SECT. III. (continued 2)

Madam,

Your Ladiships

faithful Friend, and humble Servant.

XVI.

MADAM,

My opinion of Witches and Witchcraft, (of whose Power and strange effects your Author is pleased to relate many stories) in brief, is this; My Sense and Reason doth inform me, that there is Natural Witchcraft, as I may call it, which is Sympathy, Antipathy, Magnetisme, and the like, which are made by the sensitive and rational motions between several Creatures, as by Imagination, Fancy, Love, Aversion, and many the like; but these Motions, being sometimes unusual and strange to us, we not knowing their causes, (For what Creature knows all motions in Nature, and their ways?) do stand amazed at their working power; and by reason we cannot assign any Natural cause for them, are apt to ascribe their effects to the Devil; but that there should be any such devillish Witchcraft, which is made by a Covenant and Agreement with the Devil, by whose power Men do enchaunt or bewitch other Creatures, I cannot readily believe. Certainly, I dare say, that many a good, old honest woman hath been condemned innocently, and suffered death wrongfully, by the sentence of some foolish and cruel Judges, meerly upon this suspition of Witchcraft, when as really there hath been no such thing; for many things are done by slights or juggling Arts, wherein neither the Devil nor Witches are Actors. And thus an Englishman whose name was Banks, was like to be burnt beyond the Seas for a Witch, as I have been inform'd, onely for making a Horse shew tricks by Art; There have been also several others; as one that could vomit up several kinds of Liquors and other things: and another who did make a Drum beat of it self. But all these were nothing but slights and jugling tricks; as also the talking and walking Bell; and the Brazen-Head which spake these words, Time was, Time is, and Time is past, and so fell down; Which may easily have been performed by speaking through a Pipe conveighed into the said head: But such and the like trifles will amaze many grave and wise men, when they do not know the manner or way how they are done, so as they are apt to judg them to be effected by Witchcraft or Combination with the Devil. But, as I said before, I believe there is Natural Magick; which is, that the sensitive and rational Matter oft moves such a way, as is unknown to us; and in the number of these is also the bleeding of a murdered body at the presence of the Murderer, which your Author, mentions;[1] for the corporeal motions in the murthered body may move so, as to work such effects, which are more then ordinary; for the animal Figure, being not so quickly dissolved, the animal motions are not so soon altered, (for the dissolving of the Figure is nothing else but an alteration of its Motions;) and this dissolution is not done in an instant of time, but by degrees: But yet I must confess, it is not a common action in Nature, for Nature hath both common, and singular or particular actions: As for example, Madness, natural Folly, and many the like, are but in some particular persons; for if those actions were general, and common, then all, or most men would be either mad, or fools, but, though there are too many already, yet all men are not so; and so some murthered bodies may bleed or express some alterations at the presence of the Murtherer, but I do not believe, that all do so; for surely in many, not any alteration will be perceived, and others will have the same alterations without the presence of the Murtherer. And thus you see, Madam, that this is done naturally, without the help of the Devil; nay, your Author doth himself confess it to be so; for, says he, The act of the Witch is plainly Natural; onely the stirring up of the vertue or power in the Witch comes from Satan. But I cannot understand what your Author means, by the departing of spiritual rays from the Witch into Man, or any other animal, which she intends to kill or hurt; nor how Spirits wander about in the Air, and have their mansions there; for men may talk as well of impossibilities, as of such things which are not composed of Natural Matter: If man were an Incorporeal Spirit himself, he might, perhaps, sooner conceive the essence of a Spirit, as being of the same Nature; but as long as he is material, and composed of Natural Matter, he might as well pretend to know the Essence of God, as of an Incorporeal Spirit. Truly, I must confess, I have had some fancies oftentimes of such pure and subtil substances, purer and subtiler then the Sky or Æthereal substance is, whereof I have spoken in my Poetical Works; but these substances, which I conceived within my fancy, were material, and had bodies, though never so small and subtil; for I was never able to conceive a substance abstracted from all Matter, for even Fancy it self is material, and all Thoughts and Conceptions are made by the rational Matter, and so are those which Philosophers call Animal Spirits, but a material Fancy cannot produce immaterial effects, that is, Ideas of Incorporeal Spirits: And this was the cause that in the first impression of my Philosophical Opinions, I named the sensitive and rational Matter, sensitive and rational Spirits, because of its subtilty, activity and agility; not that I thought them to be immaterial, but material Spirits: but since Spirits are commonly taken to be immaterial, and Spirit and Body are counted opposite to one another, to prevent a misapprehension in the thoughts of my Readers, as if I meant Incorporeal Spirits, I altered this expression in the last Edition, and call'd it onely sensitive and rational Matter, or, which is all one, sensitive and rational corporeal motions. You will say, perhaps, That the divine Soul in Man is a Spirit: but I desire you to call to mind what I oftentimes have told you, to wit, that when I speak of the Soul of Man, I mean onely the Natural, not the Divine Soul; which as she is supernatural, so she acts also supernaturally; but all the effects of the natural Soul, of which I discourse, are natural, and not divine or supernatural. But to return to Magnetisme; I am absolutely of opinion, that it is naturally effected by natural means, without the concurrence of Immaterial Spirits either good or bad, meerly by natural corporeal sensitive and rational motions; and, for the most part, there must be a due approach between the Agent and the Patient, or otherwise the effect will hardly follow, as you may see by the Loadstone and Iron; Neither is the influence of the Stars performed beyond a certain distance, that is, such a distance as is beyond sight or their natural power to work; for if their light comes to our Eyes, I know no reason against it, but their effects may come to our bodies. And as for infectious Diseases, they come by a corporeal imitation, as by touch, either of the infected air, drawn in by breath, or entring through the pores of the Body, or of some things brought from infected places, or else by hearing; but diseases, caused by Conceit, have their beginning, as all alterations have, from the sensitive and rational Motions, which do not onely make the fear and conceit, but also the disease; for as a fright will sometimes cure diseases, so it will sometimes cause diseases; but as I said, both fright, cure, and the disease, are made by the rational and sensitive corporeal motions within the body, and not by Supernatural Magick, as Satanical Witchcraft, entering from without into the body by spiritual rays. But having discoursed hereof in my former Letter, I will not trouble you with an unnecessary repetition thereof; I conclude therefore with what I begun, viz. that I believe natural Magick to be natural corporeal motions in natural bodies: Not that I say, Nature in her self is a Magicianess, but it may be called natural Magick or Witchcraft, meerly in respect to our Ignorance; for though Nature is old, yet she is not a Witch, but a grave, wise, methodical Matron, ordering her Infinite family, which are her several parts, with ease and facility, without needless troubles and difficulties; for these are onely made through the ignorance of her several parts or particular Creatures, not understanding their Mistress, Nature, and her actions and government, for which they cannot be blamed; for how should a part understand the Infinite body, when it doth not understand it self; but Nature understands her parts better then they do her. And so leaving Wise Nature, and the Ignorance of her Particulars, I understand my self so far that I am,

Madam,

Your humble and

faithful Servant.

XVII.

MADAM,

I am not of your Authors[1] opinion, That Time hath no relation to Motion, but that Time and Motion are as unlike and different from each other as Finite from Infinite, and that it hath its own essence or being Immoveable, Unchangeable, Individable, and unmixed with things, nay, that Time is plainly the same with Eternity. For, in my opinion, there can be no such thing as Time in Nature, but what Man calls Time, is onely the variation of natural motions; wherefore Time, and the alteration of motion, is one and the same thing under two different names; and as Matter, Figure, and Motion, are inseparable, so is Time inseparably united, or rather the same thing with them, and not a thing subsisting by it self; and as long as Matter, Motion and Figure have been existent, so long hath Time; and as long as they last, so long doth Time. But when I say, Time is the variation of motion, I do not mean the motion of the Sun or Moon, which makes Days, Months, Years, but the general motions or actions of Nature, which are the ground of Time; for were there no Motion, there would be no Time; and since Matter is dividable, and in parts, Time is so too; neither hath Time any other Relation to Duration, then what Nature her self hath. Wherefore your Author is mistaken, when he says, Motion is made in Time, for Motion makes Time, or rather is one and the same with Time; and Succession is no more a stranger to Motion, then Motion is to Nature, as being the action of Nature, which is the Eternal servant of God. But, says he, Certain Fluxes of Formerlinesses and Laternesses, have respect unto frail moveable things in their motions, wherewith they hasten unto the appointed ends of their period, and so unto their own death or destruction; but what relation hath all that to Time: for therefore also ought Time to run with all and every motion? Verily so there should be as many times and durations as there are motions. I answer: To my Reason, there are as many times and durations as there are motions; for neither time nor duration can be separated from motion, no more then motion can be separated from them, being all one. But Time is not Eternity, for Eternity hath no change, although your Author makes Time and Eternity all one, and a being or substance by it self: Yet I will rather believe Solomon, then him, who says, that there is a time to be merry, and a time to be sad; a time to mourn, and a time to rejoyce, and so forth: making so many divisions of Time as there are natural actions; whenas your Author makes natural actions strangers to Nature, dividing them from their substances: Which seemeth very improbable in the opinion of,

Madam,

Your Ladiships

faithful Friend, and humble Servant.

