SECT. IV.

I.

MADAM,

I perceive, you take great delight in the study of Natural Philosophy, since you have not onely sent me some Authors to peruse, and give my judgment of their opinions, but are very studious your self in the reading of Philosophical Works: and truly, I think you cannot spend your time more honourably, profitably, and delightfully, then in the study of Nature, as to consider how Variously, Curiously, and Wisely, she acts in her Creatures; for if the particular knowledg of a mans self be commendable, much more is the knowledg of the general actions of Nature, which doth lead us to the knowledg of our selves. The truth is, by the help of Philosophy our minds are raised above our selves, into the knowledg of the Causes of all natural effects. But leaving the commending of this noble study, you are pleased to desire my opinion of a very difficult and intricate argument in Natural Philosophy, to wit, of Generation, or Natural Production. I must beg leave to tell you, first, that some (though foolishly) believe, it is not fit for Women to argue upon so subtil a Mystery: Next, there have been so many learned and experienced Philosophers, Physicians, and Anatomists, which have treated of this subject, that it might be thought a great presumption for me, to argue with them, having neither the learning nor experience by practice which they had: Lastly, There are so many several ways and manners of Productions in Nature, as it is impossible for a single Creature to know them all: For there are Infinite variations made by self-motion in Infinite Matter, producing several Figures, which are several Creatures in that same Matter. But you would fain know, how Nature, which is Infinite Matter, acts by self-motion? Truly, Madam, you may as well ask any one part of your body, how every other part of your body acts, as to ask me, who am but a small part of Infinite Matter, how Nature works. But yet, I cannot say, that Nature is so obscure, as her Creatures are utterly ignorant; for as there are two of the outward sensitive organs in animal bodies, which are more intelligible then the rest, to wit, the Ear, and the Eye; so in Infinite Matter, which is the body of Nature, there are two parts, which are more understanding or knowing then the rest, to wit, the Rational and Sensitive part of Infinite Matter; for though it be true, That Nature, by self-division, made by self-motion into self-figures, which are self-parts, causes a self-obscurity to each part, motion, and figure; nevertheless, Nature being infinitely wise and knowing, its infinite natural wisdom and knowledg is divided amongst those infinite parts of the infinite body: and the two most intelligible parts, as I said, are the sensitive and rational parts in Nature, which are divided, being infinite, into every Figure or Creature; I cannot say equally divided, no more, then I can say, all creatures are of equal shapes, sizes, properties, strengths, quantities, qualities, constitutions, semblances, appetites, passions, capacities, forms, natures, and the like; for Nature delights in variety, as humane sense and reason may well perceive: for seldom any two creatures are just alike, although of one kind or sort, but every creature doth vary more or less. Wherefore it is not probable, that the production or generation of all or most Creatures, should be after one and the same manner or way, for else all Creatures would be just alike without any difference. But this is to be observed, that though Nature delights in variety, yet she doth not delight in confusion, but, as it is the propriety of Nature to work variously, so she works also wisely; which is the reason, that the rational and sensitive parts of Nature, which are the designing and architectonical parts, keep the species of every kind of Creatures by the way of Translation in Generation, or natural Production; for whatsoever is transferred, works according to the nature of that figure or figures from whence it was transferred, But mistake me not; for I do not mean always according to their exterior Figure, but according to their interior Nature; for different motions in one and the same parts of matter, make different figures, wherefore much more in several parts of matter and changes of motion; But, as I said, Translation is the chief means to keep or maintain the species of every kind of Creatures, which Translation in natural production or generation, is of the purest and subtilest substances, to wit, the sensitive and rational, which are the designing and architectonical parts of Nature. You may ask me, Madam, what this wise and ingenious Matter is. I answer: It is so pure, subtil, and self-active, as our humane shares of sense and reason cannot readily or perfectly perceive it; for by that little part of knowledg that a humane creature hath, it may more readily perceive the strong action then the purer substance; for the strongest action of the purest substance is more perceivable then the matter or substance it self; which is the cause, that most men are apt to believe the motion, and to deny the matter, by reason of its subtilty; for surely the sensitive and rational matter is so pure and subtil, as not to be expressed by humane sense and reason. As for the rational matter, it is so pure, fine, and subtil, that it may be as far beyond lucent matter, as lucent matter is beyond gross vapours, or thick clouds; and the sensitive matter seems not much less pure: also there is very pure inanimate matter, but not subtil and active of it self; for as there are degrees in the animate, so there are also degrees in the inanimate matter; so that the purest degree of inanimate matter comes next to the animate, not in motion, but in the purity of its own degree; for it cannot change its nature so, as to become animate, yet it may be so pure in its own nature, as not to be perceptible by our grosser senses. But concerning the two degrees of animate Matter, to wit, the sensitive and rational, I say that the sensitive is much more acute then Vitriol, Aqua-fortis, Fire, or the like; and the rational much more subtil and active then Quicksilver, or Light, so as I cannot find a comparison fit to express them, onely that this sensitive and rational self-moving Matter is the life and soul of Nature; But by reason this Matter is not subject to our gross senses, although our senses are subject to it, as being made, subsisting and acting through the power of its actions, we are not apt to believe it, no more then a simple Country-wench will believe, that Air is a substance, if she neither hear, see, smell, taste, or touch it, although Air touches and surrounds her: But yet the effects of this animate matter prove that there is such a matter; onely, as I said before, this self-moving matter causing a self-division as well as a general action, is the cause of a self-obscurity, which obscurity causes doubts, disputes, and inconstancies in humane opinions, although not so much obscurity, as to make all Creatures blind-fold, for surely there is no Creature but perceives more or less. But to conclude, The Rational degree of Matter is the most intelligible, and the wisest part of Nature, and the Sensitive is the most laborious and provident part in Nature, both which are the Creators of all Creatures in Infinite Matter; and if you intend to know more of this Rational and Sensitive Matter, you may consult my Book of Philosophy, to which I refer you. And so taking my leave for the present, I rest,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Servant.

II.

MADAM,

I understand by your last, that you have read the Book of that most learned and famous Physician and Anatomist, Dr. Harvey, which treats of Generation; and in the reading of it, you have mark'd several scruples, which you have framed into several questions concerning that subject, to which you desire my answer. Truly, Madam, I am loth to imbarque my self in this difficult argument, not onely for the reasons I have given you heretofore, but also that I do not find my self able enough to give you such a satisfactory answer as perhaps you do expect. But since your Commands are so powerful with me, that I can hardly resist them, and your Nature so good that you easily pardon any thing that is amiss, I will venture upon it according to the strength of my Natural Reason, and endeavour to give you my opinion as well and as clearly as I can. Your first question is; Whether the action of one or more producers be the onely cause of Natural Production or Generation, without imparting or transferring any of their own substance or Matter. I answer: The sole co-action of the Producers may make a change of exterior forms or figures, but not produce another Creature; for if there were not substance or matter, as well as action, both transferred together, there would not be new Creatures made out of old Matter, but every production would require new Matter, which is impossible, if there be but one Matter, and that infinite; and certainly, humane sense and reason may well perceive, that there can be but one Matter, for several kinds of Matter would make a confusion; and thus if new Creatures were made onely by substanceless motion, it would not onely be an infinite trouble to Nature, to create something out of nothing perpetually, but, as I said, it would make a confusion amongst all Nature's works, which are her several Parts or Creatures. But by reason there is but one Matter, which is Infinite and Eternal, and this Matter has self-motion in it, both Matter and Motion must of necessity transmigrate, or be transferred together without any separation, as being but one thing, to wit, Corporeal Motion. 'Tis true, one part of animate or self-moving Matter, may without Translation move, or rather occasion other parts to move; but one Creature cannot naturally produce another without the transferring of its corporeal motions. But it is well to be observed, that there is great difference between the actions of Nature; for all actions are not generating, but some are patterning, and some transforming, and the like; and as for the transforming action, that may be without translation, as being nothing else but a change of motions in one and the same part or parts of Matter, to wit, when the same parts of Matter do change into several figures, and return into the same figures again. Also the action of Patterning is without Translation; for to pattern out, is nothing else but to imitate, and to make a figure in its own substance or parts of Matter like another figure. But in generation every producer doth transfer both Matter and Motion, that is, Corporeal Motion into the produced; and if there be more producers then one, they all do contribute to the produced; and if one Creature produces many Creatures, those many Creatures do partake more or less of their producer. But you may say, If the producer transfers its own Matter, or rather its own corporeal motions into the produced, many productions will soon dissolve the producer, and he will become a sacrifice to his off-spring. I answer; That doth not follow: for as one or more Creatures contribute to one or more other Creatures, so other Creatures do contribute to them, although not after one and the same manner or way, but after divers manners or ways; but all manners and ways must be by translation to repair and assist; for no Creature can subsist alone and of it self, but all Creatures traffick and commerce from and to each other, and must of necessity do so, since they are all parts of the same Matter: Neither can Motion subsist without Matter, nor quit Matter, nor act without Matter, no more, then an Artificer can work without materials, and without self-motion Matter would be dead and useless; Wherefore Matter and Motion must upon necessity not onely be inseparable, but be one body, to wit, corporeal motion; which motion by dividing and composing its several parts, and acting variously, is the cause of all Production, Generation, Metamorphosing, or any other thing that is done in Nature. But if, according to your Author, the sole action be the cause of Generation without transferring of substance, then Matter is useless, and of none or little effect; which, in my opinion, is not probable.

