altogether destitute of thesupport and warrantry of Reason For the Human Soul the only Creature that understands the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or transcendent Dignity of its Original by reflecting upon the superlative Idea which it holds of its Creator from the moment of its immersion into the cloud or opacity of flesh labours with an insatiable Appetence of Knowledge as the only means that seems to conduce to the satisfaction of its congenial Ambition of still aspiring to Greater and Better things and therefore hath no Affection either so Essential or Violent as the Desire of Science and consequently lyeth not so open to the deception of any Objects as of those which seem to promise a satisfaction to that desire And obvious it is from the words of the Text that the Argument which turned the sâ—ales i. e. determined the Intellect and successively the Will of our Grandmother Eve from its indifferencie or aequilibration to an Appetition and so to the actual Degustation of the Forbidden Fruit was this Desiderabilis est arboris fructuâ— ad habendam scientiam Besides though we shall not exclude the Beauty of the fruit transmitted by the sight to the judicatory Faculty and so allecting the Sensual Appetite from having a finger in the Delusion yet can we allow it to have had no more then a finger and are perswaded that in the syndrome or conspiracy of Causes the most ponderous and praevalent was the Hope of an accession or augmentation of Knowledge Since â—t cannot but highly disparage the primitive or innocent state of man to admit that his Intellect was so imperfect as not to discern a very great Evil through the thin Apparence of Good when the utmost that Apparence could promise was no more than the momentany pleasure of his Palate or Gust Or that the express and poenal Interdiction of God yet sounding in his ears could be over-balanced by the light species of an object which must be lost in the Fruition Nor is this Curiositie to be accused only of the First Defection from Truth but being an inseparable Annex to our Nature and so derived by traduction to all Adams posteritie hath proved the procatarctick Cause of many some contemplative Clerks would have adventured to say of All the Errors of our judgments And though we have long cast about yet can we not particular any one Vicious inclination or action whose Scope or End may not either directly or obliquely proximly or remotely seem to promise an encrease of Knowledge in some kind or other To instance in one which appears to be determined in the Body to have no interest beyond the Sense and so to exclude all probabilitie of extending to the Mind as to the augmentation of its Science Whoever loves a beutiful Woman whom the right of Marriage hath appropriated to another ardently desires to enjoy her bed why not only for the satisfaction of his sensual Appâ—tite because that might be acquired by the act of carnaliâ—y with some other less beutiful and Beuty is properly the object of the Mind but because that Image of Beuty which his eye hath transmitted to his mind being praesented in the species or apparition of Good and Amiabâ—e seems to contain some Excellence or comparitively more Good then what He hath formerly understood If it be objected that if so one enjoyment must satisfie that Desire and consequently no man could love what He hath once enjoyed since Fruition determineth Desire We Answer that there is no such necessitie justly inferrible when Experience assures that many times Love is so far from languishing that it grows more strong and violent by the possession of its Object The Reason is because the passionate Lover apprehending no fruition total or possession entire supposeth some more Good still in the object then what his former enjoyment made him acquainted withall And if it be replyed that the Lover doth in the perseverance of his Affection propose to himself meerly the Continuation of that Good which He hath formerly enjoyed we are provided of a sufficient Rejoynder viz. that whoso wisheth the Continuation of a Good considers it not as a thing praesent but to come and consequently as a thing which yet He doth not know for no man can know what is not Other Instances the Reader may be pleased to select from among the Passions tracing them up to their first Exciting Cause in order to his more ample satisfaction it being digressive and only collateral to our Scope Good thus being the only proper Object of our Affections for Evil exhibited naked i. e. as Evil never Attracts but ever Averts our Will or Rational Appetite as we have clearly proved in our Discourse of the Liberty Elective of mans Will if we mistake a real evil praesented under the disguise of a Good this mistake is to be charged upon the account of our Rational or judicatory Faculty which not sufficiently examining the Reality