By Discourse I do not mean speech but an Arguing of the mind or a Rational inquiry into the Causes of Natural effects for Discourse is as much as Reasoning with our selves which may very well be done without Speech or Language as being onely an effect or action of Reason When I say That Art may make Pewter Brass c. I do not mean as if these Figures were Artificial and not Natural but my meaning is That if Art imitates Nature in producing of Artificial Figures they are most commonly such as are of mixt Natures which I call Hermaphroditical When I say That Respiration is a Reception and Emission of parts through the pores or passages proper to each particular figure so that when some parts issue others enter I do not mean at one and the same time or always through the same passages for as there is variety of Natural Creatures and Figures and of their perceptions so of the manner of their perceptions and of their passages and pores all which no particular Creature is able exactly to know or determine And therefore when I add in the following Chapter That Nature has more ways of composing and dividing of parts then by the way of drawing in and sending forth by pores I mean that not all parts of Nature have the like Respirations The truth is it is enough to know in general That there is Respiration in all parts of Nature as a general or universal action and that this Respiration is nothing else but a composition and division of Parts but how particular Respirations are performed none but Infinite Nature is capable to know When I say That there is a difference between Respiration and Perception and that Perception is an action of figuring or patterning but Respiration an action of Reception and Emission of Parts First I do not mean that all Percaption is made by patterning or imitation but I speak onely of the Perception of the exterior senses in Animals at least in man which I observe to be made by patterning or imitation for as no Creature can know the infinite perceptions in Nature so he cannot describe what they are or how they are made Next I do not mean that Respiration is not a Perceptive action for if Perception be a general and universal action in Nature as well as Respiration both depending upon the composition and division of parts it is impossible but that all actions of Nature must be perceptive by reason perception is an exterior knowledg of forreign parts and actions and there can be no commerce or intercourse nor no variety of figures and actions no productions dissolutions changes and the like without Perception for how shall Parts work and act without having some knowledg or perception of each other Besides wheresoever is self-motion there must of necessity be also Perception for self-motion is the cause of all exterior Perception But my meaning is That the Animal at least Humane respiration which is a receiveing of forreign parts and discharging or venting of its own in an animal or humane Figure or Creature is not the action of Animal Perception properly so call'd that is the perception of its exterior senses as Seeing Hearing Tasting Touching Smelling which action of Perception is properly made by way of patterning and imitation by the innate figurative motions of those Animal Creatures and not by receiving either the figures of the exterior objects into the sensitive Organs or by sending forth some invisible rayes from the Organ to the Object nor by pressure and reaction Nevertheless as I said every action of Nature is a Knowing and Perceptive action and so is Respiration which of necessity presupposes a knowledg of exterior parts especially those that are concern'd in the same action and can no ways be perform'd without perception of each other When I say That if all mens Opinions and Fancies were Rational there would not be such variety in Nature as we perceive there is by Rational I mean Regular according to the vulgar way of expression by which a Rational Opinion is call'd That which is grounded upon regular sense and reason and thus Rational is opposed to Irregular Nevertheless Irregular Fancies and Opinions are made by the rational parts of matter as well as those that are regular and therefore in a Philosophical and strict sense one may call Irregular Opinions as well Rational as those that are Regular but according to the vulgar way of expression as I said it is sooner understood of Regular then of Irregular Opinions Fancies or Conceptions When I say that None of Natures parts can be call'd Inanimate or Soul-less I do not mean the constitutive parts of Nature which are as it were the Ingredients whereof Nature consists and is made up whereof there is an inanimate part or degree of matter as well as animate but I mean the parts or effects of this composed body of Nature of which I say that none can be call'd inanimate for though some Philosophers think that nothing is animate or has life in Nature but Animals and Vegetables yet it is probable that since Nature consists of a commixture of animate and inanimate matter and is self-moving there can be no part or particle of this composed body of Nature were it an Atome that may be call'd Inaminate by reason there is none that has not its share of animate as well as inanimate matter and the commixture of these degrees being so close it is impossible one should be without the other When enumerating the requisites of the Perception of Sight in Animals I say that if one of them be wanting there is either no perception at all or it is an imperfect perception I mean there is no Animal perception of seeing or else an irregular perception When I say that as the sensitive perception knows some of the other parts of Nature by their effects so the rational perceives some effects of the Omnipotent Power of God My meaning is not as if the sensitive part of matter hath no knowledg at all of God for since all parts of Nature even the inanimate have an innate and fixt self-knowledg it is probable that they may also have an interior self-knowledg of the existency of the Eternal and Omnipotent God as the Author of Nature But because the rational part is the subtilest purest finest and highest degree of matter it is most conformable to truth that it has also the highest and greatest knowledg of God as far as a natural part can have for God being Immaterial it cannot properly be said that sense can have a perception of him by reason he is not subject to the sensitive perception of any Creature or part of Nature and therefore all the knowledg which natural Creatures can have of God must be inherent in every part of Nature and the perceptions which we have of the Effects of Nature may lead us to some conceptions of that Supernatural Infinite and
to be perceived the perception of the Sentient is an occasioned perception but whensoever either in dreams or in distempers the sensitive motions of the same Organ make such or such figures without any presentation of exterior objects then that action cannot properly be call'd an exterior perception but it is a voluntary action of the sensitive motions in the organ of sight not made after an outward pattern but by rote and of their own accord When I say That Ignorance is caused by division and knowledg by composition of parts I do not mean an interior innate self-knowledg which is and remains in every part and particle of Nature both in composition and division for wheresoever is matter there is life and self-knowledg nor can a part lose self-knowledg any more then it can lose life although it may change from having such or such a particular life and knowledg for to change and lose are different things but I mean an exterior perceptive knowledg of forreign parts caused by self-motion of which I say that as a union or combination of parts makes knowledg so a division or separation of parts makes Ignorance When I say There 's difference of Sense and Reason in the parts of one composed Figure I mean not as if there were different degrees of sense and different degrees of Reason in their own substance or matter for sense is but sense and reason is but reason but my meaning is That there are different sensitive and rational motions which move differently in the different parts of one composed Creature These are Courteous Reader the scruples which I thought might puzle your understanding in this present Work which I have cleared in the best manner I could and if you should meet with any other of the like nature my request is You would be pleased to consider well the Grounds of my Philosophy and as I desired of you before read all before you pass your Judgments and Censures for then I hope you 'l find but few obstructions since one place will give you an explanation of the other In doing thus you 'l neither wrong your self nor injure the Authoress who should be much satisfied if she could benesit your knowledg in the least if not she has done her endeavour and takes as much pleasure and delight in writing and divulging the Conceptions of her mind as perhaps some malicious persons will do in censuring them to the worst AN Argumental Discourse Concerning some Principal Subjects in Natural Philosophy necessary for the better understanding not onely of this but all other Philosophical Works hitherto written by the AUTHOEESSE WHen I was setting forth this Book of Experimental Observations a Dispute chanced to arise between the rational Parts of my Mind concerning some chief Points and Principles in Natural Philosophy for some New Thoughts endeavouring to oppose and call in question the Truth of my former Conceptions caused a war in my mind which in time grew to that height that they were hardly able to compose the differences between themselves but were in a manner necessitated to refer them to the Arbitration of the impartial Reader desiring the assistance of his judgment to reconcile their Controversies and if possible to reduce them to a setled peace and agreement The first difference did arise about the question How it came that Matter was of several degrees as Animate and Inanimate Sensitive and Rational for my latter thoughts would not believe that there was any such difference of degrees of Matter To which my former conceptions answered That Nature being Eternal and Infinite it could not be known how she came to be such no more then a reason could be given how God came to be for Nature said they is the Infinite Servant of God and her origine cannot be described by any finite or particular Creature for what is infinite has neither beginning nor end but that Natural Matter consisted of so many degrees as mentioned was evidently perceived by her effects or actions by which it appeared first that Nature was a self-moving body and that all her parts and Creatures were so too Next That there was not onely an animate or self-moving and active but also an inanimate that is a dull and passive degree of Matter for if there were no animate degree there would be no motion and so no action nor variety of figures and if no inanimate there would be no degrees of natural figures and actions but all actions would be done in a moment and the figures would all be so pure fine and subtil as not to be subject to any grosser perception such as our humane or other the like perceptions are This Inanimate part of Matter said they had no self-motion but was carried along in all the actions of the animate degree and so was not moving but moved which Animate part of Matter being again of two degrees viz. Sensitive and Rational the Rational being so pure fine and subtil that it gave onely directions to the sensitive and made figures in its own degree left the working with and upon the Inanimate part to the Sensitive degree of Matter whose Office was to execute both the rational parts design and to work those various figures that are perceived in Nature and those three degrees were so inseparably commixt in the body of Nature that none could be without the other in any part or Creature of Nature could it be divided to an Atome for as in the Exstruction of a house there is first required an Architect or Surveigher who orders and designs the building and puts the Labourers to work next the Labourers or Workmen themselves and lastly the Materials of which the House is built so the Rational part said they in the framing of Natural Effects is as it were the Surveigher or Architect the Sensitive the labouring or working part and the Inanimate the materials and all these degrees are necessarily required in every composed action of Nature To this my latter thoughts excepted that in probability of sense and reason there was no necessity of introducing an inanimate degree of Matter for all those parts which we call gross said they are no more but a composition of self-moving parts whereof some are denser and some rarer then others and we may observe that the denser parts are as active as the rarest for example Earth is as active as Air or Light and the parts of the Body are as active as the parts of the Soul or Mind being all self-moving as it is perceiveable by their several various compositions divisions productions and alterations nay we do see that the Earth is more active in the several productions and alterations of her particulars then what we name Coelestial Lights which observation is a firm argument to prove that all Matter is animate or self-moving onely there are degrees of motion that some parts move flower and some quicker Hereupon my former Thoughts answered that the difference consisted not
of it self it is not improbable but it may also have an interior fixt and innate knowledg of the Existency of God as that he is to be adored and worshipped And thus the Inanimate part may after its own manner worship and adore God as much as the other parts in their way for it is probable that God having endued all parts of Nature with self-knowledg may have given them also an Interior knowledg of himself that is of his Existency how he is the God of Nature and ought to be worshipped by her as his Eternal servant My later Thoughts excepted That not any Creature did truly know it self much less could it be capable of knowing God The former answered That this was caused through the variety of self-motion for all Creatures said they are composed of many several parts and every part has its own particular self-knowledg as well as self-motion which causes an ignorance between them for one parts knowledg is not another parts knowledg nor does one part know what another knows but all knowledg of exterior parts comes by perception nevertheless each part knows it self and its own actions and as there is an ignorance between parts so there is also an acquaintance especially in the parts of one composed Creature and the rational parts being most subtile active and free have a more general acquaintance then the sensitive besides the sensitive many times inform the rational and the rational the sensitive which causes a general agreement of all the parts of a composed figure in the execution of such actions as belong to it But how is it possible replied my later Thoughts that the inanimate part of matter can be living and self-knowing and yet not self-moving for Life and Knowledg cannot be without self-motion and therefore if the inanimate parts have Life and Knowledg they must necessarily also have self-motion The former answered That Life and Knowledg did no ways depend upon self-motion for had Nature no motion at all yet might she have Life and Kowledg so that self-motion is not the cause of Life and Knowledg but onely of Perception and all the various actions of Nature and this is the reason said they that the inanimate part of matter is not perceptive because it is not self-moving for though it hath life and self-knowledg as well as the Animate part yet it has not an active life nor a perceptive knowledg By which you may see that a fixt and interior self-knowledg may very well be without exterior perception for though perception presupposes an innate self-knowledg as its ground and principle yet self-knowledg does not necessarily require perception which is onely caused by self-motion for self-motion as it is the cause of the variety of Natures parts and actions so it is also of their various perceptions If it was not too great a presumtion said they we could give an instance of God who has no local self-motion and yet is infinitely knowing But we 'l forbear to go so high as to draw the Infinite Incomprehensible God to the proofs of Material Nature My later Thoughts replied first That if it were thus then one and the same parts of matter would have a double life and a double knowledg Next they said That if perception were an effect of self-motion then God himself must necessarily be self-moving or else he could not perceive Nature and her parts and actions Concerning the first objection my former thoughts answered That the parts of Nature could have a double life and knowledg no more then one man could be call'd double or treble You might as well said they make millions of men of one particular man nay call every part or action of his a peculiliar man as make one and the same part of matter have a double life and knowledg But mistake us not added my former thoughts when we say that one and the same part cannot have a double life and knowledg for we mean not the composed creatures of Nature which as they consist of several degrees of matter so they have also several degrees of lives and knowledges but it is to be understood of the essential or constitutive parts of Nature for as the rational part is not nor can be the sensitive part so it can neither have a sensitive knowledg no more can a sensitive part have a rational knowledg or either of these the knowledg of the inanimate part but each part retains its own life and knowledg Indeed it is with these parts as it is with particular creatures for as one man is not another man nor has another mans knowledg so it is likewise with the mentioned parts of matter and although the animate parts have an interior innate self-knowledg and an exterior perceptive knowledg yet these are not double knowledges but perception is onely an effect of interior self-knowledg occasioned by self-motion And as for the second they answered That the Divine Perception and Knowledg was not any ways like a natural Perception no more than God was like a Creature for Nature said they is material and her perceptions are amongst her infinite parts caused by their compositions and divisions but God is a Supernatural Individable and Incorporeal Being void of all Parts and Divisions and therefore he cannot be ignorant of any the least thing but being Infinite he has an Infinite Knowledg without any Degrees Divisions or the like actions belonging to Material Creatures Nor is he naturally that is locally self-moving but he is a fixt unalterable and in short an incomprehensible Being and therefore no comparison can be made between Him and Nature He being the Eternal God and Nature his Eternal Servant Then my later Thoughts said That as for the knowledg of God they would not dispute of it but if there was a fixt and interior innate knowledg in all Natures parts and Creatures it was impossible that there could be any error or ignorance between them The former answered that although Errors belonged to particulars as well as ignorance yet they proceeded not from interior self-knowledg but either from want of exterior particular knowledges or from the irregularity of motions and Ignorance was likewise a want not of interior but exterior knowledg otherwise called Perceptive knowledg for said they Parts can know no more of other parts but by their own perceptions and since no particular Creature or part of Nature can have an Infallible Universal and thorow perception of all other parts it can neither have an infallible and universal knowledg but it must content it self with such a knowledg as is within the reach of its own perceptions and hence it follows that it must be ignorant of what it does not know for Perception has but onely a respect to the exterior figures and actions of other parts and though the Rational part is more subtil and active then the Sensitive and may have also some perceptions of some interior parts and actions of other Creatures yet it cannot have an infallible and thorow perception of all their interior parts and motions which is a knowledg impossible
7. The Worlds Olio now to be reprinted 8. Playes in Fol. 9. Orations in Fol. 10. Sociable Letters in Fol. There are some others that never were Printed yet which shall if God grant me Life and Health be Published ere long OBSERVATIONS UPON EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY 1. Of Humane Sense and Perception BEfore I deliver my observations upon that part of Philosophy which is call'd Experimental I thought it necessary to premise some discourse concerning the Perception of Humane Sense It is known that man has five Exterior Senses and every sense is ignorant of each other for the Nose knows not what the Eyes see nor the Eyes what the Ears hear neither do the Ears know what the Tongue tastes and as for Touch although it is a general Sense yet every several part of the body has a several touch and each part is ignorant of each others touch And thus there is a general ignorance of all the several parts and yet a perfect knowledg in each part for the Eye is as knowing as the Ear and the Ear as knowing as the Nose and the Nose as knowing as the Tongue and one particular Touch knows as much as another at least is capable thereof Nay not onely every several Touch Taste Smell Sound or Sight is a several knowledg by it self but each of them has as many particular knowledges or perceptions as there are objects presented to them Besides there are several degrees in each particular sense As for example some Men I will not speak of other animals their perception of sight taste smell touch or hearing is quicker to some sorts of objects then to others according either to the perfection or imperfection or curiosity or purity of the corporeal figurative motions of each sense or according to the presentation of each object proper to each sense for if the presentation of the objects be imperfect either through variation or obscurity or any other ways the sense is deluded Neither are all objects proper for one sense but as there are several senses so there are several sorts of objects proper for each several sense Now if there be such variety of several knowledges not onely in one Creature but in one sort of sense to wit the exterior senses of one humane Creature what may there be in all the parts of Nature 'T is true there are some objects which are not at all perceptible by any of our exterior senses as for example rarified air and the like But although they be not subject to our exterior sensitive perception yet they are subject to our rational perception which is much purer and subtiler then the sensitive nay so pure and subtil a knowledg that many believe it to be immaterial as if it were some God when as it is onely a pure fine and subtil figurative Motion or Perception it is so active and subtil as it is the best informer and reformer of all sensitive Perception for the rational Matter is the most prudent and wisest part of Nature as being the designer of all productions and the most pious and devoutest part having the perfectest notions of God I mean so much as Nature can possibly know of God so that whatsoever the sensitive Perception is either defective in or ignorant of the rational Perception supplies But mistake me not by Rational Perception and Knowledg I mean Regular Reason not Irregular where I do also exclude Art which is apt to delude sense and cannot inform so well as Reason doth for Reason reforms and instructs sense in all its actions But both the rational and sensitive knowledg and perception being divideable as well as composeable it causes ignorance as well as knowledg amongst Natures Creatures for though Nature is but one body and has no sharer or copartner but is intire and whole in it self as not composed of several different parts or substances and consequently has but one Infinite natural knowledg and wisdom yet by reason she is also divideable and composeable according to the nature of a body we can justly and with all reason say That as Nature is divided into infinite several parts so each several part has a several and particular knowledg and perception both sensitive and rational and again that each part is ignorant of the others knowledg and perception when as otherwise considered altogether and in general as they make up but one infinite body of Nature so they make also but one infinite general knowledg And thus Nature may be called both Individual as not having single parts subsisting without her but all united in one body and Divideable by reason she is partable in her own several corporeal figurative motions and not otherwise for there is no Vacuum in Nature neither can her parts start or remove from the Infinite body of Nature so as to separate themselves from it for there 's no place to flee to but body and place are all one thing so that the parts of Nature can onely joyn and disjoyn to and from parts but not to and from the body of Nature And since Nature is but one body it is intirely wise and knowing ordering her self-moving parts with all facility and ease without any disturbance living in pleasure and delight with infinite varieties and curiosities such as no single Part or Creature of hers can ever attain to 2. Of Art and Experimental Philosophy SOme are of opinion That by Art there can be a reparation made of the Mischiefs and Imperfections mankind has drawn upon it self by negligence and intemperance and a wilful and superstitious deserting the Prescripts and Rules of Nature whereby every man both from a derived Corruption innate and born with him and from his breediug and converse with men is very subject to slip into all sorts of Errors But the all-powerful God and his servant Nature know that Art which is but a particular Creature cannot inform us of the Truth of the Infinite parts of Nature being but finite it self for though every Creature has a double perception rational and sensitive yet each creature or part has not an Infinite perception nay although each particular creature or part of Nature may have some conceptions of the Infinite parts of Nature yet it cannot know the truth of those Infinite parts being but a finite part it self which finiteness causes errors in Perceptions wherefore it is well said when they confess themselves That the uncertainty and mistakes of humane actions proceed either from the narrowness and wandring of our senses or from the slipperiness or delusion of our memory or from the confinement or rashness of our understandiug But say they It is no wonder that our power over natural Causes and Effects is so slowly improved seeing we are not onely to contend with the obscurity and difficulty of the things whereon we work and think but even the forces of our minds conspire to betray us And these being the dangers in the process of Humane Reason the remedies can onely proceed
which conditions if any be wanting there is either no perception at all or it is an imperfect perception for the perception of seeing an exterior object is nothing else but a patterning out of the figure of that same object by the sensitive figurative and perceptive motions but there are infinite parts that are beyond our humane perception and it would be but a folly for us to deny that which we cannot see or perceive and if the perceptive motions be not regular in our optick sense we may see different colours in one object nay the corporeal figurative motions in the eye may make several figurative colours even without the patterns of outward objects and as there are several colours so there are also several corporeal figurative motions that make several colours in several parts and the more solid the parts are the more fixt are their inherent natural colours But superficial colours are more various though not so various as they would be if made by dusty Atomes flying about as Flies in Sun-shine for if this opinion were true all colours and other Creatures would be composed or made by chance rather then by reason and chance being so ignorantly inconstant not any two parts would be of the like colour nor any kind or species would be preserved but Wise Nature although she be full of variety yet she is also full of reason which is knowledg for there is no part of Nature that has not sense and reason which is life and knowledg and if all the infinite parts have life and knowledg Infinite Nature cannot be a fool or insensible But mistake me not for I do not mean that her parts in particular are infinitely knowing but I say Infinite Nature hath an Infinite knowledg and by reason Nature is material she is divideable as well as composeable which is the cause that there is an obscurity in her Parts in particular but not in general that is in Nature her self nay if there were not an obscurity in the Particulars men would not endeavour to prove inherent and natural figures by superficial Phaenomena's But as for Colour some do mention the example of a blind man who could discover colours by touch and truly I cannot account it a wonder because colours are corporeal figurative motions and touch being a general sence may well perceive by experience which is gained by practice some Notions of other sensitive perceptions as for example a blind man may know by relation the several touches of Water Milk Broth Jelly Vinegar Vitriol c. as well as what is hot cold rare dense hard soft or the like and if he have but his touch hearing speaking and smelling perfectly he may express the several knowledges of his several senses by one particular sense or he may express one senses knowledg by another but if the senses be imperfect he cannot have a true knowledg of any object The same may be said of Colours for several Colours being made by several corporeal figurative motions may well be perceived by a general sense which is Touch I will not say that touch is the principle of all sensitive knowledg for then I should be of the opinion of those Experimental Philosophers which will have one principal motion or figure to be the cause of all Natural things but I onely say animal touch may have some Notion of the other animal senses by the help of rational perception all which proves that every part is sensible and every sense knowing not onely in particular but that one sense may have some general notion or knowledg of the rest for there are particular and general perceptions in sensitive and rational matter which is the cause both of the variety and order of Nature's Works and therefore it is not necessary that a black figure must be rough and a white figure smooth Neither are white and black the Ground-figures of Colours as some do conceive or as others do imagine blew and yellow for no particular figure can be a principle but they are all but effects and I think it is as great an error to believe Effects for Principles as to judg of the Interior Natures and Motions of Creatures by their Exterior Phaenomena or appearances which I observe in most of our modern Authors whereof some are for Incorporeal Motions others for Prime and Principal Figures others for First Matter others for the figures of dusty and insensible Atomes that move by chance when as neither Atomes Corpuscles or Particles nor Pores Light or the like can be the cause of fixt and natural colours for if it were so then there would be no stayed or solid colour insomuch as a Horse or any other Creature would be of more various colours then a Rain-bow but that several colours are of several figures was always and is still my opinion and that the change of colours proceeds from the alteration of their figures as I have more at large declared in my other Philosophical Works Indeed Art can no more force certain Atomes or Particles to meet and join to the making of such a figure as Art would have then it can make by a bare command Insensible Atomes to join into a Uniform World I do not say this as if there could not be Artificial Colours or any Artificial Effects in Nature but my meaning onely is that although Art can put several parts together or divide and disjoyn them yet it cannot make those parts move or work so as to alter their proper figures or interior natures or to be the cause of changing and altering their own or other parts any otherwise then they are by their Natures Neither do I say that no Colours are made by Light but I say onely that fixt colours are not made by Light and as for the opinion that white bodies reflect the Light outward and black bodies inward as some Authors do imagine I answer 'T is probable some bodies may do so but all white and black Colours are not made by such reflexions the truth is some conceive all Colours to be made by one sort of Motion like as some do believe that all sensation is made by pressure and reaction and all heat by parts tending outward and all cold by parts tending inward when as there are not onely several kinds of heat and cold as Animal Vegetable Mineral and Elemental heat and cold but several sorts in each kind and different particulars in each sort for there is a moist heat a dry heat a burning a dissolving a composing a dilating a contracting heat and many more The like for colds all which several kinds sorts and particulars are made by the several changes of the corporeal figurative Motions of Nature and not by Pressure and Reaction or by tending inward and outward And as there is so great a variety and difference amongst natural Creatures both in their Perceptions and interior natures so there are also varieties of their colours the natural colours of men being
the interior Natures of several Creatures as their exterior figures and Phonomena's which makes them write many Paradoxes but few Truths supposing that Sense and Art can onely lead them to the knowledg of truth when as they delude rather their judgments instead of informing them But Nature has placed Sense and Reason together so that there is no part or particle of Nature which has not its share of reason as well as of sense for every part having self-motion hath also knowledg which is sense and reason and therefore it is fit we should not onely imploy our senses but chiefly our reason in the search of the causes of natural effects for Sense is onely a workman and Reason is the designer and surveigher and as reason guides and directs so ought sense to work But seeing that in this age sense is more in fashion then reason it is no wonder there are so many irregular opinions and judgments amongst men However although it be the mode yet I for my part shall not follow it but leaving to our Moderns their Experimental or Mode-Philosophy built upon deluding Art I shall addict my self to the study of Contemplative-Philosophy and Reason shall be my guide Not that I despise sense or sensitive knowledg but when I speak of sense I mean the perception of our five exterior senses helped or rather deluded by Art and Artificial instruments for I see that in this present Age Learned men are full of Art and Artificial trials and when they have found out something by them they presently judg that all natural actions are made the same way as for example when they find by Art that Salt will make Snow congeal into Ice they instantly conclude from thence that all natural congelations are made by saline particles and that the Primum Frigidum or the Principal cause of all natural cold must needs be salt by reason they have found by Art that salt will do the same effect in the aforesaid commixture with Snow But how grosly they are deceived rational men may judg If I were a Chymist and acknowledged their common Principles I might perchance have some belief in it but not whilest I follow reason nay I perceive that oftentimes our senses are deluded by their own irregularities in not perceiving always truly and rightly the actions of Art but mistaking them which is a double error and therefore that particular sensitive knowledg in man which is built meerly upon artificial experiments will never make him a good Philosopher but regular sense and reason must do it that is a regular sensitive and rational inquisition into the various actions of Nature For put the case a Microscope be true concerning the magnifying of an exterior object but yet the magnitude of the object cannot give a true information of its interior parts and their motions or else great and large bodies would be interiously known even without Microscopes The truth is our exterior senses can go no further then the exterior figures of Creatures and their exterior actions but our reason may pierce deeper and consider their inherent natures and interior actions and although it do sometimes erre for there can be no perfect or universal knowledg in a finite part concerning the Infinite actions of Nature yet it may also probably guess at them and may chance to hit the Truth Thus Sense and Reason shall be the ground of my Philosophy and no particular natural effects nor artificial instruments and if any one can shew me a better and surer ground or Principle then this I shall most willingly and joyfully embrace it 26. Of the Measures Degrees and different sorts of Heat and Cold. SOme Experimental Philosophers are much inquisitive into the measures of Heat and Cold and as we have setled standards for weight and magnitude and time so they endeavour to measure the varying temperature and gradual differences of heat and cold but do what they can their artificial measures or weights neither will nor can be so exact as the natural are to wit so as not to make them err in more or less Neither is it possible that all the degrees of heat and cold in Nature can be measured for no man can measure what he doth not know and who knows all the different sorts of heats and colds Nay if man did endeavour to measure onely one sort of heat or cold as for example the degrees of the heat or coldness of the air how is it possible that he should do it by reason of the continual change of the motions of heat or cold of the air which are so inconstant that it were surer to measure the fluidity of the air then to measure the degrees of heat or cold of the air for the temper of the air and of its heat and cold may vary so as many times we shall never find the same measure again Wherefore if we desire to have some knowledg of the degrees of some sorts of heat or cold my opinion is that we may more easily attain to it by the help of rational perception then by a sensitive inspection of artificial Weather-glasses or the like for reason goes beyond sense and although the sensitive perception is best next the rational yet the rational is above the sensitive But some of the learned conceive the degrees of heat and cold are made by bare divisions whenas in my opinion they are made by the several degrees of their corporeal figurative motions They do also imagine that there 's no degree but must ascend from one to two from two to three and so forth through all numbers and that from one to twenty there be so many degrees as there be numbers when as in my opinion there 's no more but one degree required from one to a Million or more for though both in Nature and Art there are degrees from one single figure to another yet there may also be but one degree from one to a million without reckoning any intermediate degrees or figures so that a body when it moves quick or slow needs not to go through all the intermediate degrees of quickness or slowness as to move quicker and quicker slower and slower but may immediately move from a very slow to a very quick degree the truth is no man is able to measure the infinite degrees of natural motions for though Nature consists of particular finites yet it doth also consist of infinite particulars finite in figure infinite in number and who can number from finite to infinite But having discoursed hereof elsewhere I return to heat and cold aud let others dispute whether the degrees of heat and cold in the air be the same with the degrees of animal perceptions or with the degrees of animal cold and heat my opinion is that there being several sorts and several particular heats and colds they cannot be just alike each other but there 's some difference betwixt them as for example there are shaking freezing chilly windy numb
