words, the Universe and Production of all Creatures would soon be without Order and Government, so as there would be a horrid and Eternal War both in Heaven, and in the World, and so pittying their troubled Brains, and wishing them the Light of Reason, that they may clearly perceive the Truth, I rest

Madam,

Your real Friend

and faithful Servant.

III.

MADAM,

It seems you are offended at my Opinion, that Nature is Eternal without beginning, which, you say, is to make her God, or at least coequal with God; But, if you apprehend my meaning rightly, you will say, I do not: For first, God is an Immaterial and Spiritual Infinite Being, which Propriety God cannot give away to any Creature, nor make another God in Essence like to him, for Gods Attributes are not communicable to any Creature; Yet this doth not hinder, that God should not make Infinite and Eternal Matter, for that is as easie to him, as to make a Finite Creature, Infinite Matter being quite of another Nature then God is, to wit, Corporeal, when God is Incorporeal, the difference whereof I have declared in my former Letter. But as for Nature, that it cannot be Eternal without beginning, because God is the Creator and Cause of it, and that the Creator must be before the Creature, as the Cause before the Effect, so, that it is impossible for Nature to be without a beginning; if you will speak naturally, as human reason guides you, and bring an Argument concluding from the Priority of the Cause before the Effect, give me leave to tell you, that God is not tied to Natural Rules, but that he can do beyond our Understanding, and therefore he is neither bound up to time, as to be before, for if we will do this, we must not allow, that the Eternal Son of God is Coeternal with the Father, because nature requires a Father to exist before the Son, but in God is no time, but all Eternity; and if you allow, that God hath made some Creatures, as Supernatural Spirits, to live Eternally, why should he not as well have made a Creature from all Eternity? for Gods making is not our making, he needs no Priority of Time. But you may say, the Comparison of the Eternal Generation of the Son of God is Mystical and Divine, and not to be applied to natural things: I answer, The action by which God created the World or made Nature, was it natural or supernatural? surely you will say it was a Supernatural and God-like action, why then will you apply Natural Rules to a God-like and Supernatural Action? for what Man knows, how and when God created Nature? You will say, the Scripture doth teach us that, for it is not Six thousand years, when God created this World, I answer, the holy Scripture informs us onely of the Creation of this Visible World, but not of Nature and natural Matter; for I firmly believe according to the Word of God, that this World has been Created, as is described by Moses, but what is that to natural Matter? There may have been worlds before, as many are of the opinion that there have been men before Adam, and many amongst Divines do believe, that after the destruction of this World God will Create a new World again, as a new Heaven, and a new Earth; and if this be probable, or at least may be believed without any prejudice to the holy Scripture, why may it not be probably believed that there have been other worlds before this visible World? for nothing is impossible with God; and all this doth derogate nothing from the Honour and Glory of God, but rather increases his Divine Power. But as for the Creation of this present World, it is related, that there was first a rude and indigested Heap, or Chaos, without form, void and dark; and God said, Let it be light; Let there be a Firmament in the midst of the Waters, and let the Waters under the Heaven be gathered together, and let the dry Land appear; Let the Earth bring forth Grass, the Herb yielding seed, and the Fruit-tree yielding Fruit after its own kind; and let there be Lights in the Firmament, the one to rule the Day, and the other the Night; and let the Waters bring forth abundantly the moving Creature that hath life; and let the Earth bring forth living Creatures after its kinde; and at last God said, Let us make Man, and all what was made, God saw it was good. Thus all was made by Gods Command, and who executed his Command but the Material servant of God, Nature? which ordered her self-moving matter into such several Figures as God commanded, and God approved of them. And thus, Madam, I verily believe the Creation of the World, and that God is the Sole and omnipotent Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all Creatures therein; nay, although I believe Nature to have been from Eternity, yet I believe also that God is the God and Author of Nature, and has made Nature and natural Matter in a way and manner proper to his Omnipotency and Incomprehensible by us: I will pass by natural Arguments and Proofs, as not belonging to such an Omnipotent Action; as for example, how the nature of relative terms requires, that they must both exist at one point of Time, viz. a Master and his Servant, and a King and his Subjects; for one bearing relation to the other, can in no ways be considered as different from one another in formiliness or laterness of Time; but as I said, these being meerly natural things, I will nor cannot apply them to Supernatural and Divine Actions; But if you ask me, how it is possible that Nature, the Effect and Creature of God, can be Eternal without beginning? I will desire you to answer me first, how a Creature can be Eternal without end, as, for example. Supernatural Spirits are, and then I will answer you, how a Creature can be Eternal without beginning; For Eternity consists herein, that it has neither beginning nor end; and if it be easie for God to make a Being without end, it is not difficult for Him to make a Being without beginning. One thing more I will add, which is, That if Nature has not been made by God from all Eternity, then the Title of God, as being a Creator, which is a Title and action, upon which our Faith is grounded, (for it is the first Article in our Creed) has been accessory to God, as I said, not full Six thousand years ago; but there is not any thing accessory to God; he being the Perfection himself. But, Madam, all what I speak, is under the liberty of Natural Philosophy, and by the Light of Reason onely, not of Revelation; and my Reason being not infallible; I will not declare my Opinions for an infallible Truth: Neither do I think, that they are offensive either to Church or State, for I submit to the Laws of One, and believe the Doctrine of the Other, so much, that if it were for the advantage of either, I should be willing to sacrifice my Life, especially for the Church; yea, had I millions of Lives, and every Life was either to suffer torment or to live in ease, I would prefer torment for the benefit of the Church; and therefore, if I knew that my Opinions should give any offence to the Church, I should be ready every minute to alter them: And as much as I am bound in all duty to the obedience of the Church, as much am I particularly bound to your Ladiship, for your entire love and sincere affection towards me, for which I shall live and die,

Madam,

Your most faithful Friend,

and humble Servant.

IV.