Your second question is, Whether the Production or Generation of animals is as the Conceptions of the Brain, which the Learned say are Immaterial? I answer: The Conceptions of the Brain, in my opinion, are not Immaterial, but Corporeal; for though the corporeal motions of the brain, or the matter of its conceptions, is invisible to humane Creatures, and that when the brain is dissected, there is no such matter found, yet that doth not prove, that there is no Matter, because it is not so gross a substance as to be perceptible by our exterior senses: Neither will your Authors example hold, that as a builder erects a house according to his conception in the brain, the same happens in all other natural productions or generations; for, in my opinion, the house is materially made in the brain, which is the conception of the builder, although not of such gross materials, as Stone, Brick, Wood, and the like, yet of such matter as is the Rational Matter, that is, the house when it is conceived in the brain, is made by the rational corporeal figurative motions of their own substance or degree of Matter; But if all Animals should be produced by meer fancies, and a Man and a Woman should beget by fancying themselves together in copulation, then the produced would be a true Platonick Child; But if a Woman being from her Husband should be so got with Child, the question is, whether the Husband would own the Child; and if amorous Lovers (which are more contagious for appetite and fancy then Married persons) should produce Children by Immaterial contagions, there would be more Children then Parents to own them.

Your third question is, Whether Animals may not be produced, as many Diseases are, by contagion? I answer: Although contagions may be made at a distance, by perception; yet those diseases are not begotten by immaterial motions, but by the rational and sensitive corporeal motions, which work such diseases in the body of a Creature, by the association of parts, like as the same disease is made in another body: Neither are diseases always produced after one and the same manner, but after divers manners; whereas animals are produced as animals, that is, after one natural and proper way; for although all the effects in particular be not alike, yet the general way or manner to produce those effects is the same: As for example; there is no other way to produce a fruitful Egg, but by a Cock and a Hen; But a Contagious disease, as the small-Pox, or the like, may be produced by the way of Surfeits or by Conceit, which may cause the sensitive corporeal parts, through the irregular motions of the rational corporeal parts, to work and produce such a disease, or any other ways. But neither a disease, nor no creature else can be produced without matter, by substanceless motion; for wheresoever is motion, there is also matter, matter and motion being but one thing.

Your fourth question is, Whether an Animal Creature is perfectly shaped or formed at the first Conception? I answer: If the Creature be composed of many and different parts, my opinion is, it cannot be. You may say, That if it hath not all his parts produced at there will be required many acts of generation to beget or produce every part, otherwise the producers would not be the Parents of the produced in whole, but in part. I answer: The Producer is the designer, architect, and founder of the whole Creature produced; for the sensitive and rational corporeal motions, which are transferred from the producer or producers, joyn to build the produced like to the producer in specie, but the transferred parts may be invisible and insensible to humane Creatures, both through their purity and little quantity, until the produced is framed to some visible degree; for a stately building may proceed from a small beginning, neither can humane sense tell what manner of building is designed at the first foundation. But you may say, That many Eggs may be made by one act of the producers, to wit, the Cock and the Hen, and those many Eggs may be laid at several times, as also hatched at several times, and become Chickens at several times. I answer; It may well and easily be so: for the rational and sensitive parts or corporeal motions which were transferred in one act, designed many produced through that one act; for those transferred corporeal motions, although they have not a sufficient quantity of themselves to make all the produced in their perfect shapes at once, yet they are the chief designer, architect and founder of all that are to be produced; for the corporeal motions which are transferred, joyn with those they are transferred to, and being associates, work to one design, the sensitive being the architect, the rational the designer, which together with the inanimate parts of matter, can never want materials, neither can the materials want labourers; for the degrees of matter are inseparable, and do make but one body or substance. Again you may say, That some parts of Matter may produce another Creature not like to the producer in its species, as for example, Monsters. I answer, That is possible to be done, but yet it is not usual; for Monsters are not commonly born, but those corporeal motions which dwell in one species, work according to the nature of the same species; and when the parts of Matter are transferred from Creature to Creature, that is, are separated from some parts, and joyned to other parts of the same species, and the same nature; those transferred parts of matter, although invisible in quantity, by reason of their purity and subtilty, begin the work of the produced according to its natural species, and the labourers in other parts of matter work to the same end; just as it is in the artificial building of a house, where the house is first designed by the Architect, or Master, and then the labourers work not after their own fancy, (else it would not be the same house that was designed, nor any uniformity in it) but according to the architects or surveyors design; so those parts of matter or corporeal motions that are transferred from the producer, are like the architect, but the labourers or workmen are the assisting and adjoyning parts of matter. But you will say, How comes it, that many creatures may be made by one or two? I answer: As one owner or two partners may be the cause of many buildings, so few or more transferred rational and sensitive corporeal motions may make and produce as many creatures as they can get materials and labourers; for if they get one, they get the other, by reason the degrees of matter, viz. animate and inanimate, are inseparably mixt, and make but one body or substance; and the proof of it is, that all animals are not constant in the number of their off-spring, but sometimes produce more, and sometimes fewer, and sometimes their off-spring is less, and sometimes larger, according to the quantity of matter. Again you may say, That in some Creatures there is no passage to receive the transferred matter into the place of the architecture. I answer: That all passages are not visible to humane sense; and some humane Creatures have not a sufficient humane reason to conceive, that most of Natures works are not so gross as to be subject to their exterior senses; but as for such parts and passages, whether exterior or interior, visible or invisible, as also for copulation, conception, formation, nourishment, and the like in Generation, I leave you to Physicians and Anatomists. And to conclude this question, we may observe, that not any animal Creatures shape dissolveth in one instant of time, but by degrees; why should we believe then, that Animals are generated or produced in their perfect shape in one instant of time, and by one act of Nature? But sense and reason knows by observation, that an animal Creature requires more time to be generated, then to be dissolved, like as an house is sooner and with less pains pull'd down, then built up.

Your Fifth question is, Whether Animals are not generated by the way of Metamorphosing? To which I answer, That it is not possible that a third Creature can be made without translation of corporeal motions; and since Metamorphosing is onely a change of motions in the same parts of Matter, without any translation of corporeal motions, no animal Creature can be produced or generated by the way of Metamorphosing.

Your Sixth question is, Whether a whole may be made out of a part? I answer: There is no whole in Nature, except you will call Nature her self a whole; for all Creatures are but parts of Infinite Matter.

Your Seventh question is, Whether all Animals, as also Vegetables, are made or generated by the way of Eggs? I have said heretofore, That it is not probable, that different sorts, nay, different kinds of Creatures, should all have but one manner or way of production; for why should not Nature make different ways of productions, as well as different Creatures? And as for Vegetables, if all their Seeds be likened unto Eggs, then Eggs may very well be likened to Seeds; which if so, then a Peas-cod is the Hen, and the Peas in the Cod is the cluster of Eggs: the like of ears of Corn. And those animals that produce but one creature or seed at a time, may be like the kernel of a Nut, when the shell is broke, the creature comes forth. But how this will agree with your Author, who says, that the creature in the shell must make its own passage, I cannot tell; for if the Nut be not broken by some external means or occasion, the kernel is not like to get forth. And as for humane Eggs, I know not what to answer; for it is said, that the first Woman was made of a mans ribb; but whether that ribb was an egg, I cannot tell. And why may not Minerals and Elements be produced by the way of Eggs as well as Vegetables and Animals? Nay, why may not the whole World be likened unto an Egg? Which if so, the two Poles are the two ends the Egg; and for the Elements, the Yolk is the Fire, the White, the Water; the Film, the Air; and the Shell it self will very well serve for the Earth: But then it must first be broken, and pounded into one lump or solid mass, and so sink or swim into the midst of the liquid parts, as to the Center; and as for the several foetuses in this great Egg, they are the several Creatures in it. Or it might be said, that the Chaos was an Egg, and the Universe, the Chicken. But leaving this similizing, it is like, that some studious Men may by long study upon one part of the body, conceive and believe that all other parts are like that one part; like as those that have gazed long upon the Sun, all they see for a time, are Suns to them; or like as those which having heard much of Hobgoblins, all they see are Hobgoblins, their fancies making such things. But, Madam, to make a conclusion also of this question, I repeat what I said before, that all Creatures have not one way of production; and as they have not all one way of production, so they have neither one instant of time either for perfection or dissolution, but their perfection and dissolution is made by degrees.