part and particle has a particular and finite self-motion and self-knowledg by which it knows it self and its own actions and perceives also other parts and actions which latter is properly called Perception not as if there were two different Principles of knowledg in every particular Creature or part of Nature but they are two different acts of one and the same interior and inherent self-knowledg which is a part of Natures infinite self-knowledg 10. Thus Perception or a perceptive knowledg belongs properly to parts and may also be called an exterior knowledg by reason it extends to exterior objects 11. Though self-knowledg is the ground and principle of all particular knowledges and perceptions yet self-motion since it is the cause of all the variety of natural figures and of the various compositions and divisions of parts it is also the cause of all Perceptions 12. As there is a double degree of corporeal self-motion viz. Rational and Sensitive so there is also a double degree of Perception Rational and Sensitive 13. A whole may know its parts and an Infinite a Finite but no particular part can know its whole nor one finite part that which is infinite I say no particular part for when parts are regularly composed they may by a general Conjunction or Union of their particular knowledges and perceptions know more and so judg more probably of the whole or of Infinite and although by the division of parts those composed knowledges and perceptions may be broke asunder like a ruined house or Castle Kingdom or Government yet some of the same Materials may chance to be put to the same uses and some may be joined to those that formerly imployed themselves otherways And hence I conclude That no particular parts are bound to certain particular actions no more then Nature her self which is self-moving Matter for as Nature is full of variety of motions or actions so are her parts or else she could not be said self-moving if she were bound to certain actions and had not liberty to move as she pleases for though God the Authour of Nature has ordered her so that she cannot work beyond her own nature that is beyond Matter yet has she freedom to move as she will neither can it be certainly affirmed that the successive propagation of the several species of Creatures is decreed and ordained by God so that Nature must of necessity work to their continuation and can do no otherwise but humane sense and reason may observe that the same parts keep not always to the same particular actions so as to move to the same species or figures for those parts that join in the composition of an animal alter their actions in its dissolution and in the framing of other figures so that the same parts which were joined in one particular animal may when they dissolve from that composed figure join severally to the composition of other figures as for example of Minerals Vegetables Elements c. and some may join with some sorts of Creatures and some with others and so produce creatures of different sorts when as before they were all united in one particular Creature for particular parts are not bound to work or move to a certain particular action but they work according to the wisdom and liberty of Nature which is onely bound by the Omnipotent God's Decree not to work beyond her self that is beyond Matter and since Matter is dividable Nature is necessitated to move in parts for Matter can be without parts no more then parts can be without a whole neither can Nature being material make her self void of figure nor can she rest being self-moving but she is bound to divide and compose her several parts into several particular figures and dissolve and change those figures again infinite ways All which proves the variety of Nature which is so great that even in one and the same species none of the particulars resemble one another so much as not to be discerned from each other But to return to Knowledg and Perception I say they are general and fundamental actions of Nature it being not probable that the infinite parts of Nature should move so variously nay so orderly and methodically as they do without knowing what they do or why and whether they move and therefore all particular actions whatsoever in Nature as respiration digestion sympathy antipathy division composition pressure reaction c. are all particular perceptive and knowing actions for if a part be divided from other parts both are sensible of their division The like may be said of the composition of parts And as for Pressure and Reaction they are as knowing and perceptive as any other particular actions but yet this does not prove that they are the principle of perception and that there 's no Perception but what is made by Pressure and Reaction or that at least they are the ground of Animal Perception for as they are no more but particular actions so they have but particular perceptions and although all Motion is sensible yet no part is sensible but by its own motions in its own parts that is no corporeal motion is sensible but of or by it self Therefore when a man moves a string or tosses a Ball the string or ball is no more sensible of the motion of the hand then the hand is of the motion of the string or ball but the hand is onely an occasion that the string or ball moves thus or thus I will not say but that it may have some perception of the hand according to the nature of its own figure but it does not move by the hands motion but by its own for there can be no motion imparted without matter or substance Neither can I certainly affirm that all Perception consists in patterning out exterior objects for although the perception of our humane senses is made that way yet Natures actions being so various I dare not conclude from thence that all the perceptions of the infinitely various parts and figures of Nature are made all after the same manner Nevertheless it is probable to sense and reason that the infinite parts of Nature have not onely interior self-knowledg but also exterior perceptions of other figures or parts and their actions by reason there is a perpetual commerce and entercourse between parts and parts and the chief actions of Nature are composition and division which produce all the variety of Nature which proves there must of necessity be perception between parts and parts but how all these particular perceptions are made no particular creature is able to know by reason of their variety for as the actions of Nature vary so do the perceptions Therefore it is absurd to confine all perception of Nature either to pressure and reaction or to the animal kind of perception since even in one and the same animal sense as for example of seeing there are numerous perceptions for every motion of the Eye were it no more then a
hairs breadth causes a several perception besides it is not onely the five organs in an animal but every part and particle of his body that has a peculiar knowledg and perception because it consists of self-moving Matter Which if so then a Looking-glass that patterns out the face of a Man and a Mans Eye that patterns again the copy from the Glass cannot be said to have the same perception by reason a Glass and an animal are different sorts of Creatures for though a piece of Wood Stone or Metal may have a perceptive knowledg of Man yet it hath not a Man's perception because it is a Vegetable or Mineral and cannot have an Animal knowledg or perception no more then the Eye patterning out a Tree or Stone can be said to have a Vegetable or Mineral Perception nay when one Animal as for example one man perceives another he doth not perceive his knowledg for it is one thing to perceive the exterior figure of a Creature and another thing to perceive its interior proper and innate actions also it is one thing to perceive exterior objects and another to receive knowledg for no part can give away to another its inherent and proper particular nature neither can one part make it self another part it may imitate some actions of another part but not make it self the same part which proves that each part must have its own knowledg and perception according to its own particular nature for though several parts may have the like perceptions yet they are not the same and although the exterior figures of some objects may be alike yet the perceptions may be quite different 't is true sensitive and rational knowledg is general and infinite in Nature but every part being finite can have but a finite and particular knowledg and that according to the nature of its particular figure for as not all Creatures although they be composed of one Matter are alike in their figures so not all can have the like knowledges and perceptions though they have all self-motion for particular Creatures and actions are but effects of the onely Infinite self-moving Matter and so are particular perceptions and although they are different yet the difference of effects does not argue different causes but one and the same cause may produce several and different effects so that although there be infinite different motions in Nature yet they are all but motions and cannot differ from each other in being motions or self-moving parts and although there be infinite several and different perceptions yet they are all perceptions for the effects cannot alter the cause but the cause may alter the effects Wherefore rational and sensitive corporeal motions cannot change from being motions though they may change from moving thus to move thus nor perceptions from being perceptions though they may change from being such or such particular perceptions for the change is onely in particulars not in the ground or principle which continues always the same The truth is as it is impossible that one figure should be another figure or one part another part so likewise it is impossible that the perception of one part should be the perception of another but being in parts they must be several and those parts being different they must be different also But some are more different then others for the perceptions of Creatures of different sorts as for example of a Vegetable and an Animal are more different then the perception of particulars of one sort or of one composed figure for as there is difference in their interior natures so in their perceptions so that a Mineral or Vegetable that perceives the figure of an Animal has no more the perception of an Animal then an Animal which perceives or patterns out the figure of a Mineral or Vegetable has the perceptions of those Creatures for example when a man lies upon a stone or leans on a tree or handles and touches water c. although these parts be so closely joined to each other yet their perceptions are quite different for the man onely knows what he feels or sees or hears or smells or tasteth but knows not what sense or perception those parts have nay he is so far from that that even one part of his body doth not know the sense and perception of another part of his body as for example one of his hands knows not the sense and perception of his other hand nay one part of his hand knows not the perception of another part of the same hand for as the corporeal figurative motions differ so do particular knowledges and perceptions and although sensitive and rational knowledg is general and infinite in infinite Nature yet every part being finite has but finite and particular perceptions besides perception being but an effect and not a cause is more various in particulars for although all Creatures are composed of rational and sensitive Matter yet their perceptions are not alike neither can the effect alter the cause for though the several actions of sensitive and rational Matter be various and make several perceptions yet they cannot make several kinds of sensitive and rational Matter but when as perceptions change the parts of the sensitive and rational matter remain the same in themselves that is they do not change from being sensitive or rational parts although they may make numerous perceptions in their particular parts according to the various changes of self-motion But some may say If the particular parts of one composed figure be so ignorant of each others knowledg as I have expressed How can they agree in some action of the whole figure where they must all be imployed and work agreeably to one effect As for example when the Mind designs to go to such a place or do such a work How can all the parts agree in the performing of this act if they be ignorant of each others actions I answer Although every Parts knowledg and perception is its own and not anothers so that every part knows by its own knowledg and perceives by its own perception yet it doth not follow from thence that no part has any more knowledg then of it felf or of its own actions for as I said before it is well to be observed that there being an entercourse and commerce as also an acquaintance and agreement between parts and parts there must also of necessity be some knowledg or perception betwixt them that is one part must be able to perceive another part and the actions of that same part for wheresoever is life and knowledg that is sense and reason there is also perception and though no part of Nature can have an absolute knowledg yet it is neither absolutely ignorant but it has a particular knowledg and particular perceptions according to the nature of its own innate and interior figure In short as there are several kinds sorts and particular perceptions and particular ignorances between parts so there are more general perceptions
between some parts then between others the like of ignorance all which is according to the various actions of corporeal self-motion But yet no part can have a thorow perception of all other parts and their actions or be sure that that part which it perceives has the like perception of it again for one part may perceive another part and yet this part may be ignorant of that part and its perception for example my eye perceives an object but that object is not necessitated to perceive my eye again also my eye may perceive the pattern of it self made in a Looking-glass and yet be ignorant whether the Glass do the like Again when two parts touch each other one part may perceive the other and yet be ignorant whether t' other does the like for example a man joins both his hands together they may have perception of each other and yet be ignorant of each others perception and most commonly one part judges of anothers perception by its own for when one man perceives the actions of another man he judges by those actions what perceptions he has so that judgment is but a comparing of actions for as likeness of interior motions makes sympathy so comparing of actions makes judgment to know and distinguish what is alike and what is not Therefore perception of exterior objects though it proceeds from an interior principle of self-knowledg yet it is nothing else but an observation of exterior parts or actions so that parts in their several compositions and divisions may have several perceptions of each other according to the nature of their figurative corporeal motions and although each parts knowledg is its own yet parts may have as much knowledg of each other as they can perceive or observe of each other for the perceptive motions of one part may inform themselves of the actions of other parts The truth is every particular part has its own motions figures sense and reason which by a conjunction or composition of parts makes a general knowledg for as the division of parts causes a general obscurity so composition of parts makes a general knowledg and understanding and as every part has self-motion so it has self-knowledg and perception But it is to be observed That since there is a double perception in the infinite parts of Nature sensitive and rational the perception and information of the rational parts is more general then of the sensitive they being the most prudent designing and governing parts of Nature not so much encumbred with labouring on the inanimate parts of matter as the sensitive Therefore the rational parts in a composed figure or united action may sooner have a general knowledg and information of the whole then the sensitive whose knowledg is more particular as for example a man may have a pain in one of the parts of his body although the perception thereof is made by the sensitive corporeal motions in that same part yet the next adjoining sensitive parts may be ignorant thereof when as all the rational parts of the whole body may take notice of it Thus the rational parts having a more general acquaintance then the sensitive and being also the designing and architectonical parts they imploy the sensitive parts to work to the same effect but these are not always ready to obey but force sometimes the rational to obey them which we call irregularity which is nothing but an opposition or strife between parts as for example a man designs to imploy the exterior strength and action of his exterior parts but if through irregularity the legs and arms be weak the stomack sick the head full of pain they will not agree to the executing of the commands of the rational parts Likewise the mind endeavours often to keep the sensitive motions of the body from dissolution but they many times follow the mode and imitate other objects or cause a dissolution or division of that composed figure by voluntary actions Thus the sensitive and rational motions do oftentimes cross and oppose each other for although several parts are united in one body yet are they not always bound to agree in one action nor can it be otherwise for were there no disagreement between them there would be no irregularities and consequently no pain or sickness nor no dissolution of any natural figure And such an agreement and disagreement is not onely betwixt the rational and sensitive parts but also betwixt the rational and rational the sensitive and sensitive for some rational Parts may in one composed figure have opposite actions as for example the Mind of Man may be divided so as to hate one person and love another nay hate and love one and the same person for several things at the same time as also rejoice and grieve at the same time For example a man has two Sons one is kill'd in the Wars and the other comes home with victory and honour the Father grieves for the slain Son and rejoyces for the victorious Son for the Mind being material is dividable as well as composable and therefore its parts may as well oppose each other as agree for agreement and friendship is made by composition and disagreement by division and sense and reason is either stronger or weaker by composition or division regularity or irregularity for a greater number of parts may over-power a less also there are advantages and disadvantages amongst parts according to the several sorts of corporeal figurative motions so that some sorts of corporeal motions although fewer or weaker may over-power others that are more numerous and strong but the rational being the most subtil active observing and inspective parts have for the most part more power over the sensitive then the sensitive have over them which makes that they for the most part work regularly and cause all the orderly and regular compositions dissolutions changes and varieties in the infinite parts of Nature besides their perception and observation being more general it lasts longer for the rational continue the perception of the past actions of the sensitive when as the sensitive keep no such records Some say that Perception is made by the Ideas of exterior objects entering into the organs of the sentient but this opinion cannot be probable to sense and reason for first If Ideas subsist of themselves then they must have their own figures and so the figures of the objects would not be perceived but onely the figures of the Ideas But if those Ideas be the figures of the objects themselves then by entring into our sensories the objects would lose them for one single object can have no more but one exterior figure at one time which surely it cannot lose and keep at one and the same time But if it be a Print of the object on the Air it is impossible there could be such several sorts of Prints as there are Perceptions without a notable confusion Besides when I consider the little passages as in the sense of touch the
rather occasion the body to dissolve through the irregularities of such forced motions But having discoursed enough of this subject heretofore I will add no more but refer both their and my own opinions to the judicious and unpartial Reader Onely concerning Fire because they believe it is the onely shining body upon Earth I will say this If it were true then a Glow-worms tail and Cats eyes must be fire also which yet Experience makes us believe otherwise As for Sleep they call it a privation of the act of sense To which I can no ways give my consent because I believe sense to be a perpetual corporeal self-motion without any rest Neither do I think the senses can be lockt up in sleep for if they be self-moving they cannot be shut up it being as impossible to deprive self-motion of acting as to destroy its nature but if they have no self-motion they need no locking up at all because it would be their nature to rest as being moveless In short sense being self-motion can neither rest nor cease for what they call cessation is nothing else but an alteration of corporeal self-motion and thus Cessation will require as much a self-moving Agent as all other actions of Nature Lastly say they It is impossible for sense to imagine a thing past for sense is onely of things present I answer 't is true by reason the sensitive corporeal motions work on and with the parts of Inanimate Matter nevertheless when a repetition is made of the same actions and the same parts it is a sensitive remembrance And thus is also Experience made which proves there is a sensitive perception and self-knowledg because the senses are well acquainted with those objects they have often figured or patterned out and to give a further demonstration thereof we see that the senses are amazed and sometimes frighted at such objects as are unusual or have never been presented to them before In short Conception Imagination Remembrance Experience Observation and the like are all made by coporeal self-knowing perceptive self-motion and not by insensible irrational dull and moveless Matter 36. Of the different Perceptions of Sense and Reason HAving declared in the former discourse that there is a double Perception in all Parts of Nature to wit Rational and Sensitive some might ask How these two degrees of Motions work whether differently or unitedly in every part to one and the same perception I answer That regularly the animal perception of exterior objects is made by its own sensitive rational corporeal and figurative motions the sensitive patterning out the figure or action of an outward object in the sensitive organ and the rational making a figure of the same object in their own substance so that both the rational and sensitive motions work to one and the same perception and that at the same point of time and as it were by one act but yet it is to be observed that many times they do not move together to one and the same perception for the sensitive and rational motions do many times move differently even in one and the same part as for the rational they being not incumbred with any other parts of matter but moving in their own degree are not at all bound to work always with the sensitive as is evident in the production of Fancies Thoughts Imaginations Conceptions c. which are figures made onely by the rational motions in their own matter or substance without the help of the sensitive and the sensitive although they do not commonly work without the rational yet many times they do and sometimes both the rational and sensitive work without patterns that is voluntarily and by rote and sometimes the sensitive take patterns from the rational as in the invention of arts or the like so that there is no necessity that they should always work together to the same perception Concerning the perception of exterior objects I will give an instance where both the rational and sensitive motions do work differently and not to the same perception Suppose a man be in a deep contemplative study and some body touch or pinch him it happens oft that he takes no notice at all of it nor doth not feel it when as yet his touched or pinched parts are sensible or have a sensitive perception thereof also a man doth often see or hear something without minding or taking notice thereof especially when his thoughts are busily imployed about some other things which proves that his Mind or rational motions work quite to another perception then his sensitive do But some perhaps will say because there is a thorow mixture of animate rational and sensitive and inanimate matter and so close and inseparable a union and conjunction betwixt them it is impossible they should work differently or not together Besides the alledged example doth not prove that the rational and sensitive motions in one and the same part that is touched or pinched or in the organ which hears or seeth do not work together but proves onely that the sensitive motions of the touched part or organ and the rational motions in the head or brain do not work together when as nevertheless although a man takes no notice of another mans touching or pinching the rational motions of that same part may perceive it To which I answer First I do not deny that there is a close conjunction and commixture of both the rational and sensitive parts in every body or creatnre and that they are always moving and acting but I deny that they are always moving to the same perception for to be and move together and to move together to the same perception are two different things Next although I allow that there are particular both rational and sensitive figurative motions in every part and particle of the body yet the rational being more observing and inspective then the sensitive as being the designing and ordering parts may sooner have a general information and knowledg of all other rational parts of the composed figure and may all unitedly work to the conceptions or thoughts of the musing and contemplating man so that his rational motions in the pinched part of his body may work to his interior conceptions and the sensitive motions of the same part to the exterior perception for although I say in my Philosophical Opinions that all Thoughts Fancies Imaginations Conceptions c. are made in the head and all Passions in the heart yet I do not mean that all rational figurative actions are onely confined to the head and to the heart and are in no other parts of the body of an Animal or Man for surely I believe there is sense and reason or sensitive and rational knowledg not onely in all Creatures but in every part of every particular Creature But since the sensitive organs in man are joined in that part which is named the head we believe that all knowledg lies in the head by reason the other parts of the
body do not see as the eyes nor hear as the ears nor smell as the nose nor taste as the tongue c. all which makes us prefer the rational and sensitive motions that work to those perceptions in the mentioned organs before the motions in the other parts of the body when as yet these are no less rational or sensible then they although the actions of their sensitive and rational perceptions are after another manner for the motions of digestion growth decay c. are as sensible and as rational as those five sensitive organs or the head and the heart liver lungs spleen stomack bowels and the rest know as well their office and functions and are as sensible of their pains diseases constitutions tempers nourishments c. as the eyes ears nostrils tongue c. know their particular actions and perceptions for although no particular part can know the Infinite parts of Nature yet every part may know it self and its own actions as being self-moving And therefore the head or brains cannot ingross all knowledg to themselves but the other parts of the body have as much in the designing and production of a Creature as the brain has in the production of a Thought for Children are not produced by thoughts no more then digestion or nourishment is produced by the eyes or the making of blood by the ears or the several appetites of the body by the five exterior sensitive organs But although all interior as well as exterior parts of the body have their particular knowledges and perceptions different from those of the head and the five sensitive organs and the heads and organs knowledg and perception are differing from them nevertheless they have acquaintance or correspondence with each other for when the stomack has an appetite to food the mouth and hands endeavour to serve it and the legs are willing to run for it The same may be said of other Appetites Also in case of Oppression when one part of the body is oppressed or in distress all the other parts endeavour to relieve that distressed or afflicted part Thus although there is difference between the particular actions knowledges and perceptions of every part which causes an ignorance betwixt them yet by reason there is knowledg and perception in every part by which each part doth not onely know it self and its own actions but has also a perception of some actions of its neighbouring parts it causes a general intelligence and information betwixt the particular parts of a composed figure which information and intelligence as I have mentioned heretofore is more general betwixt the rational then the sensitive parts for though both the sensitive and rational parts are so closely intermixt that they may have knowledg of each other yet the sensitive parts are not so generally knowing of the concerns of a composed figure as the rational by reason the rational are more free and at liberty then the sensitive which are more incumbred with working on and with the inanimate parts of Matter and therefore it may very well be that a man in a deep contemplative study doth not always feel when he is pinched or touched because all the rational motions of his body concur or join to the conception of his musing thoughts so that onely the sensitive motions in that part do work to the perception of touch when as the rational even of the same part may work to the conception of his thoughts Besides it happeneth oft that there is not always an agreement betwixt the rational and sensitive motions even in the same parts for the rational may move regularly and the sensitive irregularly or the sensitive may move regularly and the rational irregularly nay often there are irregularities and disagreements in the same degree of motions as betwixt rational and rational sensitive and sensitive And although it be proper for the rational to inform the sensitive yet the sensitive do often inform the rational onely they cannot give such a general information as the rational for one rational part can inform all other rational parts in a moment of time and by one act And therefore rational knowledg is not onely in the head or brains but in every part or particle of the body Some Learned conceive That all knowledg is in the Mind and none in the senses For the senses say they present onely exterior objects to the mind who sits as a Judg in the kernel or fourth ventricle of the brain or in the orifice of the stomack and judges of them which in my apprehension is a very odd opinion For first they allow that all knowledg and perception comes by the senses and the sensitive spirits who like faithful servants run to and fro as from the sensitive organs to the brain and back to carry news to the mind and yet they do not grant that they have any knowledg at all which shews they are very dull servants and I wonder how they can inform the mind of what they do not know themselves Perchance they 'l say it is after the manner or way of intelligence by Letters and not by word of mouth for those that carry Letters to and fro know nothing of the business that intercedes betwixt the correspondents and so it may be betwixt the mind and the external object I answer First I cannot believe there 's such a correspondence between the object and the mind of the sentient or perceiver for if the mind and the object should be compared to such two intelligencers they would always have the like perception of each other which we see is not so for oftentimes I have a perception of such or such an object but that object may have no perception of me besides there 's nothing carried from the object to the mind of the sentient by its officers the sensitive spirits as there is betwixt two correspondents for there 's no perception made by an actual emission of parts from the object to the mind for if Perception were made that way not onely some parts of the object but the figure of the whole object would enter through the sensitive organ and presentit self before the mind by reason all objects are not perceived in parts but many in whole and since the exterior figure of the object is onely perceived by the senses then the bare figure would enter into the brain without the body or substance of the object which how it could be I am not able to conceive nay if it were possible truly it would not be hidden from the Minds officers the sensitive spirits except they did carry it veiled or covered but then they would know at least from whence they had it and to whom and how they were to carry it Wherefore it is absurd in my opinion to say that the senses bring all knowledg of exterior objects to the mind and yet have none themselves and that the mind chiefly resides but in one part of the body so that when the