MADAM,

I have chosen, in the first place, the Work of that famous Philosopher Hobbs called Leviathan, wherein I find he sayes,[1] That the cause of sense or sensitive perception is the external body or Object, which presses the Organ proper to each Sense. To which I answer, according to the ground of my own Philosophical Opinions, That all things, and therefore outward objects as well as sensitive organs, have both Sense and Reason, yet neither the objects nor the organs are the cause of them; for Perception is but the effect of the Sensitive and rational Motions, and not the Motions of the Perception; neither doth the pressure of parts upon parts make Perception; for although Matter by the power of self-motion is as much composeable as divideable, and parts do joyn to parts, yet that doth not make perception; nay, the several parts, betwixt which the Perception is made, may be at such a distance, as not capable to press: As for example, Two men may see or hear each other at a distance, and yet there may be other bodies between them, that do not move to those perceptions, so that no pressure can be made, for all pressures are by some constraint and force; wherefore, according to my Opinion, the Sensitive and Rational free Motions, do pattern out each others object, as Figure and Voice in each others Eye and Ear; for Life and Knowledge, which I name Rational and Sensitive Matter, are in every Creature, and in all parts of every Creature, and make all perceptions in Nature, because they are the self-moving parts of Nature, and according as those Corporeal, Rational, and Sensitive Motions move, such or such perceptions are made: But these self-moving parts being of different degrees (for the Rational matter is purer then the Sensitive) it causes a double perception in all Creatures, whereof one is made by the Rational corporeal motions, and the other by the Sensitive; and though both perceptions are in all the body, and in every part of the body of a Creature, yet the sensitive corporeal motions having their proper organs, as Work-houses, in which they work some sorts of perceptions, those perceptions are most commonly made in those organs, and are double again; for the sensitive motions work either on the inside or on the out-side of those organs, on the inside in Dreams, on the out-side awake; and although both the Rational and the Sensitive matter are inseparably joyned and mixed together, yet do they not always work together, for oftentimes the Rational works without any sensitive paterns, and the sensitive again without any rational paterns. But mistake me not, Madam, for I do not absolutely confine the sensitive perception to the Organs, nor the rational to the Brain, but as they are both in the whole body, so they may work in the whole body according to their own motions. Neither do I say, that there is no other perception in the Eye but sight, in the Ear but hearing, and so forth, but the sensitive organs have other perceptions besides these; and if the sensitive and rational motions be irregular in those parts, between which the perception is made, as for example, in the two fore-mentioned men, that see and hear each other, then they both neither see nor hear each other perfectly; and if one's motions be perfect, but the other's irregular and erroneous, then one sees and hears better then the other; or if the Sensitive and Rational motions move more regularly and make perfecter paterns in the Eye then in the Ear, then they see better then they hear; and if more regularly and perfectly in the Ear then in the Eye, they hear better then they see: And so it may be said of each man singly, for one man may see the other better and more perfectly, then the other may see him; and this man may hear the other better and more perfectly, then the other may hear him; whereas, if perception were made by pressure, there would not be any such mistakes; besides the hard pressure of objects, in my opinion, would rather annoy and obscure, then inform. But as soon as the object is removed, the Perception of it, made by the sensitive motions in the Organs, ceaseth, by reason the sensitive Motions cease from paterning, but yet the Rational Motions do not always cease so suddenly, because the sensitive corporeal Motions work with the Inanimate Matter, and therefore cannot retain particular figures long, whereas the Rational Matter doth onely move in its own substance and parts of matter, and upon none other, as my Book of Philosophical Opinions will inform you better. And thus Perception, in my opinion, is not made by Pressure, nor by Species, nor by matter going either from the Organ to the Object, or from the Object into the Organ. By this it is also manifest, that Understanding comes not from Exterior Objects, or from the Exterior sensitive Organs; for as Exterior Objects do not make Perception, so they do neither make Understanding, but it is the rational matter that doth it, for Understanding may be without exterior objects and sensitive organs; And this in short is the opinion of

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

V.

Madam,

Your Authours opinion is,[1] that when a thing lies still, unless somewhat else stir it, it will lie still for ever; but when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat else stay it; the reason is, saith he, because nothing can change it self; To tell you truly, Madam, I am not of his opinion, for if Matter moveth it self, as certainly it doth, then the least part of Matter, were it so small as to seem Individable, will move it self; 'Tis true, it could not desist from motion, as being its nature to move, and no thing can change its Nature; for God himself, who hath more power then self-moving Matter, cannot change himself from being God; but that Motion should proceed from another exterior Body, joyning with, or touching that body which it moves, is in my opinion not probable; for though Nature is all Corporeal, and her actions are Corporeal Motions, yet that doth not prove, that the Motion of particular Creatures or Parts is caused by the joining, touching or pressing of parts upon parts; for it is not the several parts that make motion, but motion makes them; and yet Motion is not the cause of Matter, but Matter is the cause of Motion, for Matter might subsist without Motion, but not Motion without Matter, onely there could be no perception without Motion, nor no Variety, if Matter were not self-moving; but Matter, if it were all Inanimate and void of Motion, would lie as a dull, dead and senseless heap; But that all Motion comes by joining or pressing of other parts, I deny, for if sensitive and rational perceptions, which are sensitive and rational motions, in the body, and in the mind, were made by the pressure of outward objects, pressing the sensitive organs, and so the brain or interior parts of the Body, they would cause such dents and holes therein, as to make them sore and patched in a short time; Besides, what was represented in this manner, would always remain, or at least not so soon be dissolved, and then those pressures would make a strange and horrid confusion of Figures, for not any figure would be distinct; Wherefore my opinion is, that the sensitive and rational Matter doth make or pattern out the figures of several Objects, and doth dissolve them in a moment of time; as for example, when the eye seeth the object first of a Man, then of a Horse, then of another Creature, the sensitive motions in the eye move first into the figure of the Man, then straight into the figure of the Horse, so that the Mans figure is dissolved and altered into the figure of the Horse, and so forth; but if the eye sees many figures at once, then so many several figures are made by the sensitive Corporeal Motions, and as many by the Rational Motions, which are Sight and Memory, at once: But in sleep both the sensitive and rational Motions make the figures without patterns, that is, exterior objects, which is the cause that they are often erroneous, whereas, if it were the former Impression of the Objects, there could not possibly be imperfect Dreams or Remembrances, for fading of Figures requires as much motion, as impression, and impression and fading are very different and opposite motions; nay, if Perception was made by Impression, there could not possibly be a fading or decay of the figures printed either in the Mind or Body, whereas yet, as there is alteration of Motions in self-moving Matter, so there is also an alteration of figures made by these motions. But you will say, it doth not follow, if Perception be made by Impression, that it must needs continue and not decay; for if you touch and move a string, the motion doth not continue for ever, but ceaseth by degrees; I answer, There is great difference between Prime self-motion, and forced or Artificial Motions; for Artificial Motions are onely an Imitation of Natural Motions, and not the same, but caused by Natural Motions; for although there is no Art that is not made by Nature, yet Nature is not made by Art; Wherefore we cannot rationally judg of Perception by comparing it to the motion of a string, and its alteration to the ceasing of that motion, for Nature moveth not by force, but freely. 'Tis true, 'tis the freedom in Nature for one man to give another a box on the Ear, or to trip up his heels, or for one or more men to fight with each other; yet these actions are not like the actions of loving Imbraces and Kissing each other; neither are the actions one and the same, when a man strikes himself, and when he strikes another; and so is likewise the action of impression, and the action of self-figuring not one and the same, but different; for the action of impression is forced, and the action of self-figuring is free; Wherefore the comparison of the forced motions of a string, rope, watch, or the like, can have no place here; for though the rope, made of flax or hemp, may have the perception of a Vegetable, yet not of the hand, or the like, that touched or struck it; and although the hand doth occasion the rope to move in such a manner, yet it is not the motion of the hand, by which it moveth, and when it ceases, its natural and inherent power to move is not lessened; like as a man, that hath left off carving or painting, hath no less skill then he had before, neither is that skill lost when he plays upon the Lute or Virginals, or plows, plants, and the like, but he hath onely altered his action, as from carving to painting, or from painting to playing, and so to plowing and planting, which is not through disability but choice. But you will say, it is nevertheless a cessation of such a motion. I grant it: but the ceasing of such a motion is not the ceasing of self-moving matter from all motions, neither is cessation as much as annihilation, for the motion lies in the power of the matter to repeat it, as oft it will, if it be not overpowred, for more parts, or more strength, or more motions may over-power the less; Wherefore forced, or artificial and free Natural motions are different in their effects, although they have but one Cause, which is the self-moving matter, and though Matter is but active and passive, yet there is great Variety, and so great difference in force and liberty, objects and perceptions, sense and reason, and the like. But to conclude, perception is not made by the pressure of objects, no more then hemp is made by the Rope-maker, or metal by the Bell-founder or Ringer, and yet neither the rope nor the metal is without sense and reason, but the natural motions of the metal, and the artificial motions of the Ringer are different; wherefore a natural effect in truth cannot be produced from an artificial cause, neither can the ceasing of particular forced or artificial motions be a proof for the ceasing of general, natural, free motions, as that matter it self should cease to move; for there is no such thing as rest in Nature, but there is an alteration of motions and figures in self-moving matter, which alteration causeth variety as well in opinions, as in every thing else; Wherefore in my opinion, though sense alters, yet it doth not decay, for the rational and sensitive part of matter is as lasting as matter it self, but that which is named decay of sense, is onely the alteration of motions, and not an obscurity of motions, like, as the motions of memory and forgetfulness, and the repetition of the same motions is called remembrance. And thus much of this subject for the present, to which I add no more but rest

Madam,

your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

VI.