XVIII.

MADAM,

Your Authors[1] opinion is, That a bright burning Iron doth not burn a dead Carcass after an equal manner as it doth a live one; For in live bodies, saith he, it primarily hurts the sensitive Soul, the which therefore being impatient, rages after a wonderful manner, doth by degrees resolve and exasperate its own and vital liquors into a sharp poyson, and then contracts the fibres of the flesh, and turns them into an escharre, yea, into the way of a coal; but a dead Carcass is burnt by bright burning Iron, no otherwise, then if Wood, or if any other unsensitive thing should be; that is, it burns by a proper action of the fire, but not of the life. To which opinion, I answer: That my Reason cannot conceive any thing to be without life, and so neither without sense; for whatsoever hath self-motion, has sense and life; and that self-motion is in every Creature, is sufficiently discoursed of in my former Letters, and in my Philosophical Opinions; for self-motion, sense, life, and reason, are the grounds and principles of Nature, without which no Creature could subsist. I do not say, That there is no difference between the life of a dead Carcass, and a live one, for there is a difference between the lives of every Creature; but to differ in the manner of life, and to have neither life nor sense at all, are quite different things: But your Author affirms himself, that all things have a certain sense of feeling, when he speaks of Sympathy and Magnetisme, and yet he denies that they have life: And others again, do grant life to some Creatures, as to Vegetables, and not sense. Thus they vary in their Opinions, and divide sense, life, and motion, when all is but one and the same thing; for no life is without sense and motion, nor no motion without sense and life; nay, not without Reason; for the chief Architect of all Creatures, is sensitive and rational Matter. But the mistake is, that most men, do not, or will not conceive, that there is a difference and variety of the corporeal sensitive and rational motions in every Creature; but they imagine, that if all Creatures should have life, sense, and reason, they must of necessity have all alike the same motions, without any difference; and because they do not perceive the animal motions in a Stone or Tree, they are apt to deny to them all life, sense, and motion. Truly, Madam, I think no man will be so mad, or irrational, as to say a Stone is an Animal, or an Animal is a Tree, because a Stone and Tree have sense, life, and motion; for every body knows, that their Natural figures are different, and if their Natures be different, then they cannot have the same Motions, for the corporeal motions do make the nature of every particular Creature, and their differences; and as the corporeal motions act, work, or move, so is the nature of every figure, Wherefore, nobody, I hope, will count me so senseless, that I believe sense and life to be after the like manner in every particular Creature or part of Nature; as for example, that a Stone or Tree has animal motions, and doth see, touch, taste, smell and hear by such sensitive organs as an Animal doth; but, my opinion is, that all Sense is not bound up to the sensitive organs of an Animal, nor Reason to the kernel of a man's brain, or the orifice of the stomack, or the fourth ventricle of the brain, or onely to a mans body; for though we do not see all Creatures move in that manner as Man or Animals do, as to walk, run, leap, ride, &c. and perform exterior acts by various local motions; nevertheless, we cannot in reason say, they are void and destitute of all motion; For what man knows the variety of motions in Nature: Do not we see, that Nature is active in every thing, yea, the least of her Creatures. For example; how some things do unanimously conspire and agree, others antipathetically flee from each other; and how some do increase, others decrease; some dissolve, some consist, and how all things are subject to perpetual changes and alterations; and do you think all this is done without motion, life, sense, and reason? I pray you consider, Madam, that there are internal motions as well as external, alterative as well as constitutive; and several other sorts of motions not perceptible by our senses, and therefore it is impossible that all Creatures should move after one sort of motions. But you will say, Motion may be granted, but not Life, Sense, and Reason. I answer, I would fain know the reason why not; for I am confident that no man can in truth affirm the contrary: What is Life, but sensitive Motion? what is Reason, but rational motion? and do you think, Madam, that any thing can move it self without life, sense and reason? I, for my part, cannot imagine it should; for it would neither know why, whither, nor what way, or how to move. But you may reply, Motion may be granted, but not self-motion; and life, sense, and reason, do consist in self-motion. I answer: this is impossible; for not any thing in Nature can move naturally without natural motion, and all natural motion is self-motion. If you say it may be moved by another; My answer is, first, that if a thing has no motion in it self, but is moved by another which has self-motion, then it must give that immovable body motion of its own, or else it could not move, having no motion at all; for it must move by the power of motion, which is certain; and then it must move either by its own motion, or by a communicated or imparted motion; if by a communicated motion, then the self-moveable thing or body must transfer its own motion into the immoveable, and lose so much of its own motion as it gives away, which is impossible, as I have declared heretofore at large, unless it do also transfer its moving parts together with it, for motion cannot be transfered without substance. But experience and observation witnesseth the contrary. Next, I say, if it were possible that one body did move another, then most part of natural Creatures, which are counted immoveable of themselves, or inanimate, and destitute of self-motion, must be moved by a forced or violent, and not by a natural motion; for all motion that proceeds from an external agent or moving power, is not natural, but forced, onely self-motion is natural; and then one thing moving another in this manner, we must at last proceed to such a thing which is not moved by another, but hath motion in it self, and moves all others; and, perhaps, since man, and the rest of animals have self-motion, it might be said, that the motions of all other inanimate Creatures, as they call them, doth proceed from them; but man being so proud, ambitious, and self-conceited, would soon exclude all other animals, and adscribe this power onely to himself, especially since he thinks himself onely endued with Reason, and to have this prerogative above all the rest, as to be the sole rational Creature in the World. Thus you see, Madam, what confusion, absurdity, and constrained work will follow from the opinion of denying self-motion, and so consequently, life and sense to natural Creatures. But I, having made too long a digression, will return to your Authors discourse: And as for that he says, A dead Carcass burns by the proper action of the fire, I answer, That if the dissolving motions of the fire be too strong for the consistent motions of that body which fire works upon, then fire is the cause of its alteration; but if the consistent motions of the body be too strong for the dissolving motions of the fire, then the fire can make no alteration in it. Again: he says, Calx vive, at long as it remains dry, it gnaws not a dead Carcass; but it presently gnaws live flesh, and makes an escharre; and a dead carcass is by lime wholly resolved into a liquor, and is combibed, except the bone and gristle thereof; but it doth not consume live flesh into a liquor, but translates it into an escharre. I will say no more to this, but that I have fully enough declared my opinion before, that the actions or motions of life alter in that which is named a dead Carcass, from what they were in that which is called a Living body; but although the actions of Life alter, yet life is not gone or annihilated; for life is life, and remains full the same, but the actions or motions of life change and differ in every figure; and this is the cause that the actions of Fire, Time, and Calx-vive, have not the same effects in a dead Carcass, as in a living Body; for the difference of their figures, and their different motions, produce different effects in them; and this is the cause, that one and the same fire doth not burn or act upon all bodies alike: for some it dissolves, and some not; and some it hardens, and some it consumes; and some later, some sooner: For put things of several natures into the same Fire, and you will see how they will burn, or how fire will act upon them after several manners; so that fire cannot alter the actions of several bodies to its own blas; and therefore, since a living and a dead Body (as they call them) are not the same, (for the actions or motions of life, by their change or alteration, have altered the nature or figure of the body) the effects cannot be the same; for a Carcass has neither the interior nor exterior motions of that figure which it was before it was a Carcass, and so the figure is quite alter'd from what it was, by the change and alteration of the motions. But to conclude, the motions of the exterior Agent, and the motions of the Patient, do sometimes joyn and unite, as in one action, or to one effect, and sometimes the motions of the Agent are onely an occasion, but not a co-workman in the production of such or such an effect, as the motions of the Patient do work; neither can the motions of the Agent work totally and meerly of themselves, such or such effects, without the assistance or concurrence of the motions of the Patient, but the motions of the Patient can; and there is nothing that can prove more evidently that Matter moves it self, and that exterior agents or bodies are onely an occasion to such or such a motion in another body, then to see how several things put into one and the same fire, do alter after several modes; which shews, it is not the onely action of fire, but the interior motions of the body thrown into the fire, which do alter its exterior form or figure. And thus, I think I have said enough to make my opinions clear, that they may be the better understood: which is the onely aim and desire of,

Madam,

Your humble and

faithful Servant.

XIX.