heel is touched the sensitive spirits who watch in that place do run up to the head and bring news to the mind Truly if the senses have no knowledg of themselves How comes it that a man born blind cannot tell what the light of the Sun is or the light of a Candle or the light of a Glow-worms tail For though some objects of one sense may be guessed by the perception of another sense as we may guess by touch the perception of an object that belongs to sight c. yet we cannot perfectly know it except we saw it by reason the perception of sight belongs onely to the optick sense But some may ask if a man be so blind that he cannot make use of his optick sense what is become of the sensitive motions in that same part of his body to wit the optick sensorium I answer The motions of that part are not lost because the man is blind and cannot see for a privation or absence of a thing doth not prove that it is quite lost but the same motions which formerly did work to the perception of sight are onely changed and work now to some other action then the perception of sight so that it is onely a change or alteration of motions in the same parts and not an annihilation for there 's no such thing as an annihilation in Nature but all the variety in Nature is made by change of motions Wherefore to conclude the opinion of sense and reason or a sensitive and rational knowledg in all parts of Nature is in my judgment more probable and rational then the Opinion which confines all knowledg of Nature to a mans Brains or Head and allows none neither to the Senses nor to any part of Nature 37. Several Questions and Answers concerning Knowledg and Perception I Am not ignorant that endless questions and objections may be raised upon one subject and to answer them would be an infinite labour But since I desire to be perspicuous in delivering my opinions and to remove all those scruples which seem to obstruct the sense thereof I have chosen rather to be guilty of prolixity and repetitions then to be obscure by too much brevity And therefore I will add to my former discourse of knowledg and perception the resolution of these following questions which I hope will render it more intelligible Q. 1. What difference is there between Self-knowledg and Perception I answer There is as much difference betwixt them as betwixt a whole and its parts or a cause and its effects For though Self-motion be the occasional cause of particular perceptions by reason it is the cause of all particular actions of Nature and of the variety of figures yet self-knowledg is the ground or fundamental cause of Perception for were there not selfknowledg there could not be perception by reason perceptions are nothing else but particular exterior knowledges or knowledges of exterior parts and actions occasioned by the various compositions and divisions of parts so that self-moving Matter has a perceptive self-knowledg and consisting of infinite Parts those parts have particular self-self-knowledges and perceptions according to the variety of the corporeal figurative motions which as they are particular cannot be infinite in themselves for although a whole may know its parts yet the parts cannot possibly know the whole because an infinite may know a finite but a finite cannot know an infinite Nevertheless when many parts are regularly composed those parts by a conjunction or union of their particular self-self-knowledges and perceptions of each other may know more and so judg more probably of infinite as I have declared above but as for single parts there is no such thing in Nature no more then there can be an Infinite part Q. 2. Whether the Inanimate Part of Matter may not have self-knowledg as well as the Animate I answer That in my opinion and according to the conceptions of my sense and reason the Inanimate part of matter has self-knowledg as well as the Animate but not Perception for it is onely the animate part of matter that is perceptive and this animate matter being of a two-fold degree sensitive and rational the rational not being incumbred with the inanimate parts has a more clear and freer perception then the sensitive which is well to be observed for though the rational sensitive and inanimate parts of matter make but one infinite self-moving body of Nature yet there are infinite particular self-self-knowledges for Nature is divided into infinite parts and all parts of Nature are self-knowing But as all are not animate so all are not perceptive for Perception though it proceeds from self-knowledg as its ground or principle yet it is also an effect of self-motion for were there no self-motion there would be no perception and because Nature is self-moving all her parts are so too and as all her parts are moving so they have all compositions and divisions and as all are subject to compositions and divisions so all have variety of self-knowledg so that no part can be ignorant And by reason self-knowledg is the ground and Principle of Perception it knows all the effects by the variety of their changes therefore the Inanimate part of Matter may for any thing I know or perceive be as knowing as the other parts of Nature for although it be the grossest part and so the dullest wanting self-motion yet by the various divisions and compositions which the animate parts do make the inanimate may be as knowing as the animate But some may say If Inanimate Matter were knowing of it self then it would also be sensible of it self I answer Self-knowledg is so far sensible of it self that it knows it self and therefore the inanimate part of Matter being self-knowing may be sensible of its own self-knowledg but yet it is not such a sense as self-moving matter has that is a perceptive sense for the difference of animate and inanimate Matter consists herein that one is self-moving and consequently perceptive but the other not and as animate matter is self-moving as well as self-knowing so it is the chief and architectonical part of Nature which causes all the variety that is in Nature for without animate Matter there could be no composition and division and so no variety and without inanimate Matter there could not be such solid compositions of parts as there are for the animate part of Matter cannot be so gross as the inanimate and therefore without these degrees there would be no variety of figures nor no composition of solid figures as Animals Vegetables Minerals c. so that those effects which our sense and reason perceives could not be without the degrees of animate and inanimate Matter neither could there be perception without animate Matter by which all the various effects of Nature are perceived for though one Creature cannot perceive all the effects yet the infinite parts of Nature by their infinite actions perceive infinitely Again Some may
object That if the Inanimate part of Matter have self-knowledg and sense it must of necessity have life also To which I answer That the Inanimate part of Matter may have life according as it hath sense and knowledg but not such a life as the animate part of Matter has that is an active life as to compose and divide the infinite body of Nature into infinite parts and figures and to produce infinite varieties of them for all this cannot be withont motion nevertheless it has so much life as to know it self and so much sense as to be sensible of its own self-knowledg In short the difference between animate and inanimate Matter 's life sense and self-knowledg is that the animate Matter has an active life and a perceptive sense and self-knowledg which the inanimate part of Matter has not because it wants self-motion which is the cause of all actions and perceptions in Nature Q. 3. Whether the Inanimate Matter could have parts without self-motion I answer Yes For wherefoever is body or matter there are also parts because parts belong to body and there can be no body without parts but yet were there no self-motion there could be no various changes of parts or figures The truth is Nature considered as she is and as much as our sense and reason can perceive by her various effects must of necessity be composed or consist of a commixture of animate both rational and sensitive and inanimate matter for were there no inanimate matter there would be no ground or grosser substance to work on and so no solid figures and were there no animate sensitive matter there would be no labourer or workman as I may call it to form the inanimate part of matter into various figures nor would there be such infinite changes compositions divisions productions dissolutions c. as we see there are Again were there no animate rational Matter there would be no designer or surveigher to order and direct all things methodically nor no Fancies Imaginations Conceptions Memory c. so that this Triumvirate of the degrees of matter is so necessary a constitutive principle of all natural effects that Nature could not be without it I mean Nature considered not what she might have been but as she is and as much as we are able to perceive by her actions for Natural Philosophy is no more but a rational inquisition into the causes of natural effects and therefore as we observe the effects and actions of Nature so we may probably guess at their causes and principles Q. 4. How so fine subtil and pure a part as the Animate Matter is can work upon so gross a part as the Inanimate I answer More easily then Vitriol or Aqua-fortis or any other high extracts can work upon metal or the like nay more easily then fire can work upon wood or stone or the like But you will say That according to my opinion these bodies are not wrought upon or divided by the exterior agent as by fire vitriol c. but that they divide themselves by their own inherent self-motion and that the agent is no more but an occasion that the patient moves or acts thus or thus I answer 'T is very true For there is such a commixture of animate and inanimate matter that no particle in Nature can be conceived or imagined which is not composed of animate matter as well as of inanimate and therefore the patient as well as the agent having both a commixture of these parts of matter none can act upon the other but the patient changes its own parts by its own self-motion either of its own accord or by way of imitation But the inanimate part of Matter considered in it self or in its own narure hath no self-motion nor can it receive any from the animate but they being both so closely intermixt that they make but one self-moving body of Nature the animate parts of Matter bear the inanimate with them in all their actions so that it is impossible for the animate parts to divide compose contract c. but the inaimate must serve them or go along with them in all such corporeal figurative actions Q. 5. How is it possible that Parts being ignorant of each other should agree in the production of a figure I answer When I speak of Ignorance and knowledg my meaning is not that there is as much ignorance in the parts of Nature as there is knowledg for all parts have self-knowledg but I understand a perceptive knowledg by which parts do perceive parts and as for the agreeing actions of parts they cannot readily err unless it be out of wilfulness to oppose or cross each other for put the case the sensitive parts were as ignorant of perceptions as the inanimate yet the rational being thorowly intermixt with them would cause agreeable combinations and connexions of parts in all productions because they being not incumbred with the burthens of other parts make more general perceptions then the sensitive and moving freely in their own degree there is a more perfect acquaintance between them then the sensitive parts which is the cause that the rational design and order when as the sensitive labour and work I mean when they move regularly or to one and the same effect for then they must needs move agreeably and unitedly But because the sensitive parts are perceptive as well as the rational and perceive not onely the rational adjoining parts but also those of their own degree they cannot so grosly err as some believe especially since the sensitive parts do not onely know their own work but are also directed by the rational but as I have often said the several sorts both of the sensitive and rational perceptions are well to be considered which are as various as the actions of Nature and cannot be numbred by reason every figurative action is a several perception both sensitive and rational and infinite Matter being in a perpetual motion there must of necessity be infinite figures and so infinite perceptions amongst the infinite parts of Nature Q. 6. Whether there be single self-Self-knowledges and single Perceptions in Nature I answer If there can be no such thing as a single part in Nature there can neither be a single self-knowledg or perception for body and parts can never be separated from each other but wheresoever is body were it an atome there are parts also and when parts divide from parts at the same time and by the same act they are joined to other parts so that composition and division is done by one act The like for knowledg For knowledg being material consists of parts and as it is impossible that there can be single parts or parts subsisting by themselves without reference to each other or the body of Nature so it is impossible that there can be single knowledges Neither can there be a single magnitude figure colour place c. but all that is corporeal has parts and by reason Nature
is a self-moving and self-knowing body all her parts must of necessity be so too But particular composed figures and particular degrees of Matter are not single parts nor are particular actions single actions no more then a particular Creature is a single part for it would be non-sense to say single compositions and single divisions and therefore particular and single are not one and the same and as there can be no such thing as Single in Nature so there can neither be single knowledges and perceptions Which is well to be observed lest we introduce a Vacuum in Nature and so make a confusion between her parts and actions Q. 7. How is it possible since there is but one Selfknowledg in Nature as there is but one Self-motion that there can be a double degree of this Self-knowledg as also a double Perception viz. Rational and Sensitive I answer As the several degrees of Matter are not several kinds of Matter so neither are Rational and Sensitive knowledg several kinds of self-Self-knowledges but onely different degrees of one self-knowledg for as there is but one Matter and one Self-motion so there is also but one Self-knowledg in Nature which consists of two degrees Rational and Sensitive whereof the rational is the highest degree of self-knowledg for it is a more pure subtile active and piercing knowledg then the sensitive by reason it is not bound to work on and with the inanimate parts of Matter but moves freely in its own degree when as the sensitive is incumbred with labouring on the inanimate parts of Matter Indeed there is as much difference between those two degrees of self-knowledg as betwixt a chief Architect Designer or Surveigher and betwixt a Labourer or Workman for as the Labourer and Surveigher though they be different particulars are yet both of one kind viz. Mankind so it is likewise with self-knowledg for were Matter divided into infinite degrees it would still remain Matter and though self-motion be divided into infinite degrees of motions yet it is still but self-motion The like for self-knowledg for self-moving matter can but know it self and as Matter is the ground or constitutive Principle of all the parts and figures in Nature for without matter there could be no parts and so no division and self-motion is the ground or principle of all particular actions so is self-knowledg the ground of all particular knowledges and perceptions Again as one part cannot be another part so neither can one parts knowledg be another parts knowledg although they may have perceptions of each other When I speak of parts I mean not single parts for there can be no such thing as a single part in Nature but by parts I understand particular self-moving figures whether they be such composed figures as for distinctions sake we call finite wholes as for example an Animal a Tree a Stone c. or whether they be parts of those finite figures for it is impossible to describe or determine exactly what the parts of Nature are by reason Nature although it is but one body yet being self-moving 't is divided into infinite figures which by self-motion are infinitely changed composed dissolved c. which compositions and divisions hinder that there can be no single parts because no part though it should be infinitely changed composed and divided can be separated from the body of Nature but as soon as it is divided from such parts it is composed with other parts nay were it possible that it might be separated from the body of Nature it would not be a part then but a whole for it would have no reference to the body of Nature besides if it continued body or matter it would still have parts for wheresoever is body there is a composition of parts But if any one desires to know or guess at the parts of Nature he cannot do it better then by considering the corporeal figurative motions or actions of Nature for what we name parts are nothing but the effects of those figurative motions so that motions figures and parts are but one thing and it is to be observed that in composed figures there are interior and exterior parts the exterior are those which may be perceived by our exterior senses with all their proprieties as colour magnitude softness hardness thickness thinness gravity levity c. but the interior parts are the interior natural figurative motions which cause it to be such or such a part or Creature as for example Man has both his interior and exterior parts as is evident and each of them has not onely their outward figure or shape but also their interior natural figurative motions which did not onely cause them to be such or such parts as for example a leg a head a heart a spleen a liver blood c. but do also continue their being the onely difference is that those figurative motions which did first form or produce them afterwards when they were finished became retentive motions By retentive motions I do not onely mean such as keep barely the parts of the composed figures together but all those that belong to the preservation and continuance of them under which are comprehended digestive motions which place and displace parts attractive motions which draw nourishment into those parts expulsive motions which expel superfluous and hurtful parts and many the like for there are numerous sorts of retentive motions or such as belong to the preservation and continuance of a composed figure as well as there are of creating or producing motions By which we may plainly see that one figure lies within another that is one corporeal figurative motion is within another and that the interior and exterior parts or figures of Creatures are different in their actions for example the ebbing and flowing or the ascending and descending motions of water are quite different from those interior figurative motions that make it water the like may be said of Vegetables Minerals Animals and all other sorts of Creatures nay though both the interior and exterior parts figures or motions do make but one composed figure or Creature as for example Man and are all but parts of that same figure yet each being a particular motion has also its peculiar self-knowledg and perception for the difference of particular knowledges and perceptions depends upon the difference of Natures actions which as by the division of parts they cause an ignorance between them so by composition they cause also perceptions I do not mean an interior or self-ignorance which cannot be in Nature by reason every part and particle has self-knowledg but an exterior that is an ignorance of forreign parts figures or actions although they be parts of one composed figure for the parts of the hand do not know the parts of the stomack and their actions Neither do I mean an interior self-perception which can neither be in Nature because perception presupposes ignorance and if there cannot be a self-ignorance there can neither be
a self-perception although there may be an interior self-knowledg Nor is it proper to say a part may perceive it self or have a perception of it self But by perception I mean an exterior or forreign knowledg that is a knowledg of other parts figures or actions These perceptions I say are different according to the difference of the corporeal figurative motions for it is impossible that such or such parts should have such or such perceptions if they have not such or such corporeal motions Therefore though all parts have self-knowledg as well as self-motion yet by reason all parts do not move alike they cannot make the like perceptions and though self-knowledg as it is the ground and fountain not onely of all particular knowledges but also of all exterior perceptions is but one in it self as a fixt being and cannot be divided from its own nature for as Matter cannot be divided from being Matter or self-motion from being self-motion so neither can self-knowledg be divided from being self-knowledg nor can they be separated from each other but every part and particle of natural matter has self-knowledg and perception as well as it hath self-motion Yet all this hinders not but there may be degrees of self-knowledg according to the degrees of Matter for as there is rational and sensitive matter so there is also rational and sensitive self-knowledg nay there are infinite particular self-knowledges and perceptions according to the infiniteness of parts and motions and yet all is but one self-moving and self-knowing Nature for parts are nothing else but a division of the whole and the whole is nothing else but a composition of parts All which I desire may be taken notice of lest my sense be misinterpreted for when I speak of rational and sensitive self-knowledg I do not mean as if there were more self-knowledg then one in the onely infinite Matter to wit a double kind of self-knowledg but I speak in reference to the parts of Matter for the rational part is more pure and so more agil quick and free then the sensitive and the animate part is self-knowing but the inanimate not and thus in respect to parts as they are divided so they have several self-self-knowledges and perceptions as also numerous lives and souls in one composed figure or Creature and as infinite parts belong to one infinite whole so infinite self-self-knowledges and infinite perceptions belong to the infinite actions of those infinite parts But some may ask Why there are no more degrees of Matter but two viz. Animate and Inanimate and no more degrees of Animate but Rational and Sensitive I answer humane sense and reason cannot conceive it possible there should be more or fewer for the rational and sensitive are the purest degrees Matter can be capable of and were there any purer then these they would be beyond the nature of Matter which is impossible because Nature cannot go beyond it self Again some may perhaps desire to know why there are more degrees of Inanimate Matter then of Animate to wit of thickness and thinness rarity and density lightness aud heaviness c I answer These are nothing else but the actions of the material parts and do not belong to the nature of Matter so that they cannot make Parts less or more material for all is but Matter neither can they alter the nature of Matter for Matter is still Matter however it moves Lastly some may ask How it is possible that such an infinite variety can proceed but from two degrees of Matter to wit Animate and Inanimate I answer As well as Infinite effects can proceed from one Infinite cause for Nature being an Infinite body must also have Infinite parts and having an Infinite self-motion must of necessity have an infinite variety of parts and being infinitely self-knowing must also have infinite self-knowing parts which proves that Natures body must of necessity consist of those two degrees viz. Animate and Inanimate Matter for were there no Animate matter which is corporeal self-motion there would never be such variety of figures parts and actions in Nature as there is nor no perceptions for Self-knowledg or Matter without self-motion could never make any variety in Nature and therefore although self-motion causes an obscurity by the division of parts yet it causes also particular perceptions between parts and as the motions vary so do perceptions of parts In short there is but one infinite body and infinite parts one infinite self-knowledg and infinite particular self-self-knowledges one infinite self-motion and infinite particular actions as also infinite particular perceptions for self-motion is the cause of all the variety of Nature and as one figure or part of Nature lies within another so one perception is within another Q. 8. How can there be Self-knowledg and Perception in one and the same part I answer As well as the being or substance of a thing and its actions can consist together or as a cause and its effects for though they are so far different from each other that the cause is not the effect nor the effect the cause as also that the effect must of necessity depend upon the cause but the cause may chuse whether it will produce such or such effects as for example though action or motion depends upon matter yet matter does not depend upon motion as being able to subsist without it and though perception depends upon self-knowledg yet self-knowledg does not depend upon perception nevertheless wheresoever is perception there is also self-knowledg by reason that wheresoever there is an effect in act or being there is also its cause and although perception depends also upon outward objects yet outward objects do not depend upon perceptions but perception as it depends upon self-knowledg so it depends also upon self-motion for without self-knowledg and self-motion there would be no perception so that both exterior perceptions and all interior voluntary actions proceed from self-knowing and self-moving matter but the difference between particular interior self-knowledges and perceptions is caused by the changes of corporeal figurative self-motion Q. 9. Whether particular Parts or Figures be bound to particular perceptions I answer Particular Parts make Perceptions according to the nature of their corporeal figurative motions and their perceptions are as numerous as their actions for example those parts that are composed into the figure of an Animal make perceptions proper to that figures corporeal interior natural motions but if they be dissolved from the animal figure and composed into Vegetables they make such perceptions as are proper for Vegetables and being again dissolved and composed into Minerals they make perceptions proper to Minerals c. so that no part is tied or bound to one particular kind of perception no more then it is bound to one particular kind of figures but when the interior motions of that figure change the perceptions proper to that same figure change also for though self-knowledg the ground of all perceptions is a fixt
Nature would be but a confused heap or Chaos without the distinction of any perfect figures which figures make perfect perceptions of perfect objects I say of perfect objects for if the objects be not perfect the sensitive perceptions can neither be perfect but then the rational being joined with the sensitive and being more subtil active and piercing may find out the error either of the object or sense for both the rational and sensitive parts being united in one figure or action can more easily perceive the irregularities of each others actions then of exterior objects all which could not be were there single parts in Nature neither could such acts be performed by chance or sensless atomes nay could there be any single parts in Nature there would consequently be a Vacuum to discern and separate them from each other which Vacuum would breed such a confusion amongst them as there would be no conformity or symmetry in any of their figures Therefore I am absolutely against the opinion of senseless and irrational atomes moving by chance for if Nature did consist of such atomes there would be no certain kinds and species of Creatures nor no uniformity or order neither am I able to conceive how there could be a motion by chance or an irrational and senseless motion no more then I can conceive how motion can be without matter or body for self-motion as it is corporeal so it is also sensitive and rational Q. 11. Whether Perception be made by Patterning I answer My Sense and Reason does observe That the animal at least humane Perception performed by the sensitive and rational motions in the organs appropriated for it is made by patterning or framing of figures according to the patterns of exterior objects but whether all other kinds and sorts of perceptions in the infinite parts of Nature be made the same manner or way neither my self nor no particular Creature is able to determine by reason there are as many various sorts of perceptions as there are of other actions of Nature and according as the corporeal figurative motions do alter and change so do particular perceptions for Perception is a corporeal figurative action and is generally in all parts and actions of Nature and as no part can be without self-motion and self-knowledg so none can be without perception and therefore I dare truly say that all perceptions are made by figuring though I cannot certainly affirm that all are made by imitation or patterning But it is well to be observed that besides those exterior perceptions of objects there are some other interior actions both of sense and reason which are made without the presentation of exterior objects voluntarily or by rote and therefore are not actions of patterning but voluntary actions of figuring As for example Imaginations Fancies Conceptions Passions and the like are made by the rational corporeal figurative motions without taking any copies of forreign objects also many Generations Dissolutions Alterations Transformations c. are made by the sensitive motions without any exterior patterns for the generation of Maggot in a Cheese of a Worm in the root of a Tree of a Stone in the Bladder c. are not made by patterning or imitation because they are not like their producers but meerly by a voluntary figuring and therefore it is well to be observed that figuring and patterning are not one and the same figuring is a general action of Nature for all corporeal actions are figurative when as patterning is but a particular sort of figuring and although I observe that some perceptions are made by patterning yet I cannot say the same of all neither are the interior voluntary actions made by patterning but both the sensitive and rational motions frame such or such figures of their own accord for though each part in the composition of a Creature knows its own work and all do agree in the framing and producing of it yet they are not necessitated always to imitate each other which is evident because the composition of one and the same Creature is various and different by reason of the variety of its parts And this is the difference between exterior perceptions and interior voluntary actions for though both are effects of self-knowledg and self-motion yet perceptions are properly concerning forreign parts figures and actions and are occasioned by them but the voluntary actions are not occasioned by any outward objects but make figures of their own accord without any imitation patterns or copies of forreign parts or actions and as the figures and parts alter by their compositions and divisions so do both interior and exterior particular knowledges for a Tree although it has sensitive and rational knowledg and perception yet it has not an animal knowledg and perception and if it should be divided into numerous parts and these again be composed with other parts each would have such knowledge and perception as the nature of their figure required for self-knowledg alters as their own parts alter perception alters as the objects alter figures alter as the actions alter and the actions alter as Nature pleases or is decreed by God to work But I desire it may be observed first That although there are both voluntaay actions of figuring and occasioned actions of perceiving exterior objects both in sense and reason whereof those I call interior these exterior yet both of them are innate and inherent actions of their own parts as proceeding from the ground and fountain of self-knowledg and the reason why I call the voluntary actions interior is because they have no such respect to outward objects at least are not occasioned by them as perceptions are but are the own figurative actions of sense and reason made by rote when as perceptions do tend to exterior objects and are made according to the presentation of their figures parts or actions Next It is to be observed That many times the rational motions take patterns from the sensitive voluntary figures As for example in Dreams when the sensitive motions make voluntary figures on the inside of the sensitive organs the rational take patterns of them and again the sensitive do many times take patterns of the rational when they make figures by rote as in the invention and delivery of Arts and Sciences so that there is oftentimes an imitation between the rational and sensitive motions for the rational voluntary figures are like exterior objects to be patterned out by the sensitive perceptive motions and the sensitive voluntary figures are like exterior objects to be patterned out by the rational perceptive motions and yet all their perceptive actions are their own and performed inwardly that is by their own motions Which proves that by naming Perception an exterior action I do not mean that it is an action exteriously perceptible or visible for if it were thus then one part would presently know another parts perception when and how it perceives which we find it does not for although a man perceives a
Tree or Stone yet he does not know whether the Tree or Stone perceives him much less what perceptions they make but as I said before Perception I name an exterior action because it is occasioned by an object that is without the perceiving parts for although both sensitive and rational perception are so closely intermixt that none can be without the other in every part or particle of Nature were it no bigger then what is call'd an Atome yet considered in themselves they are without each other so far that the rational perceptive part is not the sensitive nor the sensitive the rational or else they would not be several parts or actions neither would there be any imitation betwixt them Lastly I desire that notice may be taken when I say that every action of Nature is perceptive for since there are no single parts in Nature but whatsoever is body consists of parts there can neither be any such thing as a single action that is an action of a single part but in all natural actions there is a commerce entercourse or agreement of parts which entercourse or agreement cannot be without perception of knowledg of each other Wherefore it must of necessity follow that every action is perceptive or that perception between parts is required in every action of Nature nay even in those which are called voluntary actions for though the rational and sensitive parts of a composed figure can make voluntary figures within themselves without taking any patterns of forreign objects yet those parts must needs know and perceive each other even in the composition or framing of their voluntary figures so that exterior knowledg or perception is as universal as self-motion for wheresoever is self-motion there is perception also But it is well to be observed first That Perception or Perceptive knowledg is onely between Parts Next That although every action in Nature is perceptive yet not every action is the action of Perception properly so called which Perception in composed figures at least in Animals is an action of patterning out exterior parts or objects performed by the rational and sensitive corporeal figurative motions in their proper organs But there are Infinite other actions which although they require perceptive parts yet they are not such actions of Perceptions as are made by Patterning out or imitating outward objects As for example Respiration Digestion Contraction Dilation Expulsion Generation Retention Dissolution Growth Decay c. Nevertheless all those actions are perceptive that is the parts which perform those actions have perception of each other or else they would never agree to produce such effects The truth is that even the action of Perception properly so called presupposes many particular perceptions between those parts that concur to the performance of that act for it is impossible that both the rational and sensitive parts in a composed figure should make the act of Perception without they know and agree what they are to do and how they are to perform it as I mentioned before And this is the reason that I have made a difference between Perception and Respiration and called them different actions not as if Respiration was not a perceptive action or presupposes not knowledg and perception between those parts that make respiration but it is not the action of Perception properly so called as for example the perception of Seeing Hearing Smelling Tasting c. in Animals but it is properly an action of drawing sucking breathing in or receiving any ways outward parts and of venting discharging or sending forth inward parts nevertheless all this cannot be done without perception or knowledg no more then without motion for wheresoever is motion there is perception also and therefore Respiration is a perceptive action In short I desire it may be observed 1. That there is Perception in every action but that not every Perception is made by patterning 2. That all self-moving parts are perceptive 3. That Perception Perceptive knowledg and Exterior knowledg are all one thing and that I take them indifferently 4. That all voluntary actions both of sense and reason are made by perceptive parts and therefore when I make a distinguishment between voluntary actions and perceptions I mean the perceptions of a composed figure and not the particular perceptive knowledges between those parts that join in the act of such Perceptions or in the making of voluntary figures But it may be objected That if all motions be perceptive they would be wholly imployed in nothing else but in making copies of exterior parts or objects My answer is Although I say that all motions are perceptive yet I do not positively affirm that all perceptions in Nature are made by Patterning or Imitation for we are to consider that there are as many different sorts of perceptions as there are of motions because every particular motion has a particular perception and though in a composed figure or Creature some motions may work to the paterning out of exterior objects yet all the rest may not do so and be nevertheless perceptive for like as a Man or any other animal Creature is not altogether composed of Eyes Eares Noses or the like sensitive organs so not all perceptive motions are imitating or patterning but some are retentive some expulsive some attractive some contractive some dilative some creating or producing some dissolving some imitating or patterning and so forth and as there are degrees of parts and motions so some perceptions may be so much purer finer and subtiler then others as much as pure Air is beyond gross Earth The truth is we cannot judg of Natures actions any otherways then we observe them by our own sensitive and rational perceptions and since we find that the sensitive and rational motions in our sensitive organs do work by the way of patterning or imitation we may surely conclude that some perceptions are made that way but that all other perceptions in all natural parts or Creature should be after the same manner would be too presumptuous for any particular Creature to affirm since there are infinite several sorts of perceptions and although we may justly and with all reason believe that all parts of Nature are perceptive because they are self-moving and self-knowing yet no particular Creature is able to judg how and in what manner they perceive no more then it can know how they move And by this it is evident how in one and the same organ of the eye some motions or parts may work to the act of perception properly so called which is made by patterning out the figure of an exterior object and other motions or parts may work to the retention of the eye and preserving it in its being others again may work to its shutting and opening and others to its respiration that is venting of superfluous and receiving of nourishing parts which motions are properly subservient to the retentive motions and hundreds the like and yet all these motions are as knowing and