MADAM,

Your Authour discoursing of Imagination, saith,[1] That as soon as any object is removed from our Eyes, though the Impression that is made in us remain, yet other objects more present succeeding and working on us, the Imagination of the past is obscured and made weak. To which I answer, first, that he conceives Sense and Imagination to be all one, for he says, Imagination is nothing else, but a fading or decaying sense; whereas in my opinion they are different, not onely their matter, but their motions also being distinct and different; for Imagination is a rational perception, and Sense a sensitive perception; wherefore as much as the rational matter differs from the sensitive, as much doth Imagination differ from Sense. Next I say, that Impressions do not remain in the body of sensitive matter, but it is in its power to make or repeat the like figures; Neither is Imagination less, when the object is absent, then when present, but the figure patterned out in the sensitive organs, being altered, and remaining onely in the Rational part of matter, is not so perspicuous and clear, as when it was both in the Sense and in the Mind: And to prove that Imagination of things past doth not grow weaker by distance of time, as your Authour says, many a man in his old age, will have as perfect an Imagination of what is past in his younger years, as if he saw it present. And as for your Authours opinion, that Imagination and Memory are one and the same, I grant, that they are made of one kind of Matter; but although the Matter is one and the same, yet several motions in the several parts make Imagination and Memory several things: As for Example, a Man may Imagine that which never came into his Senses, wherefore Imagination is not one and the same thing with Memory. But your Authour seems to make all Sense, as it were, one Motion, but not all Motion Sense, whereas surely there is no Motion, but is either Sensitive or Rational; for Reason is but a pure and refined Sense, and Sense a grosser Reason. Yet all sensitive and rational Motions are not one and the same; for forced or Artificial Motions, though they proceed from sensitive matter, yet are they so different from the free and Prime Natural Motions, that they seem, as it were, quite of another nature: And this distinction neglected is the Cause, that many make Appetites and Passions, Perceptions and Objects, and the like, as one, without any or but little difference. But having discoursed of the difference of these Motions in my former Letter, I will not be tedious to you with repeating it again, but remain,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

VII.

MADAM,

Your Authours opinion, concerning Dreams,[1] seemeth to me in some part very rational and probable, in some part not; For when he sayes, that Dreams are onely Imaginations of them that sleep, which imaginations have been before either totally or by parcels in the Sense; and that the organs of Sense, as the Brain and the Nerves, being benumb'd in sleep, as not easily to be moved by external objects, those Imaginations proceed onely from the agitation of the inward parts of mans body, which for the connexion they have with the Brain, and other organs, when they be distemper'd, do keep the same in motion, whereby the Imaginations there formerly made, appear as if a man were waking; This seems to my Reason not very probable: For, first, Dreams are not absolutely Imaginations, except we do call all Motions and Actions of the Sensitive and Rational Matter, Imaginations. Neither is it necessary, that all Imaginations must have been before either totally or by parcels in the Sense; neither is there any benumbing of the organs of Sense in sleep. But Dreams, according to my opinion, are made by the Sensitive and Rational Corporeal Motions, by figuring several objects, as awake; onely the difference is, that the Sensitive motions in Dreams work by rote and on the inside of the Sensitive organs, when as awake they work according to the patterns of outward objects, and exteriously or on the outside of the sensitive Organs, so that sleep or dreams are nothing else but an alteration of motions, from moving exteriously to move interiously, and from working after a Pattern to work by rote: I do not say that the body is without all exterior motions, when asleep, as breathing and beating of the Pulse (although these motions are rather interior then exterior,) but that onely the sensitive organs are outwardly shut, so as not to receive the patterns of outward Objects, nevertheless the sensitive Motions do not cease from moving inwardly; or on the inside of the sensitive Organs; But the rational matter doth often, as awake, so asleep or in dreams, make such figures, as the sensitive did never make either from outward objects, or of its own accord; for the sensitive hath sometimes liberty to work without Objects, but the Rational much more, which is not bound either to the patterns of Exterior objects, or of the sensitive voluntary Figures. Wherefore it is not divers distempers, as your Authour sayes, that cause different Dreams, or Gold, or Heat; neither are Dreams the reverse of our waking Imaginations, nor all the Figures in Dreams are not made with their heels up, and their heads downwards, though some are; but this error or irregularity proceeds from want of exterior Objects or Patterns, and by reason the sensitive Motions work by rote; neither are the Motions reverse, because they work inwardly asleep, and outwardly awake, for Mad-men awake see several Figures without Objects. In short, sleeping and waking, is somewhat after that manner, when men are called either out of their doors, or stay within their houses; or like a Ship, where the Mariners work all under hatches, whereof you will find more in my Philosophical Opinions; and so taking my leave, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

VIII.