MADAM,

Your Author is not a Natural, but a Divine Philosopher, for in many places he undertakes to interpret the Scripture; wherein, to my judgment, he expresseth very strange opinions; you will give me leave at this present to note some few. First, in one place,[1] interpreting that passage of Scripture, where it is said,[2] That the sons of God took to wives the daughters of men: He understands by the Sons of God, those which came from the Posterity of Adam, begotten of a Man and a Woman, having the true Image of God: But by the Daughters of Men, he understands Monsters; that is, those which through the Devils mediation, were conceived in the womb of a Junior Witch or Sorceress: For when Satan could find no other ways to deprive all the race of Men of the Image of God, and extinguish the Immortal mind out of the flock of Adams Posterity, he stirr'd up detestable copulations, from whence proceeded savage Monsters, as Faunes, Satyrs, Sylphs, Gnomes, Nymphs, Driades, Najades, Nereides, &c. which generated their off-springs amongst themselves, and their posterities again contracted their copulations amongst themselves, and at length began Wedlocks with Men; and from this copulation of Monsters and Nymphs, they generated strong Gyants. Which Interpretation, how it agrees with the Truth of Scripture, I will leave to Divines to judg: But, for my part, I cannot conceive, how, or by what means or ways, those Monsters and Nymphs were produced or generated. Next, his opinion is, That Adam did ravish Eve, and defloured her by force, calling him the first infringer of modesty, and deflourer of a Virgin; and that therefore God let hair grow upon his chin, cheeks, and lips, that he might be a Compere, Companion, and like unto many four-footed Beasts, and might bear before him the signature of the same; and that, as he was lecherous after their manner, he might also shew a rough countenance by his hairs; which whether it be so, or not, I cannot tell, neither do I think your Author can certainly know it himself; for the Scripture makes no mention of it: But this I dare say, that Eves Daughters prove rather the contrary, viz. that their Grandmother did freely consent to their Grandfather. Also he says, That God had purposed to generate Man by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, but Man perverted the Intent of God; for had Adam not sinned, there had been no generation by the copulation of a Man and Woman, but all the off-springs had appear'd out of Eve, a Virgin, from the Holy Spirit, as conceived from God, and born of a woman, a virgin, To which, I answer, first, That it is impossible to know the Designs and secret purposes of God: Next, to make the Holy Spirit the common Generator of all Man-kind, is more then the Scripture expresses, and any man ought to say: Lastly, it is absurd, in my opinion, to say, that frail and mortal Men, can pervert the intent and designs of the Great God; or that the Devil is able to prevent God's Intent, (as his expression is in the same place.) But your Author shews a great affection to the Female Sex, when he says, that God doth love Women before Men, and that he has given them a free gift of devotion before men; when as others do lay all the fault upon the Woman, that she did seduce the Man; however in expressing his affection for Women, your Author expresses a partiality in God. And, as for his opinion, that God creates more Daughters then Males, and that more Males are extinguished by Diseases, Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, and the like: Truly, I am of the same mind, that more Men are kill'd by Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, &c. then Women; for Women never undergo these dangers, neither do so many kill themselves with intemperate Drinking, as Men do; but yet I believe, that Death is as general, and not more favourable to Women, then he is to Men; for though Women be not slain in Wars like Men, (although many are, by the cruelty of Men, who not regarding the weakness of their sex, do inhumanely kill them,) yet many do die in Child-bed, which is a Punishment onely concerning the Female sex. But to go on in your Authors Interpretations: His knowledg of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, reaches so far, as he doth not stick to describe exactly, not onely how the blessed Virgin conceiv'd in the womb, but first in the heart, or the sheath of the heart; and then how the conception removed from the heart, into the womb, and in what manner it was performed. Certainly, Madam, I am amazed, when I see men so conceited with their own perfections and abilities, (I may rather say, with their imperfections and weaknesses) as to make themselves God's privy Councilors, and his Companions, and partakers of all the sacred Mysteries, Designs, and hidden secrets of the Incomprehensible and Infinite God. O the vain Presumption, Pride, and Ambition of wretched Men! There are many more such expressions in your Authors works, which, in my opinion, do rather detract from the Greatness of the Omnipotent God, then manifest his Glory: As for example; That Man is the clothing of the Deity, and the sheath of the Kingdom of God, and many the like: which do not belong to God; for God is beyond all expression, because he is Infinite; and when we name God, we name an Unexpressible, and Incomprehensible Being; and yet we think we honour God, when we express him after the manner of corporeal Creatures. Surely, the noblest Creature that ever is in the World, is not able to be compared to the most Glorious God, but whatsoever comparison is made, detracts from his Glory: And this, in my opinion, is the reason, that God forbad any likeness to be made of him, either in Heaven, or upon Earth, because he exceeds all that we might compare or liken to him. And as men ought to have a care of such similizing expressions, so they ought to be careful in making Interpretations of the Scripture, and expressing more then the Scripture informs; for what is beyond the Scripture, is Man's own fancy; and to regulate the Word of God after Man's fancy, at least to make his fancy equal with the Word of God, is Irreligious. Wherefore, men ought to submit, and not to pretend to the knowledg of God's Counsels and Designs, above what he himself hath been pleased to reveal: as for example, to describe of what Figure God is, and to comment and descant upon the Articles of Faith; as how Man was Created; and what he did in the state of Innocence; how he did fall; and what he did after his fall: and so upon the rest of the Articles of our Creed, more then the Scripture expresses, or is conformable to it. For if we do this, we shall make a Romance of the holy Scripture, with our Paraphrastical descriptions: which alas! is too common already. The truth is, Natural Philosophers, should onely contain themselves within the sphere of Nature, and not trespass upon the Revelation of the Scripture, but leave this Profession to those to whom it properly belongs. I am confident, a Physician, or any other man of a certain Profession, would not take it well, if others, who are not professed in that Art, should take upon them to practise the same: And I do wonder, why every body is so forward to encroach upon the holy Profession of Divines, which yet is a greater presumption, then if they did it upon any other; for it contains not onely a most hidden and mystical knowledg, as treating of the Highest Subject, which is the most Glorious, and Incomprehensible God, and the salvation of our Souls; but it is also most dangerous, if not interpreted according to the Holy Spirit, but to the byass of man's fancy. Wherefore, Madam, I am afraid to meddle with Divinity in the least thing, lest I incur the hazard of offending the divine Truth, and spoil the excellent Art of Philosophying; for a Philosophical Liberty, and a Supernatural Faith, are two different things, and suffer no co-mixture; as I have declared sufficiently heretofore. And this you will find as much truth, as that I am,

Madam,

Your constant Friend,

and faithful Servant.

XX.

MADAM,

Although your Author[1] is of the opinion of Plato, in making Three sorts of Atheists: One that believes no Gods; Another, which indeed admits of Gods, yet such as are uncarefull of us, and despisers of small matters, and therefore also ignorant of us: And lastly, a third sort, which although they believe the Gods to be expert in the least matters, yet do suppose that they are flexible and indulgent toward the smallest cold Prayers or Petitions: Yet I cannot approve of this distinction, for I do understand but one sort of Atheists; that is, those which believe no God at all; but those which believe that there is a God, although they do not worship him truly, nor live piously and religiously as they ought, cannot, in truth, be called Atheists, or else there would be innumerous sorts of Atheists; to wit, all those, that are either no Christians, or not of this or that opinion in Christian Religion, besides all them that live wickedly, impiously and irreligiously; for to know, and be convinced in his reason, that there is a God, and to worship him truly, according to his holy Precepts and Commands, are two several things: And as for the first, that is, for the Rational knowledg of the Existence of God, I cannot be perswaded to believe, there is any man which has sense and reason, that doth not acknowledg a God; nay, I am sure, there is no part of Nature which is void and destitute of this knowledg of the existence of an Infinite, Eternal, Immortal, and Incomprehensible Deity; for every Creature, being indued with sense and reason, and with sensitive and rational knowledg, there can no knowledg be more Universal then the knowledg of a God, as being the root of all knowledg: And as all Creatures have a natural knowledg of the Infinite God, so, it is probable, they Worship, Adore, and Praise his Infinite Power and Bounty, each after its own manner, and according to its nature; for I cannot believe, God should make so many kinds of Creatures, and not be worshipped and adored but onely by Man: Nature is God's Servant, and she knows God better then any Particular Creature; but Nature is an Infinite Body, consisting of Infinite Parts, and if she adores and worships God, her Infinite Parts, which are Natural Creatures, must of necessity do the like, each according to the knowledg it hath: but Man in this particular goes beyond others, as having not onely a natural, but also a revealed knowledg of the most Holy God; for he knows Gods Will, not onely by the light of Nature, but also by revelation, and so more then other Creatures do, whose knowledg of God is meerly Natural. But this Revealed Knowledg makes most men so presumptuous, that they will not be content with it, but search more and more into the hidden mysteries of the Incomprehensible Deity, and pretend to know God as perfectly, almost, as themselves; describing his Nature and Essence, his Attributes, his Counsels, his Actions, according to the revelation of God, (as they pretend) when as it is according to their own Fancies. So proud and presumptuous are many: But they shew thereby rather their weaknesses and follies, then any truth; and all their strict and narrow pryings into the secrets of God, are rather unprofitable, vain and impious, then that they should benefit either themselves, or their neighbour; for do all we can, God will not be perfectly known by any Creature: The truth is, it is a meer impossibility for a finite Creature, to have a perfect Idea of an Infinite Being, as God is; be his Reason never so acute or sharp, yet he cannot penetrate what is Impenetrable, nor comprehend what is Incomprehensible: Wherefore, in my opinion, the best way is humbly to adore what we cannot conceive, and believe as much as God has been pleased to reveal, without any further search; lest we diving too deep, be swallowed up in the bottomless depth of his Infiniteness: Which I wish every one may observe, for the benefit of his own self, and of others, to spend his time in more profitable Studies, then vainly to seek for what cannot be found. And with this hearty wish I conclude, resting,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXI.