out the several proprieties of one body as it is for several Painters to draw the several parts of one figure as for example of a burning Candle one may draw the wax or tallow another the wick another the flame The like for the Perceptions of several senses Sight may pattern out the figure and light of a Candle Touch may pattern out its weight hardness or smoothness the Nose may pattern out its smell the Ears may pattern out its sparkling noise c. All which does evidently prove That Perception cannot be made by pressure and reaction or else a fire coal by the perception of sight would burn out the eye because it would by pressure inflame its next adjoining parts and these again the next until it came to the eye Besides it proves that all objects are material for were Light Colour Figure Heat Cold c. immaterial they would never be patterned out by corporeal motions for no Painter is able to copy out or draw an immaterial mode or motion Neither could immaterial motions make pressure nor be subject to reaction Lastly it proves That Perception is an effect of knowledg in the sentient and not in the external object or else there would be but one knowledg in all parts and not several knowledges in several parts whereof sense and reason inform us otherwise viz. that particular figures have variety of knowledges according to the difference and variety of their corporeal figurative motions But then some will say That the actions of Matter would be more infinite then the parts I answer There can be neither more nor less in infinite For infinite can be but infinite but since parts figures changes of motion and perceptions are one and the same and since division and composition are the chief actions of Nature it does necessarily follow That as the actions vary so do also their parts and particular perceptions Q. 14. How is it possible that any Perception of outward objects can be made by patterning since patterning doth follow perception for how can any one pattern out that which he has no perception of I answer Natural actions are not like Artificial for Art is but gross and dull in comparison to Nature and although I alledg the comparison of a Painter yet is it but to make my meaning more intelligible to weaker capacities for though a Painter must see or know first what he intends to draw or copy out yet the natural perception of exterior objects is not altogether after the same manner but in those perceptions which are made by patterning the action of patterning and the perception are one and the same for as self-knowledg is the ground of Perception so self-motion is the action of Perception without which no perception could be and therefore perception and self-action are one and the same But I desire that it may well be observed what I have mentioned heretofore to wit That although there is but one self-knowledg and one selfmotion in Nature yet they being material are divideable and therefore as from one infinite cause there may flow infinite effects and one infinite whole may be divided into infinite parts so from one infinite self-knowledg and self-motion there may proceed infinite particular actions and perceptions But some may perhaps ask 1. Why those particular knowledges and perceptions are not all alike as being all but effects of one cause To which I answer That if the actions or motions of Nature were all alike all parts would have the like knowledges and perceptions but the actions being different how can it be otherwise but the perceptions must be different also for since every perception is a particular self-action then as the actions of Nature vary and as parts do divide and compose so are likewise their perceptions 2. It may be objected That if the Perception of the exterior senses in animals be made by the way of patterning then when a part of the body feels pain the rational motions by patterning out the same would be pained or sick I answer This does no more follow then that the Eye patterning out the exterior figure of Water Fire Earth c. should become of the same nature for the original is one thing and the copy another the picture of a house of stone is not made of natural stone nor is the picture of a Tree a natural Tree for if it were so Painters would do more then Chymists by fire and furnace but by reason there is a very close conjunction between the rational and sensitive perceptive motions so that when the sensitive motions of the body pattern out some exterior object the rational most commonly do the same That which we call pain or sickness in the body when patterned out by the mind is called trouble or grief for as there are degrees in their purity subtilty and activity so their perceptions are also different But it is well to be observed That although some parts are ignorant of others when they work not to one and the same perception yet sometimes there is a more general knowledg of a disease pain or soreness for example a man may have an inflamation or soreness in one part of his arm or leg and all the rest of the parts of that limb may be ignorant thereof but if the inflamation soreness or pain extend throughout the whole arm or leg then all the parts of that limb are generally sensible of it 3. It may be objected That if the rational perceptive motions take patterns from the sensitive then reason can never judg of things as naturally they are but onely of their copies as they are patterned out by the sensitive motions I answer first That reason is not so necessitated as to have no other perception then what sense presents for Reason is the instructer and informer of sense as an architect or surveigher is in the extruction of a house Next I say That in the act of Perception Reason doth not onely perceive the copies of the senses but it perceives with the sense also the original for surely the rational part of Matter being intermixed with the sensitive must perceive as well the original as sense doth for it is not so involved within the sensitive that it cannot peep out as a Jack-in-a-Box but both being closely intermixed one makes perceptions as well as the other as being both perceptive and by reason the rational part makes the same perception as the sensitive doth it seemeth as if the rational did take copies from the sensitive which although it doth yet this doth not hinder it from making a perception also of the original But then some may say if the rational Part has liberty to move as it will then it may perceive without sense that is Reason may make perceptions of outward objects in the organs of the senses when the senses make none as for example the rational motions in the eye may perceive light when the sensitive do not and sound in the ear
when the sensitive do not To which I answer 'T is probable that the rational do many times move to other perceptions then the sensitive as I have often declared but if their actions be orderly and regular then most commonly they move to one and the same perception but reason being the purer and freer part has a more subtil perception then sense for there is great difference between sense and reason concerning the subtilty of their actions sense does perceive as it were in part when as reason perceives generally and in whole for if there be an object which is to be patterned out with all its proprieties the colour of it is perceived onely by sight the smell of it is perceived by the Nose its Sound is perceived by the Ear its taste is perceived by the Tongue and its hardness or softness coldness or heat dryness or moisture is perceived by Touch so that every sense in particular patterns out that object which is proper for it and each has but so much knowledg of the said object as it patterns out for the sight knows nothing of its taste nor the taste of its touch nor the touch of its smell and so forth But the mind patterns out all those figures together so that they are but as one object to it without division which proves that the rational perception being more general is also more perfect then the sensitive and the reason is because it is more free and not incumbred with the burdens of other parts Wherefore the rational can judg better of objects then the sensitive as being more knowing and knows more because it has a more general perception and hath a more general perception because it is more subtile and active and is more subtil and active because it is free and not necessitated to labour on or with any other parts But some may say How is it possible that the rational part being so closely intermixed with the sensitive and the inanimate can move by it self and not be a labourer as well as the sensitive I answer The reason is because the rational part is more pure and finer then the sensitive or any other part of Matter which purity and fineness makes that it is so subtile and active and consequently not necessitated to labour with or on other parts Again Some may ask Whether those intermixed parts continue always together in their particulars as for example whether the same rational parts keep constantly to the same sensitive and inanimate parts as they are commixed I answer Nature is in a perpetual motion and her parts are parts of her own self-moving body wherefore they must of necessity divide and compose but if they divide and compose they cannot keep constantly to the same parts Nevertheless although particular parts are divideable from each other yet the Triumvirate of Nature that is the three chief degrees or parts of Matter to wit rational sensitive and inanimate which belong to the constitution of Nature cannot be separated or divided from each other in general so that rational matter may be divided from sensitive and inanimate and these again from the rational but they must of necessity continue in this commixture as long as Nature lasts In short rational sensitive and inanimate Matter are divideable in their particulars that is such a particular part of inanimate Matter is not bound to such a particular part of sensitive or rational Matter c. but they are individeable in general that is from each other for wheresoever is body there is also a commixture of these three degrees of Matter 4. Some may say How is it possible That Reason can be above Sense and that the rational perception is more subtile and knowing then the sensitive since in my Philosophical Opinions I have declared that the sensitive perception doth inform the rational or that Reason perceives by the information of the senses To which I answer My meaning is not that Reason has no other perception but by the information of the senses for surely the rational perception is more subtile piercing and penetrating or inspective then the sensitive and therefore more intelligent and knowing but when I say that sense informs reason I speak onely of such perceptions where the rational figurative motions take patterns from the sensitive and do not work voluntarily or by rote Besides It is to be observed That in the mentioned Book I compare Thoughts which are the actions of the rational figurative motions to the sensitive Touch so that Touch is like a Thought in sense and Thought like a Touch in reason But there is great difference in their purity for though the actions of Touch and Thought are much after the same manner yet the different degrees of sense and reason or of animate sensitive and rational matter cause great difference between them and as all sensitive perception is a kind of touch so all rational perception is a kind of thoughtfulness But mistake me not when I say Thought is like Touch for I do not mean that the rational perception is caused by the conjunction or joining of one part to another or that it is an exterior touch but an interior knowledg for all self-knowledg is a kind of thoughtfulness and that Thought is a rational Touch as Touch is a sensitive Thought for the exterior perceptions of reason resemble the interior actions or knowledg of sense Neither do I mean that the perception of touch is made by pressure and reaction no more then the perception of sight hearing or the like but the patterns of outward objects being actions of the body sentient are as it were a self-touch or self-feeling both in the sensitive and rational perceptions Indeed that subtile and learned Philosopher who will perswade us that Perception is made by pressure and reaction makes Perception onely a fantasme For says he Reaction makes a Fantasme and that is Perception 5. Some perhaps will say That if the Perception of the exterior animal senses be made by Patterning then that animal which hath two or more eyes by patterning out an exterior object will have a double or trebble perception of it according to the number of its eyes I answer That when the corporeal motions in each eye move irregularly as for example when one eye moves this and the other another way or when the eyes look asquint then they do not pattern out the object directly as they ought but when the eyes move regularly then they pattern out one and the same object alike as being fixt but upon one point and the proof thereof is if there be two eyes we may observe that both have their perceptions apart as well as jointly because those parts that are in the middle of each eye do not make at the same time the same perceptions with those that are the side or extream parts thereof but their perceptions are different from each other For example the eyes of a Man or some other Animal pattern
regular reason then those deserve it most who think themselves wiser then they are and upon that account few in this age would escape this censure But concerning the Opinions of ancient Philosophers condemned by many of our modern Writers I for my particular do very much admire them for although there is no absolute perfection in them yet if we do but rightly consider them we shall find that in many things they come nearer to truth then many of our Moderns for surely the ancients had as good and regular rational and sensitive perceptions and as profitable Arts and Sciences as we have and the world was governed as well and they lived as happily in ancient times as we do now nay more As for example how well was the World governed and how did it flourish in Augustus's time how many proud and stately Buildings and Palaces could ancient Rome shew to the world when she was in her flower The Cedars Gold and many other curiosities which Solomon used in the structure of that Magnificent Temple the like whereof our age cannot shew were as safely fetch'd and brought to him out of forreign places as those commodities which we have out of other Countries either by Sea or Land Besides I doubt not but they had as profitable and useful Arts and knowledges and as skilful and ingenious Artists as our age can boast of if not the very same yet the like and perhaps better which by the injury of time have been lost to our great disadvantage it may be they had no Microscopes or Telescopes but I think they were the happier for the want of them imploying their time in more profitable studies What learned and witty people the Egyptians were is sufficiently known out of ancient Histories which may inform us of many more But I perceive the knowledg of several ages and times is like the increase and decrease of the Moon for in some ages Art and Learning flourishes better then in others and therefore it is not onely an injury but a sign of ill-nature to exclaim against ancient Learning and call it Pedantry for if the ancients had not been I question whether we should have arrived to that knowledg we boast of at this present for they did break the Ice and shew'd us the way in many things for which we ought to be thankful rather then reward them with scorn Neither ought Artists in my opinion to condemn Contemplative Philosophy nay not to prefer the Experimental part before her for all that Artists have they are beholden for it to the conceptions of the ingenious Student except some few Arts which ascribe their original to change and therefore speculation must needs go be fore practice for how shall a man practise if he does not know what or which way to practise Reason must direct first how sense ought to work and so much as the Rational knowledg is more noble then the Sensitive so much is the Speculative part of Philosophy more noble then the Mechanical But our age being more for deluding Experiments then rational arguments which some cal a tedious babble doth prefer Sense before Reason and trusts more to the deceiving sight of their eyes and deluding glasses then to the perception of clear and regular Reason nay many will not admit of rational arguments but the bare authority of an Experimental Philosopher is sufficient to them to decide all Controversies to pronounce the Truth without any appeal to Reason as if they onely had the Infallible Truth of Nature and ingrossed all knowledg to themselves Thus Reason must stoop to Sense and the Conceptor to the Artist which will be the way to bring in Ignorance instead of advancing knowledg for when the light of Reason begins to be Eclipsed darkness of Understanding must needs follow 2. Whether Artificial Effects may be called Natural and in what sense IN my former discourses I have declared that Art produces Hermaphroditical Effects that is such as are partly Natural and partly Artificial but the question is whether those Hermaphroditical Effects may not be called Natural Effects as well as others or whether they be Effects quite different and distinct from Natural My answer is When I call Artificial effects Hermaphroditical or such as are not Natural I do not speak of Nature in general as if they were something else besides Nature for Art it self is natural and an effect of Nature and cannot produce any thing that is beyond or not within Nature wherefore artificial effects can no more be excluded from Nature then any ordinary effect or Creature of Nature But when I say they are not natural I understand the particular nature of every Creature according to its own kind of species for as there is Infinite Nature which may be called General Nature or Nature in General which includes and comprehends all the effects and Creatures that lie within her and belong to her as being parts of her own self-moving body so there are also particular natures in every Creature which are the innate proper and inherent interior and substantial forms and figures of every Creature according to their own kind or species by which each Creature or part of Nature is discerned or distinguished from the other as for example although an Animal and a Vegetable be fellow Creatures and both Natural because Material yet their interior particular Natures are not the same because they are not of the same kind but each has its own particular Nature quite different from the other and these particular Natures are nothing else but a change of corporeal figurative motions which make this diversity of figures for were the same interior and natural motions found in an Animal as are in a Vegetable an Animal would be a Vegetable and a Vegetable an Animal without any difference and after this rate there would be no variety at all in Nature but self-motion acting diversly and variously not onely in every kind and species but in every particular Creature and part of Nature causeth that wonderful variety which appears every where even to our admiration in all parts of Nature But to return to artificial effects it is known that Nature has her own ways in her actions and that there are constant productions in every kind and sort of natural Creatures which Nature observes in the propagation and increase of them whose general manner and way is always the same I say general because there are many variations in the particular motions belonging to the production of every particular Creature For example all Mankind is produced after one and the same manner or way to wit by the copulation of two persons of each Sex and so are other sorts of Creatures produced other ways also a perfect Creature is produced in the same shape and has the same interior and exterior figure as is proper to it according to the nature of its kind and species to which it belongs and this is properly called a natural production
two parts viz. animate and inanimate and that the animate again is of two degrees rational and sensitive by reason the number of two is finite and a finite number cannot make one infinite whole which whole being infinite in bulk must of necessity also consist of infinite parts To which I answer My meaning is not that Infinite Nature is made up of two finite parts but that she consists out of a co-mixture of animate and inanimate Matter which although they be of two degrees or parts call them what you will yet they are not separated parts but make one infinite body like as life soul and body make but one man for animate matter is as I said before nothing else but self-motion which self-motion joyned with inanimate matter makes but one self-moving body which body by the same self-motion is divided into infinite figures or parts not separated from each other or from the body of Nature but all cohering in one piece as several members of one body and onely distinguished by their several figures every part whereof has animate and inanimate matter as well as the whole body Nay that every part has not onely sensitive but also rational matter is evident not onely by the bare motion in every part of Nature which cannot be without sense for wheresoever is motion there 's sense but also by the regular harmonious and well-ordered actions of Nature which clearly demonstrate that there must needs be reason as well as sense in every part and particle of Nature for there can be no order method or harmony especially such as appears in the actions of Nature without there be reason to cause that order and harmony And thus motion argues sense and the well-ordered motion argues Reason in Nature and in every part and particle thereof without which Nature could not subsist but would be as a dull indigested and unformed heap and Chaos Besides it argues that there is also knowledg in Nature and all her parts for wheresoever is sense and reason there is also sensitive and rational knowledg it being most improbable that such an exactly-ordered and harmonious consort of all the infinitely-various actions of Nature should be without any knowledg moving and acting producing transforming composing dissolving c. and not knowing how whether or why to move and Nature being infinite in her own substance as well as in her parts there in bulk here in number her knowledg in general must of necessity be infinite too but in her particulars it cannot but be finite and particular and this knowledg differs according to the nature of each figure or creature for I do not mean that this sense and knowledg I speak of is onely an animal sense and knowledg as some have mis-interpreted for animal sense and knowledg is but particular and belongs onely to that sort of Creatures which are Animals but I mean such sense and knowledg as is proper to the nature of each figure so that Animal Creatures have animal sense and knowledg Vegetables a vegetative sense and knowledg Minerals a mineral sense and knowledg and so of the rest of all kinds and sorts of Creatures And this is my opinion of the Principles of Nature which I submit to the examination of the ingenious and impartial Reader to consider whether it contains not as much probability as the opinion of those whose Principles are either Whirl-pools insensible Minima's Gas Blas and Archeus dusty Atomes thrusting backwards and forwards which they call reaction and the like or of those that make the ground and foundation of the knowledg of Nature artificial Experiments and prefer Art before Reason for my Principles and Grounds are sense and reason and if they cannot hold I know not what will for where sense and reason has no admittance there nothing can be in order but confusion must needs take place 7. Whether Nature be self-moving THere are some who cannot believe That any Man has yet made out how Matter can move it self but are of opinion that few bodies move but by something else no not Animals whose spirits move the nerves the nerves again the muscles and so forth the whole body But if this were so then certainly there must either be something else that moves the spirits or they must move of themselves and if the spirits move of themselves and be material then a material substance or body may move of it self but if immaterial I cannot conceive why a material substance should not be self-moving as well as an immaterial But if their meaning be that the Spirits do not move of themselves but that the Soul moves them and God moves the Soul then it must either be done by an All-powerful Command or by an Immediate action of God The later of which is not probable to wit that God should be the Immediate Motion of all things himself for God is an Immoveable and Immutable Essence wherefore it follows that it is onely done by an Omnipotent Command Will and Decree of God and if so Why might not Infinite Matter be decreed to move of it self as well as a Spirit or the Immaterial Soul But I perceive Man has a great spleen against self-moving corporeal Nature although himself is part of her and the reason is his Ambition for he would fain be supreme and above all other Creatures as more towards a divine Nature he would be a God if arguments could make him such at least God-like as is evident by his fall which came meerly from an ambitious mind of being like God The truth is some opinions in Philosophy are like the Opinions in several Religions which endeavouring to avoid each other most commonly do meet each other like Men in a Wood parting from one another in opposite ways oftentimes do meet again or like Ships which travel towards East and West must of necessity meet each other for as the learned Dr. Donn says the furthest East is West and the furthest West is East in the same manner do the Epicurean and some of our modern Philosophers meet for those endeavour to prove matter to be somewhat like a God and these endeavour to prove man to be something like God at least that part of man which they say is immaterial so that their several opinions make as great a noise to little purpose as the dogs barking or howling at the Moon for God the Author of Nature and Nature the servant of God do order all things and actions of Nature the one by his Immutable Will and All-powerful Command the other by executing this Will and Command the one by an Incomprehensible Divine and Supernatural Power the other in a natural manner and way for God's Will is obey'd by Natures self-motion which self-motion God can as easily give and impart to corporeal Nature as to an Immaterial Spirit but Nature being as much dividable as she is composeable is the cause of several opinions as well as of several other creatures for Nature is fuller
is an Infinite difference between Divine Attributes and Natural Properties wherefore to similize our Reason Will Understanding Faculties Pasions and Figures c. to God is too high a presumption and in some manner a blasphemy Nevertheless although our natural reason and faculties are not like to divine attributes yet our natural rational perceptions are not always delusions and therefore it is certain that Natures knowing parts both sensitive and rational do believe a God that is some Being above Nature But many Writers endeavour rather to make divisions in Religion then promote the honour and worship of God by a mutual and united agreement which I confess is an irregularity and imperfection in some parts of Nature and argues that Nature is not so perfect but she has some faults and infirmities otherwise she would be a God which she is not 11. Of a General Knowledg and Worship of God given him by all Natural Creatures IT is not the sight of the beauteous frame of this world as some do conceive that makes men believe and admire God but the knowledg of the existence of God is natural and there 's no part of Nature but believes a God for certainly were there not any optick sense in Nature yet God would be the God of Nature and be worshiped and adored by her Creatures which are her parts for it is irreligious to say God should want admiration and adoration for want of an eye or any other of the animal or humane organs surely Nature has more ways then five to express and declare God's Omnipotency It is Infinite sense and reason that doth worship and adore God and the several perceptions of this sense and reason know there is a God that ought to be worshipped and adored and not onely Ears or Eyes or the like exterior organs of man Neither is it man alone but all Creatures that do acknowledg God for although God cannot be perfectly known what he is in his Essence yet he may be known in as much as Nature can know of him But since Nature is dividable in her parts each part has but a particular knowledg of God which is the cause of several Religions and several opinions in those Religions and Nature being also composeable it causes a conformity and union of those Opinions and Religions in the fundamental knowledg which is the existence of God Wherefore that which makes a general and united knowledg of the Existence of God is that Nature is intire in her self as having but one body and therefore all her parts which are of that body have also one knowledg of God for though the parts be different in the Worship of God yet they have not a different belief of the Existence of God not that God can be perfectly known either by Nature or any of her parts for God is Incomprehensible and above Nature but in as much as can be known to wit his Being and that he is All-powerful and that not any thing can be compared or likened to him for he is beyond all draught and likeness as being an Eternal Infinite Omnipotent Incorporeal Individual Immovable Being And thus it is not one part or creature viewing another that causes either the knowledg or admiration of God but the soul and life of Nature which are her sensitive and rational parts and Nature being the Eternal servant and Worshipper of God God hath been also eternally worshipped and adored for surely God's Adoration and Worship has no beginning in time neither could God be worshipped and adored by himself so as that one part of him should adore and worship another for God is an individual and simple Being not composed of parts and therefore as it is impossible for me to believe that there is no general Worship and Adoration of God so it is impossible also to believe that God has not been adored and worshipped from all Eternity and that Nature is not Eternal for although God is the Cause of Nature and Nature the Effect of God yet she may be Eternal however there being nothing impossible to be effected by God but he as an Eternal Cause is able to produce an Eternal Effect for although it is against the rules of Logick yet it is not above the power of God 12. Of a Particular Worship of God given him by those that are his chosen and elect People NAtural Philosophy is the chief of all sorts of knowledges for she is a Guide not onely to other Sciences and all sorts of Arts but even to divine knowledg it self for she teaches that there is a Being above Nature which is God the Author and Master of Nature whom all Creatures know and adore But to adore God after a particular manner according to his special Will and Command requires his Particular Grace and Divine Instructions in a supernatural manner or way which none but the chosen Creatures of God do know at least believe nor none but the sacred Church ought to explain and interpret And the proof that all men are not of the number of those elect and chosen people of God is that there can be but one True Religion and that yet there are so many several and different opinions in that Religion wherefore the Truth can onely be found in some which are those that serve God truly according to his special Will and Command both in believing and acting that which he has been pleased to reveal and command in his holy Word And I pray God of his infinite mercy to give me Grace that I may be one of them which I doubt not but I shall as long as I follow the Instruction of our blessed Church in which I have been educated 'T is true many persons are much troubled concerning Free-will and Predestination complaining that the Christian Church is so divided about this Article as they will never agree in one united belief concerning that point which is the cause of the trouble of so many Consciences nay in some even to despair But I do verily believe that if man do but love God from his soul and with all his power and pray for his saving Graces and offend not any Creature when offences can or may be avoided and follow the onely Instructions of the sacred Church not endeavouring to interpret the Word of God after his own fancy and vain imagination but praying zealously believing undoubtedly and living virtuously and piously he can hardly fall into despair unless he be disposed and inclined towards it through the irregularities of Nature so as he cannot avoid it But I most humbly thank the Omnipotent God that my Conscience is in peace and tranquility beseeching him of his mercy to give to all men the like 13. Of the Knowledg of Man SOme Philosophical Writers discourse much concerning the knowledg of Man and the ignorance of all other Creatures but I have sufficiently expressed my opinion hereof not onely in this but in my other Philosophical Works to wit that I believe other
Creatures have as much knowledg as Man and Man as much in his kind as any other particular Creature in its kind But their knowledges being different by reason of their different natures and figures it causes an ignorance of each others knowledg nay the knowledg of other Creatures many times gives information to Man As for example the Egyptians are informed how high the River Nilus will rise by the Crocodil's building her nest higher or lower which shews that those Creatures fore-see or fore-know more then Man can do also many Birds fore-know the rising of a Tempest and shelter themselves before it comes the like examples might be given of several other sorts of Animals whose knowledg proceeds either from some sensitive perceptions or from rational observations or from both and if there be such a difference in the rational and sensitive knowledg of one kind of Creatures to wit Animals much more in all other kinds as Vegetables Minerals Elements and so in all Natures Works Wherefore he that will say there is no knowledg but in Man at least in Animal kind doth in my opinion say more then ever he will be able to prove nay the contrary is so evident as it is without all dispute But Man out of self-love and conceited pride because he thinks himself the chief of all Creatures and that all the World is made for his sake doth also imagine that all other Creatures are ignorant dull stupid senseless and irrational and he onely wise knowing and understanding And upon this ground some believe that Man is bound and decreed to pray to God for all other Creatures as being not capable to pray for themselves like as a Minister is bound to pray for his Flock But really if the Pastor should onely pray and his Sheep not but they did continue in their sins I doubt his Prayers would be of little effect and therefore it is well if their Prayers and Petitions be joyned together The like may be said of all other Creatures for the single knowledg and devotion of Man-kind cannot benefit other Creatures if they be ignorant and not capable to know admire adore and worship God themselves And thus no man with all the force of Logick will ever be able to prove that he is either the chief above all other Creatures or that he onely knows and worships God and no natural Creature else for it is without dispute that other Creatures in their kinds are as knowing and wise as Man is in his kind 14. A Natural Philosopher cannot be an Atheist IWonder how some of our learned Writers can imagine that those who study Reason and Philosophy should make them their Vouchees of Licentious practices and their secret scorn of Religion and should account it a piece of wit and gallantry to be an Atheist and of atheism to be a Philosopher considering that Reason and Philosophy is the onely way that brings and leads us to the natural knowledg of God for it would be as much absurdity to say Reason and Philosophy induce Atheism as to say Reason is not Reason for Reason is the most knowing and wisest part of Nature and the chief knowledg of Nature is to know there is a God wherefore those that do argue in such a manner argue without reason and by calling others weak heads and fools prove themselves Irrational But I perceive their supposition is built upon a false ground for they are of opinion That the Exploding of Immaterial substances and the unbounded prerogative of Matter must needs infer Atheism which whether it do not shew a weaker head then those have that believe no Immaterial substances in Nature Rational men may judg For by this it is evident that they make Immaterial substances to be Gods by reason they conclude that he who believes no Immaterial substance in Nature is an Atheist And thus by proving others Atheists they commit Blasphemy themselves for he that makes a God of a Creature sins as much if not more then he who believes no God at all And as for the unbounded prerogative of Matter I see no reason why men should exclaim against it for why should Immaterial substances have more prerogative then Material Truly I may upon the same ground conclude the prerogative of Matter as well as they do the prerogative of Spirits for both are but Creatures and in that case one has no more prerogative then the other for God could make a Material Being to move it self as well as a Material Nothing Nevertheless although Matter is self-moving yet it has not a God-like omnipotent power nor any divine attributes but an Infinite Natural power that is a power to produce infinite effects in her own self by infinite changes of Motions Neither doth it argue that Nature is above God or at least God-like for I do not say that Nature has her self-moving power of her self or by chance but that it comes from God the Author of Nature which proves that God must needs be above Nature although Nature is Infinite and Eternal for these proprieties do not derogate any thing from the Attributes of God by reason Nature is naturally Infinite which is Infinite in quantity and parts but God is a Spiritual Supernatural and Incomprehensible Infinite and as for the Eternity of Nature it is more probable to Regular Reason then that Nature should have any beginning for all beginning supposes time but in God is no time and therefore neither beginning nor ending neither in himself nor in his actions for if God be from all Eternity his actions are so too the chief of which is the production or creation of Nature Thus natural reason may conceive that Nature is the Eternal servant of God but how it was produced from all Eternity no particular or finite creature is able to imagine by reason that not onely God but also Nature is Infinite and a finite Creature can have no Idea or conception of Infinite 15. Of the Rational Soul of Man OF all the opinions concerning the Natural Soul of Man I like that best which affirms the Soul to be a self-moving substance but yet I will add a Material self-moving substance for the Soul of Man is part of the Soul of Nature and the Soul of Nature is Material I mean onely the Natural not the Divine Soul of Man which I leave to the Church And this natural Soul otherwise called Reason is nothing else but corporeal natural self-motion or a particle of the purest most subtil and active part of Matter which I call animate which animate Matter is the Life and Soul of Nature and consequently of Man and all other Creatures For we cannot in Reason conceive that Man should be the onely Creature that partakes of this soul of Nature and that all the rest of Natures parts or most of them should be soul-less or which is all one irrational although they are commonly called nay believed to be such Truly if all other Creatures cannot