of the species judgeth it to be good according to the external Apparence only and so misguideth the Will in its Election Now aâ—ong the Causes of the Intellects erroneous judicature we have formerly touched upon its own Native Imperfection or Coecity and Praejudice the chiefest and most general is the Impatience Praecipitancy or Inconsiderateness of the Mind when not enduring the serious profound and strict examen of the species nor pondering all the moments of Reason whiâ—h are on the Averting part of the Object with that impartialiâ—y requisite to a right judgment but suffering it self at the first occursion or praesentation thereof to be determined by the moments of Reason apparent on the Attracting part to an Approbation thereof it misinformeth the Will and ingageth it in an Election and prosecution of a Falsity or Evil couched under the specious semblance of a positive Truth or Good Now to accommodate all this to the interest of our Paradox if Good real or apparent be the proper and adaequate object of the Intellect and the chief reason of Good doth consist in that of Science as the principal end of all our Affections then most certainly must our praecedent assertion stand firm viz. that our understanding lyeth most open to the delusion of such objects which by their Apparence promise the most of satisfaction to our Desire of Science and upon consequence by how much the more we are spurred on by our Curiosity or Appeâ—ence of Knowledge by so much the more is our mind impatient of their strict examen and aequitable perpension All which we dayly observe experimented in our selves For when our thoughts are violent and eager in the pursuit of some reason for such or such an operation in Nature if either the discourse or writings of some Person in great esteem for Learning or Sagacity or our own meditations furnish us with one plausible and verisimilous such as seems to solve our Doubt how greedily do we embrace it and without further perpension of its solidity and verity immediately judge it to
sensory ordained for the apprehension of it the Mammillary Processes of the brain or two nervous productions derived to the basis of the nose yet could they never agree about the chief subject of their dispute the Quiddity or Form of an Odour or the Commensuration betwixt the same and the odoratory Nerves the theory whereof seems most necessary to the explanation of the Reason and Manner of its Perception and Distinction by them Thus on one side of the schools Heraclitus cited by Aristotle de sensu sensili cap. 5. is positive that the smell is not affected with only an Incorporeal Quality or spiritual species but that a certain subtle substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Corporeal Exhalation emitted from the odorous object doth really and materially invade and affect the sensory 2 And Epicurus in Epist ad Herodot apud Diogen Laertium lib. 10. seconds him with somewhat a louder voice Existimandum est Odorem non facturum ullam sui impressionem nisi ab odora re usque deferrentur moleculae seâ— Corpuscula quaedam ea ratione Commensurata ipsi olfactâ—â— sensorio uâ— ipsum moveant afficiant ve alia quidem perturbate ac discrepanter ex quo odores Ingrati sunt alia placide accommodate ex quo Iucundi sunt odores men are to conceive that an Odour could make no sensible impression of it self unless there were transferred from the odorous object certain substantial Effluxes or minute Bodies so Commensurate or Analogous to the peculiar Contexture of the Organ of smelling as to be capable of affecting the same and those either perturbdly and discordantly whence some Odours are Ingrateful or amicably and conveniently and those Odours are Grateful 3 And Galâ—n attended on by most of the Aesculapian Tribe sings the same tune and in as high a key as either of the Former saying in lib. de instrum olfact cap 2. Id quod a rerum corporibus exhalat Odoris substantia est though Casserius Placentinus de fabric Nasi Sect. 2. cap. 3. hath endeavoured to corrupt the genuine sense of those words by converting substantia into subjectum as if Galen intended only that the Exhalation from an odorous body was only the subjectum inhaesionis and the odour it self meerly the Quality inhaerent therein Contrary to the rules of Fidelity and Ingenuity because incongruous both the Letter of the Text and the Syntaxis thereof with his whole Enquiry 4 And the Lord St. Alban though a modern yet not unworthy to enter the Chorus with the noblest among the Ancients though He had too frequently used his tongue to the Dialect of Immaterial Qualities and spiritual Images in his discourses of the other senses doth yet make a perfect unison with Galen in this particular delivering his judgement in most full and definite termes thus Certain it is that no smell issueth from a body but with emission of some