MADAM,

Your Author is so much for Spirits, that he doth not stick to affirm,[1] That Bodies scarce make up a moity or half part of the world; but Spirits, even by themselves, have or possess their moity, and indeed the whole world. If he mean bodiless and incorporeal Spirits, I cannot conceive how Spirits can take up any place, for place belongs onely to body, or a corporeal substance, and millions of immaterial Spirits, nay, were their number infinite, cannot possess so much place as a small Pins point, for Incorporeal Spirits possess no place at all: which is the reason, that an Immaterial and a Material Infinite cannot hinder, oppose, or obstruct each other; and such an Infinite, Immaterial Spirit is God alone. But as for Created Immaterial Spirits, as they call them, it may be questioned whether they be Immaterial, or not; for there may be material Spirits as well as immaterial, that is, such pure, subtil and agil substances as cannot be subject to any humane sense, which may be purer and subtiller then the most refined air, or purest light; I call them material spirits, onely for distinctions sake, although it is more proper, to call them material substances: But be it, that there are Immaterial Spirits, yet they are not natural, but supernatural; that is, not substantial parts of Nature; for Nature is material, or corporeal, and so are all her Creatures, and whatsoever is not material is no part of Nature, neither doth it belong any ways to Nature: Wherefore, all that is called Immaterial, is a Natural Nothing, and an Immaterial Natural substance, in my opinion, is non-sense: And if you contend with me, that Created Spirits, as good and bad Angels, as also the Immortal Mind of Man, are Immaterial, then I say they are Supernatural; but if you say, they are Natural, then I answer they are Material: and thus I do not deny the existence of Immaterial Spirits, but onely that they are not parts of Nature, but supernatural; for there may be many things above Nature, and so above a natural Understanding, and Knowledg, which may nevertheless have their being and existence, although they be not Natural, that is, parts of Nature: Neither do I deny that those supernatural Creatures may be amongst natural Creatures, that is, have their subsistence amongst them, and in Nature; but they are not so commixed with them, as the several parts of Matter are, that is, they do not joyn to the constitution of a material Creature; for no Immaterial can make a Material, or contribute any thing to the making or production of it; but such a co-mixture would breed a meer confusion in Nature: wherefore, it is quite another thing, to be in Nature, or to have its subsistence amongst natural Creatures in a supernatural manner or way, and to be a part of Nature. I allow the first to Immaterial Spirits, but not the second, viz. to be parts of Nature. But what Immaterial Spirits are, both in their Essence or Nature, and their Essential Properties, it being supernatural, and above natural Reason, I cannot determine any thing thereof. Neither dare I say, they are Spirits like as God is, that is, of the same Essence or Nature, no more then I dare say or think that God is of a humane shape or figure, or that the Nature of God is as easie to be known as any notion else whatsoever, and that we may know as much of him as of any thing else in the world. For if this were so, man would know God as well as he knows himself, but God and his Attributes are not so easily known as man may know himself and his own natural Proprieties; for God and his Attributes are not conceiveable or comprehensible by any humane understanding, which is not onely material, but also finite; for though the parts of Nature be infinite in number, yet each is finite in it self, that is, in its figure, and therefore no natural Creature is capable to conceive what God is; for he being infinite, there is also required an infinite capacity to conceive him; Nay, Nature her self, although she is Infinite, yet cannot possibly have an exact notion of God, by reason she is Material, and God is Immaterial; and if the Infinite servant of God is not able to conceive God, much less will a finite part of Nature do it. Besides, the holy Church doth openly confess and declare the Incomprehensibility of God, when in the Athanasian Creed, she expresses, that the Father is Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible, and that there are not three, but one Incomprehensible God: Therefore, if any one will prove the contrary, to wit, that God is Comprehensible, or (which is all one) that God is as easie to be known as any Creature whatsoever, he surely is more then the Church: But I shall never say or believe so, but rather confess my ignorance, then betray my folly; and leave things Divine to the Church; to which I submit, as I ought, in all Duty: and as I do not meddle with any Divine Mysteries, but subject my self, concerning my Faith or Belief, and the regulating of my actions for the obtaining of Eternal Life, wholly under the government and doctrine of the Church, so, I hope, they will also grant me leave to have my liberty concerning the contemplation of Nature and natural things, that I may discourse of them, with such freedom, as meer natural Philosophers use, or at least ought, to do; and thus I shall be both a good Christian, and a good Natural Philosopher: Unto which, to make the number perfect, I will add a third, which is, I shall be,

Madam,

Your real and faithful

Friend and Servant.

XXII.

MADAM,

Though I am loth (as I have often told you) to imbarque my self in the discourse of such a subject, as no body is able naturally to know, which is the supernatural and divine Soul in Man; yet your Author having, in my judgment, strange opinions, both of the Essence, Figure, Seat and Production of the Soul, and discoursing thereof, with such liberty and freedom, as of any other natural Creature, I cannot chuse but take some notice of his discourse, and make some reflections upon it; which yet, shall rather express my ignorance of the same subject, then in a positive answer, declare my opinion thereof; for, in things divine, I refer my self wholly to the Church, and submit onely to their instructions, without any further search of natural reason; and if I should chance to express more then I ought to do, and commit some error, it being out of ignorance rather then set purpose, I shall be ready upon better information, to mend it, and willingly subject my self under the censure and correction of the holy Church, as counting it no disgrace to be ignorant in the mysteries of Faith, since Faith is of things unknown, but rather a duty required from every Layman to believe simply the Word of God, as it is explained and declared by the Orthodox Church, without making Interpretations out of his own brain, and according to his own fancy, which breeds but Schismes, Heresies, Sects, and Confusions. But concerning your Author, I perceive by him, first, that he makes no distinction between the Natural or Rational Soul or Mind of Man, and between the Divine or Supernatural Soul, but takes them both as one, and distinguishes onely the Immortal Soul from the sensitive Life of Man, which he calls the Frail, Mortal, Sensitive Soul. Next, all his knowledg of this Immortal Soul is grounded upon Dreams and Visions, and therefore it is no wonder, if his opinions be somewhat strange and irregular. I saw, in a Vision, says he,[1] my Mind in a humane shape; but there was a light, whose whole homogeneal body was actively seeing, a spiritual substance, Chrystalline, shining with a proper splendor, or a splendor of its own, but in another cloudy part it was rouled up as it were in the husk of it self; which whether it had any splendor of it self, I could not discern, by reason of the superlative brightness of the Chrystal Spirit contain'd within. Whereupon he defines the Soul to be a Spirit, beloved of God, homogeneal, simple, immortal, created into the Image of God, one onely Being, whereto death adds nothing, or takes nothing from it, which may be natural or proper to it in the Essence of its simplicity. As for this definition of the Soul, it may be true, for any thing I know: but when your Author makes the divine Soul to be a Light, I cannot conceive how that can agree; for Light is a Natural and Visible Creature, and, in my opinion, a corporeal substance; whereas the Soul is immaterial and incorporeal: But be it, that Light is not a substance, but a neutral Creature, according to your Author; then, nevertheless the Immortal Soul cannot be said to be a light, because she is a substance. He may say,[2] The Soul is an Incomprehensible Light. But if the Soul be Incomprehensible, how then doth he know that she is a light, and not onely a light, but a glorious and splendorous light? You will say, By a Dream, or Vision. Truly, Madam, to judg any thing by a Dream, is a sign of a weak judgment. Nay, since your Author calls the soul constantly a light; if it were so, and that it were such a splendorous, bright and shining light, as he says; then when the body dies, and the soul leaves its Mansion, it would certainly be seen, when it issues out of the body. But your Author calls the Soul a Spiritual Substance, and yet he says, she has an homogeneal body, actively seeing and shining with a proper splendor of her own; which how it can agree, I leave to you to judg; for I thought, an Immaterial spirit and a body were too opposite things, and now I see, your Author makes Material and Immaterial, Spiritual and Corporeal, all one. But this is not enough, but he allows it a Figure too, and that of a humane shape; for says he, I could never consider the Thingliness of the Immortal Mind with an Individual existence, deprived of all figure, neither but that it at least would answer to a humane shape; but the Scripture, as much as is known to me, never doth express any such thing of the Immortal Soul, and I should be loth to believe any more thereof then it declares. The Apostles, although they were conversant with Christ, and might have known it better, yet were never so inquisitive into the nature of the Soul, as our Modern divine Philosophers are; for our Saviour, and they, regarded more the salvation of Man's Soul, and gave holy and wise Instructions rather, how to live piously and conformably to God's Will, to gain eternal Life, then that they should discourse either of the Essence or Figure, or Proprieties of the Soul, and whether it was a light, or any thing else, and such like needless questions, raised in after-times onely by the curiosity of divine Philosophers, or Philosophying Divines; For though Light is a glorious Creature, yet Darkness is as well a Creature as Light, and ought not therefore to be despised; for if it be not so bright, and shining as Light, yet it is a grave Matron-like Creature, and very useful: Neither is the Earth, which is inwardly dark, to be despised, because the Sun is bright. The like may be said of the soul, and of the body; for the body is very useful to the soul, how dark soever your Author believes it to be; and if he had not seen light with his bodily eyes, he could never have conceived the Soul to be a Light: Wherefore your Author can have no more knowledg of the divine soul then other men have, although he has had more Dreams and Visions; nay, he himself confesses, that the Soul is an Incomprehensible Light; which if so, she cannot, be perfectly known, nor confined to any certain figure; for a figure or shape belongs onely to a corporeal substance, and not to an incorporeal: and so, God being an Incomprehensible Being, is excluded from all figure, when as yet your Author doth not stick to affirm, that God is of a humane figure too, as well as the humane Soul is; For, says he, Since God hath been pleased to adopt the Mind alone into his own Image, it also seems to follow, that the vast and unutterable God is of a humane Figure, and that from an argument from the effect, if there be any force of arguments in this subject. Oh! the audacious curiosity of Man! Is it not blasphemy to make the Infinite God of a frail and humane shape, and to compare the most Holy to a sinful Creature? Nay, is it not an absurdity, to confine and inclose that Incomprehensible Being in a finite figure? I dare not insist longer upon this discourse, lest I defile my thoughts with the entertaining of such a subject that derogates from the glory of the Omnipotent Creator; Wherefore, I will hasten, as much as I can, to the seat of the Soul, which, after relating several opinions, your Author concludes to be the orifice of the stomack, where the Immortal Soul is involved and entertained in the radical Inn or Bride-bed of the sensitive Soul or vital Light; which part of the body is surely more honoured then all the rest: But I, for my part, cannot conceive why the Soul should not dwell in the parts of conception, as well, as in the parts of digestion, except it be to prove her a good Huswife; however, your Author allows her to slide down sometimes: For, The action of the Mind, says he, being imprisoned in the Body, doth always tend downwards; but whether the Soul tend more downwards then upwards, Contemplative Persons, especially Scholars, and grave States-men, do know best; certainly, I believe, they find the soul more in their heads then in their heels, at least her operations. But, to conclude, if the Soul be pure and single of her self, she cannot mix with the Body, because she needs no assistance; nor joyn with the Body, though she lives in the Body, for she needs no support; and if she be individable, she cannot divide her self into several Parts of the Body; but if the Soul spread over all the Body, then she is bigger, or less, according as the Body is; and if she be onely placed in some particular part, then onely that one part is indued with a Soul, and the rest is Soul-less; and if she move from place to place, then some parts of the Body will be sometimes indued with a Soul, sometimes not; and if any one part requires not the subsistence of the Soul within it, then perhaps all the Body might have been able to spare her; neither might the Soul, being able to subsist without the body, have had need of it. Thus useless questions will trouble men's brains, if they give their fancies leave to work. I should add something of the Production of the Soul; but being tyred with so tedious a discourse of your Author, I am not able to write any more, but repose my Pen, and in the mean while rest affectionately,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXIII.