be denied to be Material they can neither be accounted Irrational Insensible or Inanimate by reason there is no part nay not the smallest particle in Nature our reason is able to conceive which is not composed of Animate Matter as well as of Inanimate of Life and Soul as well as of Body and therefore no particular Creature can claim a prerogative in this case before an other for there is a thorow mixture of Animate and Inanimate Matter in Nature and all her Parts But some may object That if there be sense and reason in every part of Nature it must be in all parts alike and then a stone or any other the like Creature may have reason or a rational soul as well as Man To which I answer I do not deny that a Stone has Reason or doth partake of the Rational Soul of Nature as well as Man doth because it is part of the same Matter Man consists of but yet it has not animal or humane sense and reason because it is not of animal kind but being a Mineral it has Mineral sense and reason for it is to be observed that as Animate self-moving Matter moves not one and the same way in all Creatures so there can neither be the same way of knowledg and understanding which is sense and reason in all Creatures alike but Nature being various not onely in her parts but in her actions it causes a variety also amongst her Creatures and hence come so many kinds sorts and particulars of Natural Creatures quite different from each other though not in the General and Universal principle of Nature which is self-moving Matter for in this they agree all yet in their particular interior natures figures and proprieties Thus although there be Sense and Reason which is not onely Motion but a regular and well-ordered self-motion apparent in the wonderful and various Productions Generations Transformations Dissolutions Compositions and other actions of Nature in all Natures parts and particles yet by reason of the variety of this self-motion whose ways and modes do differ according to the nature of each particular figure no figure or creature can have the same sense and reason that is the same natural motions which another has and therefore no Stone can be said to feel pain as an Animal doth or be called blind because it has no Eyes for this kind of sense as Seeing Hearing Tasting Touching and Smelling is proper onely to an Animal figure and not to a Stone which is a Mineral so that those which frame an argument from the want of animal sense and sensitive organs to the defect of all sense and motion as for example that a Stone would withdraw it self from the Carts going over it or a piece of Iron from the hammering of a Smith conclude in my opinion very much against the artificial rules of Logick and although I understand none of them yet I question not but I shall make a better argument by the Rules of Natural Logick But that this difference of sense and reason is not altogether impossible or at least improbable to our understanding I will explain by another instance We see so many several Creatures in their several kinds to wit Elements Vegetables Minerals and Animals which are the chief distinctions of those kinds of Creatures as are subject to our sensitive perceptions and in all those what variety and difference do we find both in their exterior figures and in their interior natures truly such as most of both ancient and modern Philosophers have imagined some of them viz. the Elements to be simple bodies and the principles of all other Creatures nay those several Creatures do not onely differ so much from each other in their general kinds but there is no less difference perceived in their particular kinds for example concerning Elements what difference is there not between heavy and contracting Earth and between light and dilating Air between flowing Water and ascending Fire so as it would be an endless labour to consider all the different natures of those Creatures onely that are subject to our exterior senses And yet who dares deny that they all consist of Matter or are material Thus we see that Infinite Matter is not like a piece of Clay out of which no figure can be made but it must be clayie for natural Matter has no such narrow bounds and is not forced to make all Creatures alike for though Gold and Stone are both material nay of the same kind to wit Minerals yet one is not the other nor like the other And if this be true of Matter why may not the same be said of self-motion which is Sense and Reason Wherefore in all probability of truth there is sense and reason in a Mineral as well as in an Animal and in a Vegetable as well as in an Element although there is as great a difference between the manner and way of their sensitive and rational perceptions as there is between both their exterior and interior figures and Natures Nay there is a difference of sense and reason even in the parts of one and the same Creature and consequently of sensitive and rational perception or knowledg for as I have declared heretofore more at large every sensitive organ in man hath its peculiar way of knowledg and perception for the Eye doth not know what the Ear knows nor the Ear what the Nose knows c. All which is the cause of a general ignorance between Natures parts And the chief cause of all this difference is the variety of self-motion for if natural motion were in all Creatures alike all sense and reason would be alike too and if there were no degrees of matter all the figures of Creatures would be alike either all hard or all soft all dense or all rare and fluid c. and yet neither this variety of motion causes an absence of motion or of sense and reason nor the variety of figures an absence of Matter but onely a difference between the parts of Nature all being nevertheless self-moving sensible and rational as well as Material for wheresoever is natural Matter there is also self-motion and consequently sense and reason By this we may see how easie it is to conceive the actions of Nature and to resolve all the Phaenomena or appearances upon this ground and I cannot admire enough how so many eminent and learned Philosophers have been and are still puzled about the Natural rational soul of man Some will have her to be a Light some an Entilechy or they know not what some the Quintessence of the four Elements some composed of Earth and Water some of Fire some of Blood some an hot Complexion some an heated and dispersed Air some an Immaterial Spirit and some Nothing All which opinions seem the more strange the wiser their Authors are accounted for if they did proceed from some ignorant persons it would not be so much taken notice of but coming from great Philosophers
although the interior actions of all other parts do not appear to our senses yet they may be perceived by regular reason for what sense wants reason supplies which oftener rectifies the straying and erring senses then these do reason as being more pure subtile and free from labouring on the inanimate parts of Matter then sense is as I have often declared which proves that reason is far beyond sense and this appears also in Chymistry which yet is so much for sensitive experiments for when the effects do not readily follow according to our intentions reason is fain to consider and enquire into the causes that hinder or obstruct the success of our designs And if reason be above sense then Speculative Philosophy ought to be preferred before the Experimental because there can no reason be given for any thing without it I will not say that all Arts have their first origine from Reason for what we name chance does often present to the sensitive perception such things which the rational does afterwards take into consideration but my meaning is that for the most part Reason leads and directs the ways of Art and I am of opinion that Contemplative Philosophy is the best Tutoress and gives the surest instructions to Art and amongst the rest to the Art of Chymistry which no doubt is very profitable to man many several ways and very soveraign in many desperate diseases if discreetly and moderately used but if Chymical medicines should be so commonly applied as others they would sooner kill then cure and if Paracelsus was as frequently practised as Galen it would be as bad as the Plague Wherefore Chymical Medicines are to be used as the extreme Unction in desperate cases and that with great moderation and discretion 21. Of the Universal Medicine and of Diseases IAm not of the opinion that there can be a Universal Medicine for all diseases except it be proved that all kinds of Diseases whatsoever proceed from one cause which I am sure can never be done by reason there is as much variety in the causes of diseases as in the diseases themselves You may say All diseases proceed but from irregular motions I answer These irregular motions are so numerous different and various that all the Artists in Nature are not able to rectifie them Nay they might sooner make or create a new Matter then rectifie the irregularities of Nature more then Nature herself is pleased to do for though Art may be an occasion of the changes of some parts or motions of their compositions and divisions imitations and the like like as a Painter takes a copy from an original yet it cannot alter infinite Nature for a man may build or pull down a house but yet he cannot make the materials although he may fit or prepare them for his use so Artists may dissolve and compose several parts several ways but yet they cannot make the matter of those parts and therefore although they may observe the effects yet they cannot always give a true or probable reason why they are so nor know the several particular causes which make them to be so To see the effects belongs to the perception of sense but to judg of the cause belongs onely to reason and since there is an ignorance as well as a perceptive knowledg in Nature no creature can absolutely know or have a thorow perception of all things but according as the corporeal figurative motions are so are the perceptions not onely in one composed figure but also in every part and particle of the same figure for one and the same parts may make several perceptions in several Creatures according to their several figurative motions But reason being above sense is more inspective then sense and although sense doth many times inform reason yet reason being more subtile piercing and active doth oftener inform and rectifie the senses when they are irregular nay some rational parts inform others like as one man will inform another of his own voluntary conceptions or of his exterior perceptions and some sensitive parts will inform others as one Artist another and although Experimental Phylosophy is not to be rejected yet the Speculative is much better by reason it guides directs and governs the Experimental but as knowledg and understanding is more clear where both the rational and sensitive perception do join so Experimental and Speculative Philosophy do give the surest informations when they are joined or united together But to return to the Universal Medicine although I do not believe there is any nor that all Diseases are curable yet my advice is that no applications of remedies should be neglected in any disease whatsoever because diseases cannot be so perfectly known but that they may be mistaken and so even the most experienced Physician may many times be deceived and mistake a curable disease for an incurable wherefore Trials should be made as long as life lasts Of Dropsies Cancers Kings-evils and the like diseases I believe some may be cureable especially if taken at the first beginning and that without great difficuly and in a short time but such diseases which consist in the decay of the vital parts I do verily believe them incurable as for example those Dropsies Consumptions dead Palsies c. which are caused either through the decay of the vital parts or through want of radical substance Neither do I think a natural Blindness Dumbness Deafness or Lameness curable nor natural Fools or Idiots Nay I fear the best Chymist will be puzled to cure a setled or fixt Gout or the Stone in such bodies as are apt to breed it for Stones are produced several ways and as their productions are different so are they wherefore although many do pretend to great things yet were their cures so certain they would be more frequent I will not say but many times they perform great cures but whether it be by chance or out of a fundamental knowledg I know not but since they are so seldom performed I think them rather to be casual cures In my opinion the surest way both in Diseases and Applications of Remedies is to observe the corporeal figurative motions of both which are best and surest perceived by the rational perception because the sensitive is more apt to be deluded 22. Of Outward Remedies REmedies which are applied outwardly may be very beneficial by reason the bodies of Animal Cratures are full of Pores which serve to attract nourishment or foreign matter into the body and to vent superfluities Besides the interior parts of those bodies to which outward Remedies are applied may imitate the qualities or motions of the remedies by the help of their own sensitive motions and therefore the application of outward remedies is not altogether to be rejected But yet I do not believe that they do always or in all persons work the like effects or that they are so sure and soveraign as those that are taken inwardly The truth is as Remedies properly and
conceive them divided much less to separate them actually from each other and since Nature is one infinite body that is of an infinite bulk or extension and consists of animate and inanimate parts of Matter it must of necessity follow that these mentioned parts are infinite also for there is no particle of Nature whatever nay could it be an Atome that consists not of those mentioned parts or degrees Thus wheresoever I name Infinite degrees of Infinite Matter I call them Infinite not as divided or several but as united in one body producing infinite effects for as I said they make but one Infinite body of Nature Also when in my Philosophical Letters I say that the Animate part of Matter considered in it self could not produce Infinite effects without the Inanimate having nothing to work upon and withal some perhaps will think I contradict my self because in other places I have declared that the rational part of animate Matter works or makes figures in its own degree without the help either of the sensitive or inanimate besides it being matter or material why should it not be able to produce effects in it self as well as with other parts To which I answer my opinion is that the animate part of Matter by which I include the sensitive as well as the rational could not without the inanimate part of Matter produce such infinite variety of effects as Nature has and as are partly subject to our perception for without it there would be no grosser substance for the sensitive to work on nor nothing for the rational to direct besides there would be no such degrees of Matter as thicker and thinner rarer and denser c. nor no variety of figures nay were there no inanimate part of Matttr as well as animate all productions dissolutions and what actions soever would be done in an instant of time and a man or any other natural Creature would be produced as soon as a thought of the mind wherefore to poise or ballance the actions of Nature there must of necessity be an inanimate dull or passive degree of Matter as well as there is an animate active and self-moving and this triumvirate of the constitutive degrees of material nature is so necessary that Nature could not be what she is nor work such variety of figures as she doth without it When I say that Matter cannot know it self because it is infinite I do no not mean as if it had not selfknowledg for as Matter is self-moving so it is also self-knowing nay that the Inanimate part of Matter has also self-knowledg I have sufficiently declared heretofore but my meaning is that its knowledg cannot be limited or circumscribed and that it is an infinite natural self-knowledg Also when in the same place I say That Nature hath no free-will and that no change or alteration can be made in infinite and eternal Matter I mean concerning its own nature for Matter cannot go beyond its nature that is change from being Matter to something immaterial or from a natural being to a non-being nevertheless Nature in her particular actions works and changes her effects as she pleases and according to the wisdom and liberty God hath given her When I say that the sensitive animate part of Matter is the life of the rational soul I do not mean as if the rational part was not living as well as the sensitive but I speak comparatively in comparison to man who as he has humane life soul and body all three constituting or composing but one intire man so in the composition of Nature I name the Inanimate part the Body the Sensitive the Life and the Rational the Soul of Nature nevertheless all parts have life and knowledg for the inanimate although it is not selfmoving and has not an active life and a perceptive knowledg yet has it life and knowledg according to the nature of its degree that is an innate and fixt self-life and self-knowledg and the sensitive although it is not so subtile piercing and active a degree of self-moving Matter as the rational yet has it an active life and knowledg according to the Nature of its degree and it is well to be observed that each degree in their various commixtures do never change their natures for the sensitive doth not acquire a rational life and knowledg nor the rational a sensitive neither does the inanimate part get an active life and a perceptive knowledg for all they are so closely commixt but each retains the nature of its degree for as one part cannot be another part so one parts life and knowledg cannot become another parts life and knowledg or else it would produce a confusion in Nature and all her actions In what place soever both in my Philosophical Opinions and Letters I say that the inanimate part of Matter has neither life nor self-knowledg I mean it has not an active life and a perceptive self-knowledg such as the animate part of Matter has for though the inanimate part of Matter is moved yet it is not selfmoving but it moves by the help of the animate parts of Matter which by reason of their close and inseparable union and commixture bear it along in all their actions and operations and thus its motions or actions are onely passive not active Nevertheless although it has not self-motion yet may it have life and self-knowledg according to its own Nature for self-knowledg does not depend upon motion but is a fixt and innate being In short all parts or degrees of Matter are living and knowing but not all are self-moving but onely the animate When I say that all Matter lives in figures and Creatures and all figures and Creatures lie or live in Matter I mean that Infinite Matter moves figuratively and that all Creatures are composed by corporeal figurative motion for in what places soever of my Philosophical Works I say Figure and Motion I do not mean they are two several things distinct from body but I understand by it corporeal figurative motion or self-moving figurative Matter which is one and the same When I say That the Rational part of Matter lives in the Sensitive and the Sensitive in the Inanimate I do not mean that one lies within the other like as several Boxes are put together the lesser in the bigger but I use this expression onely to denote the close conjunction of these three degrees and that they are inseparably mixt together Concerning the Chapter of Vacuum in my Philosophical Opinions though I was doubtful then which opinion to adhere to yet I have sufficiently declared my meaning thereof in the foregoing observations to wit that there can be no vacuity in Natures body When I name six Principal Motions viz. Attraction Contraction Dilation Digestion Retention Expulsion I do not mean that they are the principles of all motions no more then a circular motion can be said the principle of all natural motions as
especially those that consist of different parts Besides the rational parts of matter being the surveighing ordering and designing parts do not suffer them in such actions to work as they please but order them all according to the Wisdom of Nature and though sometimes it may happen that they work or move irregularly yet that is not perpetual in all actions but sometimes for wheresoever is crossing and opposition there must of necessity be sometimes irregularities and disorders When in my Philosophical Letters I say That there is difference between Life and Knowledg by Life I understand Sense or the sensitive parts of matter and by Knowledg Reason or the Rational parts of Matter not as if the sensitive parts had not Knowledg as well as the rational or the rational Life as well as the sensitive but I speak comparatively in the same sense as I name the sensitive part the Life the rational the Soul and the inanimate the Body of Nature And thus much for the present There may be many more the like places in my Philosophical Works especially my Philosophical and Physical Opinions which may seem dubious and obscure but I will not trouble you now with a long Commentary or Explanation of them but if God grant me life I intend to rectifie that mentioned Book of Philosophical Opinions in the best manner I can because it contains the Ground of my Philosophy in which I hope there will be no labour lost but it will facilitate the Understanding of the Reader and render my Conceptions easie and intelligible which is the onely thing I am at and labour for THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW WORLD CALLED The Blazing World WRITTEN By the Thrice Noble Illustrious and Excellent PRINCESSE THE Duchess of Newcastle LONDON Printed by A. Maxwell in the Year 1666. TO THE DUCHESSE OF NEWCASTLE ON HER New Blazing World OUr Elder World with all their Skill and Arts Could but divide the World into three Parts Columbus then for Navigation fam'd Found a new World America 't is nam'd Now this new World was found it was not made Onely discovered lying in Times shade Then what are You having no Chaos found To make a World or any such least ground But your creating Fancy thought it fit To make your World of Nothing but pure Wit Your Blazing-world beyond the Stars mounts higher Enlightens all with a Coelestial Fier William Newcastle TO THE READER If you wonder that I join a work of Fancy to my serious Philosophical Contemplations think not that it is out of a disparagement to Philosophy or out of an opinion as if this noble study were but a Fiction of the Mind for though Philosophers may err in searching and enquiring after the Causes of Natural effects and many times embrace falshoods for Truths yet this doth not prove that the Ground of Philosophy is meerly Fiction but the error proceeds from the different motions of Reason which cause different Opinions in different parts and in some are more irregular then in others for Reason being dividable because material cannot move in all parts alike and since there is but one Truth in Nature all those that hit not this Truth do err some more some less for though some may come nearer the mark then others which makes their Opinions seem more probable and rational then others yet as long as they swerve from this onely Truth they are in the wrong Nevertheless all do ground their Opinions upon Reason that is upon rational probabilities at least they think they do But Fictions are an issue of mans Fancy framed in his own Mind according as he pleases without regard whether the thing he fancies be really existent without his mind or not so that Reason searches the depth of Nature and enquires after the true Causes of Natural Effects but Fancy creates of its own accord whatsoever it pleases and delights in its own work The end of Reason is Truth the end of Fancy is Fiction But mistake me not when I distinguish Fancy from Reason I mean not as if Fancy were not made by the Rational parts of Matter but by Reason I understand a rational search and enquiry into the causes of natural effects and by Fancy a voluntary creation or production of the Mind both being effects or rather actions of the rational part of Matter of which as that is a more profitable and useful study then this so it is also more laborious and difficult and requires sometimes the help of Fancy to recreate the Mind and withdraw it from its more serious Contemplations And this is the reason why I added this Piece of Fancy to my Philosophical Observations and joined them as two Worlds at the ends of their Poles both for my own sake to divert my studious thoughts which I employed in the Contemplation thereof and to delight the Reader with variety which is always pleasing But left my Fancy should stray too much I chose such a Fiction as would be agreeable to the subject I treated of in the former parts it is a'Description of a New World not such as Lucian's or the French man's World in the Moon but a World of my own Creating which I call the Blazing-World The first part whereof is Romancical the second Philosophical and the third is meerly Fancy or as I may call it Fantastical which if it add any satisfaction to you I shall account my self a Happy Creatoress if not I must be content to live a melancholly Life in my own World I cannot call it a poor World if poverty be onely want of Gold Silver and Jewels for there is more Gold in it then all the Chymists ever did and as I verily believe will ever be able to make As for the Rocks of Diamonds I wish with all my soul they might be shared amongst my noble female friends and upon that condition I would willingly quit my part and of the Gold I should onely desire so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses For I am not Covetous but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was is or can be which makes that though I cannot be Henry the Fifth or Charles the Second yet I endeavour to be Margaret the First and although I have neither power time nor occasion to conquer the world as Alexander and Caesar did yet rather then not to be Mistress of one since Fortune and the Fates would give me none I have made a World of my own for which no body I hope will blame me since it is in every ones power to do the like THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW WORLD CALLED The Blazing World A Merchant travelling into a forreign Country fell extreamly in Love with a young Lady but being a stranger in that Nation and beneath her both in Birth and Wealth he could have but little hopes of obtaining his desire however his love growing more and more vehement upon him even to the slighting of all difficulties he resolved at last
part had but two degrees to wit the sensitive and rational so the Inanimate was but grosser and purer and as for density rarity softness hardness c. they were nothing but various compositions and divisions of parts or particular effects nor was it density or hardness that made grossness and thinness or rarity of parts that made fineness and purity for Gold is more dense then dross and yet is more pure and fine but this is most probable said they that the rarest compositions are most suddenly altered nor can the grossness and fineness of the parts of Nature be without Animate and Inanimate Matter for the dulness of one degree poises the activity of the other and the grossness of one the purity of the other all which keeps Nature from extreams But replied my later Thonght You say that there are infinite degrees of hardness thickness thinness density rarity c. Truly answered the former if you 'l call them degrees you may for so there may be infinite degrees of Magnitude as bigger and bigger but these degrees are nothing else but the effects of self-moving Matter made by a composition of parts and cannot be attributed to one single part there being no such thing in Nature b they belong to the infinite parts of Nature joined in one body and as for Matter it self there are no more degrees but animate and inanimate that is a self-moving active and perceptive and a dull passive and moved degree My later Thoughts asked since Natures parts were so closely joined in one body how it was possible that there could be finite and not single parts The former answered That finite and single parts were not all one and the same for single parts said they are such as can subsist by themselves neither can they properly be called parts but are rather finite wholes for it is a meer contradiction to say single parts they having no reference to each other and consequently not to the body of Nature But what we call finite Parts are nothing else but several corporeal figurative motions which make all the difference that is between the figures or parts of Nature both in their kinds sorts and particulars And thus finite and particular parts are all one called thus by reason they have limited and circumscribed figures by which they are discerned from each other but not single figures for they are all joined in one body and are parts of one infinite whole which is Nature and these figures being all one and the same with their parts of Matter change according as their parts change that is by composition and division for were Nature an Atome and material that Atome would have the properties of a body that is be dividable and composable and so be subject to infinite changes although it were not infinite in bulk My later Thoughts replied That if a finite body could have infinite compositions and divisions then Nature need not to be infinite in bulk or quantity besides said they it is against sense and reason that a finite should have infinite effects The former answered first As for the infiniteness of Nature it was certain that Nature consisted of infinite parts which if so she must needs also be of an infinite bulk or quantity for where soever is an infinite number of parts or figures there must also be an infinite whole since a whole and its parts differ not really but onely in the manner of our conception for when we conceive the parts of Nature as composed in one body and inseparable from it the composition of them is called a whole but when we conceive their different figures actions and changes and that they are dividable from each other or amongst themselves we call them parts for by this one part is discerned from the other part as for example a Mineral from a Vegetable a Vegetable from an Element an Element from an Animal c. and one part is not another part but yet these parts are and remain still parts of infinite Nature and cannot be divided into single parts separated from the body of Nature although they may be divided amongst themselves infinite ways by the self-moving power of Nature In short said they a whole is nothing but a composition of parts and parts are nothing but a division of the whole Next as for the infinite compositions and divisions of a finite whole said they it is not probable that a finite can have infinite effects or can be actually divided into infinite parts but yet a body cannot but have the proprieties of a body as long as it lasts and therefore if a finite body should last eternally it would eternally retain the effects or rather proprieties of a body that is to be dividable and composable and if it have self-motion and was actually divided and composed then those compositions and divisions of its parts would be eternal too but what is eternal is infinite and therefore in this sense one cannot say amiss but that there might be eternal compositions and divisions of the parts of a finite whole for wheresoever is self-motion there is no rest But mistake us not for we do not mean divisions or compositions into single or infinite parts 〈◊〉 perpetual and eternal change and self-motion of the parts of that finite body or whole amongst themselves But because we speak now of the parts of Infinite Nature which are Infinite in number though finite or rather distinguished by their figures It is certain said they that there being a perpetual and eternal self-motion in all parts of Nature and their number being infinite they must of necessity be subject to infinite changes compositions and divisions not onely as for their duration or eternal self-motion but as for the number of their parts for parts cannot remove but from and to parts and as soon as they are removed from such parts they join to other parts which is nothing else but a composition and division of parts and this composition and division of the Infinite parts of Nature hinders that there are no actual divisions or compositions of a finite part because the one counter-balances the other for if by finite you understand a single part there can be no such thing in Nature since what we call the finiteness of parts is nothing else but the difference and change of their figures caused by self-motion and therefore when we say Infinite Nature consists of an infinite number of finite parts we mean of such parts as may be distinguished or discerned from each other by their several figures which figures are not constant but change perpetually in the body of Nature so that there can be no constant figure allowed to no part although some do last longer then others Then my later Thoughts desired to know whether there were not degrees of Motion as well as there are of Matter The former answered That without question there were degrees of motion for the rational parts were more agil quick