Your Eighth question is, Whether it may not be, that the sensitive and rational corporeal motions in an Egg do pattern out the figure of the Hen and Cock, whilest the Hen sits upon the Egg, and so bring forth Chickens by the way of patterning? I answer: The action of patterning, is not the action of Generation; for as I said heretofore, the actions of Nature are different, and Generation must needs be performed by the way of translation, which translation is not required in the action of Patterning; but according as the Producers are, which transfer their own matter into the produced, so is the produced concerning its species; which is plainly proved by common examples; for if Pheasants, or Turky, or Goose-eggs, be laid under an ordinary Hen, or an ordinary Hens-egg be laid under a Pheasant, Turky, or Goose, the Chickens of those Eggs will never be of any other species then of those that produced the Egg; for an ordinary Hen, if she sit upon Pheasants, Turky, or Goose-eggs, doth not hatch Chickens of her own species, but the Chickens will be of the species either of the Pheasant, or Turky, or Goose, which did at first produce the Egg; which proves, that in Generation, or Natural production, there is not onely required the action of the Producers, but also a Transferring of some of their own parts to form the produced. But you may say, What doth the sitting Hen contribute then to the production of the Chicken? I answer: The sitting Hen doth onely assist the Egg in the production of the Chicken, as the Ground doth the Seed.

Your Ninth question is, Concerning the Soul of a particular Animal Creature, as whether it be wholly of it self and subsists wholly in and by it self? But you must give me leave first to ask you what Soul you mean, whether the Divine, or the Natural Soul, for there is great difference betwixt them, although not the least that ever I heard, rightly examined and distinguished; and if you mean the Divine Soul, I shall desire you to excuse me, for that belongs to Divines, and not to Natural Philosophers; neither am I so presumptuous as to intrench upon their sacred order. But as for the Natural Soul, the Learned have divided it into three parts, to wit, the Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational Soul; and according to these three Souls, made three kinds of lives, as the Vegetative, Sensitive, and Rational Life. But they might as well say, there are infinite bodies, lives, and souls, as three; for in Nature there is but one life, soul, and body, consisting all of one Matter, which is corporeal Nature. But yet by reason this life and soul is material, it is divided into numerous parts, which make numerous lives and souls in every particular Creature; for each particular part of the rational self-moving Matter, is each particular soul in each particular Creature, but all those parts considered in general, make but one soul of Nature; and as this self-moving Rational Matter hath power to unite its parts, so it hath ability or power to divide its united parts. And thus the rational soul of every particular Creature is composed of parts, (I mean parts of a material substance; for whatsoever is substanceless and incorporeal, belongs not to Nature, but is Supernatural;) for by reason the Infinite and Onely matter is by self-motion divided into self-parts, not any Creature can have a soul without parts; neither can the souls of Creatures subsist without commerce of other rational parts, no more then one body can subsist without the assistance of other bodies; for all parts belong to one body, which is Nature: nay, if any thing could subsist of it self, it were a God, and not a Creature: Wherefore not any Creature can challenge a soul absolutely to himself, unless Man, who hath a divine soul, which no other Creature hath. But that which makes so many confusions and disputes amongst learned men is, that they conceive, first, there is no rational soul but onely in man; next, that this rational soul in every man is individable. But if the rational soul is material, as certainly to all sense and reason it is, then it must not onely be in all material Creatures, but be dividable too; for all that is material or corporeal hath parts, and is dividable, and therefore there is no such thing in any one Creature as one intire soul; nay, we might as well say, there is but one Creature in Nature, as say, there is but one individable natural soul in one Creature.

Your Tenth question is, Whether Souls are producible, or can be produced? I answer: in my opinion, they are producible, by reason all parts in Nature are so. But mistake me not; for I do not mean that any one part is produced out of Nothing, or out of new matter; but one Creature is produced by another, by the dividing and uniting, joyning and disjoyning of the several parts of Matter, and not by substanceless Motion out of new Matter. And because there is not any thing in Nature, that has an absolute subsistence of it self, each Creature is a producer, as well as a produced, in some kind or other; for no part of Nature can subsist single, and without reference and assistance of each other, or else every single part would not onely be a whole of it self, but be as a God without controle; and though one part is not another part, yet one part belongs to another part, and all parts to one whole, and that whole to all the parts, which whole is one corporeal Nature. And thus, as I said before, productions of one or more creatures, by one or more producers, without matter, meerly by immaterial motions, are impossible, to wit, that something should be made or produced out of nothing; for if this were so, there would consequently be an annihilation or turning into nothing, and those creatures, which produce others by the way of immaterial motions, would rather be as a God, then a part of Nature, or Natural Matter. Besides, it would be an endless labour, and more trouble to create particular Creatures out of nothing, then a World at once; whereas now it is easie for Nature to create by production and transmigration; and therefore it is not probable, that any one Creature hath a particular life, soul, or body to it self, as subsisting by it self, and as it were precised from the rest, having its own subsistence without the assistance of any other; nor is it probable, that any one Creature is new, for all that is, was, and shall be, till the Omnipotent God disposes Nature otherwise.

As for the rest of your questions, as whether the Sun be the cause of all motions, and of all natural productions; and whether the life of a Creature be onely in the blood, or whether it have its beginning from the blood, or whether the blood be the chief architect of an animal, or be the seat of the soul; sense and reason, in my opinion, doth plainly contradict them; for concerning the blood, if it were the seat of the Soul, then in the circulation of the blood, if the Soul hath a brain, it would become very dizzie by its turning round; but perchance some may think the Soul to be a Sun, and the Blood the Zodiack, and the body the Globe of the Earth, which the Soul surrounds in such time as the Blood is flowing about. And so leaving those similizing Fancies, I'le add no more, but repeat what I said in the beginning, that I rely upon the goodness of your Nature, from which I hope for pardon, if I have not so exactly and solidly answered your desire; for the argument of this discourse being so difficult, may easily lead me into an error, which your better judgment will soon correct; and in so doing you will add to those favours for which I am already,

Madam,

Your Ladiships most obliged Friend

and humble Servant.

III.

MADAM,

You thought verily, I had mistaken my self in my last, concerning the Rational Souls of every particular Creature, because I said, all Creatures had numerous Souls; and not onely so, but every particular Creature had numerous Souls. Truly, Madam, I did not mistake my self, for I am of the same opinion still; for though there is but one Soul in infinite Nature, yet that soul being dividable into parts, every part is a soul in every single creature, were the parts no bigger in quantity then an atome. But you ask whether Nature hath Infinite souls? I answer: That Infinite Nature is but one Infinite body, divided into Infinite parts, which we call Creatures; and therefore it may as well be said, That Nature is composed of Infinite Creatures or Parts, as she is divided into Infinite Creatures or Parts; for Nature being Material, is dividable, and composable. The same may be said of Nature's Soul, which is the Rational part of the onely infinite Matter, as also of Nature's Life, which is the sensitive part of the onely Infinite self-moving Matter; and of the Inanimate part of the onely Infinite Matter, which I call the body for distinction sake, as having no self-motion in its own nature, for Infinite Material Nature hath an Infinite Material Soul, Life, and Body. But, Madam, I desire you to observe what I said already, viz. that the parts of Nature are as apt to divide, as to unite; for the chief actions of Nature are to divide, and to unite; which division is the cause, that it may well be said, every particular Creature hath numerous souls; for every part of rational Matter is a particular Soul, and every part of the sensitive Matter is a particular Life; all which, mixed with the Inanimate Matter, though they be Infinite in parts, yet they make but one Infinite whole, which is Infinite Nature; and thus the Infinite division into Infinite parts is the cause, that every particular Creature hath numerous Souls, and the transmigration of parts from, and to parts, is the reason, that not any Creature can challenge a single soul, or souls to it self; the same for life. But most men are unwilling to believe, that Rational Souls are material, and that this rational Matter is dividable in Nature; when as humane sense and reason may well perceive, that Nature is active, and full of variety; and action, and variety cannot be without motion, division, and composition: but the reason that variety, division, and composition, runs not into confusion, is, that first there is but one kind of Matter; next, that the division and composition of parts doth ballance each other into a union in the whole. But, to conclude, those Creatures which have their rational parts most united, are the wisest; and those that have their rational parts most divided, are the wittiest; and those that have much of this rational matter, are much knowing; and those which have less of this rational matter, are less knowing; and there is no Creature that hath not some; for like as all the parts of a humane body are indued with life, and soul; so are all the parts of Infinite Nature; and though some parts of Matter are not animate in themselves, yet there is no part that is not mixt with the animate matter; so that all parts of Nature are moving, and moved. And thus, hoping I have cleared my self in this point, to your better understanding, I take my leave, and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

IV.