Corporeal substance Sylva sylvar Cent. 9. experim 834. On the other side we hear the great Genius of Nature as his Idolaters miscall him Aristotle and that most numerous of Sects the Peripatetick vehemently contending that an Odour belongs to the classis of simple or Immaterial Qualities and that though it be wafted or transported on the wings of an Exhalation from the Odorate body to the Sensory yet is the sensory affected onely with the meer Image or Intentional species thereof Now the moments of Authority being thus equal on both sides our province is to determine the scales by the praepondium of Reason i. e with an even hand to examine the weight of the Arguments on which each of these contrary Opinions is grounded To begin with the Later as the most Epidemical and generally entertained we find the principal Base of it to be only that common Axiome Sensus non percipiunt substantias sed tantum earum Accidentia that no sense is invaded and actuated into sensation by the Real or Material but onely the intentional species of the Object which being weak of it self and by us frequently subverted in our praecedent Discourses the whole superstructure thereon relying is already ruined and they who will reaedifie it must lay a new foundation But as to the Former that an Odour is a perfect substance by material impression on the Sensory causing a sensation of it self therein this seems a Truth standing upon such firm feet of its own that it contemns the crutches of sophistry For 1 No Academick can be so obstinate as not to acknowledge that there is a certain Effluvium or Corporeal Exhalation from all odorous bodies diffused and transmitted through the aer as well because his own observation doth ascertain him that all Aromatiques and other odorous bodies in tract of a few years confess a substantial Contabescence or decay of Quantity which makes our Druggists and Apothecaries conserve their parcels of Ambre Grise Musk Civit and other rich Perfumes in bladders and those immured in Glasses to praevent the exhaustion of them by spontaneous emanation as for this that the odour doth most commonly continue vigorous in the medium a good while after the remove of the source or body from which it was effused And Aristotle himself after his peremptory Negative Odorem non esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Effluxionem could not but let slip this Affirmative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod effluit ex corporibus ipsa est odorum substantia 2 Common Experience confirms that odours are vigorous and potent not only in the production of sundry Affections in the brain good or evil according to their vehemency and Gratefulness or Noysomness by the refocillation or pollution of the spirits but also in the Vellication and frequently the Corrosion of tender investment of the Nostrills Thus much the reverend Oracle of Cous well observed in 28 Aphorisme 5 Sect. Odoramentorum suffitus muliebria educit ad alia plaerumque utilis esset nisi gravitatem capitis inferret and Galen supports with his opinion and arguments that pleasant Odours are a kinde of Nourishment of the spirits Besides Plutarch reports that He observed Catts grow mad onely by the smell of certain odoriferous Unguents and Levinus Lemnius de Natur. miracul hath a memorable story of certain Travellers who passing through large fields of Beans in the Flower in Holland become Phrantick meerly with the strength of their smell And all Physicians dayly finde that good smels by a recreation of the languid spirits speedily restore men from swooning fits as evil scents often induce Vomitings syncopes Vertigoes and other suddain symptomes Nay scarce an Author who hath written of the Plague and its Causes but abounds in relations of those accursed miscreants who have kindled most mortal infections by certain Veneficious practices and Compositions of putrid and noysom Odours witness Petrus Droetus de pestilentia cap. 10. Wierus de Venificiis lib. 3. cap. 37 Horatius Augenius lib. de peste cap. 3 Hercules Saxonia de plica cap. 2. 11.
they suddainly engage in a general cumbustion and dissolving all impediments 〈◊〉 their liberty Hence also proceed all those Heats which are observed in Fermentation Putrifaction and all other intestine Commotions and Mutations of Bodies Hither likewise would we refer that so generally believed Phaenomenon the Warmness of Fountains Cellars Mines and all subterraneous Fosses in Winter but that we conceive it not only superfluous but also of evil consequence in Physiology to consign a Cause where we have good reason to doubt the verity of the Effect For if we strictly examine the ground of that common Assertion we shall find it to consist only in a misinformation of our sense i. e. though Springs Wells Caves and all subterraneous places are really as Cold in Winter as Summer yet do we