MADAM,

Your Authors comparison[1] of the Sun, with the immaterial or divine Soul in Man, makes me almost of opinion, that the Sun is the Soul of this World we inhabit, and that the fixed Stars, which are counted Suns by some, may be souls to some other worlds; for every one man has but one immaterial or divine soul, which is said to be individable and simple in its essence, and therefore unchangeable; and if the Sun be like this immaterial soul, then the Moon may be like the material soul. But as for the Production of this immaterial and divine Soul in Man, whether it come by an immediate Creation from God, or be derived by a successive propagation from Parents upon their Children, I cannot determine any thing, being supernatural, and not belonging to my study; nevertheless, the Propagation from Parents seems improbable to my reason; for I am not capable to imagine, how an immaterial soul, being individable, should beget another. Some may say, by imprinting or sealing, viz. that the soul doth print the Image of its own figure upon the spirit of the seed; which if so, then first there will onely be a production of the figure of the soul, but not of the substance, and so the Child will have but the Image of the soul, and not a real and substantial soul. Secondly, Every Child of the same Parents would be just alike, without any distinguishment; if not in body, yet in the Faculties and Proprieties of their Minds or Souls. Thirdly, There must be two prints of the two souls of both Parents upon one Creature, to wit, the Child; for both Parents do contribute alike to the Production of the Child, and then the Child would either have two souls, or both must be joyned as into one; which how it can be, I am not able to conceive. Fourthly, If the Parents print the Image of their souls upon the Child, then the Childs soul bears not the Image of God, but the Image of Man, to wit, his Parents. Lastly, I cannot understand, how an immaterial substance should make a print upon a corporeal substance, for Printing is a corporeal action, and belongs onely to bodies. Others may say, that the soul is from the Parents transmitted into the Child, like as a beam of Light; but then the souls of the Parents must part with some of their own substance; for light is a substance dividable, in my opinion; and if it were not, yet the soul is a substance, and cannot be communicated without losing some of his own substance, but that is impossible; for the immaterial soul being individable, cannot be diminished nor increased in its substance or Nature. Others again, will have the soul produced by certain Ideas; but Ideas being corporeal, cannot produce a substance Incorporeal or Spiritual. Wherefore I cannot conceive how the souls of the Parents, being individable in themselves, and not immoveable out of their bodies until the time of death, should commix so, as to produce a third immaterial soul, like to their own. You will say, As the Sun, which is the fountain of heat and light, heats and enlightens, and produces other Creatures. But I answer, The Sun doth not produce other Suns, at least not to our knowledg. 'Tis true, there are various and several manners and ways of Productions, but they are all natural, that is, material, or corporeal; to wit, Productions of some material beings, or corporeal substances; but the immaterial soul not being in the number of these, it is not probable, that she is produced by the way of corporeal productions, but created and infused from God, according to her nature, which is supernatural and divine: But being the Image of God, how she can be defiled with the impurity of sin, and suffer eternal damnation for her wickedness, without any prejudice to her Creator, I leave to the Church to inform us thereof. Onely one question I will add, Whether the Soul be subject to Sickness and Pain? To which I answer: As for the supernatural and divine Soul, although she be a substance, yet being not corporeal, but spiritual, she can never suffer pain, sickness, nor death; but as for the natural soul, to speak properly, there is no such thing in Nature as pain, sickness, or death; unless in respect to some Particular Creatures composed of natural Matter; for what Man calls Sickness, Pain, and Death, are nothing else but the Motions of Nature; for though there is but one onely Matter, that is, nothing but meer Matter in Nature, without any co-mixture of either a spiritual substance, or any thing else that is not Matter; yet this meer Matter is of several degrees and parts, and is the body of Nature; Besides, as there is but one onely Matter, so there is also but one onely Motion in Nature, as I may call it, that is, meer corporeal Motion, without any rest or cessation, which is the soul of that Natural body, both being infinite; but yet this onely corporeal Motion is infinitely various in its degrees or manners, and ways of moving; for it is nothing else but the action of natural Matter, which action must needs be infinite, being the action of an infinite body, making infinite figures and parts. These motions and actions of Nature, since they are so infinitely various, when men chance to observe some of their variety, they call them by some proper name, to make a distinguishment, especially those motions which belong to the figure of their own kind; and therefore when they will express the motions of dissolution of their own figure, they call them Death; when they will express the motions of Production of their figure, they call them Conception and Generation; when they will express the motions proper for the Consistence, Continuance and Perfection of their Figure, they call them Health; but when they will express the motions contrary to these, they call them Sickness, Pain, Death, and the like: and hence comes also the difference between regular and irregular motions; for all those Motions that belong to the particular nature and consistence of any figure, they call regular, and those which are contrary to them, they call irregular. And thus you see, Madam, that there is no such thing in Nature, as Death, Sickness, Pain, Health, &c. but onely a variety and change of the corporeal motions, and that those words express nothing else but the variety of motions in Nature; for men are apt to make more distinctions then Nature doth: Nature knows of nothing else but of corporeal figurative Motions, when as men make a thousand distinctions of one thing, and confound and entangle themselves so, with Beings, Non-beings, and Neutral-beings, Corporeals and Incorporeals, Substances and Accidents, or manners and modes of Substances, new Creations, and Annihilations, and the like, as neither they themselves, nor any body else, is able to make any sense thereof; for they are like the tricks and slights of Juglers, 'tis here, 'tis gone; and amongst those Authors which I have read as yet, the most difficult to be understood is this Author which I am now perusing, who runs such divisions, and cuts Nature into so small Parts, as the sight of my Reason is not sharp enough to discern them. Wherefore I will leave them to those that are more quick-sighted then I, and rest,

Madam,

Your constant Friend,

and faithful Servant.

XXIV.