MADAM,

Your Authour going on in his discourse of Imagination, says,[1] That, as we have no Imagination, whereof we have not formerly had sense, in whole or in parts; so we have not Transition from one Imagination to another, whereof we never had the like before in our senses. To which my answer is in short, that the Rational part of Matter in One composed figure, as in Man, or the like Creature, may make such figures, as the senses did never make in that composed Figure or Creature; And though your Authour reproves those that say,[2] Imaginations rise of themselves; yet, if the self-moving part of Matter, which I call Rational, makes Imaginations, they must needs rise of themselves; for the Rational part of matter being free and self-moving, depends upon nothing, neither Sense nor Object, I mean, so, as not to be able to work without them. Next, when your Author, defining Understanding, says that it is nothing else, but[3] an Imagination raised by words or other voluntary signs, My Answer is, that Understanding, and so Words and Signs are made by self-moving Matter, that is, Sense and Reason, and not Sense and Reason by Words and Signs; wherefore Thoughts are not like[4] Water upon a plain Table, which is drawn and guided by the finger this or that way, for every Part of self-moving matter is not alwayes forced, perswaded or directed, for if all the Parts of Sense and Reason were ruled by force or perswasion, not any wounded Creature would fail to be healed, or any disease to be cured by outward Applications, for outward Applications to Wounds and Diseases might have more force, then any Object to the Eye: But though there is great affinity and sympathy between parts, yet there is also great difference and antipathy betwixt them, which is the cause that many objects cannot with all their endeavours work such effects upon the Interiour parts, although they are closely press'd, for Impressions of objects do not always affect those parts they press. Wherefore, I am not of your Author's opinion, that all Parts of Matter press one another; It is true, Madam, there cannot be any part single, but yet this doth not prove, that parts must needs press each other: And as for his Train of Thoughts, I must confess, that Thoughts for the most part are made orderly, but yet they do not follow each other like Geese, for surely, man has sometimes very different thoughts; as for Example, a man sometime is very sad for the death of his Friend, and thinks of his own death, and immediately thinks of a wanton Mistress, which later thought, surely, the thought of Death did not draw in; wherefore, though some thought may be the Ring-leader of others, yet many are made without leaders. Again, your Author in his description of the Mind sayes, that the discourse of the mind, when it is govern'd by design, is nothing but seeking, or the Faculty of Invention; a hunting out of the Causes of some Effects, present or past; or of the Effects of some present or past Cause. Sometimes a man seeks what he has lost, and from that Place and Time wherein he misses it, his mind runs back from place to place, and time to time, to find where and when he had it, that is to say, to find some certain and limited Time and Place, in which to begin a method of Seeking. And from thence his thoughts run over the same places and times to find what action or other occasion might make him lose it. This we call Remembrance or calling to mind. Sometimes a man knows a place determinate, within the compass whereof he is to seek, and then his thoughts run over all the Parts thereof in the same manner as one would sweep a room to find a Jewel, or as a Spaniel ranges the field till he find a sent; or as a Man should run over the Alphabet to start a Rime. Thus far your Author: In which discourse I do not perceive that he defineth what the Mind is, but I say, that if, according to his opinion, nothing moves it self, but one thing moves another, then the Mind must do nothing, but move backward and forward, nay, onely forward, and if all actions were thrusting or pressing of parts, it would be like a crowd of People, and there would be but little or no motion, for the crowd would make a stoppage, like water in a glass, the mouth of the Glass being turned downwards, no water can pass out, by reason the numerous drops are so closely press'd, as they cannot move exteriously. Next, I cannot conceive how the Mind can run back either to Time or Place, for as for Place, the mind is inclosed in the body, and the running about in the parts of the body or brain will not inform it of an Exterior place or object; besides, objects being the cause of the minds motion, it must return to its Cause, and so move until it come to the object, that moved it first, so that the mind must run out of the body to that object, which moved it to such a Thought, although that object were removed out of the World (as the phrase is:) But for the mind to move backward, to Time past, is more then it can do; Wherefore in my opinion, Remembrance, or the like, is onely a repetition of such Figures as were like to the Objects; and for Thoughts in Particular, they are several figures, made by the mind, which is the Rational Part of matter, in its own substance, either voluntarily, or by imitation, whereof you may see more in my Book of Philosophical Opinions. Hence I conclude, that Prudence is nothing else, but a comparing of Figures to Figures, and of the several actions of those Figures; as repeating former Figures, and comparing them to others of the like nature, qualities, proprieties, as also chances, fortunes, &c. Which figuring and repeating is done actually, in and by the Rational Matter, so that all the observation of the mind on outward Objects is onely an actual repetition of the mind, as moving in such or such figures and actions; and when the mind makes voluntary Figures with those repeated Figures, and compares them together, this comparing is Examination; and when several Figures agree and joyn, it is Conclusion or Judgment: likewise doth Experience proceed from repeating and comparing of several Figures in the Mind, and the more several Figures are repeated and compared, the greater the experience is. One thing more there is in the same Chapter, which I cannot let pass without examination; Your Authour says, That things Present onely have a being in Nature, things Past onely a being in the Memory, but things to come have no being at all; Which how it possibly can be, I am not able to conceive; for certainly, if nothing in nature is lost or annihilated, what is past, and what is to come, hath as well a being, as what is present; and, if that which is now, had its being before, why may it not also have its being hereafter? It might as well be said, that what is once forgot, cannot be remembred; for whatsoever is in Nature, has as much a being as the Mind, and there is not any action, or motion, or figure, in Nature, but may be repeated, that is, may return to its former Figure, When it is altered and dissolved; But by reason Nature delights in variety, repetitions are not so frequently made, especially of those things or creatures, which are composed by the sensitive corporeal motions in the inanimate part of Matter, because they are not so easily wrought, as the Rational matter can work upon its own parts, being more pliant in its self, then the Inanimate matter is; And this is the reason, that there are so many repetitions of one and the same Figure in the Rational matter, which is the Mind, but seldom any in the Gross and inanimate part of Matter, for Nature loves ease and freedom: But to conclude, Madam, I perceive your Author confines Sense onely to Animal-kind, and Reason onely to Man-kind: Truly, it is out of self-love, when one Creature prefers his own Excellency before another, for nature being endued with self-love, all Creatures have self-love too, because they are all Parts of Nature; and when Parts agree or disagree, it is out of Interest and Self-love; but Man herein exceeds all the rest, as having a supernatural Soul, whose actions also are supernatural; To which I leave him, and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

IX.

MADAM,

When your Author discourseth of the use of Speech or Words and Names, he is pleas'd to say,[1] That their use is to serve for marks and notes of Remembrance; Whereof to give you my opinion, I say, That Speech is natural to the shape of Man; and though sometimes it serves for marks or notes of remembrance, yet it doth not always, for all other Animals have Memory without the help of Speech, and so have deaf and dumb men, nay more then those that hear and speak: Wherefore, though Words are useful to the mind, and so to the memory, yet both can be without them, whereas Words cannot be without Memory; for take a Bird, and teach him to speak, if he had not Memory, before he heard the words, he could never learn them. You will ask me, Madam, What then, is Memory the Cause of Speech? I answer, Life and Knowledg, which is Sense and Reason, as it creates and makes all sorts of Creatures, so also amongst the rest it makes Words: And as I said before, that Memory may be without the help of Speech or Words, so I say also, that there is a possibility of reckoning of numbers, as also of magnitudes, of swiftness, of force, and other things without words, although your Author denies it: But some men are so much for Art, as they endeavour to make Art, which is onely a Drudgery-maid of Nature, the chief Mistress, and Nature her Servant, which is as much as to prefer Effects before the Cause, Nature before God, Discord before Unity and Concord.

Again, your Author, in his Chapter of Reason,[2] defines Reason to be nothing else but Reckoning: I answer, That in my opinion Reckoning is not Reason it self, but onely an effect or action of Reason; for Reason, as it is the chiefest and purest degree of animate matter, works variously and in divers motions, by which it produces various and divers effects, which are several Perceptions, as Conception, Imagination, Fancy, Memory, Remembrance, Understanding, Judgment, Knowledg, and all the Passions, with many more: Wherefore this Reason is not in one undivided part, nor bound to one motion, for it is in every Creature more or less, and moves in its own parts variously; and in some Creatures, as for example, in some men, it moves more variously then in others, which is the cause that some men are more dull and stupid, then others; neither doth Reason always move in one Creature regularly, which is the cause, that some men are mad or foolish: And though all men are made by the direction of Reason, and endued with Reason, from the first time of their birth, yet all have not the like Capacities, Understandings, Imaginations, Wits, Fancies, Passions, &c. but some more, some less, and some regular, some irregular, according to the motions of Reason or Rational part of animate matter; and though some rational parts may make use of other rational Parts, as one man of another mans Conceptions, yet all these parts cannot associate together; as for example, all the Material parts of several objects, no not their species, cannot enter or touch the eye without danger of hurting or loosing it, nevertheless the eye makes use of the objects by patterning them out, and so doth the rational matter, by taking patterns from the sensitive; And thus knowledg or perception of objects, both sensitive and rational, is taken without the pressure of any other parts; for though parts joyn to parts, (for no part can be single) yet this joining doth not necessarily infer the pressure of objects upon the sensitive organs; Whereof I have already discoursed sufficiently heretofore, to which I refer you, and rest

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

X.