apprehend them to be warm because we suppose that we bring the organs of the sense of Touching alike disposed in Winter and Summer not considering that the same thing doth appear Cold to a hot and warm to a Cold hand nor observing that oyle will be conglaciated in Winter in subterraneous Cells which yet appear warm to those who enter them but not in Summer when yet they appear Cold. Secondly by Motion External when a Sawe grows Hot by continuall affriction against wood or stone or when fire is kindled by the long and hard affriction of 2 dry sticks c. This is manifest even from hence that unless the bodies agitated or rubbed against each other are such as contain igneous Atoms in them no motion however lasting and violent can excite the least degree of Heat in them For Water agitated most continently and violently never conceives the lest warmth because it is wholly destitute of Calorifick Atoms Lastly as for the Heat excited in a body upon the Motion of its Whole whether it be moved by it self or some External movent of this sort is that Heat of which motion is commonly affirmed to be the sole Cause as when an Animal grows hot with running c. and a Bullet acquires heat in flying c. And thus much concerning the manner of Emancipation of our Calorifick Atoms The next thing considerable is their peculiar Seminarie or Conservatory concerning which it may be observed that the Atoms of Fire cannot in regard of their extreme Exility sphaerical Figure and velocity of motion be in any but an Unctuous and viscous matter such whose other Atoms are more hamous and reciprocally cohaerent than to be dissociated easily by the intestine motions of the Calorifick Atoms so that some greater force is required to the dissolution of that unctuousness and tenacity whereby they mutually cohaere And hereupon we may safely conclude that an Unctuous substance is as it were the chief nay the sole Matrix or Seminary of Fire or Heat and that such Bodies only as are capable of incalescence and inflammation must contain somewhat of Fatness and unctuoâ—ity in them Sometimes we confess it is observed that Concretions which have no such Unctuosity at all in them as Water are Hot but yet we cannot allow them to be properly said to wax Hot but to be made Hot because the principle of that their Heat is not Internal to them but External or Ascititious For instance when Fire is put under a vessel of Water the small bodies or particles of Fire by degrees insinuate themselves thorowe the pores of the vessel into the substance of the Water and diffuse themselves throughout the same though not so totally at first as not to leave the major part of the particles of the Water untoucht to which other igneous Atoms successively admix themselves as the water grows hotter and 〈◊〉 And evident it is how small a time the Water doth keeâ—â—ts acquired heat when once removed from the fire because thâ—â—toms of Heat being meerly Adventitious to it they spontaneousl◠〈◊〉 it one after another and leave it as they found it Cold only 〈◊〉 Alteration they cause therein that they diminish the Quantity the 〈◊〉 insomuch as successively asâ—ending into the aer they carry along 〈◊〉 them the more tenuious and moveable particles of the Water in 〈◊〉 â—pparence of vapours which are nothing but Water Diffused 〈…〉 Bu◠〈…〉 we affirm that only Unctuous Bodies are Inflammable be gâ—â—â—rally true whence comes it that amongst Unctuous and 〈…〉 some more easily take fire than others The 〈…〉 is this that the Atoms of Fire incarcerated in â—ome 〈◊〉 are not so deeply immerst in nor so opprest and 〈…〉 other Heterogenous particles of matter as in others 〈…〉 the lâ—berty of Eruption much more easily Thus 〈…〉 kindled than Green because in the green the Aâ—ueous 〈…〉 surrounding and oppressing the Atoms of Fire therein containe◠〈◊〉 first tâ— be discussed and attenuated into vapours but in the 〈◊〉 time bâ— the mediation of the warmth in the ambient aeâ— hath 〈…〉 that luxuriant moysture so that none but the 〈…〉 oâ— unâ—tuous part wherein the Atoms of Fire have their 〈…〉 remains to be discussed which done the Atoms of 〈…〉 issue forth in swarms and discover themselves in 〈…〉 spirit of Wine is so much the sooner inflammable by how much 〈◊〉 more pure and defaecated it is because the igneous Atoms 〈…〉 concluded are delivered from the greater part of that 〈…〉 humidity wherewith they were formerly â—urrounded 〈…〉 On the contrary a stone is not made Combustibâ—e 〈◊〉 great â—â—fficulty because the substance of it is so compact as 〈…〉 Unctuous humidity is long in discussion We â—ay a Stone 〈…〉 or Arenaceous one because such is destitute of all 〈◊〉 and so of all igneous particles but a Lime-stone 〈…〉 capable of reduction to a Calx or a Flint out of which by 〈◊〉 against steel are excussed many small fragments plentifully 〈◊〉 Atoms of Fire The 〈◊〉 and Origine of Heat being