MADAM,

Your Author relates,[1] how by some the Immortal Soul is divided into two distinct parts; the Inferior or more outward, which by a peculiar name is called the Soul, and the other the Superior, the more inward, the which is called the bottom of the Soul or Spirit, in which Part the Image of God is specially contained; unto which is no access for the Devil, because there is the Kingdom of God: and each part has distinct Acts, Proprieties, and Faculties. Truly, Madam, I wonder, how some men dare discourse so boldly of the Soul, without any ground either of Scripture or Reason, nay, with such contradiction to themselves, or their own opinions; For how can that be severed into parts, which in its nature is Individable? and how can the Image of God concern but one Part of the Soul, and not the other? Certainly, if the Soul is the Image of God, it is his Image wholly, and not partially, or in parts. But your Author has other as strange and odd opinions as these, some whereof I have mentioned in my former Letters, the Souls being a Light, her Figure, her Residence, and many the like: Amongst the rest, there is one thing which your Author frequently makes mention of;[2] I know not what to call it, whether a thing, or a being, or no-thing; for it is neither of them; not a substance, nor an accident; neither a body, nor a spirit; and this Monster (for I think this is its proper name, since none other will fit it) is the Lacquey of the Soul, to run upon all errands; for the Soul sitting in her Princely Throne or Residence, which is the orifice of the stomack, cannot be every where her self; neither is it fit she should, as being a disgrace to her, to perform all offices her self for want of servants, therefore she sends out this most faithful and trusty officer, (your Author calls him Ideal Entity) who being prepared for his journey, readily performs all her commands, as being not tied up to no commands of places, times or dimensions, especially in Women with Child he operates most powerfully; for sometime he printed a Cherry on a Child, by a strong Idea of the Mother; but this Ideal Entity or servant of the Soul, hath troubled my brain more, then his Mistress the Soul her self; for I could not, nor cannot as yet conceive, how he might be able to be the Jack of all offices, and do Journies and travel from one part of the body to another, being no body nor substance himself, nor tyed to any place, time, and dimension, and therefore I will leave him. Your Author also speaks much of the Inward and Outward Man; but since that belongs to Divinity, I will declare nothing of it; onely this I say, that, in my opinion, the Inward and Outward man do not make a double Creature, neither properly, nor improperly; properly, as to make two different men; improperly, as we use to call that man double, whose heart doth not agree with his words. But by the Outward man I understand the sinful actions of flesh and blood, and by the Inward man the reformed actions of the Spirit, according to the Word of God; and therefore the Outward and Inward man make but one Man. Concerning the Natural Soul, your Author[3] speaks of her more to her disgrace then to her honor; for he scorns to call her a substance, neither doth he call her the Rational Soul, but he calls her the Sensitive Soul, and makes the Divine Soul to be the Rational Natural Soul, and the cause of all natural actions; for he being a Divine Philosopher, mixes Divine and Natural things together: But of the Frail, Mortal, Sensitive Soul, as he names her, which is onely the sensitive Life, his opinions are, that she is neither a substance, nor an accident, but a Neutral Creature, and a Vital Light, which hath not its like in the whole World, but the light of a Candle; for it is extinguished, and goes out like the flame of a Candle; it is locally present, and entertained in a place, and yet not comprehended in a place. Nevertheless, although this sensitive soul is no substance, yet it has the honor to be the Inn or Lodging-place of the Immortal Soul or Mind; and these two souls being both lights, do pierce each other; but the Mortal soul blunts the Immortal soul with its cogitation of the corruption of Adam. These opinions, Madam, I confess really, I do not know what to make of them; for I cannot imagine, how this Mortal soul, being no substance, can contain the Immortal soul, which is a substance; nor how they can pierce each other, and the Mortal soul being substanceless, get the better over an Immortal substance, and vitiate, corrupt, and infect it; neither can I conceive, how that, which in a manner is nothing already, can be made less and annihilated. Wherefore, my opinion is, that the Natural Soul, Life, and Body, are all substantial parts of Infinite Nature, not subsisting by themselves each apart, but inseparably united and co-mixed both in their actions and substances; for not any thing can and doth subsist of it self in Nature, but God alone; and things supernatural may, for ought I know: 'Tis true, there are several Degrees, several particular Natures, several Actions or Motions, and several Parts in Nature, but none subsists single, and by it self, without reference to the whole, and to one another. Your Author says, the Vital Spirit sits in the Throne of the Outward man as Vice Roy of the Soul, and acts by Commission of the Soul; but it is impossible, that one single part should be King of the whole Creature, since Rational and sensitive Matter is divided into so many parts, which have equal power and force of action in their turns and severall imployments; for though Nature is a Monarchess over all her Creatures, yet in every particular Creature is a Republick, and not a Monarchy; for no part of any Creature has a sole supreme Power over the rest. Moreover, your Author[4] says, That an Angel is not a Light himself, nor has an Internal Light, natural and proper to himself, but is the Glass of an uncreated Light: Which, to my apprehension, seems to affirm, That Angels are the Looking-glasses of God; a pretty Poetical Fancy, but not grounded on the Scripture: for the Scripture doth not express any such thing of them, but onely that they are[5] Ministring Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of Salvation: Which, I think, is enough for us to know here, and leave the rest until we come to enjoy their company in Heaven. But it is not to be admired, that those, which pretend to know the Nature and Secrets of God, should not have likewise knowledg of Supernatural Creatures; In which conceit I leave them, and rest,

Madam,

Your real and faithful

Friend and Servant.

XXV.

MADAM,

Reason and Intellect are two different things to your Author;[1] for Intellect, says he, doth properly belong to the Immortal Soul, as being a Formal Light, and the very substance of the Soul it self, wherein the Image of God onely consists; But Reason is an uncertain, frail faculty of the Mortal Soul, and doth in no ways belong, nor has any communion with the Intellect of the Mind. Which seems to me, as if your Author did make some difference between the Divine, and the Natural Soul in Man, although he doth not plainly declare it in the same Terms; for that which I name the Divine Soul, is to him the Immortal Mind, Intellect, or Understanding, and the Seat of the Image of God; but the Natural Soul he calls the Frail, Mortal, and Rational Soul; and as Understanding is the Essence of the Immortal, so Reason is to him the Essence of the Mortal Soul; which Reason he attributes not only to Man, but also to Brutes: For Reason and Discourse, says he, do not obscurely flourish and grow in brute Beasts, for an aged Fox is more crafty then a younger one by rational discourse; and again, That the Rational Part of the Soul doth belong to brutes, is without doubt: Wherein he rightly dissents from those, which onely do attribute a sensitive Soul to brutes; and Reason to none but Man, whom therefore they call a Rational Creature, and by this Rational Faculty do distinguish him from the rest of Animals. And thus I perceive the difference betwixt your Authors opinion, and theirs, is, That other Philosophers commonly do make the Rational soul, to be partly that which I call the supernatural and divine Soul, as onely belonging to man, and bearing the Image of God, not acknowledging any other Natural, but a Sensitive soul in the rest of Animals, and a Vegetative soul in Vegetables; and these three souls, or faculties, operations, or degrees, (call them what you will, for we shall not fall out about names,) concurr and joyn together in Man; but the rest of all Creatures, are void and destitute of Life, as well as of Soul, and therefore called Unanimate; and thus they make the natural rational soul, and the divine soul in man to be all one thing, without any distinguishment; but your Author makes a difference between the Mortal and Immortal soul in Man; the Immortal he calls the Intellect or Understanding, and the Mortal soul he calls Reason: but to my judgment he also attributes to the immortal soul, actions which are both natural, and supernatural, adscribing that to the divine soul, which onely belongs to the natural, and taking that from the natural, which properly belongs to her. Besides, he slights and despises the Rational soul so, as if she were almost of no value with Man, making her no substance, but a mental intricate and obscure Being, and so far from Truth, as if there were no affinity betwixt Truth and Reason, but that they disagree in their very roots, and that the most refined Reason may be deceitful. But your Author, by his leave, confounds Reason, and Reasoning, which are two several and distinct things; for reasoning and arguing differs as much from Reason, as doubtfulness from certainty of knowledg, or a wavering mind from a constant mind; for Reasoning is the discoursive, and Reason the understanding part in Man, and therefore I can find no great difference between Understanding and Reason: Neither can I be perswaded, that Reason should not remain with Man after this life, and enter with him into Heaven, although your Author speaks much against it; for if Man shall be the same then, which he is now, in body, why not in soul also? 'Tis true, the Scripture says, he shall have a more glorious body; but it doth not say, that some parts of the body shall be cast away, or remain behind; and if not of the body, why of the soul? Why shall Reason, which is the chief part of the natural Soul, be wanting? Your Author is much for Intellect or Understanding; but I cannot imagine how Understanding can be without Reason. Certainly, when he saw the Immortal Soul in a Vision, to be a formal Light, how could he discern what he saw, without Reason? How could he distinguish between Light and Darkness, without Reason? How could he know the Image of the Mind to be the Image of God, without the distinguishment of Reason? You will say, Truth informed him, and not Reason. I answer, Reason shews the Truth. You may reply, Truth requires no distinguishment or judgment. I grant, that perfect Truth requires not reasoning or arguing, as whether it be so, or not; but yet it requires reason, as to confirm it to be so, or not so; for Reason is the confirmation of Truth, and Reasoning is but the Inquisition into Truth: Wherefore, when our Souls shall be in the fulness of blessedness, certainly, they shall not be so dull and stupid, but observe distinctions between God, Angels, and sanctified Souls; as also, that our glory is above our merit, and that there is great difference between the Damned, and the Blessed, and that God is an Eternal and Infinite Being, and onely to be adored, admired, and loved, and that we enjoy as much as can be enjoyed: All which the Soul cannot know without the distinguishment of Reason; otherwise we might say, the Souls in Heaven, love, joy, admire and adore, but know not what, why, or wherefore; For, shall the blessed Souls present continual Praises without reason? Have they not reason to praise God for their happiness, and shall they not remember the Mercies of God, and the Merits of his Son? For without remembrance of them, they cannot give a true acknowledgment, although your Author says there is no use of Memory or remembrance in Heaven: but surely, I believe there is; for if there were not memory in Heaven, the Penitent Thief upon the Cross his Prayers had been in vain; for he desired our Saviour to remember him when he did come into his Kingdom: Wherefore if there be Understanding in Heaven, there is also Reason; and if there be Reason, there is Memory also: for all Souls in Heaven, as well as on Earth, have reason to adore, love, and praise God. But, Madam, my study is in natural Philosophy, not in Theology; and therefore I'le refer you to Divines, and leave your Author to his own fancy, who by his singular Visions tells us more news of our Souls, then our Saviour did after his Death and Resurrection: Resting in the mean time,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXVI.