perceptive after their way as those that work to the act of Perception properly so called that is to the act of seeing made by patterning or imitation But it is well to be observed That although the eye has the quickest action in the Perception of seeing yet is this action most visible not onely by its motions but by the figures of the objects that are represented in the eye for if you look into anothers eye you will plainly perceive therein the picture of your own figure and had other objects but such an optick perception as Animals they would without question observe the same Some will say Those figures in the Eye are made by reflection but reflections cannot make such constant and exact patterns or imitations Others believe it proceeds from pressure and reaction but pressure and reaction being but particular actions cannot make such variety of figures Others again say That the species of the objects pass from the objects to the optick organ and make figures in the air but then the multitude of those figures in the air would make such a confusion as would hinder the species's passing through besides the species being corporeal and proceeding from the object would lessen its quantity or bulk Wherefore my opinion is that the most rare and subtilest parts in the animal sensitive organs do pattern out the figures of exterior objects and that the perception of the exterior animal senses to wit sight hearing tasting touching smelling is certainly made by no other way then by figuring and imitation Q. 12. How the bare patterning out of the Exterior figure of an object can give us an information of its Interior nature My answer is That although our sensitive Perception can go no further then the exterior shape figure and actions of an object yet the rational being a more subtil active and piercing Perception by reason it is more free then the sensitive does not rest in the knowledg of the exterior figure of an object but by its exterior actions as by several effects penetrates into its interior nature and doth probably guess and conclude what its interior figurative motions may be for although the interior and exterior actions of a composed figure be different yet the exterior may partly give a hint or information of the interior I say partly because it is impossible that one finite particular Creature should have a perfect knowledg or perception of all the interior and exterior actions of another particular Creature for example our sensitive Perception patterns out an Animal a Mineral a Vegetable c. we perceive they have the figure of flesh stone wood c. but yet we do not know what is the cause of their being such figures for the interior figurative motions of these Creatures being not subject to the perception of our exterior senses cannot exactly be known nevertheless although our exterior senses have no perception thereof yet their own parts which are concern'd in it as also their adjoining or neighbouring parts may For example a man knows he has a digestion in his body which being an interior action he cannot know by his exterior senses how it is made but those parts of the body where the digestion is performed may know it nay they must of necessity do so because they are concerned in it as being their proper imployment The same may be said of all other particular parts and actions in an Animal body which are like several workmen imployed in the building of a house for although they do all work and labour to one and the same end that is the exstruction of the house and every onemay have some inspection or perception of what his neighbour doth yet each having his peculiar task and employment has also its proper and peculiar knowledg how to perform his own work for a Joiner knows best how to finish and perfect what he has to do and so does a Mason Carpenter Tiler Glasier Stone-cutter Smith c. And thus it is with all composed figures or Creatures which proves That Perception has onely a respect to exterior parts or objects when as self-knowledg is an interior inherent inate and as it were a fixt being for it is the ground and fountain of all other particular knowledges and perceptions even as self-motion is the cause and principle of all other particular actions and although self-knowledg can be without perception yet perception cannot be without self-knowledg for it has its being from self-knowledg as an effect from its cause and as one and the same cause may produce numerous effects so from one self-knowledg proceed numerous perceptions which do vary infinitely according to the various changes of corporeal self-motion In short self-knowledg is the fundamental cause of perception but self-motion the occasional cause Just like Matter and self-motion are the causes of all natural figures for though Perception could not be without self-knowledg yet were there no self-motion there would be no variety of figures and consequently not exterior objects to be perceived Q. 13. How is it possible that several figures can be patterned out by one act of Perception for example how can a man when he sees a statue or a stone pattern out both the exterior shape of the statue the matter which the statue is made of and its colour and all this by one and the same act I answer First it is to be observed That Matter Colour Figure Magnitude c. are all but one thing and therefore they may easily be patterned out by one act of Perception at one and the same time Next I say That no sense is made by one single part but every sense consists of several parts and therefore the perception of one sense may very well pattern out several objects at once for example I see an embroidred bed my eye patterns out both the Velvet Gold Silver Silk Colour and the Workmanship nay superficially the figure of the whole Bed and all this by one act and at one the same time But it is to be observed That one object may have several proprieties which are not all subject to the perception of one sence as for example the smell of an odoriferous body and its colour are not subject to the same sense neither is the hardness or softness roughness or smoothness of its parts subject to the sense of smelling or seeing but each is perceived by such a sense as is proper for such a sort of Perception Nevertheless these different perceptions do not make them to be different bodies for even one and the same attribute or propriety of a body may be patterned out by several senses for example Magnitude or shape of body may be patterned out both by fight and touch which proves that there is a near affinity or alliance betwixt the several senses and that Touch is as it were a general sense which may imitate some other sensitive perceptions The truth is it is as easie for several senses to pattern
Besides many of their Writings are but parcels taken from the ancient but such Writers are like those unconscionable men in Civil Wars which endeavour to pull down the hereditary Mansions of Noble-men and Gentlemen to build a Cottage of their own for so do they pull down the learning of Ancient Authors to render themselves famous in composing Books of their own But though this Age does ruine Palaces to make Cottages Churches to make Conventicles and Universities to make private Colledges and endeavour not onely to wound but to kill and bury the Fame of such meritorious Persons as the Ancient were yet I hope God of his mercy will preserve State Church and Schools from ruine and destruction Nor do I think their weak works will be able to overcome the strong wits of the Ancient for setting aside some few of our Moderns all the rest are but like dead and withered leaves in comparison to lovely and lively Plants and as for Arts I am confident that where there is one good Art found in these latter ages there are two better old Arts lost both of the AEgyptians Grecians Romans and many other ancient Nations when I say lost I mean in relation to our knowledg not in Nature for nothing can be lost in Nature Truly the Art of Augury was far more beneficial then the lately invented Art of Micrography for I cannot perceive any great advantage this Art doth bring us Also the Ecclipse of the Sun and Moon was not found out by Telescopes nor the motions of the Loadstone nor the Art of the Card nor the Art of Guns and Gun-powder nor the Art of Printing and the like by Microscopes nay if it be true that Telescopes make appear the spots in the Sun and Moon or discover some new Stars what benefit is that to us Or if Microscopes do truly represent the exterior parts and superficies of some minute Creatures what advantages it our knowledg For unless they could discover their interior corporeal figurative motions and the obscure actions of Nature or the causes which make such or such Creatures I see no great benefit or advantage they yield to man Or if they discover how reflected light makes loose and superficial Colours such as no sooner percieved but are again dissolved what benefit is that to man For neither Painters nor Dyers can inclose and mix that Atomical dust and those reflections of light to serve them for any use Wherefore in my opinion it is both time and labour lost for the inspection of the exterior parts of Vegetables doth not give us any knowledg how to Sow Set Plant and Graft so that a Gardener or Husbandman will gain no advantage at all by this Art The inspection of a Bee through a Microscope will bring him no more Honey nor the inspection of a grain more Corn neither will the inspection of dusty Atomes and reflections of light teach Painters how to make and mix Colours although it may perhaps be an advantage to a decayed Ladies face by placing her self in such or such a reflection of Light where the dusty Atomes may hide her wrinkles The truth is most of these Arts are Fallacies rather then discoveries of Truth for Sense deludes more then it gives a true Information and an exterior inspection through an Optick glass is so deceiving that it cannot be relied upon Wherefore Regular Reason is the best guide to all Arts as I shall make it appear in this following Treatise It may be the World will judg it a fault in me that I oppose so many eminent and ingenious Writers but I do it not out of a contradicting or wrangling nature but out of an endeavour to find out truth or at least the probability of truth according to that proportion of sense and reason Nature has bestowed upon me for as I have heard my Noble Lord say that in the Art of Riding and Fencing there is but one Truth but many Falshoods and Fallacies So it may be said of Natural Philophy and Divinity for there is but one Fundamental Truth in each and I am as ambitious of finding out the truth of Nature as an honourable Dueller is of gaining fame and repute for as he will fight with none but an honourable and valiant opposite so am I resolved to argue with none but those which have the renown of being famous and subtil Philosophers and therefore as I have had the courage to argue heretofore with some famous and eminent Writers in Speculative Philosophy so have I taken upon me in this present work to make some reflections also upon some of our Modern Experimental and Dioptrical Writers They will perhaps think my self an inconsiderable opposite because I am not of their Sex and therefore strive to hit my Opinions with a side stroke rather covertly then openly and directly but if this should chance the impartial World I hope will grant me so much Justice as to consider my honesty and their fallacy and pass such a judgment as will declare them to be Patrons not onely to Truth but also to Justice and Equity for which Heaven will grant them their reward and time will record their noble and worthy Actions in the Register of Fame to be kept in everlasting Memory TO THE READER Curteous Reader I Do ingeniously confess that both for want of learning and reading Philosophical Authors I have not expressed my self in my Philosophical Works especially in my Philosophical and Physical Opinions so clearly and plainly as I might have done had I had the assistance of Art and the practice of reading other Authors But though my Conceptions seem not so perspicuous in the mentioned Book of Philosophical Opinions yet my Philosophical Letters and these present Observations will I hope render it more intelligible which I have writ not out of an ambitious humour to fill the World with useless Books but to explain and illustrate my own Opinions For what benefit would it be to me if I should put forth a work which by reason of its obscure and hard notious could not be understood especially it is knowil that Natural Philosophy is the hardest of all humane learning by reason it consists onely in Contemplation and to make the Philosophical Conceptions of ones mind known to others is more difffcult then to make them believe that if A. B. be equal to C. D. then E. F. is equal to A. B. because it is equal to C. D. But as for Learning that I am not versed in it no body I hope will blame me for it since it is sufficiently known that our Sex is not bread up to it as being not suffer'd to be instructed in Schools and Vniversities I will not say but many of our Sex may have as much wit and be capable of Learning as well as Men but since they want Instructions it is not possible they should attain to it for Learning is Artificial but Wit is Natural Wherefore when I began to read the Philosophical Works
of other Authors I was so troubled with their hard words and expressions at first that had they not been explained to me and had I not found out some of them by the context and connexion of the sense I should have been far enough to seek for their hard words did more obstruct then instruct me The truth is if any one intends to write Philosophy either in English or any other language be ought to consider the propriety of the language as much as the Subject be writes of or else to what purpose would it be to write If you do write Philosophy in English and use all the hardest words and expressions which none but Scholars are able to understand you had better to write it in Latine but if you will write for those that do not understand Latin Your reason will tell you that you must explain those hard words and English them in the easiest manner you can What are words but marks of things and what are Philosophical Terms but to express the Conceptions of ones mind in that Science And truly I do not think that there is any Language so poor which cannot do that wherefore those that fill their writings with hard words put the horses behind the Coach and instead of making hard things easie make easie things hard which especially in our English writers is a great fault neither do I see any reason for it but that they think to make themselves more famous by those that admire all what they do not understand though it be Non-sense but I am not of their mind and therefore although I do understand some of their hard expressions now yet I shun them as much in my writings as is possible for me to do and all this that they may be the better understood by all learned as well as unlearned by those that are professed Philosophers as well as by those that are none And though I could employ some time in studying all the hardest phrases and words in other Authors and write as learnedly perhaps as they yet will I not deceive the World nor trouble my Conscience by being a Mountebanck in learning but rather prove naturally wise then artificially foolish for at best I should but obscure my opinions and render them more intricate instead of clearing and explaining them but if my Readers should spie any errors slipt into my writings for want of art and learning I hope they 'l be so just as not to censure me too severely for them but express their wisdom in preferring the kernel before the shells It is not possible that a young Student when first he comes to the Vniversity should hope to be Master of Art in one Month or one Year and so do I likewise not perswade my self that my Philosophy being new and but lately brought forth will at first fight prove Master of Vnderstanding nay it may be not in this age but if God favour her she may attain to it in after-times and if she be slighted now and buried in silence she may perhaps rise more gloriously hereafter for her Ground being Sense and Reason She may meet with an age where she will be more regarded then she is in this But Courteous Reader all what I request of you at present is That if you have a mind to understand my Philosophical Conceptions truly You would be pleased to read them not by parcels here a little and there a little for I have found it by my self that when I read not a book throughly from beginning to end I cannot well understand the Authors design but may easily mistake his meaning I mean such Books as treat of Philosophy History c. where all parts depend upon each other But if you 'l give an impartial judgment of my Philosophy read it all or else spare your Censures especially do I recommend to you my Philosophical Opinions which contain the Grounds and Principles of my Philosophy but since they were published before I was versed in the reading of other Authors I desire you to join my Philosophical Leters and these observations to them which will serve as Commentaries to explain what may seem obscure in the mentioned Opinions but before all read this following Argumental Discourse wherein are contained the Principles and grounds of Natural Philosophy especially concerning the constitutive parts of Nature and their properties and actions as also be pleas'd to peruse the later discourse of the first part of this Book which treats of Perception for Perception being the chief and general action of Nature has occasioned me to be more prolix in explaining it then any other subject You 'l find that I go much by the way of argumentation and framing objections and answers for I would fain hinder and obstruct as many objections as could be made against the grounds of my Opinions but since it is impossible to resolve all for as Nature and her parts and actions are infinite so there may also endless objections be raised I have endeavoured onely to set down such as I thought might be most material but this I find that there is no objection but one may find an answer to it and as soon as I have made an answer to one objection another offers it self again which shews not onely that Natures actions are infinite but that they are poised and ballanced so that they cannot run into extreams However I do not appland my self so much as to think that my works can be without errors for Nature is not a Deity but her parts are often irregular and how is it possible that one particular Creature can know all the obscure and hidden infinite varieties of Nature if the Truth of Nature were so easily known we had no need to take so much pains in searching after it but Nature being Material and consequently dividable her parts have but divided knowledges and none can claim a Vniversal infinite knowledg Nevertheless although I may erre in my arguments or for want of artificial Terms yet I believe the Ground of my Opinions is True because it is sense and reason I found after the perusal of this present book that several places therein might have been more perspicuously delivered and better cleared but since it is impossible that all things can be so exact that they should not be subject to faults and imperfections for as the greatest beauties are not without moles so the best Books are seldom without Errors I intreat the ingenuous Reader to interpret them to the best sense for they are not so material but that either by the context or connexion of the whole discourse or by a comparing with other places the true meaning thereof may easily be understood and to this end I have set down this following explanation of such places as in the perusal I have observed whereby the rest may also easily be mended When I say that Discourse shall sooner find out Natures Corporeal figurative Motions then Art shall inform the Senses
of Nature and make it what it is And as of the former parts none can be said moved but all are moving as having self-motion within them so the inanimate part of Matter considered as it is an ingredient of Nature is no ways moving but always moved The former parts being effects of the body of Nature for distinctions sake may be called Effective parts but these that is the Animate and Inanimate may be called constitutive parts of Nature Those follow the composition of Nature but these are the Essential parts which constitute the body of Nature whereof the Animate by reason of their self-motion are always active and perceptive but the Inanimate is neither active nor perceptive but dull and passive and you may plainly perceive it added my former thoughts by the alledged example for as the Stick has no animal motion and yet is carried along by and with the animal wheresoever it goes so the Inanimate Matter although it has no motion at all yet it goes along with the animate parts wheresoever they 'l have it the onely difference is this as we told you before that the Stick being composed of animate as well as inanimate Matter cannot properly be said moved but occasioned to such a motion by the animal that carries it when as the inanimate part cannot be said occasioned but moved My later Thoughts replied That the alledged example of the carried Stick could give them no full satisfaction as yet for said they put the case the Stick had its own motion yet it has not a visible exterior local progressive motion such as Animals have and therefore it must needs receive that motion from the animal that carries it for nothing can be occasioned to that which it has not in it self To which the former answered first that although animals had a visible exterior progressive motion yet not all progressive motion was an animal motion Next they said that some Creatures did often occasion others to alter their motions from an ordinary to an extraordinary effect and if it be no wonder said they that Cheese Roots Fruits c. produce Worms why should it be a wonder for an Animal to occasion a visible progressive motion in a vegetable or mineral or any other sort of Creature For each natural action said they is local were it no more then the stirring of a hairs breadth nay of an Atome and all composition and division contraction dilation nay even retention are local motions for there is no thing in so just a measure but it will vary more or less nay if it did not to our perception yet we cannot from thence infer that it does not at all for our perception is too weak and gross to perceive all the subtil actions of Nature and if so then certainly Animals are not the onely Creatures that have local motion but there is local motion in all parts of Nature Then my later Thoughts asked that if every part of Nature moved by its own inherent self-motion and that there was no part of the composed body of Nature which was not self-moving how it came that Children could not go so soon as born also if the self-moving part of Matter was of two degrees sensitive and rational how it came that Children could not speak before they are taught and if it was perceptive how it came that Children did not understand so soon as born To which the former answered That although there was no part of Matter that was figureless yet those figures that were composed by the several parts of Matter such as are named natural Creatures were composed by degrees and some compositions were sooner perfected then others and some sorts of such figures or Creatures were not so soon produced or strengthened as others for example most of four legg'd Creatures said they can go run and skip about so soon as they are parted from the Dam that is so soon as they are born also they can suck understand and know their Dam's when as a Bird can neither feed it self nor fly so soon as it is hatched but requires some time before it can hop on its leggs and be able to fly but a Butterfly can fly so soon as it comes out of the shell by which we may perceive that all figures are not alike either in their composing perfecting or dissolving no more then they are alike in their shapes forms understanding c. for if they were then little Puppies and Kitlings would see so soon as born as many other Creatures do when as now they require nine days after their birth before they can see and as for speech although it be most proper to the shape of Man yet he must first know or learn a language before he can speak it and although when the parts of his mind like the parts of his body are brought to maturity that is to such a regular degree of perfection as belongs to his figure he may make a language of his own yet it requires time and cannot be done in an instant The truth is although speech be natural to man yet language must be learned and as there are several self-active parts so there are several Languages and by reason the actions of some parts can be imitated by other parts it causes that we name learning not onely in Speech but in many other things Concerning the question why Children do not understand so soon as born They answered that as the sensitive parts of Nature did compose the bulk of Creatures that is such as were usually named bodies and as some Creatures bodies were not finished or perfected so soon as others so the self-moving parts which by conjunction and agreement composed that which is named the mind of Man did not bring it to the perfection of an Animal understanding so soon as some Beasts are brought to their understanding that is to such an understanding as was proper to their figure But this is to be noted said they that although Nature is in a perpetual motion yet her actions have degrees as well as her parts which is the reason that all her productions are done in that which is vulgarly named Time that is they are not executed at once or by one act In short as a House is not finished until it be throughly built nor can be thorowly furnished until it be throughly finished so is the strength and understanding of Man and all other Creatures and as perception requires Objects so learning requires practice for though Nature is self-knowing self-moving and so perceptive yet her self-knowing self-moving and perceptive actions are not all alike but differ variously neither doth she perform all actions at once otherwise all her Creatures would be alike in their shapes forms figures knowledges perceptions productions dissolutions c. which is contradicted by experience After this my later Thoughts asked how it came that the Inanimate part of Matter had more degrees then the Animate The former answered That as the Animate
digestion or expulsion and the actions of contraction from those of dilation so the actions of imitation or patterning are different from the voluntary actions vulgarly called Conceptions and all this to make an equal poise or ballance between the actions of Nature Also there is difference in the degrees of motions in swiftness slowness rarity density appetites passions youth age growth decay c. as also between several sorts of perceptions all which proves that Nature is composed of self-moving parts which are the cause of all her varieties But this is well to be observed said they that the Rational parts are the purest and consequently the most active parts of Nature and have the quickest actions wherefore to ballance them there must be a dull part of Matter which is the Inanimate or else a World would be made in an instant and every thing would be produced altered and dissolved on a sudden as they had mentioned before Well replied my later Thoughts if there be such oppositions between the parts of Nature then I pray inform us whether they be all equally and exactly poised and ballanced To which the former answered That though it was most certain that there was a poise and ballance of Natures corporeal actions yet no particular Creature was able to know the exactness of the proportion that is between them because they are infinite Then my later Thoughts desired to know whether Motion could be annihilated The former said no because Nature was Infinite and admitted of no addition nor diminution and consequently of no new Creation nor annihilation of any part of hers But said the later If Motion be an accident it may be annihilated The former answered They did not know what they meant by the word Accident The later said That an Accident was something in a body but nothing without a body If an Accident be something answered the former Then certainly it must be body for there is nothing but what is corporeal in Nature and if it be body then it cannot be nothing at no time but it must of necessity be something But it cannot subsist of and by it self replied my later Thoughts as a substance for although it hath its own being yet its being is to subsist in another body The former answered That if an Accident was nothing without a body or substance and yet something in a body then they desired to know how being nothing it could subsist in another body and be separated from another body for composition and division said they are attributes of a body since nothing can be composed or divided but what has parts and nothing has parts but what is corporeal or has a body and therefore if an accident can be in a body and be separated from a body it would be non-sense to call it nothing But then my later Thoughts asked that when a particular Motion ceased what became of it The former answered it was not annihilated but changed The later said How can motion be corporeal and yet one thing with body Certainly if body be material and motion too they must needs be two several substances The former answered That motion and body were not two several substances but motion and matter made one self-moving body and so was place colour figure c. all one and the same with body The later replied That a Man and his action were not one and the same but two different things The former answered That a Man and his actions were no more different then a man was different from himself for said they although a man may have many different actions yet were not that man existent the same actions would not be for though many men have the like actions yet they are not the same But then replied the later Place cannot be the same with body nor colour because a man may change his place and his colour and yet retain his body Truly said the former If Place be changed then Body must change also for wheresoever is Place there is Body and though it be a vulgar phrase That a man changes his place when he heremoves yet it is not a proper Philosophical expression for he removes onely from such parts to such parts so that it is a change or a division and composition of parts and not of place And as for colour though it changes yet that proves not that it is not a body or can be annihilated The truth is though Figure Motion Colour c. do change yet they remain still in Nature and it is impossible that Nature can give away or lose the least of her corporeal Attributes or Proprieties for Nature is infinite in power as well as in act we mean for acting naturally and therefore whatsoever is not in present act is in the power of Infinite Nature But said my later Thoughts if a body be divided into very minute parts as little as dust where is the colour then The Colour answered the former is divided as well as the body and though the parts thereof be not subject to our sensitive perception yet they have nevertheless their being for all things cannot be perceptible by our senses The later said That the Colour of a Man's face could change from pale to red and from red to pale and yet the substance of the face remain the same which proved that colour and substance was not the same The former answered That although the colour of a mans face did change without altering the substance thereof yet this proved no more that Colour was Immaterial then that Motion was Immaterial for a man may put his body into several postures and have several actions and yet without any change of the substance of his body for all actions do not necessarily import a change of the parts of a composed figure there being infinite sorts of actions We will leave Accidents said my later Thoughts and return to the Inanimate part of Matter and since you declare that all parts of Nature do worship and adore God you contradict your self in allowing an Inanimate degree of Matter by reason where there is no self-motion there can be no perception of God and consequently no Worship and Adoration The former answered That the knowledg of God did not consist in exterior perception for God said they being an Infinite Incomprehensible supernatural and Immaterial Essence void of all parts can no ways be subject to Perception Nevetheless although no part can have an exterior perception of the substance of God as it has of particular natural Creatures yet it has Conceptions of the Existence of God to wit that there is a God above Nature on which Nature depends and from whose Immutable and Eternal Decree it has its Eternal Being as God's Eternal Servant but what God is in his Essence neither Nature nor any of her parts or Creatures is able to conceive And therefore although the Inanimate part of Matter is not perceptive yet having an innate knowledg and life
for any particular Creature to attain to Again my later Thoughts objected That it was impossible that the parts of one and the same degree could be ignorant of each others actions how various soever since they were capable to change their actions to the like figures The former answered first That although they might make the like figures yet they could not make the same because the parts were not the same Next they said that particular parts could not have infinite perceptions but that they could but perceive such objects as were subject to that sort of perception which they had no not all such for oftentimes objects were obscured and hidden from their perceptions that although they could perceive them if presented or coming within the compass and reach of their perceptive faculty or power yet when they were absent they could not besides said they the sensitive parts are not so subtile as to make perceptions into the interior actions of other parts no not the rational are able to have exact perceptions thereof for Perception extends but to adjoining parts and their exterior figures and actions and if they know any thing of their interior parts figures or motions it is onely by guess or probable conclusions taken from their exterior actions or figures and made especially by the rational parts which as they are the most inspective so they are the most knowing parts of Nature After these and several other objections questions and answers between the later and former thoughts and conceptions of my mind at last some Rational thoughts which were not concerned in this dispute perceiving that they became much heated and fearing they would at last cause a Faction or Civil War amongst all the rational parts which would breed that which is called a Trouble of the Mind endeavoured to make a Peace between them and to that end they propounded that the sensitive parts should publickly declare their differences and controversies and refer them to the Arbitration of the judicious and impartial Reader This proposition was unanimously embraced by all the rational parts and thus by their mutual consent this Argumental Discourse was set down and published after this manner In the mean time all the rational parts of my Mind inclined to the opinion of my former conceptions which they thought much more probable then those of the later and since now it is your part Ingenious Readers to give a final decision of the Cause consider well the subject of their quarrel and be impartial in your judgment let not Self-love or Envy corrupt you but let Regular Sense and Reason be your onely Rule that you may be accounted just Judges and your Equity and Justice be Remembred by all that honour and love it THE TABLE OF All the Principal Subjects contained and discoursed of in this BOOK Observations upon Experimental Philosophy 1. OF Humane Sense and Perception 2. Of Art and Experimental Philosophy 3. Of Micrography and of Magnifying and Multiplying Glasses 4. Of the production of Fire by Flint and Steel 5. Of Pares 6. Of the Effluviums of the Loadstone 7. Of the Stings of Nettles and Bees 8. Of the Beard of a wild Oat 9. Of the Eyes of Flyes 10. Of a Butter-Flye 11. Of the walking Motions of Flyes and other Creatures 12. Whether it be possible to make man and some other Animal Creatures flye as Birds do 13. Of Snails and Leeches and whether all Animals haue Blood 14. Of Natural Productions 15. Of the Seeds of Vegetables 16. Of the Providence of Nature and some Opinions concerning Motion 17. Des Cartes Opinion of Motion Examined 18. Of the blackness of a Charcoal and of Light 19. Of the Pores of a Charcoal and of Emptiness 20. Of Colours 21. Whether an Idea haue a Colour and of the Idea of of a Spirit 22. Of Wood petrified 23. Of the Nature of Water 24. Of Salt and of Sea or Salt-water 25. Of the motions of Heat and Cold. 26. Of the Measures Degrees and different sorts of Heat and Cold. 27. Of Congelation or Freezing 28. Of Thawing or dissolving of frozen Bodies 29. Several Questions resolved concerning Cold and Frozen Bodies 30. Of Contraction and Dilation 31. Of the Parts of Nature and of Atomes 32. Of the Celestial parts of this World and whether they be alterable 33. Of the Substance of the Sun and of Fire 34. Of Telescopes 35. Of Knowledge and Perception in general 36. Of the different Perceptions of Sense and Reason 37. Several Questions and Answers concerning Knowledg and Perception Further Observations upon Experimental Philosophy reflecting withall upon some Principal Subjects in Contemplative Philosophy 1. Ancient Learning ought not to be Exploded nor the Experimental Part of Philosophy preferred before the Speculative 2. Whether Artificial Effects may be called Natural and in what sense 3. Of Natural Matter and Motion 4. Nature cannot be known by any of her Parts 5. Art cannot produce new Forms in Nature 6. Whether there be any Prime or Principal Figures in Nature and of the true Principles of Nature 7. Whether Nature be self-moving 8. Of Animal Spirits 9. Of the Doctrine of the Scepticks concerning the Knowledg of Nature 10. Of Natural Sense and Reason 11. Of a general Knowledg and Worship of God given him by all Natural Creatures 12. Of a particular Worship of God given him by those that are his Chosen and Elect People 13. Of the Knowledg of man 14. A Natural Philosopher cannot be an Atheist 15. Of the Rational Soul of Man 16. Whether Animal Parts separated from their Bodies have life 17. Of the Spleen 18. Of Anatomy 19. Of preserving the Figures of Animal Creatures 20. Of Chymistry and Chymical Principles 21. Of the Vniversal Medicine and of Diseases 22. Of outward Remedies 23. Of several sorts of Drink and Meat 24. Of Fermentation 25. Of the Plague 26. Of Respiration Observations upon the Opinions of some Ancient Philosophers 1. Vpon the Principles of Thales 2. Some few Observations on Plato's Doctrine 3. Vpon the Doctrine of Pythagoras 4. Of Epicurus his Principles of Philosophy 5. On Aristotle's Philosophical Principles 6. Of Scepticism and some other Sects of the Ancient An Explanation of some obscure and doubtful Passages occurring in the Philosophical Works hitherto Publish'd by the Authoress A CATALOGUE OF ALL THE WORKS Hitherto Published by the AUTHORESSE SInce it is the fashion to declare what Books one has put forth to the publick view I thought it not amiss to follow the Mode and set down the Number of all the Writings of mine which hitherto have been Printed 1. Poems in Fol. Printed twice whereof the last Impression is much mended 2. Natures Pictures or Tales in Verse and Prose in Fol. 3. A Little Tract of Philosophy in 8º 4. Philosophical and Physical Opinions in Fol. 5. The same much Enlarged and Altered in Fol. 6. Philosophical Letters in Fol.