MADAM,

Understanding says your Author,[1] is nothing else but Conception caused by speech, and therefore, if speech be peculiar to man, (as, for ought I know, it is) then is understanding peculiar to him also. Where he confineth Understanding onely to speech and to Mankind; But, by his leave, Madam, I surely believe, that there is more understanding in Nature, then that, which is in speech, for if there were not, I cannot conceive, how all the exact forms in Generations could be produced, or how there could be such distinct degrees of several sorts and kinds of Creatures, or distinctions of times and seasons, and so many exact motions and figures in Nature: Considering all this, my reason perswadeth me, that all Understanding, which is a part of Knowledg, is not caused by speech, for all the motions of the Celestial Orbs are not made by speech, neither is the knowledg or understanding which a man hath, when sick, as to know or understand he is sick, made by speech, nor by outward objects, especially in a disease he never heard, nor saw, nor smelt, nor tasted, nor touched; Wherefore all Perception, Sensation, Memory, Imagination, Appetite, Understanding, and the like, are not made nor caused by outward objects, nor by speech. And as for names of things, they are but different postures of the figures in our mind or thoughts, made by the Rational matter; But Reasoning is a comparing of the several figures with their several postures and actions in the Mind, which joyned with the several words, made by the sensitive motions, inform another distinct and separate part, as an other man, of their minds conceptions, understanding, opinions, and the like.

Concerning Addition and Subtraction, wherein your Author sayes Reasoning consists, I grant, that it is an act of Reasoning, yet it doth not make Sense or Reason, which is Life and Knowledge, but Sense and Reason which is self-motion, makes addition and subtraction of several Parts of matter; for had matter not self-motion, it could not divide nor compose, nor make such varieties, without great and lingring retardments, if not confusion. Wherefore all, what is made in Nature, is made by self-moving matter, which self-moving matter doth not at all times move regularly, but often irregularly, which causes false Logick, false Arithmetick, and the like; and if there be not a certainty in these self-motions or actions of Nature, much less in Art, which is but a secundary action; and therefore, neither speech, words, nor exterior objects cause Understanding or Reason. And although many parts of the Rational and Sensitive Matter joyned into one, may be stronger by their association, and over-power other parts that are not so well knit and united, yet these are not the less pure; onely these Parts and Motions being not equal in several Creatures, make their Knowledge and Reason more or less: For, when a man hath more Rational Matter well regulated, and so more Wisdom then an other, that same man may chance to over-power the other, whose Rational Matter is more irregular, but yet not so much by strength of the united Parts, as by their subtilty; for the Rational Matter moving regularly, is more strong with subtilty, then the sensitive with force; so that Wisdom is stronger then Life, being more pure, and so more active; for in my opinion, there is a degree of difference between Life and Knowledge, as my Book of Philosophical Opinions will inform you.

Again, your Author sayes, That Man doth excel all other Animals in this faculty, that when he conceives any thing whatsoever, he is apt to enquire the Consequences of it, and what effects he can do with it: Besides this (sayes he) Man hath an other degree of Excellence, that he can by Words reduce the Consequences he finds to General Rules called Theoremes or Aphorisms, that is, he can reason or reckon not onely in Number, but in all other things, whereof one may be added unto, or substracted from an other. To which I answer, That according to my Reason I cannot perceive, but that all Creatures may do as much; but by reason they do it not after the same manner or way as Man, Man denies, they can do it at all; which is very hard; for what man knows, whether Fish do not Know more of the nature of Water, and ebbing and flowing, and the saltness of the Sea? or whether Birds do not know more of the nature and degrees of Air, or the cause of Tempests? or whether Worms do not know more of the nature of Earth, and how Plants are produced? or Bees of the several sorts of juices of Flowers, then Men? And whether they do not make there Aphorismes and Theoremes by their manner of Intelligence? For, though they have not the speech of Man, yet thence doth not follow, that they have no Intelligence at all. But the Ignorance of Men concerning other Creatures is the cause of despising other Creatures, imagining themselves as petty Gods in Nature, when as Nature is not capable to make one God, much less so many as Mankind; and were it not for Mans supernatural Soul, Man would not be more Supreme, then other Creatures in Nature, But (says your Author) this Priviledge in Man is allay'd by another, which is, No living Creature is subject to absurdity, but onely Man. Certainly, Madam, I believe the contrary, to wit, that all other Creatures do as often commit mistakes and absurdities as Man, and if it were not to avoid tediousness, I could present sufficient proofs to you: Wherefore I think, not onely Man but also other Creatures may be Philosophers and subject to absurdities as aptly as Men; for Man doth, nor cannot truly know the Faculties, and Abilities or Actions of all other Creatures, no not of his own Kind as Man-Kind, for if he do measure all men by himself he will be very much mistaken, for what he conceives to be true or wise, an other may conceive to be false and foolish. But Man may have one way of Knowledge in Philosophy and other Arts, and other Creatures another way, and yet other Creatures manner or way may be as Intelligible and Instructive to each other as Man's, I mean, in those things which are Natural. Wherefore I cannot consent to what your Author says, That Children are not endued with Reason at all, till they have attained to the use of Speech; for Reason is in those Creatures which have not Speech, witness Horses, especially those which are taught in the manage, and many other Animals. And as for the weak understanding in Children, I have discoursed thereof in my Book of Philosophy; The rest of this discourse, lest I tire you too much at once, I shall reserve for the next, resting in the mean time,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

XI.

Madam,

I sent you word in my last, that your Author's opinion is, That Children are not endued with Reason at all, until they have attained to the use of Speech, in the same Chapter[1] he speaks to the same purpose thus: Reason is not as Sense and Memory born with us, nor gotten by experience onely, as Prudence is, but attained by industry. To which I reply onely this, That it might as well be said, a Child when new born hath not flesh and blood, because by taking in nourishment or food, the Child grows to have more flesh and blood; or, that a Child is not born with two legs, because he cannot go, or with two arms and hands, because he cannot help himself; or that he is not born with a tongue, because he cannot speak: For although Reason doth not move in a Child as in a Man, in Infancy as in Youth, in Youth as in Age, yet that doth not prove that Children are without Reason, because they cannot run and prate: I grant, some other Creatures appear to have more Knowledg when new born then others; as for example, a young Foal has more knowledg than a young Child, because a Child cannot run and play; besides a Foal knows his own Dam, and can tell where to take his food, as to run and suck his Dam, when as an Infant cannot do so, nor all beasts, though most of them can, but yet this doth not prove, that a Child hath no reason at all; Neither can I perceive that man is a Monopoler of all Reason, or Animals of all Sense, but that Sense and Reason are in other Creatures as well as in Man and Animals; for example, Drugs, as Vegetables and Minerals, although they cannot slice, pound or infuse, as man can, yet they can work upon man more subtilly, wisely, and as sensibly either by purging, vomiting, spitting, or any other way, as man by mincing, pounding and infusing them, and Vegetables will as wisely nourish Men, as Men can nourish Vegetables; Also some Vegetables are as malicious and mischievous to Man, as Man is to one another, witness Hemlock, Nightshade, and many more; and a little Poppy will as soon, nay sooner cause a Man to sleep, though silently, then a Nurse a Child with singing and rocking; But because they do not act in such manner or way as Man, Man judgeth them to be without sense and reason; and because they do not prate and talk as Man, Man believes they have not so much wit as he hath; and because they cannot run and go, Man thinks they are not industrious; the like for Infants concerning Reason. But certainly, it is not local motion or speech that makes sense and reason, but sense and reason makes them; neither is sense and reason bound onely to the actions of Man, but it is free to the actions, forms, figures and proprieties of all Creatures; for if none but Man had reason, and none but Animals sense, the World could not be so exact, and so well in order as it is: but Nature is wiser then Man with all his Arts, for these are onely produced through the variety of Natures actions, and disputes through the superfluous varieties of Mans follies or ignorances, not knowing Natures powerful life and knowledg: But I wonder, Madam, your Author says in this place, That Reason is not born with Man, when as in another place,[2] he says, That every man brought Philosophy, that is Natural reason with him into the World; Which how it agree, I will leave to others to judg, and to him to reconcile it, remaining in the meantime,

Madam,

Your Constant Friend

and Faithful Servant.