thus fully explicated according 〈…〉 most verâ—imilous Principles of Democritus Epicurus and their 〈…〉 that we progress to those Porifmata or 〈◊〉 which from thence result to our observation and the 〈…〉 some most considerable Problems retaining to the same 〈◊〉 sucâ— especially as have hitherto eluded the folutive 〈…〉 any other Hypothesis but what we have here 〈◊〉 〈…〉 as the Atoms of Heat which are always 〈…〉 â—nctuous Matter doe upon the acquisition of 〈…〉 â—orth with violence and insinuating themselves into Bodies which they meet withal and totally pervading them dissociate their particles and dissolve their Compage or Contexture Hence is it manifest that Rarefaâ—tion or Dilatation is upon good reason accounted the proper Effect of Heat since those parts of a body which are Conjoyned cannot be Disjoyned but they must instantly possess a greater part of space understand us in that strict sense which we kept our selves to in our Discourse of Rarefaction and Condensation than before Hence comeâ— it that Water in boyling seems so to be encreased that what when cold filled scarce half the Caldron in ebullition cannot be contained in the whole but swells over
Likewise the Consent of another string which makes that Consonance which Musicians call a Diapason or Eighth to that which is percussed by the hand ariseth only from hence that the Excurses and Recurses of the string percussed by the hand do not at all clash with nor perturb and confound the Excurses and Recurses of the string moved immediately only by the Aer but are Coincident and Synchronical to them and observe the same periods and so both agree in their certain and frequent intervals more particularly in an Eight every single Diadrom of the longer and more lax string is coincident to every second fourth sixth c. Diadrom of the shorter or more tense string Nay farther if the two strings be Consonous though but in the less perfect Consonance of a Fifth yet shall the sympathy hold and manifest it self which is not commonly observed by the tremulation of the untouched string that is tuned to a Fifth because their Diadroms are not wholly confused each single diadrom of the longer or lower string being coincident to every third sixth ninth c. diadrom of the shorter or more tense string But if the two strings be Dissonous the sympathy fails because the Excurses and Recurses agree not in any of their Intervals or Periods but perturb and confound each other as may be more fully understood from our praecedent Discourse of the Reason of Consonances and Dissonances Musical 8 Nor is it the Inaequality of Tension disparity of Longitude and Magnitude or Non-coincidence of the Vibrations in their several periods that alone make Two strings Discordant for if we admit the common tradition of Naturalists where an Instrument is strung with some strings made of Sheeps and others of Woolfs Guts intermixed the best hand in the World shall never make it yeeld a perfect Consonance much less play an harmonious tune thereupon And the Cause doubtless is no other than this that the strings made of a Woolfs Guts are of a different Contexture from those made of a Sheeps so that however equally both are strained and adjusted yet still shall the Aer be unequally percussed and impelled by them and consequently the sounds created by one sort confound and drown the sounds resulting from the other To leave you in the less uncertainty concerning this it is commonly observed that from one and the same string when it is not of an Uniforme Contexture throughout but more close even and firme in some parts than in others all such our Musicians call False strings there doe alwayes result various and unequal sounds the close even and firm parts yeelding a smart and equal sound the lax and uneven yeelding a dull flat and harsh which two different sounds at the same time created confound and drown each other and consequently where such a string is playd upon in Consort it disturbs the whole Concent or Harmony It is further observed also that the Musick of an Harp doth infect the musick of a Lute and other softer and milder instruments with a kind of Asperity and Indistinction of Notes which Asperity seems to arise from a certain kind of Tremor peculiar only to the Chords of that Instrument The like also hath been reported of other scarce Consortive Instruments such as the Virginalls and Lute the Welsh Harp and Irish c. But you 'll Object perhaps that the Discordance of Woolves and Sheeps Gutlings seemeth to arise rather from some Formal Enmity or inhaerent Antipathy betwixt the Woolf and Sheep because it hath been affirmed by many of the Ancients and questioned by very few of the Moderns that a Drum bottomed with a Woolfs skin and headed with a Sheeps will yeeld scarce any sound at all nay more that a Wolfs skin will in short time prey upon and consume a Sheeps