MADAM,

In the Works of that most famous Philosopher and Mathematician of our age Gal. which you thought worth my reading, I find, he discourses much of upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards; but to tell you really, I do not understand what he means by those words, for, in my opinion, there is properly no such thing as upwards, downwards, backwards, or forwards in Nature, for all this is nothing else but natural corporeal motions, to which in respect of some particulars we do attribute such or such names; for if we conceive a Circle, I pray where is upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards? Certainly, it is, in my opinion, just like that, they name Rest, Place, Space, Time, &c. when as Nature her self knows of no such things, but all these are onely the several and various motions of the onely Matter. You will say, How can Rest be a motion? I answer: Rest is a word which expresses rather mans ignorance then his knowledg; for when he sees, that a particular Creature has not any external local motion perceptible by his sight, he says it resteth, and this rest he calls a cessation from motion, when as yet there is no such thing as cessation from motion in Nature; for motion is the action of natural Matter, and its Nature is to move perpetually; so that it is more probable for motion to be annihilated, then to cease. But you may say, It is a cessation from some particular motion. I answer: You may rather call it an alteration of a particular motion, then a cessation; for though a particular motion doth not move in that same manner as it did before, nevertheless it is still there, and not onely there, but still moving; onely it is not moving after the same manner as it did move heretofore, but has changed from such a kind of motion to another kind of motion, and being still moving it cannot be said to cease: Wherefore what is commonly called cessation from motion, is onely a change of some particular motion, and is a mistake of change for rest. Next, I find in the same Author a long discourse of circular and strait motions; to wit, That they are simple motions, and that all others are composed out of them, and are mixt motions; Also, That the Circular Motion is perfect, and the Right imperfect; and that all the parts of the world, if moveable of their own nature, it is impossible, that their motions should be Right, or any other then Circular: That a Circular motion is never to be gotten naturally, without a preceding right motion: That a Right motion cannot naturally be perpetual: That a Right motion is impossible in the World well ordered: and the like. First, I cannot conceive why natural Matter should use the Circle-figure more then any other in the motions of her Creatures; for Nature, which is Infinite Matter, is not bound to one particular motion, or to move in a Circle more then any other figure, but she moves more variously then any one part of hers can conceive; Wherefore it is not requisite that the natural motions of natural bodies should be onely Circular. Next, I do not understand, why a Circular Motion cannot be gotten naturally without a precedent right motion; for, in my opinion, corporeal motions may be round or circular, without being or moving straight before; and if a straight line doth make a circle, then an imperfect figure makes a perfect; but, in my opinion, a circle may as well make a straight line, as a strait line a circle; except it be like a Gordian knot, that it cannot be dissolved, or that Nature may make some corporeal motions as constant as she makes others inconstant, for her motions are not alike in continuance and alteration. And as for right motion, that naturally it cannot be perpetual; my opinion is, that it cannot be, if Nature be finite; but if Nature be infinite, it may be: But the circular motion is more proper for a finite, then an infinite, because a circle-figure is perfect and circumscribed, and a straight line is infinite, or at least producible in infinite; and there may be other worlds in infinite Nature, besides these round Globes perceptible by our sight, which may have other figures; for though it be proper for Globes or Spherical bodies to move round, yet that doth not prove, that Infinite Matter moves round, or that all worlds must be of a Globous figure; for there may be as different Worlds, as other Creatures. He says, That a Right motion is impossible in the World well ordered; But I cannot conceive a Right motion to be less orderly then a Circular in Nature, except it be in some Particulars; but oftentimes that, which is well ordered in some cases, seems to some mens understandings and perceptions ill ordered in other cases; for man, as a part, most commonly considers but the Particulars, not the Generals, like as every one in a Commonwealth considers more himself and his Family, then the Publick. Lastly, Concerning the simplicity of Motions, as that onely circular and straight motions are simple motions, because they are made by simple Lines; I know not what they mean by simple Lines; for the same Lines which make straight and circular figures, may make as well other figures as those; but, in my opinion, all motions may be called simple, in regard of their own nature; for they are nothing else but the sensitive and rational part of Matter, which in its own nature is pure, and simple, and moves according to the Nature of each Figure, either swiftly or slowly, or in this or that sort of motion; but the most simple, purest and subtillest part is the rational part of matter, which though it be mixed with the sensitive and inanimate in one body, yet it can and doth move figuratively in its own matter, without the help or assistance of any other. But I desire you to remember, Madam, that in the compositions and divisions of the parts of Nature, there is as much unity and agreement as there is discord and disagreement; for in Infinite, there is no such thing, as most, and least; neither is there any such thing as more perfect, or less perfect in Matter. And as for Irregularities, properly there is none in Nature, for Nature is Regular; but that, which Man (who is but a small part of Nature, and therefore but partly knowing) names Irregularities, or Imperfections, is onely a change and alteration of motions; for a part can know the variety of motions in Nature no more, then Finite can know Infinite, or the bare exterior shape and figure of a mans body can know the whole body, or the head can know the mind; for Infinite natural knowledg is incorporeal; and being corporeal, it is dividable; and being dividable, it cannot be confined to one part onely; for there is no such thing as an absolute determination or subsistence in parts without relation or dependance upon one another. And since Matter is Infinite, and acts wisely, and all for the best, it may be as well for the best of Nature, when parts are divided antipathetically, as when they are united sympathetically: Also Matter being Infinite, it cannot be perfect, neither can a part be called perfect, as being a part. But mistake me not, Madam; for when I say, there is no perfection in Nature, as I do in my Philosophical Opinions,[1] I mean by Perfection, a finiteness, absoluteness, or compleatness of figure; and in this sense I say Nature has no perfection by reason it is Infinite; but yet I do not deny, but that there is a perfection in the nature or essence of Infinite Matter; for Matter is perfect Matter; that is, pure and simple in its own substance or nature, as meer Matter, without any mixture or addition of some thing that is not Matter, or that is between Matter and no Matter; and material motions are perfect motions although Infinite: just as a line may be called a perfect line, although it be endless, and Gold, or other Mettal, may be called perfect Gold, or perfect Metal, although it be but apart, And thus it may be said of Infinite Nature, or Infinite Matter, without any contradiction, that it is both perfect, and not perfect; perfect in its nature or substance, not perfect in its exterior figure. But you may say, If Infinite Matter be not perfect, it is imperfect, and what is imperfect, wants something. I answer, That doth not follow: for we cannot say, that what is not perfect, must of necessity be imperfect, because there is something else, which it may be, to wit, Infinite; for as imperfection is beneath perfection, so perfection is beneath Infinite; and though Infinite Matter be not perfect in its figure, yet it is not imperfect, but Infinite; for Perfection and Imperfection belongs onely to Particulars, and not to Infinite. And thus much for the present. I conclude, and rest,

Madam,

Your Ladiships

most obliged Friend

and humble Servant.

V.

MADAM,

The Author, mentioned in my former Letter, says, That Quietness is the degree of Infinite slowness, and that a moveable body passing from quietness, passes through all the degrees of slowness without staying in any. But I cannot conceive that all the Parts of Matter should be necessitated to move by degrees; for though there be degrees in Nature, yet Nature doth not in all her actions move by degrees. You may say, for example, from one to twenty, there are eighteen degrees between One, and Twenty; and all these degrees are included in the last degree, which is twenty. I answer; That may be: but yet there is no progress made through all those degrees; for when a body doth move strong at one time, and the next time after moves weak; I cannot conceive how any degrees should really be made between. You may say, by Imagination. But this Imagination of degrees, is like the conception of Space and Place, when as yet there is no such thing as Place or Space by it self; for all is but one body, and Motion is the action of this same body, which is corporeal Nature; and because a particular body can and doth move after various manners, according to the change of its corporeal motion, this variety of motions man call's Place, Space, Time, Degrees, &c. considering them by themselves, and giving them peculiar names, as if they could be parted from body, or at least be conceived without body; for the Conception or Imagination it self is corporeal, and so are they nothing else but corporeal motions. But it seems as if this same Author conceived also motion to be a thing by it self, and that motion begets motion, when he says, That a body by moving grows stronger in motion by degrees, when as yet the strength was in the matter of the body eternally; for Nature was always a grave Matron, never a sucking Infant: and though parts by dissolving and composing may lose and get acquaintance of each other, yet no part can be otherwise in its nature, then ever it was; Wherefore change of corporeal motions is not losing nor getting strength or swiftness; for Nature doth not lose force, although she doth not use force in all her various actions; neither can any natural body get more strength than by nature it hath, although it may get the assistance of other bodies joyned to it. But swiftness and slowness are according to the several figurative actions of self-moving matter; which several actions or motions of Nature, and their alterations, cannot be found out by any particular Creature: as for example, the motions of Lead, and the motions of Wood, unless Man knew their several causes; for Wood, in some cases, may move slower then Lead; and Lead, in other cases, slower then Wood. Again: the same Author says, That an heavy moveable body descending, gets force enough to bring it back again to as much height. But I think, it might as well be said, That a Man walking a mile, gets as much strength as to walk back that mile; when 'tis likely, that having walked ten miles, he may not have so much strength as to walk back again one mile; neither is he necessitated to walk back, except some other more powerful body do force him back: for though Nature is self-moving, yet every part has not an absolute power, for many parts may over-power fewer; also several corporeal motions may cross and oppose as well as assist each other; for if there were not opposition, as well as agreement and assistance amongst Nature's parts, there would not be such variety in Nature as there is. Moreover, he makes mention of a Line, with a weight hung to its end, which being removed from the perpendicular, presently falls to the same again. To which, I answer: That it is the appetite and desire of the Line, not to move by constraint, or any forced exterior motion; but that which forces the Line to move from the Perpendicular, doth not give it motion, but is onely an occasion that it moves in such a way; neither doth the line get that motion from any other exterior body, but it is the lines own motion; for if the motion of the hand, or any other exterior body, should give the line that motion, I pray, from which doth it receive the motion to tend to its former state? Wherefore, when the Line moves backwards or forwards, it is not, that the Line gets what it had not before, that is, a new corporeal motion, but it uses its own motion; onely, as I said, that exterior body is the occasion that it moves after such a manner or way, and therefore this motion of the line, although it is the lines own motion, yet in respect of the exterior body that causes it to move that way, it may be called a forced, or rather an occasioned motion. And thus no body can get motion from another body, except it get matter too; for all that motion that a body has, proceeds from the self-moving part of matter, and motion and matter are but one thing; neither is there any inanimate part of matter in Nature, which is not co-mixed with the animate, and consequently, there is no part which is not moving, or moved; the Animate part of matter is the onely self-moving part, and the Inanimate the moved: not that the animate matter doth give away its own motion to the inanimate, and that the inanimate becomes self-moving; but the animate, by reason of the close conjunction and commixture, works together with the inanimate, or causes the inanimate to work with it; and thus the inanimate remains as simple in its own nature, as the animate doth in its nature, although they are mixt; for those mixtures do not alter the simplicity of each others Nature. But having discoursed of this subject in my former Letters, I take my leave, and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

VI.