XII.

Madam,

Two sorts of motions, I find your Author[1] doth attribute to Animals, viz. Vital and Animal, the Vital motions, says he, are begun in Generation, and continued without Interruption through their whole life, and those are the Course of the Blood, the Pulse, the Breathing, Conviction, Nutrition, Excretion, &c. to which motions there needs no help of Imaginations; But the animal Motions, otherwise called voluntary Motions, are to go, to speak, to move any of our limbs, in such manner as is first fancied in our minds: And because going, speaking, and the like voluntary motions, depend always upon a precedent thought of whither, which way, and what, it is evident, that the Imagination is the first Internal beginning of all voluntary Motion. Thus far your Author. Whereof in short I give you my opinion, first concerning Vital Motions, that it appears improbable if not impossible to me, that Generation should be the cause and beginning of Life, because Life must of necessity be the cause of Generation, life being the Generator of all things, for without life motion could not be, and without motion not any thing could be begun, increased, perfected, or dissolved. Next, that Imagination is not necessary to Vital Motions, it is probable it may not, but yet there is required Knowledg, which I name Reason; for if there were not Knowledg in all Generations or Productions, there could not any distinct Creature be made or produced, for then all Generations would be confusedly mixt, neither would there be any distinct kinds or sorts of Creatures, nor no different Faculties, Proprieties, and the like. Thirdly, concerning Animal Motions, which your Author names Voluntary Motions, as to go, to speak, to move any of our limbs, in such manner as is first fancied in our minds, and that they depend upon a precedent thought of whither, which way, and what, and that Imagination is the first Internal beginning of them; I think, by your Authors leave, it doth imply a contradiction, to call them Voluntary Motions, and yet to say they are caused and depend upon our Imagination; for if the Imagination draws them this way, or that way, how can they be voluntary motions, being in a manner forced and necessitated to move according to Fancy or Imagination? But when he goes on in the same place and treats of Endeavour, Appetite, Desire, Hunger, Thirst, Aversion, Love, Hate, and the like, he derives one from the other, and treats well as a Moral Philosopher; but whether it be according to the truth or probability of Natural Philosophy, I will leave to others to judge, for in my opinion Passions and Appetites are very different, Appetites being made by the motions of the sensitive Life, and Passions, as also Imagination, Memory, &c. by the motions of the rational Life, which is the cause that Appetites belong more to the actions of the Body then the Mind: 'Tis true, the Sensitive and Rational self-moving matter doth so much resemble each other in their actions, as it is difficult to distinguish them. But having treated hereof at large in my other Philosophical Work, to cut off repetitions, I will refer you to that, and desire you to compare our opinions together: But certainly there is so much variety in one and the same sort of Passions, and so of Appetites, as it cannot be easily express'd. To conclude, I do not perceive that your Author tells or expresses what the cause is of such or such actions, onely he mentions their dependance, which is, as if a man should converse with a Nobleman's Friend or Servant, and not know the Lord himself. But leaving him for this time, it is sufficient to me, that I know your Ladyship, and your Ladyship knows me, that I am,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend, and humble Servant.

XIII.

Madam,

Having obey'd your Commands in giving you my opinion of the First Part of the Book of that famous and learned Author you sent me, I would go on; but seeing he treats in his following Parts of the Politicks, I was forced to stay my Pen, because of these following Reasons. First, That a Woman is not imployed in State Affairs, unless an absolute Queen. Next, That to study the Politicks, is but loss of Time, unless a man were sure to be a Favourite to an absolute Prince. Thirdly, That it is but a deceiving Profession, and requires more Craft then Wisdom. All which considered, I did not read that part of your Author: But as for his Natural Philosophy, I will send you my opinion so far as I understand it: For what belongs to Art, as to Geometry, being no Scholar, I shall not trouble my self withal. And so I'l take my leave of you, when I have in two or three words answered the Question you sent me last, which was, Whether Nature be the Art of God, Man the Art of Nature, and a Politick Government the Art of Man? To which I answer, 'Tis probable it may be so; onely I add this, That Nature doth not rule God, nor Man Nature, nor Politick Government Man; for the Effect cannot rule the Cause, but the Cause doth rule the Effect: Wherefore if men do not naturally agree, Art cannot make unity amongst them, or associate them into one Politick Body and so rule them; But man thinks he governs, when as it is Nature that doth it, for as nature doth unite or divide parts regularly or irregularly, and moves the several minds of men and the several parts of mens bodies, so war is made or peace kept: Thus it is not the artificial form that governs men in a Politick Government, but a natural power, for though natural motion can make artificial things, yet artificial things cannot make natural power; and we might as well say, nature is governed by the art of nature, as to say man is ruled by the art and invention of men. The truth is, Man rules an artificial Government, and not the Government Man, just like as a Watch-maker rules his Watch, and not the Watch the Watch-maker. And thus I conclude and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XIV.

MADAM,

Concerning the other Book of that learned Author Hobbs you sent me, called Elements of Philosophy, I shall likewise according to your desire, give you my judgment and opinion of it as I have done of the former, not that I intend to prejudice him any ways thereby, but onely to mark those places wherein I seem to dissent from his opinions, which liberty, I hope, he will not deny me; And in order to this, I have read over the first Chapter of the mentioned Book, treating of Philosophy in General, wherein amongst the rest, discoursing of the Utility of Natural Philosophy, and relating the commodities and benefits which proceed from so many arts and sciences, he is pleased to say,[1] that they are injoyed almost by all people of Europe, Asia, and some of Africa, onely the Americans, and those that live neer the Poles do want them: But why, says he, have they sharper wits then these? Have not all men one kind of soul, and the same faculties of mind? To which, give me leave, Madam, to add, That my opinion is, that there is a difference between the Divine and the Natural soul of man, and though the natural mind or soul is of one kind, yet being made of rational matter, it is divideable and composeable, by which division and composition, men may have more or less wit, or quicker and slower wit; the like for Judgments, Imaginations, Fancies, Opinions, &c. For were the natural rational mind individeable, all men would have the like degree of wit or understanding, all men would be Philosophers or fools, which by reason they are not, it proves the natural rational mind is divideable and composeable, making variations of its own several parts by self-motion; for it is not the several outward objects, or forreign instructions, that make the variety of the mind; neither is wit or ingenuity alike in all men; for some are natural Poets, Philosophers, and the like, without learning, and some are far more ingenious then others, although their breeding is obscure and mean, Neither will learning make all men Scholars, for some will continue Dunces all their life time; Neither doth much experience make all men wise, for some are not any ways advanced in their wisdom by much and long experiences; And as for Poetry, it is according to the common Proverb; a Poet is born, not made; Indeed learning doth rather hurt Fancy, for great Scholars are not always good Poets, nor all States-men Natural Philosophers, nor all Experienced Men Wise Men, nor all Judges Just, nor all Divines Pious, nor all Pleaders or Preachers Eloquent, nor all Moral Philosophers Vertuous; But all this is occasioned by the various Motions of the rational self-moving matter, which is the Natural Mind. And thus much for the present of the difference of wits and faculties of the mind; I add no more, but rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend,

and Servant.