skin if they be layed neer together And against this we need no other Defense than a downright appeal to Experience whether both those Traditions deserve not to be listed among Popular Errors and as well the Promoters as Authors of them to be exiled the society of Philosophers these as Traitors to truth by the plotting of manifest falsehoods those as Ideots for beleiving and admiring such fopperies as smell of nothing but the Fable and lye open to the contradiction of an easy and cheap Experiment 9 Nor can we put a greater value upon the Devouring of all other Birds Feathers by those of the Eagle commixt with them though the Author of Trinum Magicum hath bin pleased to tell us a very formall and confident story thereof because we have no Reason to convince us that the Eagle preys upon other Fowls out of an Antipathy or Hatred but rather out of Love and Convenience of Aliment and though there were an Enmity betwixt the Eagle and all his feathered subjects during life yet is there no necessity that Enmity should survive in the scattered peices of his Carcass especially in the Feathers that are but one degree on this side Excrements which is praesumed to consist cheifly in the Forme since those Proprieties which are Formal in Animals must of necessity vanish upon the destruction of the Forme from whence they result Thus Glow-worms project no lustre after death and the Torpedo which stupefies at distance while alive produceth no such effect though topically applied after death for there are many Actions of Sensible Creatures that are mixt and depend upon their vital form as well as that of mistion and though they seem to retain unto the Body doe yet immediately depart upon its Disunion In the SECOND Division of Special Occult Qualities viz. such as are imputed to Vegetables the First that expects our Consideration is the so frequently mentioned and generally conceded Sympathy or mutually beneficial Friendship betwixt some certain Plants as betwixt Rew and the Figg-tree the Rose and Garlick the Wild Poppy and Wheat all which are observed to delight and flourish most in the neighbourhood of each other and our skilful Gardners use to advance the growth and fructification of the one by planting its favourite neer it Concerning this therefore we advertise that men are mistaken not only in the Cause but Denomination also of this Effect supposing a secret Friendship where is none and imputing that to a certain Cognation or Sympathy which seems to proceed from a manifest Dissimilitude and Antipathy betwixt Divers Natures For wherever two Plants are set together whereof the one as being of a far Different if not quite Contrary Nature and so requiring a different kind of nourishment doth substract and assimilate to its self such a juice of the earth as would otherwise flow to the other and deprave its nourishment and consequently give an evil tincture to its Fruit and Flowers in this case Both Plants are reciprocally the remote Cause of the Prosperity each of other And thus Rew growing neer the roots of the Figg-tree and attracting to its self the Rank and Bitter moisture of the earth as most agreeable
the manner of that moâ—ive activity of the Aer upon the thing projected They thus explicate The Aer say they which is first moved by the Projicient together with the moveable doth at the same time both propel the moveable and impel the Aer immediately beyond it which being likewise moved doth in the same manner propel the moveable and impel the aer immediately beyond it and that aer being thus moved doth again impel both the moveable and the aer next beyond it and so consequently the next aer impels both the moveable and the next aer beyond it until the propulsion and promotion being gradually debilitated and at length wholly overcome partly by the Gravity of the thing moved partly by the Resistence of the occurring Aer the motion wholly ceaseth and the thing projected attaineth quiet And that Others contend that the Body Projected is carryed forward by a Force as They call it Imprest which they account to be a Quality so communicated unto the body projected from the Projicient as that not being indelible it must gradually decay in the progress thereof and at length wholly perish whereupon the motion also must by degrees remit its violence and at length absolutely vanish and the thing projected again recover its native quiet But lest we trifle away our praecious moments in confutinâ— each of these weak Opinions against which the Reason of every man is ready to object many great absurdities especially such as the praecedent theory will soon advertise him of let us praesently recur to the more solid speculations of our master Gassendus in his Epistles de motu impresso a motore translato and praesenting you the summary thereof without further delay satisfie your Curiosity and our own Debt of