different from the natural colours of Beasts Birds Fish Worms Flies c. Concerning their interior Natures I 'le alledg but few examples although a Peacock Parrot Pye or the like are gay Birds yet there is difference in their Gayety Again although all men have flesh and blood and are all of one particular kind yet their interior natures and dispositions are so different as seldom any two men are of the same complexion and as there is difference in their complexions so in the exterior shapes and features of their exterior parts in so much as it is a wonder to see two men just alike nay as there is difference in the corporeal parts of their bodies so in the corporeal parts of their minds according to the old Proverb So many Men so many Minds For there are different Understandings Fancies Conceptions Imaginations Judgments Wits Memories Affections Passions and the like Again as in some Creatures there is difference both in their exterior features and interior natures so in others there is found a resemblance onely in their exterior and a difference in their interior parts and in others again a resemblance in their interior and a difference in their exterior parts as for example black Ebony and black Marble are both of different natures one being Wood and the other Stone and yet they resemble each other in their exterior colour and parts also white black and gray Marble are all of one interior Nature and yet to differ in their exterior colour and parts The same may be said of Chalk and Milk which are both white and yet of several natures as also of a Turquois and the Skie which both appear of one colour and yet their natures are different besides there are so many stones of different colours nay stones of one sort as for example Diamonds which appear of divers colours and yet are all of the same Nature also Man's flesh and the flesh of some other animals doth so much resemble as it can hardly be distinguished and yet there is great difference betwixt Man and Beasts Nay not onely particular Creatures but parts of one and the same Creature are different as for example every part of mans body has a several touch and every bit of meat we eat has a several taste witness the several parts as legs wings breast head c. of some Fowl as also the several parts of Fish and other Creatures All which proves the Infinite variety in Nature and that Nature is a perpetually self-moving body dividing composing changing forming and transforming her parts by self-corporeal figurative motions and as she has infinite corporeal figurative motions which are her parts so she has an infinite wisdom to order and govern her infinite parts for she has Infinite sense and reason which is the cause that no part of hers is ignorant but has some knowledg or other and this Infinite variety of knowledg makes a general Infinite wisdom in Nature And thus I have declared how Colours are made by the figurative corporeal motions and that they are as various and different as all other Creatures and when they appear either more or less it is by the variation of their parts But as for the experiment of Snow which some do alledg that in a darkned room it is not perceived to have any other light then what it receives doth not prove that the whiteness of Snow is not an inherent and natural colour because it doth not reflect light or because our eye doth not see it no more then we can justly say that blood is not blood or flesh is not flesh in the dark if our eye do not perceive it or that the interior parts of Nature are colourless because the exterior light makes no reflexion upon them Truly in my judgment those opinions that no parts have colour but those which the light reflects on are neither probable to sense nor reason for how can we conceive any corporeal part without a colour In my opinion it is as impossible to imagine a body without colour as it is impossible for the mind to conceive a natural immaterial substance and if so pure a body as the mind cannot be colourless much less are grosser bodies But put the case all bodies that are not subject to exterior light were black as night yet they would be of a colour for black is as much a colour as green or blew or yellow or the like but if all the interior parts of Nature be black then in my opinion Nature is a very sad and melancholy Lady and those which are of such an opinion surely their minds are more dark then the interior parts of Nature I will not hope that clouds of dusty Atomes have obscured them But if not any Creature can have imagination without figure and colour much less can the optick sensitive parts for the exterior sensitive parts are more gross then the rational and therefore they cannot be without colour no more then without figure and although the exterior parts of Animals are subject to our touch yet the countenances of those several exterior parts are no more perceptible by our touch then several colours are By Countenances I mean the several exterior postures motions or appearances of each part for as there is difference betwixt a face and a countenance for a face remains constantly the same when as the countenance of a face may and doth change every moment as for example there are smiling frowning joyful sad angry countenances c. so there is also a difference between the exterior figure or shape of a Creature and the several and various motions appearances or postures of the exterior parts of that Creatures exterior figure whereof the former may be compared to a Face and the later to a Countenance But leaving this nice distinction If any one should ask me Whether a Barbary-horse or a Gennet or a Turkish or an English-horse can be known and distinguished in the dark I answer They may be distinguished as much as the blind man whereof mention hath been made before may discern colours nay more for the figure of a gross exterior shape of a body may sooner be perceived then the more fine and pure countenance of Colours To shut up this my discourse of Colours I will briefly repeat what I have said before viz. that there are natural and inherent colours which are fixt and constant and superficial colours which are changeable and inconstant as also Artificial colours made by Painters and Dyers and that it is impossible that any constant colour should be made by inconstant Atomes and various lights 'T is true there are streams of dust or dusty Atomes which seem to move variously upon which the Sun or light makes several reflections and refractions but yet I do not see nor can I believe that those dusty particles and light are the cause of fixt and inherent colours and therefore if Experimental Philosophers have no firmer grounds and principles then
their Colours have and if their opinions be as changeable as inconstant Atomes and variable Lights then their experiments will be of no great benefit and use to the world Neither will Artificial Characters and Geometrical Figures be able to make their opinions and experiments more probable for they appear to me like Dr. Dee's numbers who was directed by I know not what spirits which Kelley saw in his holy stone which neither of them did understand much less will Dioptrical glasses give any true Information of them but they rather delude the sight for Art is not onely intricate and obscure but a false informer and rather blinds then informs any particular Creature of the Truth of Nature but my reason perceives that Nature loves sometimes to act or work blind-fold in the actions of Art for although they be natural yet they are but Natures blind at least her winking or jugling actions causing some parts or Creatures to deceive others or else they are her politick actions by which she deceives her Creatures expectations and by that means keeps them from knowing and understanding her subtile and wise Government 21. Whether an Idea haue a Colour and of the Idea of a Spirit I Have declared in my former discourse that there is no Colour without body nor a body without colour for we cannot think of a body without we think of colour too To which some may object That if colour be as proper to a body as matter and if the mind be corporeal then the mind is also coloured I answer The Mind in my opinion has as much colour as other parts of Nature But then perhaps they will ask me what colour the Mind is of My answer is That the Mind which is the rational part of Nature is no more subject to one colour then the Infinite parts of Nature are subject to one corporeal figurative motion for you can no more confine the corporeal mind to a particular complexion then you can confine Infinite matter to one particular colour or all colours to one particular figure Again they may ask Whether an Idea have a colour and if so whether the Idea of God be coloured To which I answer If the Ideas be of corporeal finite figures they have colours according to the nature or property or figure of the original but as for the Idea of God it is impossible to have a corporeal Idea of an infinite incorporeal Being for though the finite parts of Nature may have a perception or knowledg of the existence of God yet they cannot possibly pattern or figure him he being a Supernatural Immaterial and Infinite Being But put the case although it is very improbable nay against sense and reason there were natural immaterial Idea's if those Idea's were finite and not infinite yet they could not possibly express an infinite which is without limitation by a finite figure which hath a Circumference Some may say An Immaterial Idea hath no Circumference But then I answer It is not a finite Idea and it is impossible for an Idea to be Infinite for I take an Idea to be the picture of some object and there can be no picture without a perfect form neither can I conceive how an immaterial can have a form not having a body wherefore it is more impossible for Nature to make a picture of the Infinite God then for Man which is but a part of Nature to make a picture of infinite Nature for Nature being material has also a figure and matter they being all one so that none can be without the other no more then Nature can be divided from her self Thus it is impossible for Man to make a figure or picture of that which is not a part of Nature for pictures are as much parts of Nature as any other parts nay were they monstrous as we call them for Nature being material is also figurative and being a self-moving matter or substance is divideable and composeable and as she hath infinite corporeal figurative motions and infinite parts so she hath infinite figures of which some are pictures others originals and if any one particular Creature could picture out those infinite figures he would picture out Nature but Nature being Infinite cannot be pictured or patterned by any finite and particular Creature although she is material nevertherless she may be patterned in parts And as for God He being individeable and immaterial can neither be patterned in part nor in whole by any part of Nature which is material nay not by infinite Nature her self Wherefore the notions of God can be no otherwise but of his existence to wit that we know there is something above Nature who is the Author and God of Nature for though Nature hath an infinite natural knowledg of the Infinite God yet being divideable as well as composeable her parts cannot have such an infinite knowledg or perception and being composeable as much as divideable no part can be so ignorant of God as not to know there is a God Thus Nature hath both an infinite and finite perceptions infinite in the whole as I may say for better expressions sake and finite in parts But mistake me not I do not mean that either the infinite perception of Nature or the finite perceptions of natural parts and Creatures are any otherwise of that supernatural and divine being then natural but yet they are the most purest parts being of the rational part of Nature moving in a most elevating and subtile manner as making no exact figure or form because God hath neither form nor figure but that subtile matter or corporeal perceptive motion patterns out onely an over-ruling power which power all the parts of Nature are sensible of and yet know not what it is like as the perception of Sight seeeth the ebbing and flowing of the Sea or the motion of the Sun yet knows not their cause and the perception of Hearing hears Thunder yet knows not how it is made and if there be such ignorance of the corporeal parts of Nature what of God But to conclude my opinion is That as the sensitive perception knows some of the other parts of Nature by their effects so the rational perceives some effects of the Omnipotent power of God which effects are perceptible by finite Creatures but not his Infinite Nature nor Essence nor the cause of his Infiniteness and Omnipotency Thus although Gods Power may be perceived by Natures parts yet what God is cannot be known by any part and Nature being composeable there is a general acknowledgment of God in all her parts but being also divideable it is the cause there are particular Religions and opinions of God and of his divine Worship and Adoration 22. Of Wood Petrified I Cannot admire as some do that Wood doth turn into stone by reason I observe that Slime Clay Dirt nay Water may and doth often the same which is further off from the nature of Stone then Wood is as being less dense and its
thither to defend themselves from the coldness of the air but they being so deep in the Earth where the cold cannot enter are kept from the perception of cold so as they cannot imitate so well the motions of cold as other Creatures that are exposed to the open air The like may be said of the heat of the Sun in Summer which cannot penetrate deeper into the bowels of the Earth then cold can The truth is the Earth is to them like an Umbrello which defends or keeps men from the Sun rain wind dust c. but although it defends them from the heat of the Sun or coldness of wind yet they have those qualities naturally within themselves sometimes more and sometimes less and so has the Earth its natural temper of heat and cold But what Umbrello the middle region has whether it be some Planet or any thing else I am not able to determine unless I had been there and observed it nay ten to one but I might even then have been mistaken Wherefore all the contentions and disputes about the doctrine of Antiperistasis are in my judgment to little purpose since we are not able to know all the differences of heat and cold for if men conceive there is but one heat and cold in Nature they are mistaken and much more if they think they can measure all the several sorts of heat and cold in all Creatures by artificial experiments for as much as a Natural man differs from an artificial statue or picture of a man so much differs a natural effect from an artificial which can neither be so good nor so lasting as a natural one If Charles's Wain the Axes of the Earth and the motions of the Planets were like the pole or axes or wheels of a Coach they would soon be out of order Indeed artificial things are pretty toys to imploy idle time nay some are very useful for our conveniency but yet they are but Natures bastards or changelings if I may so call them and though Nature takes so much delight in variety that she is pleased with them yet they are not to be compared to her wise and fundamental actions for Nature being a wise and provident Lady governs her parts very wisely methodically and orderly also she is very industrious and hates to be idle which makes her imploy her time as a good Huswife doth in Brewing Baking Churning Spinning Sowing c. as also in Preserving for those that love Sweet-meats and in Distilling for those that take delight in Cordials for she has numerous imployments and being infinitely self-moving never wants work but her artificial works are her works of delight pleasure and pastime Wherefore those that imploy their time in Artificial Experiments consider onely Natures sporting or playing actions but those that view her wise Government in ordering all her parts and consider her changes alterations and tempers in particulars and their causes spend their time more usefully and profitably and truly to what purpose should a man beat his brains and weary his body with labours about that wherein he shall lose more time then gain knowledg But if any one would take delight in such things my opinion is that our female sex would be the fittest for it for they most commonly take pleasure in making of Sweet-meats Possets several sorts of Pyes Puddings and the like not so much for their own eating as to imploy their idle time and it may be they would prove good Experimental Philosophers and inform the world how to make artificial Snow by their Creams or Possets beaten into froth and Ice by their clear candied or crusted quiddinies or conserves of fruits and Frost by their candied herbs and flowers and Hail by their small comfits made of water and sugar with whites of Eggs and many other the like figures which resemble Beasts Birds Vegetables Minerals c. But the men should study the causes of those Experiments and by this society the Commonwealth would find a great benefit for the Woman was given to Man not onely to delight but to help and assist him and I am confident Women would labour as much with Fire and Furnace as Men for they 'l make good Cordials and Spirits but whether they would find out the Philosophers-stone I doubt for our sex is more apt to waste then to make Gold however I would have them try especially those that have means to spend for who knows but Women might be more happy in finding it out then Men and then would Men have reason to imploy their time in more profitable studies then in useless Experiments 27. Of Congealation and Freezing THe Congelation of Water into Ice Snow Hail and the like is made by its own corporeal figurative motions which upon the perception of the exterior object of cold by the way of imitation do contract and condense water into such or such a figure Some are of opinion that Water or the like liquors are not contracted but expanded or rarified by freezing which they prove both by the levity of congealed Water and the breaking of Glasses Earthen Bottles or other the like Vessels in which water is contained when it freezes But although I' mentioned in my former discourse that there are several sorts of colds as for example moist and dry colds whereof these contract and condense those dilate and rarifie so that there are cold dilations as well as cold contractions yet Freezing or Congelation being none of the sorts of moist but of dry colds it is not made by expanding or dilating but by contracting and condensing motions for that liquid bodies when frozen are more extended 't is not the freezing motions that cause those extensions but water being of a dilative nature its interior parts strive against the exterior which figurative motions do imitate the motions of cold or frost and in that strife the water becomes extended or dilated when congealed into Ice But the question is Whether solid bodies do dilate or extend when they freeze and my opinion is they do not for that solid bodies as Metal and the like are apt to break in a hard frost doth not prove an expansion but the division of their parts is rather made by contraction for though the motions of cold in metal are not so much exteriously contracting as to be perceived by our optick sense in its bulk or exterior magnitude as they are in the body of water whose interior nature is dilative yet by the division which cold causes it may well be believed that freezing hath an interior contractive effect otherwise it could not divide so as many times it doth Wherefore I believe that solid bodies break by an extream and extraordinary contraction of their interior parts and not by an extraordinary expansion Besides this breaking shews a strong self-motion in the action of congealing or freezing for the motions of cold are as strong and quick as the motions of heat Nay even those Experimental Philosophers which
its degree of consistency for if it did no animal Creature would be able to breath since all or most of them are subject to such a sort of respiration as requires a certain intermediate degree of air neither too thick nor too thin what respirations other Creatures require I am not able to determine for as there are several infinite parts and actions of Nature so also several sorts of Respirations and I believe that what is called the ebbing and flowing of the Sea may be the Seas Respiration for Nature has ordered for every part or Creature that which is most fitting and proper for it Concerning Artificial Congelations as to turn Water or Snow into the figure of Ice by the commixture of Salt Nitre Allum or the like it may very probably be effected for Water and watery liquors their interior figure being Circular may easily change by contracting that Circular figure into a Triangle or square that is into Ice or Snow for Water in my opinion has a round or Circular interior figure Snow a Triangular and Ice a square I do not mean an exact Mathematical Triangle or Square but such a one as is proper for their figures and that the mixture of those or the like ingredients being shaken together in a Vial doth produce films of Ice on the outside of the Glass as Experimenters relate proves not onely that the motions of Cold are very strong but also that there is perception in all parts of Nature and that all Congelations both natural and artificial are made by the corporeal perceptive motions which the sentient has of exterior cold which is also the reason that Salt being mixt with Snow makes the liquor always freeze first on that side of the Vessel where the mixture is for those parts which are nearest will imitate first the motions of frost and after them the neighbouring parts until they be all turned into Ice The truth is that all or most artificial experiments are the best arguments to evince there is perception in all corporeal parts of Nature for as parts are joyned or commix with parts so they move or work accordingly into such or such figures either by the way of imitation or otherwise for their motions are so various as it is impossible for one particulare to describe them all but no motion can be without perception because every part or particle of Nature as it is self-moving so it is also self-knowing and perceptive for Matter Self-motion Knowledg and Perception are all but one thing and no more differing nor separable from each other then Body Place Magnitude Colour and Figure Wherefore Experimental Philosophers cannot justly blame me for maintaining the opinion of Self-motion and a general Perception in Nature But to return to Artificial Congelations there is as much difference between Natural and Artificial Ice and Snow as there is between Chalk and Cheese or between a natural Child and a Baby made of Paste or Wax and Gummed-silk or between artificial Glass and natural Diamonds the like may be said of Hail Frost Wind c. for though their exterior figures do resemble yet their interior natures are quite different and therefore although by the help of Art some may make Ice of Water or Snow yet we cannot conclude from hence that all natural Ice is made the same way by saline particles or acid Spirits and the like for if Nature should work like Art she would produce a man like as a Carver makes a statue or a Painter draws a picture besides it would require a world of such saline or acid particles to make all the Ice that is in Nature Indeed it is as much absurdity as impossibility to constitute some particular action the common principle of all natural heat or cold and to make a Universal cause of a particular effect for no particular Part or Action can be prime in Nature or a fundamental principle of other Creatures or actions although it may occasion some Creatures to move after such or such a way Wherefore those that will needs have a Primum Frigidum or some Body which they suppose must of necessity be supremely cold and by participation of which all other cold Bodies obtain that quality whereof some do contend for Earth some for Water others for Air some for Nitre and others for Salt do all break their heads to no purpose for first there are no extreams in Nature and therefore no Body can be supreamely cold nor supreamly hot Next as I said it is impossible to make one particular sort of Creatures the principle of all the various sorts of heat or cold that are in Nature for there is an Elemental heat and cold a Vegetable Mineral Animal heat and cold and there may be many other sorts which we do not know and how can either Earth or Water or Nitre or Salt be the Principle of all these different colds Concerning the Earth we see that some parts of the Earth are hot and some cold the like of Water and Air and the same parts which are now hot will often in a moment grow cold which shews they are as much subject to the perception of heat and cold as some other Creatures and doth plainly deny to them the possibility of being a Primum Frigidum I have mentioned in my Poetical Works that there is a Sun in the Center of the Earth and in another place I have described a Chymical heat but these being but Poetical Fancies I will not draw them to any serious proofs onely this I will say that there may be degrees of heat and cold in the Earth and in Water as well as there are in the Air for certainly the Earth is not without Motion a dull dead moveless and inanimate body but it is as much interiously active as Air and Water are exteriously which is evident enough by the various productions of Vegetables Minerals and other bodies that derive their off-spring out of the Earth And as for Nitre and Salt although they may occasion some sorts of Colds in some sorts of Bodies like as some sorts of food or tempers of Air or the like may work such or such effects in some sorts of Creatures yet this doth not prove that they are the onely cause of all kinds of heat and cold that are in Nature The truth is if Air Water Earth Nitre or Salt or insensible roving and wandering atomes should be the only cause of cold then there would be no difference of hot and cold climates but it would freeze as well under the Line as it doth at the Poles But there 's such a stir kept about Atoms as that they are so full of action and produce all things in the world and yet none describes by what means they move or from whence they have this active power Lastly Some are of opinion that the chief cause of all cold and its effects is wind which they describe to be air moved in a considerable quantity and that
Elements cannot subsist without other Creatures All which proves that there are no single Parts nor Vacuum nor no 〈◊〉 of loose Atomes in Nature for if such a whole and perfect figure should be divided into millions of other parts and figures yet it is impossible to divide it into single parts by reason there is as much composition as there is division in Nature and as soon as parts are divided from such or such parts at that instant of time and by the same act of division they are joyned to other parts and all this because Nature is a body of a continued infiniteness without any holes or vacuities Nay were it possible that there could be a single part that is a part separated from all the rest yet being a part of Nature it must consist of the same substance as Nature her self but Nature is an Infinite composition of rational sensitive and inanimate matter which although they do constitute but one body because of their close and inseparable conjunction and commixture nevertheless they are several parts for one part is not another part and therefore every part or particle of Nature consisting of the same commixture cannot be single or individable Thus it remains firm that self-motion is the onely cause of the various parts and changes of figures and that when parts move or separate themselves from parts they move and joyn to other parts at the same point of time I do not mean that parts do drive or press upon each other for those are forced and constraint actions when as natural self-motions are free and voluntary and although there are pressures and re-actions in Nature yet they are not universal actions Neither is there any such thing as a stoppage in the actions of Nature nor do parts move through Empty spaces but as some parts joyn so others divide by the same act for although some parts can quit such or such parts yet they cannot quit all parts for example a man goes a hundred miles he leaves or quits those parts from whence he removed first but as soon as he removes from such parts he joyns to other parts were his motion no more then a hairs breadth so that all his journey is nothing else but a division and composition of parts wheresoever he goes by water or by land for it is impossible for him to quit parts in general although it be in his choice to quit such or such particular parts and to join to what parts he will When I speak of Motion I desire to be understood that I do not mean any other but corporeal motion for there is no other motion in Nature so that Generation Dissolution Alteration Augmentation Diminution Transformation nay all the actions of Sense and Reason both interior and exterior and what motions soever in Nature are corporeal although they are not all perceptible by our exterior senses for our senses are too gross to perceive all the curious and various actions of Nature and it would be but a folly to deny what our senses cannot perceive for although Sense and Reason are the same in all Creatures and parts of Nature not having any degrees in themselves no more then self-knowledg hath for self-knowledg can but be self-knowledg and sense and reason can but be sense and reason yet they do not work in all parts of Nature alike but according as they are composed and therefore it is impossible for any humane eye to see the exterior motions of all Creatures except they be of some grosser bodies For who can see the motion of the Air and the like Nay I believe not that all exterior motions of grosser bodies can be perceived by our sight much less their interior actions and by this I exclude Rest for if Matter or corporeal Nature be in a perpetual motion there can be no rest in Nature but what others call rest is nothing else but retentive motions which retentive motions are as active as dispersing motions for Mr. Des Cartes says well that it requires as much action or force to stay a Ship as to set it a float and there is as much action required in keeping parts together as in dispersing them Besides interior motions are as active as some exterior nay some more and I believe if there were a World of Gold whose parts are close and dense it would be as active interiously as a world of air which is fluid and rare would be active exteriously But some may say How is it possible that there can be a motion of bodies without an empty space for one body cannot move in another body I answer Space is change of division as Place is change of magnitude but division and magnitude belong to body therefore space and place cannot be without body but wheresoever is body there is place also Neither can a body leave a place behind it so that the distinction of interior and exterior place is needless because no body can have two places but place and body are but one thing and whensoever the body changes its place changes also But some do not consider that there are degrees of Matter for Natures body doth not consist of one degree as to be all hard or dense like a stone but as there are infinite changes of Motion so there are in Nature infinite degrees of density rarity grossness purity hardness softness c. all caused by self-motion which hard gross rare fluid dense subtil and many other sorts of bodies in their several degrees may more easily move divide and join from and with each other being in a continued body then if they had a Vacuum to move in for were there a Vacuum there would be no successive motions nor no degrees of swiftness and slowness but all Motion would be done in an instant The truth is there would be such distances of several gaps and holes that Parts would never join if once divided in so much as a piece of the world would become a single particular World not joyning to any part besides it self which would make a horrid confusion in Nature contrary to all sense and reason Wherefore the opinion of Vacuum is in my judgment as absurd as the opinion of senseless and irrational Atomes moving by chance for it is more probable that atomes should have life and knowledg to move regularly then that they should move regularly and wisely by chance and without life and knowledg for there can be no regular motion without knowledg sense and reason and therefore those that are for Atomes had best to believe them to be self-moving living and knowing bodies or else their opinion is very irrational But the opinion of Atomes is fitter for a Poetical fancy then for serious Philosophy and this is the reason that I have waved it in my Philosophical Works for if there can be no single parts there cannot be Atomes in Nature or else Nature would be like a Beggars coat full of lice Neither would she be able
to rule those wandering and stragling atomes because they are not parts of her body but each is a single body by it self having no dependance upon each other Wherefore if there should be a composition of Atomes it would not be a body made of parts but of so many whole and intire single bodies meeting together as a swarm of Bees The truth is every Atome being single must be an absolute body by it self and have an absolute power and knowledg by which it would become a kind of a Deity and the concourse of them would rather cause a confusion then a conformity in Nature because all Atomes being absolute they would all be Governours but none would be governed Thus I have declared my opinion concerning the parts of Nature as also Vacuum and Atomes to wit That it is impossible there can be any such things in Nature I will conclude after I have given my answer to these two following Questions First It may be asked Whether the Parts of a Composed figure do continue in such a Composition until the whole figure be dissolved I answer My opinion is that in some compositions they do continue at least some longer then others but although some parts of a figure do disjoin from each other and join with others yet the structure of the Creature may nevertheless continue Neither is it necessary that those which begin a buiding must needs stay to the end or perfection of it for some may begin others may work on and others may finish it also some may repair and some may ruine and it is well to be observed that the compositions of all Creatures are not alike nor do they continue or dissolve all alike and at the same time Secondly It may be questioned Whether there can be an infinite distance between two or more parts And my answer is That distance properly doth not belong to infinite but onely to finite pars for distance is a certain measure between parts and parts and wheresoever is a measure there must be two extreams but there are no extreams nor ends in infinite and therefore there can be no infinite distance between parts Indeed it is a meer contradiction and non-sense to say Infinit between parts by reason the word Between implies a finiteness as between such a part and such a part But you will say Because Nature is an infinite body it must have an infinite measure for wheresoever is body there is magnitude and figure and wheresoever is magnitude and figure there is measure I answer 'T is true body magnitude and figure are all but one thing and according as the body is so is its magnitude and figure but the body of Nature being infinite its magnitude and figure must also be infinite But mistake me not I do not mean a circumscribed and perfect exterior magnitude by reason there 's nothing exterior in respect to Infinite but in relation to its infinite parts The truth is Men do often mistake in adscribing to Infinite that which properly belongs to particulars or at least they consider the attributes of an infinite and a finite body after one and the same manner and no wonder because a finite capacity cannot comprehend what infinite is but although we cannot positively know what infinite is yet we may guess at it by its opposite that is by Finite for infinite is that which has no terms bounds or limits and therefore it cannot be circumscribed and if it cannot be circumscribed as a finite body it cannot have an exterior magnitude and figure as a finite body and consequently no measure Nevertheless it is no contradiction to say it has an Infinite magnitude and figure for although Infinite Nature cannot have any thing without or beyond it self yet it may have magnitude and figure within it self because it is a body and by this the magnitude and figure of infinite Nature is distinguished from the magnitude and figure of its finite parts for these have each their exterior and circumscribed figure which Nature has not And as for Measure it is onely an effect of a finite magnitude and belongs to finite parts that have certain distances from each other 'T is true one might in a certain manner say An infinite distance as for example if there be an infinite Line which has no ends one might call the infinite extension of that line an infinite distance but this is an improper expression and it is better to keep the term of an infinite extension then call it an infinite distance for as I said before distance is measure and properly belongs to parts Nay if it were possible that there could be an infinite distance of parts in Nature yet the perpetual changes of Motions by which parts remove and join from and to parts would not allow any such thing in Nature for the parts of Nature are always in action working intermixing composing dividing perpetually so as it would be impossible for them to keep certain distances But to conclude this Discourse I desire it may be observed 1. That whatsoever is body were it an Atome must have parts so that body cannot be without parts 2. That there is no such thing as rest or stoppage in Infinite Matter but there is self-motion in all parts of Nature although they are not all exteriously locally moving to our perception for reason must not deny what our senses cannot comprehend although a piece of Wood or Metal has no exterior progressive motion such as is found in Animals nevertheless it is not without Motion for it is subject to Generation and Dissolution which certainly are natural corporeal motions besides many others the truth is the harder denser and firmer bodies are the stronger are their motions for it requires more strength to keep and hold parts together then to dissolve and separate them 3. That without motion parts could not alter their figures neither would there be any variety in infinite Nature 4. If there were any such thing as Atomes and Vacuum there would be no conformity nor uniformity in Nature Lastly As there is a perpetual self-motion in Nature and all her parts so it is impossible that there can be perfect measures constant figures or single parts in Nature 32. Of the Celestial Parts of this World and whether they be alterable IT may be questioned Whether the celestial parts of the world never alter or change by their corporeal figurative motions but remain constantly the same without any change or alteration I answer Concerning the general and particular kinds or sorts of Creatures of this world humane sense and reason doth observe that they do not change but are continued by a perpetual supply and succession of Particulars without any general alteration or dissolution but as for the singulars or particulars of those kinds and sorts of Creatures it is most certain that they are subject to perpetual alterations generations and dissolutions for example humane sense and reason perceives that the Parts of the