XV.

MADAM,

My Discourse for the present shall be of Infinite, and the question shall be first Whether several Finite parts, how many soever there be, can make an Infinite. Your Author says,[1] that several Finite parts when they are all put together make a whole Finite; which, if his meaning be of a certain determinate number, how big soever, of finite parts, I do willingly grant, for all what is determinate and limited, is not Infinite but Finite; neither is there any such thing, as Whole or All in Infinite; but if his meaning be, that no Infinite can be made of finite parts, though infinite in number, I deny it; Next he says there can be no such thing as One in Infinite, because No thing can be said One, except there be another to compare it withal; which in my opinion doth not follow, for there is but One God, who is Infinite, and hath none other to be compared withal, and so there may be but one Onely Infinite in Nature, which is Matter. But when he says, there cannot be an Infinite and Eternal Division, is very true, viz., in this sense, that one single part cannot be actually infinitely divided, for the Compositions hinder the Divisions in Nature, and the Divisions the Compositions, so that Nature, being Matter, cannot be composed so, as not to have parts, nor divided so, as that her parts should not be composed, but there are nevertheless infinite divided parts in Nature, and in this sense there may also be infinite divisions, as I have declared in my Book of Philosophy[2]. And thus there are Infinite divisions of Infinite parts in Nature, but not Infinite actual divisions of one single part; But though Infinite is without end, yet my discourse of it shall be but short and end here, though not my affection, which shall last and continue with the life of

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Humble Servant.

XVI.

MADAM,

An Accident, says your Author,[1] is nothing else, but the manner of our Conception of body, or that Faculty of any body, by which it works in us a Conception of it self; To which I willingly consent; but yet I say, that these qualities cannot be separated from the body, for as impossible it is that the essence of Nature should be separable from Nature, as impossible is it that the various modes or alterations, either of Figures or Motions, should be separable from matter or body; Wherefore when he goes on, and says,[2] An accident is not a body, but in a body, yet not so, as if any thing were contained therein, as if for example, redness were in blood in the same manner as blood is in a bloody cloth; but as magnitude is in that which is great, rest in that which resteth, motion in that which is moved; I answer, that in my opinion, not any thing in Nature can be without a body, and that redness is as well in blood, as blood is in a bloody cloth, or any other colour in any thing else; for there is no colour without a body, but every colour hath as well a body as any thing else, and if Colour be a separable accident, I would fain know, how it can be separated from a subject, being bodiless, for that which is no body is nothing, and nothing cannot be taken away from any thing; Wherefore as for natural Colour it cannot be taken away from any creature, without the parts of its substance or body; and as for artificial Colours, when they are taken away, it is a separation of two bodies, which joyned together; and if Colour, or Hardness, or Softness do change, it is nothing else but an alteration of motions and not an annihilation, for all changes and alterations remain in the power of Corporeal motions, as I have said in other places; for we might as well say, life doth not remain in nature, when a body turns from an animal to some other figure, as believe that those, they name accidents, do not remain in Corporeal Motions; Wherefore I am not of your Authors mind, when he says,[3] that when a White thing is made black, the whiteness perishes; for it cannot perish, although it is altered from white to black, being in the power of the same matter, to turn it again from black to white, so as it may make infinite Repetitions of the same thing; but by reason nature takes delight in variety, she seldom uses such repetitions; nevertheless that doth not take away the Power of self-moving matter, for it doth not, and it cannot, are two several things, and the latter doth not necessarily follow upon the former; Wherefore not any, the least thing, can perish in Nature, for if this were possible, the whole body of nature might perish also, for if so many Figures and Creatures should be annihilated and perish without any supply or new Creation, Nature would grow less, and at last become nothing; besides it is as difficult for Nature to turn something into nothing, as to Create something out of nothing; Wherefore as there is no annihilation or perishing in Nature, so there is neither any new Creation in Nature. But your Author makes a difference between bodies and accidents, saying, that bodies are things and not generated, but accidents are Generated and not things. Truly, Madam, these accidents seem to me to be like Van Helmont's Lights, Gases, Blazes and Ideas; and Dr More's Immaterial Substances or Dæmons, onely in this Dr More hath the better, that his Immaterial Substances, are beings, which subsist of themselves, whereas accidents do not, but their existence is in other bodies; But what they call Accidents, are in my opinion nothing else but Corporeal Motions, and if these accidents be generated, they must needs be bodies, for how nothing can be Generated in nature, is not conceivable, and yet your Author denies,[4] that Accidents are something, namely some part of a natural thing; But as for Generations, they are onely various actions of self-moving matter, or a variety of Corporeal Motions, and so are all Accidents whatsoever, so that there is not any thing in nature, that can be made new, or destroyed, for whatsoever was and shall be, is in nature, though not always in act, yet in power, as in the nature and power of Corporeal motions, which is self-moving matter, And as there is no new Generation of Accidents, so there is neither a new Generation of Motions; wherefore when your Author says,[5] That, when the hand, being moved, moveth the pen, the motion doth not go out of the hand into the pen, for so the writing might be continued, though the hand stood still, but a new motion is generated in the pen, and is the pens motion: I am of his opinion, that the motion doth not go out of the hand into the pen, and that the motion of the pen, is the pens own motion; but I deny, that after holding the hand a little while still, and beginning to write again, a new motion of the pen is generated; for it is onely a repetition, and not a new generation, for the Hand, Pen and Ink, repeat but the same motion or action of writing: Besides, Generation is made by Connexion or Conjunction of parts, moving by consent to such or such Figures, but the motion of the Hand or the Pen is always one and the same; wherefore it is but the variation and repetition in and of the same motion of the Hand, or Pen, which may be continued in that manner infinitely, just as the same Corporeal Motions can make infinite variations and repetitions of one and the same Figure, repeating it as oft as they please, as also making Copy of Copy; And although I do not deny, but there are Generations in Nature, yet not annihilations or perishings, for if any one motion or figure should perish, the matter must perish also; and if any one part of matter can perish, all the matter in nature may perish also; and if there can any new thing be made or created in nature, which hath not been before, there may also be a new Nature, and so by perishings and new Creations, this World would not have continued an age; But surely whatsoever is in Nature, hath been existent always. Wherefore to conclude, it is not the generation and perishing of an Accident that makes its subject to be changed, but the production and alteration of the Form, makes it said to be generated or destroyed, for matter will change its motions and figures without perishing or annihilating; and whether there were words or not, there would be such causes and effects; But having not the art of Logick to dispute with artificial words, nor the art of Geometry to demonstrate my opinions by Mathematical Figures, I fear they will not be so well received by the Learned; However, I leave them to any mans unprejudiced Reason and Judgment, and devote my self to your service, as becomes,

Madam,

Your Ladiships

humble and faithful Servant.

XVII.