MADAM,

It seems, my former Letter concerning Motion, has given you occasion to propound this following question to me, to wit, When I throw a bowl, or strike a ball with my hand; whether the motion, by which the bowl or ball is moved, be the hands, or the balls own motion? or whether it be transferred out of my hand into the ball? To which I return this short answer: That the motion by which (for example) the bowl is moved, is the bowls own motion, and not the hands that threw it: for the hand cannot transfer its own motion, which hath a material being, out of it self into the bowl, or any other thing it handles, touches, or moves; or else if it did, the hand would in a short time become weak and useless, by losing so much substance, unless new motions were as fast created, as expended. You'll say, perhaps, that the hand and the bowl may exchange motions, as that the bowls own motion doth enter into the hand, and supply that motion which went out of the hand into the bowl, by a close joyning or touch, for in all things moving and moved, must be a joyning of the mover to the moved, either immediate, or by the means of another body. I answer: That this is more probable, then that the hand should give out, or impart motion to the bowl, and receive none from the bowl; but by reason motion cannot be transferred without matter, as being both inseparably united, and but one thing; I cannot think it probable, that any of the animate or self-moving matter in the hand, quits the hand, and enters into the bowl; nor that the animate matter, which is in the bowl, leaves the bowl, and enters into the hand, because that self-moving substance is not readily prepared for so sudden a Translation or Transmigration. You may say, It may as easily be done as food is received into an animal body and excrement discharged, or as air is taken in, and breath sent out, by the way of respiration; and that all Creatures are not onely produced from each other, but do subsist by each other, and act by each others assistance. I answer: It is very true, that all Creatures have more power and strength by a joyned assistance, then if every part were single, and subsisted of it self. But as some parts do assist each other, so on the other side, some parts do resist each other; for though there be a unity in the nature of Infinite Matter, yet there are divisions also in the Infinite parts of Infinite Matter, which causes Antipathy as much as Sympathy; but they being equal in assistance as well as in resistance, it causes a conformity in the whole nature of Infinite Matter; for if there were not contrary, or rather, I may say, different effects proceeding from the onely cause, which is the onely matter, there could not possibly be any, or at least, so much variety in Nature, as humane sense and reason perceives there is. But to return to our first argument: You may say, that motion may be transferred out of one body into another, without transferring any of the Matter. I answer: That is impossible, unless motion were that which some call No-thing, but how No-thing can be transferred, I cannot imagine: Indeed no sense and reason in Nature can conceive that which is No-thing; for how should it conceive that which is not in Nature to be found. You'll say, perhaps, It is a substanceless thing, or an incorporeal, immaterial being or form. I answer: In my opinion, it is a meer contradiction, to say, a substanceless thing, form, or being, for surely in Nature it cannot be. But if it be not possible that motion can be divided from matter, you may say, that body from whence the motion is transferred, would become less in bulk and weight, and weaker with every act of motion; and those bodies into which corporeal motion or self-moving matter was received, would grow bigger, heavier, and stronger. To which, I answer: That this is the reason, which denies that there can be a translation of motion out of the moving body into the moved; for questionless, the one would grow less, and the other bigger, that by loosing so much substance, this by receiving. Nay if it were possible, as it is not, that motion could be transferred without matter, the body out of which it goes, would nevertheless grow weaker; for the strength lies in the motion, unless you believe, this motion which is transferred to have been useless in the mover, and onely useful to the moved; or else it would be superfluous in the moved, except you say, it became to be annihilated after it was transferr'd and had done its effect; but if so, then there would be a perpetual and infinite creation and annihilation of substanceless motion, and how there could be a creation and annihilation of nothing, my reason cannot conceive, neither is it possible, unless Nature had more power then God, to create Nothing, and to annihilate Nothing. The truth is, it is more probable for sense and reason to believe a Creation of Something out of Nothing, then a Creation of Nothing out of Nothing. Wherefore it cannot in sense and reason be, that the motion of the hand is transferr'd into the bowl. But yet I do not say, that the motion of the hand doth not contribute to the motion of the bowl; for though the bowl hath its own natural motion in itself, (for Nature and her creatures know of no rest, but are in a perpetual motion, though not always exterior and local, yet they have their proper and certain motions, which are not so easily perceived by our grosser senses) nevertheless the motion of the bowl would not move by such an exterior local motion, did not the motion of the hand, or any other exterior moving body give it occasion to move that way; Wherefore the motion of the hand may very well be said to be the cause of that exterior local motion of the bowl, but not to be the same motion by which the bowl moves. Neither is it requisite, that the hand should quit its own motion, because it uses it in stirring up, or putting on the motion of the bowl; for it is one thing to use, and another to quit; as for example, it is one thing to offer his life for his friends service, another to imploy it, and another to quit or lose it. But, Madam, there may be infinite questions or exceptions, and infinite answers made upon one truth; but the wisest and most probable way is, to rely upon sense and reason, and not to trouble the mind, thoughts, and actions of life, with improbabilities, or rather impossibilities, which sense and reason knows not of, nor cannot conceive. You may say, A Man hath sometimes improbable, or impossible Fancies, Imaginations, or Chymæra's, in his mind, which are No-things. I answer, That those Fancies and Imaginations are not No-things, but as perfectly imbodied as any other Creatures; but by reason, they are not so grossly imbodied, as those creatures that are composed of more sensitive and inanimate matter, man thinks or believes them to be no bodies; but were they substanceless figures, he could not have them in his mind or thoughts: The truth is, the purity of reason is not so perspicuous and plain to sense, as sense is to reason, the sensitive matter being a grosser substance then the rational. And thus, Madam, I have answered your proposed question, according to the ability of my Reason, which I leave to your better examination, and rest in the mean while,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Servant.

VII.

MADAM,

Having made some mention in my former Letter of the Receiving of Food, and discharging of Excrements, as also of Respiration, which consists in the sucking in of air, and sending out of breath in an animal body; you desire to know, Whether Respiration be common to all animal Creatures? Truly, I have not the experience, as to tell you really, whether all animals respire, or not; for my life being, for the most part, solitary and contemplative, but not active, I please my self more with the motions of my thoughts, then of my senses; and therefore I shall give you an answer according to the conceivement of my reason onely, which is, That I believe, all animals require Respiration; not onely those, which live in the air, but those also, which live in waters, and within the earth; but they do not respire all after one and the same manner; for the matter which they imbreath, is not every where the same, nor have they all the same organs, or parts, nor the same motions. As for example: Some Creatures require a more thin and rarer substance for their imbreathing or inspiring, then others, and some a more thick and grosser substance then others, according to their several Natures; for as there are several kinds of Creatures, according to their several habitations or places they live in, so they have each a distinct and several sort of matter or substance for their inspiration. As for example: Some live in the Air, some upon the face of the Earth, some in the bowels Earth, and some in Waters. There is some report of a Salamander, who lives in the Fire; but it being not certainly known, deserves not our speculation. And, as in my opinion, all animal Creatures require Respiration, so I do verily believe, that also all other kinds of Creatures, besides animals, have some certain manner of imbreathing and transpiring, viz. Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, although not after the same way as Animals, yet in a way peculiar and proper to the nature of their own kind. For example: Take away the earth from Vegetables, and they will die, as being, in my opinion, stifled or smothered, in the same manner, as when the Air is taken away from some Animals. Also, take Minerals out of the bowels of the Earth, and though we cannot say, they die, or are dead, because we have not as yet found out the alterative motions of Minerals, as well as of Vegetables, or Animals, yet we know that they are dead from production and increase, for not any Metal increases being out of the Earth. And as for Elements, it is manifest that Fire will die for want of vent; but the rest of the Elements, if we could come to know the matter, manner, and ways of their Vital Breathing, we might kill or revive them as we do Fire. And therefore all Creatures, to my Reason, require a certain matter and manner of inspiration and expiration, which is nothing else but an adjoyning and disjoyning of parts to and from parts; for not any natural part or creature can subsist single, and by it self, but requires assistance from others, as this, and the rest of my opinions in Natural Philosophy, desire the assistance of your favour, or else they will die, to the grief of,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

VIII.