MADAM,

Concerning those parts and chapters of your Authors Works, which treat of Physick; before I begin to examine them, I beg leave of you in this present, to make some reflections first upon his Opinions concerning the Nature of Health and Diseases: As for Health, he is pleased to say,[1] That it consists not in a just Temperature of the body, but in a sound and intire Life; for otherwise, a Temperature of body is as yet in a dead Carcass newly kill'd, where notwithstanding there is now death, but not life, not health: Also he says,[2] That no disease is in a dead carcass. To which I answer, That, in my opinion, Life is in a dead Carcass, as well as in a living Animal, although not such a Life as that Creature had before it became a Carcass, and the Temperature of that Creature is altered with the alteration of its particular life; for the temperature of that particular life, which was before in the Animal, doth not remain in the Carcass, in such a manner as it was when it had the life of such or such an Animal; nevertheless, a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature of life, as is proper, and belonging to its own figure: for there are as many different lives, as there be different creatures, and each creature has its particular life and soul, as partaking of sensitive and rational Matter. And if a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature of motions as belong to its own life, then there is no question, but these motions may move sometimes irregularly in a dead Carcass as well, as in any other Creature; and since health and diseases are nothing else but the regularity or irregularity of sensitive corporeal Motions, a dead Carcass having Irregular motions, may be said as well to have diseases, as a living body, as they name it, although it is no proper or usual term for other Creatures, but onely for Animals. However, if there were no such thing as a disease (or term it what you will, I will call it Irregularity of sensitive motions) in a dead Carcass, How comes it that the infection of a disease proceeds often from dead Carcasses into living Animals? For, certainly, it is not meerly the odour or stink of a dead body, for then all stinking Carcasses would produce an Infection; wherefore this Infection must necessarily be inherent in the Carcass, and proceed from the Irregularity of its motions. Next I'le ask you, Whether a Consumption be a disease, or not? If it be, then a dead Carcass might be said to have a disease, as well as a living body; and the Ægyptians knew a soveraign remedy against this disease, which would keep a dead Carcass intire and undissolved many ages; but as I said above, a dead Carcass is not that which it was being a living Animal, wherefore their effects cannot be the same, having not the same causes. Next, your Author is pleased to call, with Hippocrates, Nature the onely Physicianess of Diseases. I affirm it; and say moreover, that as she is the onely Physicianess, so she is also the onely Destroyeress and Murtheress of all particular Creatures, and their particular lives; for she dissolves and transforms as well as she frames and creates; and acts according to her pleasure, either for the increase or decrease, augmentation or destruction, sickness or health, life or death of Particular Creatures. But concerning Diseases, your Authors opinion is, That a Disease is as Natural as Health. I answer; 'tis true, Diseases are natural; but if we could find out the art of healing, as well as the art of killing and destroying; and the art of uniting and composing, as well as the art of separating and dividing, it would be very beneficial to man; but this may easier be wished for, then obtained; for Nature being a corporeal substance, has infinite parts, as well as an infinite body; and Art, which is onely the playing action of Nature, and a particular Creature, can easier divide and separate parts, then unite and make parts; for Art cannot match, unite, and joyn parts so as Nature doth; for Nature is not onely dividable and composeable, being a corporeal substance, but she is also full of curiosity and variety, being partly self-moving: and there is great difference between forced actions, and natural actions; for the one sort is regular, the other irregular. But you may say, Irregularities are as natural as Regularities. I grant it; but Nature leaves the irregular part most commonly to her daughter or creature Art, that is, she makes irregularities for varieties sake, but she her self orders the regular part, that is, she is more careful of her regular actions; and thus Nature taking delight in variety suffers irregularities; for otherwise, if there were onely regularities, there could not be so much variety. Again your Author says,[3] That a disease doth not consist but in living bodies. I answer, there is not any body that has not life; for if life is general, then all figures or parts have life; but though all bodies have life, yet all bodies have not diseases; for diseases are but accidental to bodies, and are nothing else but irregular motions in particular Creatures, which may be not onely in Animals, but generally in all Creatures; for there may be Irregularities in all sorts of Creatures, which may cause untimely dissolutions; but yet all dissolutions are not made by irregular motions, for many creatures dissolve regularly, but onely those which are untimely. In the same place your Author mentions, That a Disease consists immediately in Life it self, but not in the dregs and filthinesses, which are erroneous forreigners and strangers to the life. I grant, that a Disease is made by the motions of Life, but not such a life as your Author describes, which doth go out like the snuff of a Candle, or as one of Lucian's Poetical Lights; but by the life of Nature, which cannot go out without the destruction of Infinite Nature: and as the Motions of Nature's life make diseases or irregularities, so they make that which man names dregs and filths; which dregs, filths, sickness, and death, are nothing but changes of corporeal motions, different from those motions or actions that are proper to the health, perfection and consistence of such or such a figure or creature. But, to conclude, there is no such thing as corruption, sickness, or death, properly in Nature, for they are made by natural actions, and are onely varieties in Nature, but not obstructions or destructions of Nature, or annihilations of particular Creatures; and so is that we name Superfluities, which bear onely a relation to a particular Creature, which hath more Motion and Matter then is proper for the nature of its figure. And thus much of this subject for the present, from,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and humble Servant.

XXVII.