assisting it First we are to determine that nothing remaining it self unmoved can move another For since our Discourse concerns not the First Cause of all motion God whose Power is infinite who is in all places who can only by the force of his Will create move and destroy all things manifest it is that nothing Finite especially Corporeal and such only hath an interest in our praesent consideration can move another thing unless it self be also moved at the same time as Plato well observed in his saying Neque est Dissicile modo sed etiam plane impossibile ut quidpiam motum imprimere sine quapiam sui commotione valeat in Timaeo And the Reason is this whatever doth move doth act and e converso whatever doth act doth move Action and Passion as Aristotle 3. physic 3 being the same with motion Again the movent and Moveable ought to be together or to touch each other because whether the movent impel attract carry or â—owle the moveable necessary it is that still it should impress some certain Force upon it and force it can impress none thereupon unless by touching it And though it doth touch it yet if it discharge no force of motion upon it i. e. remain unmoved it self there shall be only a meer Contact reciprocal but no motion and as the one so shall the other remain unmoved Therefore that the one may move the other it ought to have that vigour or motion first in it self which it doth impress upon the other since if it have none it can give none Even sense demonstrates that by how much more vehement motion the movent it self is in at the instant it toucheth the moveable by so much the farther doth it always propel the same and thence our Reason may necessarily infer that the movent must it self be in some small motion in the same instant it gives a small motion to another Moreover though Aristotle in 8. Physic cap 5. subtly Distinguisheth three Things in motion viz. the 〈◊〉 ut quod as V. G. a man the Movens ut quo as a staff and the Mobile as a stone and thereupon magisterially teacheth that the stone is moved and doth not move that the staff is moved and doth move that the man doth move and is not moved yet is it not â—â—ident how far short He comes of thereby Demonstrating the immobility of the First Movent to which He praetended For whereas He urgeth that otherwise we must proceed to Infinity that binds not at all because the movens ut quod the man is moved by Himself and sense declares that the man must move his Arm or Hand together with the staff which if you suppose not to be the movens ut quo the stone bâ—â—ng not moved thereby but the mobile it self is not the movent it self â—â—so moved Suppose also that the mans Arme or Hand is the moveâ—◠〈◊〉 quo nay if you please that his whole Body or the Muscles or Nerve or Spirits are the movens ut quo and deriving the motion from his very Soul suppose that to be the movens ut quod yet truely can you not â—â—â—ceive that the Soul it self remaining Immote doth move the Arm oâ—â—and Nor is the Soul it self then moved onely by Accident as wheâ—â— marriner is carried by the motion of his ship but also per se as wâ—â—â— the mariner moves himself that he may move the Oar that it may move the ship in which himself is carried For as a ship in a calm sea â—ould not be moved it self nor the mariner be moved with it by Accidâ—â—â— in case the mariner himself wanted motion whereby to impel his shipâ— so neither would the body be moved nor the Soul be moved therewâ—â—â— by Accident unless the soul be first agitated within with a motion whâ—â—â—by the body is moved Conclude therefore that nothing can be 〈◊〉 but the Projicient must not only Touch it either immediately â—â—mediately by some Instrument but also Propel it with the same 〈◊〉 whâ—â—â—with it self is in the same instant moved It is moreover â—â—â—â—ssary that the movent be moved not only in a point or so far as that point of space in which it first toucheth the moveable but also that a while cohaering unto the moveable it be moved along with it so as we may well conceive them to be made by that Cohaesion as it were one and the same body or one entire moveable pro tempore and consequently that the motion of both the movent and moveable is one intire motion For what motion is in the moveable so long as it remains conjoyned to the movent is in a manner a certain Tyrocinium in which the moveable is as it were taught to progress foreward in that way which the movent hath begun upward downward transverse oblique circular and that either slowly or swiftly and according as the movent shall guide and direct it before its manumission or dismission Thus when a man throws a stone with his hand you may plainly perceive how the motion thereof begins together with that of his hand and after it is discharged from his hand you cannot say that a new motion is impressed upon the stone but only that the