MADAM,

Th'other day I met with the Work of that Learned Author Dr. Ch. which treats of Natural Philosophy; and amongst the rest, in the Chapter of Place, I found that he blames Aristotle for saying, there are none but corporeal dimensions, Length, Breadth, and Depth in Nature, making besides these corporeal, other incorporeal dimensions which he attributes to Vacuum. Truly, Madam, an incorporeal dimension or extension, seems, in my opinion, a meer contradiction; for I cannot conceive how nothing can have a dimension or extension, having nothing to be extended or measured. His words are these: Imagine we therefore, that God should please to annihilate the whole stock or mass of Elements, and all concretions resulting therefrom, that is, all corporeal substances now contained within the ambit or concave of the lowest Heaven, or Lunar sphear; and having thus imagined, can we conceive that all the vast space or region circumscribed by the concave superfice of the Lunar sphere, would not remain the same in all its dimensions, after as before the reduction of all bodies included therein to nothing? To which, I answer: That, in my opinion, he makes Nature Supernatural; for although God's Power may make Vacuum, yet Nature cannot; for God's and Nature's Power are not to be compared, neither is God's invisible Power perceptible by Natures parts; but according to Natural Perception, it is impossible to conceive a Vacuum, for we cannot imagine a Vacuum, but we must think of a body, as your Author of the Circle of the Moon; neither could he think of space but from one side of the Circle to the other, so that in his mind he brings two sides together, and yet will have them distant; but the motions of his thoughts being subtiler and swifter then his senses, skip from side to side without touching the middle parts, like as a Squirrel from bough to bough, or an Ape from one table to another; without touching the ground, onely cutting the air. Next, he says, That an absolute Vacuum, is neither an Accident, nor a Body, nor yet Nothing, but Something, because it has a being; which opinion seems to me like that of the divine Soul; but I suppose Vacuum is not the divine Soul, nor the divine Soul, Vacuum; or else it could not be sensible of the blessed happiness in Heaven, or the Torments in Hell. Again he says, Let us screw our supposition one pin higher, and farther imagine, that God, after the annihilation of this vast machine, the Universe, should create another in all respects equal to this, and in the same part of space wherein this now consists: First, we must conceive, that as the spaces were immense before God created the world, so also must they eternally persist of infinite extent, if he shall please at any time to destroy it; next, that these immense spaces are absolutely immoveable. By this opinion, it seems, that Gods Power cannot so easily make or annihilate Vacuum, as a substance; because he believes it to be before all Matter, and to remain after all Matter, which is to be eternal; but I cannot conceive, why Matter, or fulness of body, should not as well be Infinite and Eternal, as his Conceived Vacuum; for if Vacuum can have an eternal and infinite being, why may not fulness of body, or Matter? But he calls Vacuum Immovable, which in my opinion is to make it a God; for God is onely Immoveable and Unalterable, and this is more Glorious then to be dependant upon God; wherefore to believe Matter to be Eternal, but yet dependent upon God, is a more humble opinion, then his opinion of Vacuum; for if Vacuum be not created, and shall not be annihilated, but is Uncreated, Immaterial, Immoveable, Infinite, and Eternal, it is a God; but if it be created, God being not a Creator of Nothing, nor an annihilator of Nothing, but of Something, he cannot be a Creator of Vacuum; for Vacuum is a pure Nothing. But leaving Nothing to those that can make something of it, I will add no more, but rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

IX.

MADAM,

That Learned Author, of whom I made mention in my last, is pleased to say in his Chapter of Time, that Time is the Twin-brother to Space; but if Space be as much as Vacuum, then I say, they are Twin-nothings; for there can be no such thing as an empty or immaterial space, but that which man calls space, is onely a distance betwixt several corporeal parts, and time is onely the variation of corporeal motions; for were there no body, there could not be any space, and were there no corporeal motion, there could not be any time. As for Time, considered in General, it is nothing else but the corporeal motions in Nature, and Particular times are the Particular corporeal motions; but Duration is onely a continuance, or continued subsistence of the same parts, caused by the consistent motions of those parts; Neither are Time, Duration, Place, Space, Magnitude, &c. dependents upon corporeal motions, but they are all one and the same thing; Neither was Time before, nor can be after corporeal motion, for none can be without the other, being all one: And as for Eternity, it is one fixed instant, without a flux, or motion. Concerning his argument of Divisibility of Parts, my opinion is, That there is no Part in Nature Individable, no not that so small a part, which the Epicureans name an Atome; neither is Matter separable from Matter, nor Parts from Parts in General, but onely in Particulars; for though parts can be separated from parts, by self-motion, yet upon necessity they must joyn to parts, so as there can never be a single part by it self. But hereof, as also of Place, Space, Time, Motion, Figure, Magnitude, &c. I have sufficiently discoursed in my former Letters, as also in my Book of Philosophy; and as for my opinion of Atoms, their figures and motions, (if any such things there be) I will refer you to my Book of Poems, out of which give me leave to repeat these following lines, containing the ground of my opinion of Atomes:[1]

All Creatures, howsoe're they may be nam'd, Are of long, square, flat, or sharp Atoms fram'd. Thus several figures several tempers make, But what is mixt, doth of the four partake. The onely cause, why things do live and die, 'S according as the mixed Atomes lie. Thus life, and death, and young, and old, Are as the several Atoms hold: Wit, understanding in the brain Are as the several atomes reign: And dispositions, good, or ill, Are as the several atomes still; And every Passion, which doth rise, Is as each several atome lies. Thus sickness, health, and peace, and war, Are as the several atomes are.

If you desire to know more, you may read my mentioned Book of Poems whose first Edition was printed in the year, 1653. And so taking my leave of you, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

X.