MADAM,

In my last, I remember, I told you of your Authors opinion concerning the seat of Diseases, viz. that Diseases are properly in living bodies, and consist in the life it self; but when I consider his definition of Life, and of a Disease, I cannot conceive how they should consist together; for he describes[1] a Disease to be a real, material and substantial being, truly subsisting in a body; but life to be a meer nothing, and yet the immediate mansion of a disease, the inward subject, yea, and workman of the same; and that with the life all diseases depart into nothing. Surely, Madam, it exceedeth my understanding; for, first, I cannot conceive how life, which is a meer Nothing, can be a lodging to something? Next, how Nothing can depart and die? and thirdly how Something can become Nothing? I think your Author might call a dead Carcass as well No-thing, as Life; and since he names Diseases the Thieves of Life, they must needs be but poor Thieves, because they steal No-thing. But your Author compares Life to Light, and calls it an Extinguishable Light, like the light of a Candle; which if so, then the old saying is verified, That life goes out like the snuff of a Candle. But I wonder, Madam, that grave and wise men will seriously make use of a similising old Proverb, or of a Poetical Fancy, in matter of natural Philosophy; for I have observed, that Homer, Lucian, Ovid, Virgil, Horace, &c. have been very serviceable to great Philosophers, who have taken the ground of their Fictions, and transferred them into Natural Philosophy, as Immaterial substances, Non-beings, and many the like; but they can neither do any good nor hurt to Nature, but onely spoil Philosophical Knowledg; and as Nature is ignorant of Immaterials and Non-beings, so Art is ignorant of Nature; for Mathematical Rules, Measures, and Demonstrations, cannot rule, measure nor demonstrate Nature, no more, then Chymical Divisions, Dissolutions and Extractions (or rather distractions, nay, I may say destructions) can divide, dissolve, extract, compose, and unite, as Nature doth; Wherefore their Instruments, Figures, Furnaces, Limbecks, and Engines, cannot instruct them of the truth of Natures Principles; but the best and readiest way to find out Nature, or rather some truth of Nature, is sense and reason, which are Parts of Natures active substance, and therefore the truest informers of Nature; but the Ignorance of Nature has caused Ignorance amongst Philosophers, and the Ignorance of Philosophers hath caused numerous Opinions, and numerous Opinions have caused various Discourses and Disputes; which Discourses and Disputes, are not Sense and Reason, but proceed from Irregular Motions; and Truth is not found in Irregularities. But to return to Life: it seems your Author hath taken his opinion from Lucian's Kingdom of Lights, the Lights being the Inhabitants thereof; and when any was adjudged to die, his Light was put out, which was his punishment: And thus this Heathenish Fiction is become a Christian Verity; when as yet your Author rayls much at those, that insist upon the Opinions and Doctrine of Pagan Philosophers. Wherefore I will leave this Poetical Fancy of Life, and turn to Death, and see what opinion your Author hath of that. First, concerning the cause or original of Death; Neither God, says he,[2] nor the Evil Spirit, is the Creator of Death, but Man onely, who made Death for himself; Neither did Nature make death, but Man made death natural. Which if it be so, then Death being, to my opinion, a natural Creature, as well as Life, Sickness, and Health; Man, certainly, had great Power, as to be the Creator of a natural Creature. But, I would fain know the reason, why your Author is so unwilling to make God the Author of Death, and Sickness, as well as of Damnation? Doth it imply any Impiety or Irreligiousness? Doth not God punish, as well as reward? and is not death a punishment for our sin? You may say, Death came from sin, but sin did not come from God. Then some might ask from whence came sin? You will say, From the Transgression of the Command of God, as the eating of the Forbidden Fruit. But from whence came this Transgression? It might be answer'd, From the Perswasion of the Serpent. From whence came this Perswasion? From his ill and malitious nature to oppose God, and ruine the race of Mankind. From whence came this ill Nature? From his Fall. Whence came his Fall? From his Pride and Ambition to be equal with God. From whence came this Pride? From his Free-will. From whence came his Free-will? From God. Thus, Madam, if we should be too inquisitive into the actions of God, we should commit Blasphemy, and make God Cruel, as to be the Cause of Sin, and consequently of Damnation. But although God is not the Author of Sin, yet we may not stick to say, that he is the Author of the Punishment of Sin, as an Act of his Divine Justice; which Punishment, is Sickness, and Death; nay, I see no reason, why not of Damnation too, as it is a due punishment for the sins of the wicked; for though Man effectively works his own punishment, yet Gods Justice inflicts it: Like as a just Judg may be call'd the cause of a Thief being hang'd. But these questions are too curious; and some men will be as presumptuous as the Devil, to enquire into Gods secret actions, although they be sure that they cannot be known by any Creature. Wherefore let us banish such vain thoughts, and onely admire, adore, love, and praise God, and implore his Mercy, to give us grace to shun the punishments for our sins by the righteousness of our actions, and not endeavour to know his secret designs. Next, I dissent from your Author,[3] That Death and all dead things do want roots whereby they may produce: For death, and dead things, in my opinion, are the most active producers, at least they produce more numerously and variously then those we name living things; for example, a dead Horse will produce more several Animals, besides other Creatures, then a living Horse can do; but what Archeus and Ideas a dead Carcass hath, I can tell no more, then what Blas or Gas it hath; onely this I say, that it has animate Matter, which is the onely Archeus or Master-workman, that produces all things, creates all things, dissolves all things, and transforms all things in Nature; but not out of Nothing, or into Nothing, as to create new Creatures which were not before in Nature, or to annihilate Creatures, and to reduce them to nothing; but it creates and transforms out of, and in the same Matter which has been from all Eternity. Lastly, your Author is pleased to say, That he doth not behold a disease as an abstracted Quality; and that Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, as they are Qualities in the abstract, are not diseases. I am of his mind, that a disease is a real and corporeal being, and do not understand what he and others mean by abstracted qualities; for Nature knows of no abstraction of qualities from substances, and I doubt Man can do no more then Nature doth: Besides, those abstractions are needless, and to no purpose; for no Immaterial quality will do any hurt, if it be no substance; wherefore Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, are Corporeal beings, as well as the rest of Diseases, and not abstracted Qualities; and I am sure, Persons that are affected with those diseases will tell the same. Wherefore leaving needless abstractions to fancies abstracted from right sense and reason, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXVIII.

MADAM,

I am very much troubled to see your Authors Works fill'd with so many spiteful reproaches and bitter taunts against the Schools of Physicians, condemning both their Theory and Practice; nay, that not onely the Modern Schools of Physicians, but also the two ancient and famous Physicians, Galen, and Paracelsus, must sufficiently suffer by him; especially Galen; for there is hardly a Chapter in all his Works, which has not some accusations of blind errors, sloth, and sluggishness, Ignorance, Covetousness, Cruelty, and the like: Which I am very sorry for; not onely for the sake of your Author himself, who herein doth betray both his rashness, and weakness, in not bridling his passions, and his too great presumption, reliance and confidence in his own abilities, and extraordinary Gifts; but also for the sake of the Fame and Repute of our Modern Physicians; for without making now any difference betwixt the Galenists and Paracelsians, and examining which are the best, (for I think them both excellent in their kinds, especially when joyned together) I will onely say this in general, that the Art of Physick has never flourish'd better then now, neither has any age had more skilful, learned, and experienced Physicians, then this present; because they have not onely the knowledg and practise of those in ages Past, but also their own experience joyned with it, which cannot but add perfection to their Art; and I, for my part, am so much for the old way of Practice, that if I should be sick, I would desire rather such Physicians which follow the same way, then those, that by their new Inventions, perchance, cure one, and kill a hundred. But your Author[1] will have a Physician to be like a Handycrafts man, who being call'd to a work, promises that work, and stands to his promise; and therefore, It is a shame, says he, in a Physician, being call'd to a sick man in the beginning of the disease, and when his strength is yet remaining, to suffer the same man to die. This, in my opinion, is a very unreasonable comparison, to liken a Handicrafts man to a Physician, and the art of Curing to the art of Building, or any the like, without regard of so many great differences that are between them, which I am loth to rehearse, for brevities sake, and are apparant enough to every one that will consider them: but this I may say, that it is not always for want of skill and industry in a Physician, that the cure is not effected, but it lies either in the Incureableness of the disease, or any other external accidents that do hinder the success: Not but that the best Physicians may err in a disease, or mistake the Patients inward distemper by his outward temper, or the interior temper by his outward distemper, or any other ways; for they may easily err through the variation of the disease, which may vary so suddenly and oft, as it is impossible to apply so fast, and so many Medicines, as the alteration requires, without certain death; for the body is not able, oftentimes, to dispose and digest several Medicines so fast, as the disease may vary, and therefore what was good in this temper, may, perhaps, be bad in the variation; insomuch, that one medicine may in a minute prove a Cordial, and Poyson. Nay, it may be that some Physicians do err through their own ignorance and mistake, must we therefore condemn all the skill, and accuse all the Schools of Negligence, Cruelty, and Ignorance? God forbid: for it would be a great Injustice. Let us rather praise them for the good they do, and not rashly condemn them for the evil they could not help: For we may as well condemn those holy and industrious Divines, that cannot reform wicked and perverse Sinners, as Physicians, because they cannot restore every Patient to his former health, the Profession of a Physician being very difficult; for they can have but outward signs of inward distempers. Besides, all men are not dissected after they are dead, to inform Physicians of the true cause of their death; nay, if they were, perchance they would not give always a true information to the Physician, as is evident by many examples; but oftentimes the blame is laid upon the Physician, when as the fault is either in Nature, or any other cause, which Art could not mend. And if your Author had had such an extraordinary Gift from God as to know more then all the rest of Physicians, why did he not accordingly, and as the Scripture speaks of Faith, shew his skill by his Works and Cures? certainly, could he have restored those that were born blind, lame, deaf and dumb, or cured the spotted Plague, or Apoplexy after the third fit, or the Consumption of Vital parts, or a Fever in the Arteries, or dissolved a Stone too big to go through the passage, and many the like; he would not onely have been cried up for a rare Physician, but for a miracle of the World, and worshipped as a Saint: But if he could not effect more then the Schools can do, why doth he inveigh so bitterly against them? Wherefore I cannot commend him in so doing; but as I respect the Art of Physick, as a singular Gift from God to Mankind, so I respect and esteem also learned and skilful Physicians, for their various Knowledg, industrious Studies, careful Practice, and great Experiences, and think every one is bound to do the like, they being the onely supporters and restorers of humane life and health: For though I must confess, with your Author, that God is the onely giver of Good, yet God is not pleased to work Miracles ordinarily, but has ordained means for the restoring of health, which the Art of Physick doth apply; and therefore those Persons that are sick, do wisely to send for a Physician; for Art, although it is but a particular Creature, and the handmaid of Nature, yet she doth Nature oftentimes very good service; and so do Physicians often prolong their Patients lives. The like do Chirurgeons; for if those Persons that have been wounded, had been left to be cured onely by the Magnetick Medicine, I believe, numbers that are alive would have been dead, and numbers would die that are alive; insomuch, as none would escape, but by miracle, especially if dangerously hurt. Concerning the Coveteousness of Physicians, although sickness is chargeable, yet I think it is not Charitable to say or to think, that Physitians regard more their Profit, then their Patients health; for we might as well condemn Divines for taking their Tithes and Stipends, as Physicians for taking their Fees: but the holy Writ tells us, that a Labourer is Worthy of his hire or reward; and, for my part, I think those commit a great sin, which repine at giving Rewards in any kind; for those that deserve well by their endeavours, ought to have their rewards; and such Meritorious Persons, I wish with all my Soul, may prosper and thrive. Nevertheless, as for those persons, which for want of means are not able to reward their Physicians, I think Physicians will not deal so unconscionably, as to neglect their health and lives for want of their Fees, but expect the reward from God, and be recompenced the better by those that have Wealth enough to spare. And this good opinion I have of them. So leaving them, I rest,