MADAM,

Your Author concerning Place and Magnitude says,[1], that Place is nothing out of the mind, nor Magnitude any thing within it; for Place is a meer Phantasme of a body of such quantity and figure, and Magnitude a peculiar accident of the body; but this doth not well agree with my reason, for I believe that Place, Magnitude and Body are but one thing, and that Place is as true an extension as Magnitude, and not a feigned one; Neither am I of his opinion, that Place is Immoveable, but that place moves, according as the body moveth, for not any body wants place, because place and body is but one thing, and wheresoever is body, there is also place, and wheresoever is place, there is body, as being one and the same; Wherefore Motion cannot be a relinquishing of one place and acquiring another,[2] for there is no such thing as place different from body, but what is called change of place, is nothing but change of corporeal motions; for, say an house stands in such a place, if the house be gone, the place is gone also, as being impossible that the place of the house should remain, when the house is taken away; like as a man when he is gone out of his chamber, his place is gone too; 'Tis true, if the ground or foundation do yet remain, one may say, there stood such an house heretofore, but yet the place of the house is not there really at that present, unless the same house be built up again as it was before, and then it hath its place as before; Nevertheless the house being not there, it cannot be said that either place or house are annihilated, viz., when the materials are dissolved, no not when transformed into millions of several other figures, for the house remains still in the power of all those several parts of matter; and as for space, it is onely a distance betwixt some parts or bodies; But an Empty place signifies to my opinion Nothing, for if place and body are one and the same, and empty is as much as nothing; then certainly these two words cannot consist together, but are destructive to one another. Concerning, that your Author says,[3] Two bodies cannot be together in the same place, nor one body in two places at the same time, is very true, for there are no more places then bodies, nor more bodies then places, and this is to be understood as well of the grosser, as the purest parts of nature, of the mind as well as of the body, of the rational and sensitive animate matter as well as of the inanimate, for there is no matter, how pure and subtil soever, but is imbodied, and all that hath body hath place. Likewise I am of his opinion,[4] That one body hath always one and the same magnitude; for, in my opinion, magnitude, place and body do not differ, and as place, so magnitude can never be separated from body. But when he speaks of Rest, I cannot believe there is any such thing truly in Nature, for it is impossible to prove, that any thing is without Motion, either consistent, or composing, or dissolving, or transforming motions, or the like, although not altogether perceptible by our senses, for all the Matter is either moving or moved, and although the moved parts are not capable to receive the nature of self-motion from the self-moving parts, yet these self-moving parts, being joyned and mixt with all other parts of the moved matter, do always move the same; for the Moved or Inanimate part of Matter, although it is a Part of it self, yet it is so intermixt with the self-moving Animate Matter, as they make but one Body; and though some parts of the Inanimate may be as pure as the Sensitive Animate Matter, yet they are never so subtil as to be self-moving; Wherefore the Sensitive moves in the Inanimate, and the Rational in the Sensitive, but often the Rational moves in it self. And, although there is no rest in nature, nevertheless Matter could have been without Motion, when as it is impossible that Matter could be without place or magnitude, no more then Variety can be without motion; And thus much at this present: I conclude, and rest,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Servant.

XVIII.

MADAM,

Passing by those Chapters of your Authors, that treat of Power and Act, Identy and Difference, Analogisme, Angle and Figure, Figures deficient, dimension of Circles, and several others, most of which belong to art, as to Geometry, and the like; I am come to that wherein he discourses of Sense and Animal Motion, saying,[1] That some Natural bodies have in themselves the patterns almost of all things, and others of none at all; Whereof my opinion is, that the sensitive and rational parts of Matter are the living and knowing parts of Nature, and no part of nature can challenge them onely to it self, nor no creature can be sure, that sense is onely in Animal-kind, and reason in Man-kind; for can any one think or believe that Nature is ignorant and dead in all her other parts besides Animals? Truly this is a very unreasonable opinion; for no man, as wise as he thinks himself, nay were all Man-kind joyned into one body, yet they are not able to know it, unless there were no variety of parts in nature, but onely one whole and individeable body, for other Creatures may know and perceive as much as Animals, although they have not the same Sensitive Organs, nor the same manner or way of Perception. Next your Author says,[2] The cause of Sense or Perception consists herein, that the first organ of sense is touched and pressed; For when the uttermost part of the organ is pressed, it no sooner yields, but the part next within it is pressed also, and in this manner the pressure or motion is propagated through all the parts of the organ to the innermost. And thus also the pressure of the uttermost part proceeds from the pressure of some more remote body, and so continually, till we come to that, from which, as from its fountain, we derive the Phantasme or Idea, that is made in us by our sense: And this, whatsoever it be, is that we commonly call the object; Sense therefore is some Internal motion in the Sentient, generated by some Internal motion of the Parts of the object, and propagated through all the media to the innermost part of the organ. Moreover there being a resistance or reaction in the organ, by reason of its internal motion against the motion propagated from the object, there is also an endeavour in the organ opposite to the endeavour proceeding from the object, and when that endeavour inwards is the last action in the act of sense, then from the reaction a Phantasme or Idea has its being. This is your Authors opinion, which if it were so, perception could not be effected so suddenly, nay I think the sentient by so many pressures in so many perceptions, would at last be pressed to death, besides the organs would take a great deal of hurt, nay totally be removed out of their places, so as the eye would in time be prest into the centre of the brain; And if there were any Resistance, Reaction or Indeavour in the organ, opposite to the Endeavour of the object, there would, in my opinion, be always a war between the animal senses and the objects, the endeavour of the objects pressing one way, and the senses pressing the other way, and if equal in their strengths, they would make a stop, and the sensitive organs would be very much pained. Truly, Madam, in my opinion, it would be like that Custom which formerly hath been used at Newcastle, when a man was married, the guests divided themselves, behind and before the Bridegroom, the one party driving him back, the other forwards, so that one time a Bridegroom was killed in this fashion; But certainly Nature hath a more quick and easie way of giving intelligence and knowledg to her Creatures, and doth not use such constraint and force in her actions; Neither is sense or sensitive perception a meer Phantasme or Idea, but a Corporeal action of the sensitive and rational matter, and according to the variation of the objects or patterns, and the sensitive and rational motions, the perception also is various, produced not by external pressure, but by internal self-motion, as I have declared heretofore; and to prove, that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions are the onely cause of perception; I say, if those motions in an animal move in another way, and not to such perceptions, then that animal can neither hear, see, taste, smell nor touch, although all his sensitive organs be perfect, as is evident in a man falling into a swoon, where all the time he is in a swoon, the pressure of the objects is made without any effect; Wherefore, as the sensitive and rational corporeal motions make all that is in nature; so likewise they make perception, as being perception it self, for all self-motion is perception, but all perception is not animal perception; or after an animal way; and therefore sense cannot decay nor die, but what is called a decay or death, is nothing else but a change or alteration of those Motions. But you will say, Madam, it may be, that one body, as an object, leaves the print of its figure, in the next adjoyning body, until it comes to the organ of sense, I answer that then soft bodies onely must be pressed, and the object must be so hard as to make a print, and as for rare parts of matter, they are not able to retain a print without self-motion; Wherefore it is not probable that the parts of air should receive a print, and print the same again upon the adjoyning part, until the last part of the air print it upon the eye; and that the exterior parts of the organ should print upon the interior, till it come to the centre of the Brain, without self-motion. Wherefore in my opinion, Perception is not caused either by the printing of objects, nor by pressures, for pressures would make a general stop of all natural motions, especially if there were any reaction or resistence of sense; but according to my reason, the sensitive and rational corporeal motions in one body, pattern out the Figure of another body, as of an exterior object, which may be done easily without any pressure or reaction; I will not say, that there is no pressure or reaction in Nature, but pressure and reaction doth not make perception, for the sensitive and rational parts of matter make all perception and variety of motion, being the most subtil parts of Nature, as self-moving, as also divideable, and composeable, and alterable in their figurative motions, for this Perceptive matter can change its substance into any figure whatsoever in nature, as being not bound to one constant figure. But having treated hereof before, and being to say more of it hereafter, this shall suffice for the present, remaining always,