MADAM,

I received the Book of your new Author that treats of Natural Philosophy, which I perceive is but lately come forth; but although it be new, yet there are no new opinions in it; for the Author doth follow the opinions of some old Philosophers, and argues after the accustomed Scholastical way, with hard, intricate, and nonsensical words: Wherefore I shall not take so much pains as to read it quite over, but onely pick out here and there some few discourses, which I shall think most convenient for the clearing of my own opinion; in the number of which, is, first, that of Matter, whereof the Author is pleased to proclaim the opinion that holds Matter to be Infinite, not onely absurd, but also impious. Truly, Madam, it is easily said, but hardly proved; and not to trouble you with unnecessary repetitions, I hope you do remember as yet what I have written to you in the beginning concerning the infiniteness of Nature, or natural Matter, where I have proved that it implies no impiety, absurdity, or contradiction at all, to believe that Matter is Infinite; for your Authors argument, concluding from the finiteness of particular Creatures to Nature her self, is of no force; for though no part of Nature is Infinite in bulk, figure, or quantity, nevertheless, all the parts of Infinite Nature are Infinite in number, which infinite number of parts must needs make up one Infinite body in bulk, or quantity; for as a finite body or substance is dividable into finite parts, so an Infinite body, as Nature, or natural Matter, must of necessity be dividable into infinite parts in number, and yet each part must also be finite in its exterior figure, as I have proved in the beginning by the example of a heap of grains of corn. Certainly, Madam, I see no reason, but since, according to your Author, God, as the prime Cause, Agent, and Producer of all things, and the action by which he produced all things, is Infinite; the Matter out of which he produced all particular Creatures may be Infinite also. Neither doth it, to my sense and reason, imply any contradiction or impiety; for it derogates nothing from the Glory and Omnipotency of God, but God is still the God of Nature, and Nature is his Servant, although Infinite, depending wholly upon the will and pleasure of the All-powerful God: Neither do these two Infinites obstruct each other; for Nature is corporeal, and God is a supernatural and spiritual Infinite Being, and although Nature has an Infinite power, yet she has but an Infinite Natural power, whereas Gods Omnipotency is infinitely extended beyond Nature. But your Author is pleased to refute that argument, which concludes from the effect to the cause, and proves Matter to be infinite, because God as the Cause is Infinite, saying, that this Rule doth onely hold in Univocal things, (by which, I suppose, he understands things of the same kind and nature) and not in opposites. Truly, Madam, by this he limits God's power, as if God were not able to work beyond Nature, and Natural Reason or Understanding; and measures Gods actions according to the rules of Logick; which whether it be not more impious, you may judg your self. And as for opposites, God and Nature are not opposites, except you will call opposites those which bear a certain relation to one another, as a Cause, and its Effect; a Parent, and a Child; a Master, and a Servant; and the like. Nay, I wonder how your Author can limit Gods action, when as he confesses himself, that the Creation of the World is an Infinite action. God acted finitely, says he, by an Infinite action; which, in my opinion, is meer non-sense, and as much as to say, a man can act weakly by a strong action, basely by an honest action, cowardly by a stout action. The truth is, God being Infinite, cannot work finitely; for, as his Essence, so his Actions cannot have any limitation, and therefore it is most probable, that God made Nature Infinite; for though each part of Nature is finite in its own figure, yet considered in general, they are Infinite, as well in number, as duration, except God be pleased to destroy them; nay, every particular may in a certain sense be said Infinite, to wit, Infinite in time or duration; for if Nature be Infinite and Eternal, and there be no annihilation or perishing in Nature, but a perpetual successive change and alteration of natural figures, then no part of Nature can perish or be annihilated; and if no part of Nature perishes, then it lasts infinitely in Nature, that is, in the substance of natural Matter; for though the corporeal motions, which make the figures, do change, yet the ground of the figure, which is natural matter, never changes. The same may be said of corporeal motions: for though motions change and vary infinite ways, yet none is lost in Nature, but some motions are repeated again: As for example; the natural motions in an Animal Creature, although they are altered in the dissolution of the figure, yet they may be repeated again by piece-meals in other Creatures; like as a Commonwealth, or united body in society, if it should be dissolved or dispersed, the particulars which did constitute this Commonwealth or society, may joyn to the making of another society; and thus the natural motions of a body do not perish when the figure of the body dissolves, but joyn with other motions to the forming and producing of some other figures. But to return to your Author. I perceive his discourse is grounded upon a false supposition, which appears by his way of arguing from the course of the Starrs and Planets, to prove the finiteness of Nature; for by reason the Stars and Planets rowl about, and turn to the same point again, each within a certain compass of time, he concludes Nature or Natural Matter to be finite too. And so he takes a part for the whole, to wit, this visible World for all Nature, when as this World is onely a part of Nature, or Natural Matter, and there may be more, and Infinite worlds besides; Wherefore his conclusion must needs be false, since it is built upon a false ground. Moreover, he is as much against the Eternity of Matter, as he is against Infiniteness; concluding likewise from the parts to the whole; For, says he, since the parts of Nature are subject to a beginning and ending, the whole must be so too. But he is much mistaken, when he attributes a beginning and ending to parts, for there is no such thing as a beginning and ending in Nature, neither in the whole, nor in the parts, by reason there is no new creation or production of Creatures out of new Matter, nor any total destruction or annihilation of any part in Nature, but onely a change, alteration and transmigration of one figure into another; which change and alteration proves rather the contrary, to wit, that Matter is Eternal and Incorruptible; for if particular figures change, they must of necessity change in the Infinite Matter, which it self, and in its nature, is not subject to any change or alteration: besides, though particulars have a finite and limited figure, and do change, yet their species do not; for Mankind never changes, nor ceases to be, though Peter and Paul die, or rather their figures dissolve and divide; for to die is nothing else, but that the parts of that figure divide and unite into some other figures by the change of motion in those parts. Concerning the Inanimate Matter, which of it self is a dead, dull, and idle matter, your Author denies it to be a co-agent or assistant to the animate matter: For, says he, how can dead and idle things act? To which, I answer: That your Author being, or pretending to be a Philosopher, should consider that there is difference betwixt a Principal and Instrumental cause or agent; and although this inanimate, or dull matter, doth not act of it self as a principal agent, yet it can and doth act as an Instrument, according as it is imploy'd by the animate matter: for by reason there is so close a conjunction and commixture of animate and inanimate Matter in Nature, as they do make but one body, it is impossible that the animate part of matter should move without the inanimate; not that the inanimate hath motion in her self, but the animate bears up the inanimate in the action of her own substance, and makes the inanimate work, act, and move with her, by reason of the aforesaid union and commixture. Lastly, your Author speaks much of Minima's, viz. That all things may be resolved into their minima's, and what is beyond them, is nothing, and that there is one maximum, or biggest, which is the world, and what is beyond that, is Infinite. Truly, Madam, I must ingeniously confess, I am not so high learned, as to penetrate into the true sense of these words; for he says, they are both divisible, and indivisible, and yet no atomes, which surpasses my Understanding; for there is no such thing, as biggest and smallest in Nature, or in the Infinite matter; for who can know how far this World goes, or what is beyond it? There may be Infinite Worlds, as I said before, for ought we know; for God and Nature cannot be comprehended, nor their works measured, if we cannot find out the nature of particular things, which are subject to our exterior senses, how shall we be able to judg of things not subject to our senses. But your Author doth speak so presumptuously of Gods Actions, Designs, Decrees, Laws, Attributes, Power, and secret Counsels, and describes the manner, how God created all things, and the mixture of the Elements to an hair, as if he had been Gods Counsellor and assistant in the work of Creation; which whether it be not more impiety, then to say, Matter is Infinite, I'le let others judg. Neither do I think this expression to be against the holy Scripture; for though I speak as a natural Philosopher, and am unwilling to cite the Scripture, which onely treats of things belonging to Faith, and not to Reason; yet I think there is not any passage which plainly denies Matter to be Infinite, and Eternal, unless it be drawn by force to that sense: Solomon says, That there is not any thing new: and in another place it is said, That God is all fulfilling; that is, that the Will of God is the fulfilling of the actions of Nature: also the Scripture says, That Gods ways are unsearchable, and past finding out. Wherefore, it is easier to treat of Nature, then the God of Nature; neither should God be treated of by vain Philosophers, but by holy Divines, which are to deliver and interpret the Word of God without sophistry, and to inform us as much of Gods Works, as he hath been pleased to declare and make known. And this is the safest way, in the opinion of,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XI.

MADAM,

Your new Author endeavours to prove, that Water in its own proper nature is thicker then Earth; which, to my sense and reason, seems not probable; for although water is less porous then earth in its exterior figure, yet 'tis not so thick as earth in its interior nature: Neither can I conceive it to be true, that water in its own nature, and as long as it remains water, should be as hard as Crystal, or stone, as his opinion is; for though Elements are so pliant (being not composed of many different parts and figures) as they can change and rechange their exterior figures, yet they do not alter their interior nature without a total dissolution; but your Author may as well say, that the interior nature of man is dust and ashes, as that water in its interior nature is as thick as earth, and as hard as Christal, or stone; whereas yet a man, when he becomes dust and ashes, is not a man; and therefore, when water is become so thick as earth, or so hard as stone, it is not water; I mean when it is so in its interior nature, not in its exterior figure; for the exterior figure may be contracted, when yet the interior nature is dilative; and so the exterior may be thick or hard, when the interior is soft and rare. But you may say, that water is a close, and heavy, as also a smooth and glossy body. I answer: That doth not prove its interior nature to be hard, dense, thick, or contracted; for the interior nature and parts of a body may be different from the exterior figure or parts; neither doth the close joyning of parts hinder dilatation; for if so, a line or circle could not dilate or extend: But this close uniting of the parts of water is caused through its wet and glutinous quality, which wet and sticking quality is caused by a watery dilatation; for though water hath not interiously so rare a dilatation as Air, Fire, and Light, yet it hath not so close a contraction as Earth, Stone, or Metal; neither are all bodies that are smooth and shining, more solid and dense, then those that are rough and dark; for light is more smooth, glossy, and shining, then Water, Metal, Earth, or Transparent-stones, and yet is of a dilative nature. But because some bodies and figures which are transparent and smooth, are dense, hard, and thick, we cannot in reason, or sense, say, that all bodies and figures are so. As for Transparency, it is caused through a purity of substance, and an evenness of parts: the like is glossiness, onely glossiness requires not so much regularity, as transparency. But to return to Water; its exterior Circle-figure may dilate beyond the degree of the propriety or nature of water, or contract beneath the propriety or nature of water. Your Author may say, Water is a globous body, and all globous bodies tend to a Center. I answer: That my sense and reason cannot perceive, but that Circles and Globes do as easily dilate, as contract: for if all Globes and Circles should endeavour to draw or fall from the circumference to the Center, the Center of the whole World, or at least of some parts of the World, would be as a Chaos: besides, it is against sense and reason, that all Matter should strive to a Center; for humane sense and reason may observe, that all Creatures, and so Matter, desire liberty, and a Center is but a Prison in comparison to the Circumference; wherefore if Matter crowds, it is rather by force, then a voluntary action. You will say, All Creatures desire rest, and in a Center there's rest. I answer; Humane sense and reason cannot perceive any rest in Nature: for all things, as I have proved heretofore, are in a perpetual motion. But concerning Water, you may ask me, Madam, Whether congeal'd Water, as Ice, if it never thaw, remains Water? To which, I answer: That the interior nature of Water remains as long as the Ice remains, although the outward form is changed; but if Ice be contracted into the firmness and density of Crystal, or Diamond, or the like, so as to be beyond the nature of Water, and not capable to be that Water again, then it is transformed into another Creature, or thing, which is neither Water, nor Ice, but a Stone; for the Icy contraction doth no more alter the interior nature of Water, which is dilating, then the binding of a man with Chains alters his nature from being a man; and it might be said as well, that the nature of Air is not dilating, when inclosed in a bladder, as that Water doth not remain Water in its interior nature, when it is contracted into Ice. But you may ask, Whether one extreme can change into another? I answer: To my sense and reason it were possible, if extremes were in Nature; but I do not perceive that in Nature there be any, although my sense and reason doth perceive alterations in the effects of Nature; for though one and the same part may alter from contraction to dilation, and from dilation to contraction; yet this contraction and dilation are not extremes, neither are they performed at one and the same time, but at different times. But having sufficiently declared my opinion hereof in my former Letters, I'l add no more, but rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XII.

MADAM,

My discourse of Water in my last Letter has given you occasion to enquire after the reason, Why the weight of a great body of water doth not press so hard and heavily as to bruise or crush a body, when it is sunk down to the bottom? As for example: If a man should be drowned, and afterwards cast out from the bottom of a great Sea, or River, upon the shore; he would onely be found smother'd or choak'd to death, and not press'd, crush'd, or bruised, by the weight of water. I answer; The reasons are plain: for, first, the nature of a mans respiration requires such a temperature of breath to suck in, as is neither too thick, nor too thin for his lungs, and the rest of his interior parts, as also for the organs and passages of his exterior senses, but fit, proper, and proportionable to those mentioned parts of his body: As for example; in a too thin and rarified air, man will be as apt to die for want of breath, as in a too gross and thick air he is apt to die with a superfluity of the substance he imbreaths; for thick smoak, or thick vapour, as also too gross air, will soon smother a man to death; and as for choaking, if a man takes more into his throat then he can swallow, he will die; and if his stomack be filled with more food then it is able to digest, if it cannot discharge it self, he will die with the excess of food; and if there be no food, or too little put into it, he will also die for want of food. So the eye, if it receives too many, or too gross, or too bright objects, it will be dazled or blinded, and some objects through their purity are not to be seen at all: The same for Hearing, and the rest of the exterior senses: And this is the reason, why man, or some animal Creatures are smother'd and choak'd with water; because water is thicker then the grossest air or vapour; for if smoak, which is rarer then water, will smother and choak a man, well may water, being so much thicker. But yet this smothering or choaking doth not prove, that water hath an interior or innate density (as your Authors opinion is) no more then smoak, or thick and gross air hath; but the density of water is caused more through the wet and moist exterior parts, joyning and uniting closely together; and the interior nature of smoak being more moist or glutinous then thin air, and so more apt to unite its exterior parts, it makes it to come in effect nearer to water; for though water and smoak are both of rare natures, yet not so rare as clear and pure air; neither is water or smoak so porous as pure air, by reason the exterior parts of water and smoak are more moist or glutinous then pure air. But the thickness of water and smoak is the onely cause of the smothering of men, or some animals, as by stopping their breath, for a man can no more live without air, then he can without food; and a well tempered or middle degree of air is the most proper for animal Respiration; for if the air be too thick, it may soon smother or choak him; and if too thin, it is not sufficient to give him breath: And this is the reason that a man being drown'd, is not onely smother'd, but choak'd by water; because there enters more through the exterior passages into his body then can be digested; for water is apt to flow more forcibly and with greater strength then air; not that it is more dilating then air, but by reason it is thicker, and so stronger, or of more force; for the denser a body is, the stronger it is; and a heavy body, when moved, is more forcible then a light body. But I pray by this expression mistake not the nature of water; for the interior nature of water hath not that gravity, which heavy or dense bodies have, its nature being rare and light, as air, or fire; but the weight of water, as I said before, proceeds onely from the closeness and compactness of its exterior parts, not through a contraction in its interior nature; and there is no argument, which proves better, that water in its interior nature is dilating, then that its weight is not apt to press to a point; for though water is apt to descend, through the union of its parts, yet it cannot press hard, by reason of its dilating nature, which hinders that heavy pressing quality; for a dilating body cannot have a contracted weight, I mean, so as to press to a Center, which is to a point; and this is the reason, that when a grave or heavy body sinks down to the bottom of water, it is not opprest, hurt, crusht, or bruised by the weight of water; for, as I said, the nature of water being dilating, it can no more press hard to a center, then vapour, air, or fire: The truth is, water would be as apt to ascend as descend, if it were not for the wet, glutinous and sticking, cleaving quality of its exterior parts; but as the quantity and quality of the exterior parts makes water apt to sink, or descend, so the dilating nature makes it apt to flow, if no hinderance stop its course; also the quantity and quality of its exterior parts is the cause, that some heavy bodies do swim without sinking: as for example; a great heavy Ship will not readily sink, unless its weight be so contracted as to break asunder the united parts of water; for the wet quality of water causing its exterior parts to joyn close, gives it such an united strength, as to be able to bear a heavy burden, if the weight be dilated, or level, and not piercing or penetrating; for those bodies that are most compact, will sink sooner, although of less weight then those that are more dilated although of greater weight: Also the exterior and outward shape or form makes some bodies more apt to sink then others; Indeed, the outward form and shape of Creatures is one of the chief causes of either sinking or swimming. But to conclude, water in its interior nature is of a mean or middle degree, as neither too rare, nor too grave a body; and for its exterior quality, it is in as high a degree for wetness, as fire is for heat; and being apt both to divide, and to unite, it can bear a burden, and devour a burden, so that some bodies may swim, and others sink; and the cause, that a sunk body is not opprest, crush'd, or squeesed, is the dilating nature and quality of water, which hinders its parts from pressing or crowding towards a point or center; for although water is heavy, and apt to descend, yet its weight is not caused by a contraction of its substance, but by a union of its parts. Thus, Madam, I have obeyed your commands, in giving you my reasons to your propounded question, which if you approve, I have my aim; if not, I submit to your better judgment: for you know I am in all respects,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

to serve you.

XIII.

MADAM,

I am glad, you are pleased with my reasons I gave to your propounded question concerning the weight of Water; and since you have been pleased to send me some more of that subject, I shall be ready also to give my answer to them, according to the capacity of my judgment. First, you desire to know, How it comes, that Water will by degrees ascend through a narrow pipe, when the pipe is placed straight upright; or perpendicular? The reason, in my opinion is, that Water, having a dilative nature, when it finds an obstruction to descend or flow even, will dilate it self ascendingly, according as it hath liberty, or freedom, and strength, or quantity; the truth is, water would be more apt to ascend then to descend, were it not for the close uniting of its liquid Parts, which causes its exterior density, and this density makes it of more weight then its nature is; and the proof that water is apt in its nature to ascend, is, that some sorts of vapours are made onely by the dilation and rarefaction of ascending Water. Your second question is, Why the surface of water seems to be concave in its middle, and higher on every side? I answer, The interior figure of water is a circular figure, which being a round figure, is both concave, and convex; for where one is, the other must be; and the motions of ebbing and flowing, and ascending or descending, are partly of that figure; and so according to the exterior dilating strength or weakness, the exterior parts of water become either concave or convex; for in a full strength, as a full stream, the exterior parts of water flow in a convex figure, but when they want strength, they ebb in a concave figure. Your third question is, What makes frozen water apt to break those Vessels wherein it is contained, in the act of freezing or congealing? I answer: The same cause that makes water clear, as also more swell'd then usually it is: which cause is the inherent dilative nature of water; for water being naturally dilative, when as cold attractions do assault it, the moist dilations of water in the conflict use more then their ordinary strength to resist those cold contracting motions, by which the body of water dilates it self into a larger compass, according as it hath liberty or freedom, or quantity of parts; and the cold parts not being able to drive the water back to its natural compass, bind it as it is extended, like as if a beast should be bound when his legs and neck are thrust out at the largest extent, in striving to kick or thrust away his enemies and imprisoners: And so the reason why water breaks these vessels wherein it is inclosed, in the act of its freezing or congealing is, that when the cold contractions are so strong as they endeavour to extinguish the dilating nature of water, the water refilling, forces its parts so, as they break the vessel which incloses them: The same reason makes Ice clear and transparent; for it is not the rarefaction of water that doth it, but the dilation, which causes the parts of water to be not onely more loose and porous, but also more smooth and even, by resisting the cold contractions; for every part endeavours to defend their borders with a well ordered and regular flowing or streaming, and not onely to defend, but to enlarge their compass against their enemies. Your fourth question is, How it comes that Snow and Salt mixt together doth make Ice? The reason, in my judgment, is, that Salt being very active, and partly of the nature of fire, doth sometimes preserve, and sometimes destroy other bodies, according to its power, or rather according to the nature of those bodies it works on; and salt being mixt with snow, endeavours to destroy it; but having not so much force, melts it onely by its heat, and reduces it into its first principle, which is water, altering the figure of snow; but the cold contractions remaining in the water, and endeavouring to maintain and keep their power, straight draw the water or melted snow into the figure of ice, so as neither the salts heat, nor the waters dilative nature, are able to resist or destroy those cold contractions; for although they destroy'd the first figure, which is snow, yet they cannot hinder the second, which is Ice. Your last question is, How the Clouds can hang so long in the Skie without falling down? Truly, Madam, I do not perceive that Clouds, being come to their full weight and gravity, do keep up in the air, but some of them fall down in showres of rain, others in great and numerous flakes of snow; some are turned into wind, and some fall down in thick mists, so that they onely keep up so long, until they are of a full weight for descent, or till their figure is altered into some other body, as into air, wind, rain, lightning, thunder, snow, hail, mist, and the like. But many times their dilating motions keep or hinder them from descending, to which contracting motions are required. In my opinion, it is more to be admired, that the Sea doth not rise, then that Clouds do not fall; for, as we see, Clouds fall very often, as also change from being Clouds, to some other figure: Wherefore it is neither the Sun, nor Stars, nor the Vapours, which arise from the Earth, and cause the Clouds, nor the porosity of their bodies, nor the Air, that can keep or hinder them from falling or changing to some other body; but they being come to their full weight, fall or change according as is fittest for them. And these are all the reasons I can give you for the present; if they do not satisfie you, I will study for others, and in all occasions endeavour to express my self,