able certainly to determine of what substance it is yet to our perception it appears not to be a fluid but a solid body by reason it keeps constantly the same exterior figure and never appears either ebbing or flowing or flashing as lightning is nor does the whole figure of its body dissolve and change into another figure nevertheless it being a natural creature and consisting of self-moving parts there is no question but its parts are subject to continual changes and alterations although not perceptible by our sight by reason of its distance and the weakness of our organs for although this Terrestrial Globe which we inhabit in its outward figure nay in its interior nature remains still the same yet its parts do continually change by perpetual compositions and dissolutions as is evident and needs no proof The same may be said of the Sun Moon Stars and Planets which are like a certain kind or species of Creatures as for example Animal or Man-kind which species do always last although their particulars are subject to perpetual productions and dissolutions And thus it is with all composed figures or parts of Nature whose chief action is Respiration if I may so call it that is composition and division of parts caused by the self-moving power of Nature 34. Of Telescopes MAny Ingenious and Industrious Artists take much labour and pains in studying the natures and figures of Celestial objects and endeavour to discover the causes of their appearances by Telescopes and such like Optick Instruments but if Art be not able to inform us truly of the natures of those Creatures that are near us How may it delude us in the scarch and enquiry we make of those things that are so far from us We see how Multiplying-glasses do present numerous pictures of one object which he that has not the experience of the deceitfulness of such Glasses would really think to be so many objects The like deceits may be in other optick Instruments for ought man knows 'T is true we may perhaps through a Telescope see a Steeple a matter of 20 or 30 miles off but the same can a natural Eye do if it be not defective nor the medium obstructed without the help of any such Instrument especially if one stand upon a high place But put the case a man should be upon the Alps he would hardly see the City of Paris from thence although he looked through a Telescope never so perfect and had no obstruction to hinder his sight and truly the Stars and Planets are far more distant from us then Paris from the Alps. It is well known that the sense of sight requires a certain proportion of distance betwixt the Eye and the Object which being exceeded it cannot perform its office for if the object be either too near or too far off the sight cannot discern it and as I have made mention in my Philosophical Letters of the nature of those Guns that according to the proportion of the length of the barrel shoot either further or shorter for the Barrel must have its proportioned length which being exceeded the Gun will shoot so much shorter as the barrel is made longer so may Prospective-glasses perhaps direct the sense of seeing within a certain compass of distance which distance surely the Stars and Planets do far exceed I mean so as to discern their figures as we do of other objects that are near us for concerning their exterior progressive motions we may observe them with our natural eyes as well as through Artificial Tubes We can see the Suns rising and setting and the progressive motion of the Moon and other Planets but yet we cannot see their natural figures what they are nor what makes them move for we cannot perceive progressive local Motion otherwise then by change of distance that is by composition and division of Parts which is commonly though improperly called change of Place and no glasses or tubes can do more Some affirm they have discovered many new Stars never seen before by the help of Telescopes but whether this be true or not or whether it be onely a delusion of the glasses I will not dispute for I having no skill neither in the art of Opticks nor in Astronomy may chance to err and therefore I will not eagerly affirm what I do not certainly know I onely endeavour to deliver my judgment as reason directs me and not as sense informs or rather deludes me and I chose rather to follow the guidance of regular Reason then of deluding Art 35. Of Knowledg and Perception in General SInce Natural Knowledg and Perception is the Ground and Principle not onely of Philosophy both Speculative and Experimental but of all other Arts and Sciences nay of all the Infinite particular actions of Nature I thought it not amiss to joyn to the end of this part a full declaration of my opinion concerning that subject First It is to be observed That Matter Self-motion and Self-knowledg are inseparable from each other and make Nature one Material self-moving and self-knowing Body 2. Nature being Material is dividable into parts and being infinite in quantity or bulk her parts are infinite in number 3. No part can subsist singly or by it self precised from the rest but they are all parts of one infinite body for though such parts may be separated from such parts and joined to other parts and by this means may undergo infinite changes by infinite compositions and divisions yet no part can be separated from the body of Nature 4. And hence it follows That the parts of Nature are nothing else but the particular changes of particular figures made by self-motion 5. As there can be no annihilation so there can neither be a new Creation of the least part or particle of Nature or else Nature would not be infinite 6. Nature is purely corporeal or material and there is nothing that belongs to or is a part of Nature which is not corporeal so that natural and material or corporeal are one and the same and therefore spiritual beings non-beings mixt beings and whatsoever distinctions the Learned do make are no ways belonging to Nature Neither is there any such thing as an Incorporeal motion for all actions of Nature are corporeal being natural and there can no abstraction be made of Motion or Figure from Matter or Body but they are inseparably one thing 7. As Infinite Matter is divided into Infinite parts so Infinite knowledg is divided into Infinite particular knowledges and Infinite self-motion into Infinite particular self-actions 8. There is no other difference between self-knowledg and particular knowledges then betwixt self-motion and particular self-actions or betwixt a whole and its parts a cause and its effects for self-knowledg is the ground and principle of all particular knowledges as self-motion is the ground and principle of all particular actions changes and varieties of natural figures 9. As Infinite Nature has an infinite self-motion and self-knowledg so every
and inherent or innate knowledg yet the perceptions vary according to their objects and according to the changes and compositions of their own parts for as parts are composed with parts so are their perceptions nay not onely perceptions but also particular self-self-knowledges alter according to the alteration of their own parts or figures not from being self-knowledg for self-knowledg can be but self-knowledg but from being such or such a particular self-knowledg and since there is no part or particle of Nature but is self-knowing or has its particular self-knowledg it is certain that as the interior nature of the figure alters by the changes of motion the interior self-knowledg of that figure alters too for if a Vegetable should turn into a Mineral it cannot retain the self-knowledg of a Vegetable but it must of necessity change into the self-knowledg of a Mineral for nothing can have a knowledg of it self otherwise then what it is and because self-knowledg is the ground of Perception as self-knowledg alters so doth perception I mean that kind of perception that belonged to such a figure alters to another kind of perception proper to another figure so that it is with perception as it is with other Creatures For example as there are several kinds of Creatures as Elements Animals Minerals Vegetables c. so there are also several kinds of perceptions as Animal Vegetative Mineral Elemental perception and as there are different particular sorts of these mentioned kinds of Creatures so there are also of perceptions nay as one particular Creature of these sorts consists of different parts so every part has also different perceptions for self-motion as it is the cause of all the various changes of figures and parts of Nature so it is also of the variety of perceptions for put the case Matter were of one infinite figure it would have but self-knowledg or at least no variety of perceptions because it would have no variety of corporeal figurative motions and it is well to be observed that although numerous different parts may agree in perception that is their sensitive and rational figurative motions may all perceive one and the same object yet the manner of their perceptions are different according to the difference of their figures or rather of their interior corporeal figurative motions for example a Man a Tree and a Stone may all have perceptions of one object but yet their perceptions are not alike for the Tree has not an Animal or Mineral but a Vegetative perception and so has the Man not a Vegetative or Mineral but an Animal perception and the Stone not an Animal or Vegetative but a Mineral perception each according to the interior nature of its own figure Q. 10. Whether there could be Self-knowledg without Perception I answer Self-knowledg being the ground of all Perceptions which are nothing else but exterior knowledges might as well subsist without them as Matter would subsist without Motion but since self-motion is the cause of all the various changes of figures and parts and of all the orderly Productions Generations Transformations Dissolutions and all other actions of Nature These cannot be performed without Perception for all actions are knowing and perceptive and were there no perception there could not possibly be any such actions for how should parts agree either in the generation composition or dissolution of composed figures if they had no knowledg or perception of each other Therefore although self-knowledg is a fixt interior Being and the ground of all perceptions yet were there no self-motion there could be no action and consequently no perception at least no variety of perceptions in Nature but since Nature is one self-moving and self-knowing body self-knowledg can no more be separated from perception then motion can be divided from matter but every part and particle of Nature were it an Atome as it is self-moving so it is also self-knowing and perceptive But yet it is not necessary that Perception must onely be betwixt neighbouring or adjoining parts for some parts may very well perceive each other at a distance and when other parts are between nay some perceptions do require a distance of the object as for example the optick perception in Animals as I have declared before where I do mention the requisites of the Animal perception of sight whereof if one be wanting there is either no perception at all I mean no perception of seeing in that Animal or the perception is imperfect But some may ask Whether in such a case that is in the perception of an object which is distant from the sentient the intermediate parts are as well perceived as the object it self to which the perception directy tends I answer That if the intermediate parts be subject to that kind of perception they may as well be perceived as the object that is distant nay sometimes better but most commonly the intermediate parts are but slightly or superficially perceived For example in the forementioned sense of Seeing if the organ of sight be directed to some certain object that is distant and there be some parts between the organ and the object perceptible by the same sense but such as do not hinder or obstruct the perception of the said object not onely the object but also those intermediate parts will be perceived by the optick sense Also if I cast my eye upon an object that is before me in a direct line the eye will not onely perceive the object to which it is chiefly directed but also those parts that are joined to it either beneath or above or on each side of that object at the same point of time and by the same act the sole difference is that the said object is chiefly and of purpose patterned out by the sensitive and rational figurative motions of the eye when as the other intermediate or adjoining parts are but superficially and slghtly looked over And this proves first that Nature is composed of sensitive rational and inanimate matter without any separation or division from each other for could matter be divided into an atome that very atome would have a composition of these three degrees of matter and therefore although the parts of Nature do undergo infinite divisions and compositions so that parts may be composed and divided infinite ways yet these three degrees can never be separated or divided from one another because of their close union and commixture through infinite Nature Next it proves that there can be no single parts in Nature for what commonly are called parts of Nature are nothing else but changes of motion in the infinite body of Nature so that parts figures actions and changes of motion are one and the same no more differing from each other then body place magnitude figure colour c. for self-motion is the cause of the variety of figures and parts of Nature without which although there would nevertheless be parts for wheresoever is matter or body there are parts also yet
but a Repetition of the same figure made by the same corporeal figurative motions and as there is a rational remembrance which is a repetition of the same figures made by the rational corporeal figurative motions so there is also a sensitive remembrance that is a repetition of the same figures made by the sensitive corporeal figurative motions For example I see an object the sensitive motions in the eye pattern out the figure of that object but as soon as the object is removed the perception is altered It may be I see the same object again in a dream or in a phrensie or the like distemper and then the same figure is repeated which was made first by the sensitive motions of the figure of the object when it was really present which is a sensitive remembrance whether the repetition be made after a Pattern or by rote although it is more proper to say that remembrance is onely a repetition of such figures as are made by rote then of those that are made after a Pattern for a repetition of those figures that are made after a Pattern is rather a present perception of a present object when as remembrance is of objects that are absent Q. 22. Whether the rational Parts can quit some Parts and join to others I answer Our sense and reason perceives they do or else there would be no Motion no Separation Composition Dilation Contraction Digestion Production Transformation Infancy Youth Age nor no Action in the World whatsoever And by this it also evident that as I said before particular rational and sensitive parts are not bound to move always together or to keep constantly to the same parts no not in the action of perception for though they most commonly work together when they move regularly yet many times they do not as for Example the sensitive do not always make perceptions of exterior objects but many times make figures by rote as 't is manifest in mad men and such as are in high Feavers and the like distempers which see or hear taste or smell such or such objects when none are present and the Rational Parts being regular do perceive both the sensitive figures made by rote and that there are no such exterior objects really present also the Rational parts make figures by rote and without any outward pattern but such voluntary figures cannot properly be named Perceptions by reason Perceptions are occasioned by outward objects but they are rather voluntary Conceptions Q. 23. If it be so that Parts can divide themselves from some Parts and join to other Parts Why may not the soul do the same and change its Vehicles that is leave such and take other Vehicles I answer Concerning the Natural soul of man which is part of Nature and consists of the purest and subtilest degree of matter which is the Rational it is without question that it is divideable and composeable because it is material and therefore subject to changes and transmutations But as for the supernatural soul because she is spiritual and consequently individable as having no parts and therefore not the propriety of a body which is to have figurative actions it cannot be said of her that she is subject to compositions divisions transmutations c. However put the case the supernatural soul should have those proprieties of a body although no body her self Yet there could be but one infinite soul in one infinite body and as the body did divide so the soul must of necessity do also otherwise one soul would have many bodies and some bodies would be soul-less which would cause a horrid confusion between souls and bodies Wherefore in my opinion Pythagoras's doctrine concerning the transmigration of souls or that one soul can take several bodies is as absurd as that one body can quit one place and acquire an other and so have more places then bodies which if it were thus we might with as much probability affirm that many bodies could be in one place and in the resurrection of bodies there would certainly arise a great dispute between several bodies for one soul and between several souls for one body especially if one body was particularly beloved of more then one soul all which would breed such a war between souls and bodies souls and souls and bodies and bodies that it would put all the world into a confusion and therefore my opinion is that Nature is but one onely infinite body which being self-moving is divideable and composeable and consists of infinite parts of several degrees which are so intermixt that in general they cannot be separated from each other or from the body of Nature and subsist single and by themselves Neither can it be otherwise unless Nature had several bodies but though she has infinite parts yet has she but one infinite body for parts and body are but one Corporeal self-moving self-living and self-knowing Nature And as for the degrees of animate and inanimate matter they are also but parts of that one body of Nature and the various and infinite knowledges perceptions lives c. considered in general are nothing else but the life knowledg and perception of the infinite body of Nature And from hence it follows that one man may have numerous souls as well as he has numerous parts and particles which as long as the whole figure of man lasts their functions and actions are according to the nature of that figure but when the figure of man dissolves which dissolution is nothing else but a change of those motions that were proper to the nature of its figure then all the parts of that figure if they be joined and composed with other parts and figures become not soul-less or life-less but because they consist all of a commixture of animate and inanimate matter they retain life and soul onely the actions of that life and soul are according to the nature of those figures which the parts of the animal body did change into Thus as I have mentioned in my Philosophical Letters no Creature can challenge a particular life and soul to it self but every Creature may have by the dividing and composing-nature of this self-moving Matter more or fewer natural souls and lives And thus much of knowledg and perception which since it is not onely the ground of Natural Philosophy but a subject of a difficult Nature I have insisted somewhat longer upon it then I have done upon any other and endeavoured to clear it as well as I could so that now I hope all that I have declared hitherto will be sufficient to give the ingenious Reader a true information of my opinion thereof and a satisfactory answer to any other scruples that should happen to puzzle his brain I 'le add no more at this present but conclude with a brief repetition of those few Notes concerning the principles which by that small portion of Reason and Judgment that Nature has allowed me I have endeavoured to declare and prove in my
works of Natural Philosophy 1. There is but one Matter and infinite Parts one self-motion and infinite Actions one Self-knowledg and infinite particular Knowledges and Perceptions 2. All parts of Nature are living knowing and perceptive because all are self-moving for self-motion is the cause of all particular effects figures actions varieties changes lives knowledges perceptions c. in Nature and makes the onely difference between animate and inanimate Matter 3. The chief and general actions of Nature are division and composition of parts both which are done but by one act for at the same time when parts separate themselves from such parts they join to other parts and this is the cause there can be no Vacuum nor no single parts in Nature 4. Every particular part of figure is infinitely divided and composed from and with other parts 5. The infinite divisions and compositions hinder that Nature cannot run into extreams in her particulars but keep the parts and actions of Nature in an equal ballance 6. The Inanimate part of Matter has life sense and self-knowledg as well as the animate but being not moving in it self or its own Nature it has not such a perceptive sense and self-knowledg nor such an active life as the animate hath 7. The parts of Inanimate Matter alter according to their commixture with the Animate and so do their particular self-self-knowledges 8. As parts alter by the changes of motions so do particular perceptions 9. Though all perceptions are figurative actions yet no particular Creature can undoubtedly affirm that all are made by patterning or imitation by reason as the parts and actions of Nature are infinite so are also particular perceptions and being infinite they cannot be known by any particular Creature 10. There are besides exterior perceptions voluntary actions both of sense and reason not made by imitation but freely and by rote and these may be called conceptions rather then perceptions 11. Those are much in the wrong who believe that man can know no more then what his five senses do inform him for the rational part which is the purest subtilest most active and inspective part of Nature does inform it self of things which the sensitive cannot as for example how was the new world and the Antipodes found out for they were neither seen nor heard of nor tasted nor smelled nor touched Truly our reason does many times perceive that which our senses cannot and some things our senses cannot perceive until reason informs them for there are many inventions which owe their rise and beginning onely to reason It is not sense but reason that knows or perceives there is something beyond it self and beyond Nature which is the Onely Eternal and Omnipotent God and there can be no higher conception then this for what is beyond it is supernatural and belongs to supernatural Creatures as for example those divine souls which God has given to men above their rational material souls but as for the wicked souls they come not from God but are irregularities of Nature which God certainly will punish as a Master does the evil actions of his Servant 12. Art is but a Natural Creature or effect and not a Creator of any thing 13. Colour Magnitude Figure Place Time Gravity Levity Density Rarity Compositions Divisions Alterations c. are all one and the same with self-moving Matter and nothing else but the various actions of Nature which actions can no more be separated from body then body can from Matter or parts from their whole for all that is natural is corporeal and therefore the distinction into substances and accidents is to no purpose since there cannot really be no not imagined such a thing as an incorporeal or substanceless motion or action in Nature But some perhaps will say If every part and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Nature has Magnitude Colour Figure Place c. How is it possible that they can be one and the same with body since they are subject to several perceptions To which I answer The several perceptions do not make them to be several bodies but they are patterned out or perceived as several proprieties or attributes of one body or as several effects of one cause for though there is but one cause in Nature which is self-moving matter yet that onely cause must of necessity have several effects or proprieties as Figure Colour Place Magnitude c. and if I may without offence make a comparison between the Creator and a Creature God is but one in his Essence as one Infinite and Eternal God and yet has several Divine Attributes and though the parts of Nature cannot comprehend conceive or perceive God yet they may conceive somewhat of his several Attributes after several manners or wayes In the like manner although there is but one matter yet that matter may be perceived after several manners or ways it being impossible that matter or any part of particle of matter although it were single should be without those several mentioned proprieties for can any one conceive or imagine a body without Figure Magnitude Place or Colour were it as little as an Atome and since there are no Natural Figures or Creatures but consist of parts those composed Figures may have a different Magnitude Place Colour c. from their parts and particles were they single but being self-moving those figures may alter by self-motion for 't is as impossible for a body to be without parts as for parts to be without body but if matter were not self-moving there would neither be alterations perceptions nor any natural actions although there might be a fixt self-knowledg in Natures parts And thus it is no wonder how there can be several perceptions of one figure by reason there 's no figure but is composed of parts and as we can conceive a whole and its parts which yet are one and the same thing several ways for a whole we conceive as a composition of parts and parts we conceive as a division of the whole so we may Figure Place Magnitude c. And as we cannot conceive nor perceive motion without body so neither can we conceive those mentioned proprieties without body or body without them they being nothing else but the corporeal figurative actions of Nature FURTHER OBSERVATIONS UPON EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY Reflecting withal upon some Principal Subjects in CONTEMPLATIVE PHILOSOPHY 1. Ancient Learning ought not to be exploded nor the Experimental part of Philosophy preferred before the Speculative IN this present age those are thought the greatest Wits that rail most against the ancient Philosophers especially Aristotle who is beaten by all but whether he deserve such punishment others may judg In my opinion he was a very subtil Philosopher and an ingenious Man 't is true he was subject to errors as well as other men are for there is no creature so perfect but may err nay not Nature her self but God onely who is Omnipotent but if all that err should be accounted fools and destitute of
But when the figurative motions in particular productions do not move after this ordinary way as in the productions of Monsters it is called a praeter-natural or irregular production proceeding from the irregularity of motions not praeternatural in respect to general Nature but in respect to the proper and particular nature of the figure And in this regard I call Artifical effects Hermaphroditical that is partly Natural and partly Artificial Natural because Art cannot produce any thing without natural matter nor without the assistance of natural motions but artificial because it works not after the way of natural productions for Art is like an emulating Ape and will produce such figures as Nature produces but it doth not nor cannot go the same way to work as Nature doth for Natures ways are more subtil and mysterious then that Art or any one particular Creature should know much less trace them and this is the true construction of my sense concerning natural and artificial production whereby it is manifest that I am not of the opinion of that Experimental Writer who thinks it no improbability to say that all natural effects may be called artificial nay that Nature her self may be called the Art of God for Art is as much inferior to Nature as a part is inferior to the whole and all Artificial Effects are Irregular in comparison to Natural wherefore to say God or Nature works Artificially would be as much as to say they work irregularly 3. Of Natural Matter and Motion IAm of that Learned Authors mind who counts those but narrow souls and not worthy the name of Philosophers that think any body can be too great or too vast as also too little in its natural dimensions and that Nature is stinted at an atome and brought to a non-plus of her sub-divisions for truly if there cannot be Extreams in Infinite there can also be none in Nature and consequently there can neither be smallest nor biggest strongest nor weakest hardest nor softest swiftest nor slowest c. in Nature by reason Nature is Infinite in her actions as well as in her parts and hath no set bounds or limits and therefore the Corpuscularian or Atomical Writers which do reduce the parts of Nature to one certain and proportioned Atome beyond which they imagine Nature cannot go because their brain or particular finite reason cannot reach further are much deceived in their arguments and commit a fallacy in concluding the finiteness and limitation of Nature from the narrowness of their rational Conceptions Nevertheless although Natures actions and parts are Infinite considered in general yet my opinion is that Nature never doth actually run into Infinite in her particular actions and parts for as there are infinite divisions so there are also infinite compositions in Nature and as there are infinite degrees of hardness slowness and thickness so there are also infinite degrees of softness swiftness thinness c. so that every particular motion or action of Nature is ballanced and poised by its opposite which hinders a running into infinite in natures particulars and causes a variety of natural figures for although Infinite Matter in it self and its own essence is simple and homogeneous as the learned call it or of the same kind and nature and consequently is at peace with it self yet there is a perpetual opposition and war between the parts of nature where one sometimes gets the better of the other and overpowers it either by force or slight and is the occasion of its dissolution into some other figure but there 's no part so powerful as to reduce any thing into nothing or to destroy it totally from being Matter nay not Nature her self has such a power but God alone who as he has made Nature so he may destroy her for although Nature has an Infinite power yet she is not omnipotent but her power is a natural infinite power when as Omnipotency is an attribute onely belonging to God neither hath she a divine but a natural infinite knowledg by which it is evident that I do not ascribe divine attributes to Nature which were to make her a God nor detract from Nature that which properly belongs to her for Nature being infinite in body and parts it would be absurd to confine her to a finite power and knowledg By parts I understand not onely the infinite figures and fizes but also the infinite actions of Nature and I am of Des Cartes opinion that the parts of Matter may be made bigger or less by addition or subtraction of other parts but I cannot yield to him when he says that Motion may be swifter and slower by addition given to the movent by other contiguous bodies more swiftly moving or by subduction of it by bodies slower moved and that Motion may be transferred out of one body into another for Motion cannot be conceived much less subsist without Matter and if Motion should be transferred or added to some other body Matter must be added or transferred also Neither doth the addition of some parts of Matter add always exterior local motion to the body it is joyned to but they retain the motion proper to their own figure and nature as for example if a stone be added to an animal it will rather hinder then help its exterior motions But I must refer the Reader to my other Philosophical Works in which I have discoursed more of this subject 4. Nature cannot be known by any of her Parts IAm not of Plinius's Opinion That Nature in her whole power is never more wholly seen then in her smallest Works For how can Nature be seen in a part when as Infinite cannot be known neither in nor by any Part much less a small Part Nay were Nature a great finite body it could not be perceived intirely in and by a small or minute part no more then a humane eye can see all this world Celestial and Terestial at once 'T is true Reason being joyned to Sense may make a better discovery then if they were separated but as the humane optick sense is not capable to perceive the greatest so neither the smallest creatures exterior much less their interior parts although assisted by Art for Art as I mentioned before many times deludes rather then informs making hermaphroditical figures and Nature has more variety and curiosity in the several forms and figurative corporeal motions of one of the smallest creatures then the most observing and clearest optick sense can perceive But mistake me not I do not say that Arts are not profitable but that they are not truly and thorowly intelligent or knowing of all Natures works for several Arts are like several other Creatures which have their particular natures faculties and proprieties beyond which they cannot go and one Creature is not able to comprehend or know all other Creatures no not any one single Creature perfectly which ifso then none can inform what it doth not know Nay not onely one particular Creature is not
of variety then men of arguments which variety is the cause there are so many extravagant and irregular opinions in the world and I observe that most of the great and famous especially our modern Authors endeavour to deduce the knowledg of causes from their effects and not effects from their causes and think to find out Nature by Art not Art by Nature whereas in my opinion Reason must first consider the cause and then Sense may better perceive the effects Reason must judg Sense execute for Reason is the prime part of Nature as being the corporeal soul or mind of Nature But some are so much in love with Art as they endeavour to prove not onely Nature but also Divinity which is the knowledg of God by Art thus preferring Art before Nature when as Art is but Natures foolish changeling Child and the reason is that some parts of Nature as some Men not knowing all other parts believe there is no reason and but little sense in any part of Nature but themselves nay that it is irreligious to say that there is not considering that God is able to give Sense and Reason to Infinite Nature as well as to a finite part But those are rather irreligious that believe Gods power is confined or that it is not Infinite 8. Of Animal Spirits I am not of the opinion of those that place the cause of all Sense and Motion in the animal Spirits which they call the Purest and most aethereal particles of all bodies in the World whatsoever and the very top and perfection of all Natures operations For Animal Spirits in my opinion are no more then other effects of Nature onely they are not so gross as some but are parts of a most pure refined and rare sort of Inanimate Matter which being intermixed with the parts of Animate Matter and enlivened by them become very subtil and active I will not say that they are of the highest and last degree of Inanimate Matter nearest to the Animate as they do say they have the neerest alliance to spiritualities which in my opinion is as much as to say they are almost nothing or of the first degree of sensitive matter there being no such thing as first and last in Nature but that they are onely such pure and rare parts of Inanimate Matter as are not subject to the exterior perception of humane sense for example as the matter of respiration or the like for as there are Infinite parts of Inanimate Matter so there are also infinite degrees of strength weakness purity impurity hardness softness density rarity swiftness slowness knowledg ignorance c. as also several sorts and degrees of complexions statures constitutions humors wits understanding judgment life death and the like all which degrees although they be in and of the infinite body of Nature yet properly they belong to particular Creatures and have onely a regard to the several parts of Nature which being Infinite in number are also of Infinite degrees according to the Infinite changes of self-motion and the propriety and nature of each figure wherefore that opinion which makes Animal Spirits the prime or principal motion of all things and the chief Agent in Natures three Kingdoms Mineral Animal and Vegetable reduces Infinite Nature to a finite Principle whereas any one that enjoys but so much of humane sense and reason as to have the least perception or insight into Natural things may easily conceive that the Infinite effects of Nature cannot proceed from a finite particular cause nay I am firmly perswaded that they who believe any finite part to be the cause and Principle of Infinite self-moving Nature do in my opinion not onely sin against Nature but against God the Author of Nature who out of his Infinite bounty gave Nature the Power of self-motion But if any one desire to know what then the true cause and Principle of all Natures Creatures and Figures be I answer In my opinion it is not a Spirit or Immaterial substance but Matter but yet not the Inanimate part of Matter but the Animate which being of two degrees rational and sensitive both of them are the Infinite Life and Soul of the Infinite body of Nature and this Animate Matter is also the cause of all infinite works changes figures and parts of Nature as I have declar'd above more at large Now as great a difference as there is between Animate and Inanimate Body and Soul Part and Whole Finite and Infinite so great a difference there is also between the Animal Spirits and the Prime Agent or Movent of Nature which is Animate Matter or which is all one thing corporeal self-motion and as it would be paradoxical to make Inanimate Matter to be the cause of Animate or a part to be the cause of the whole whose part it is or a finite to be the cause of Infinite so paradoxical would it also be to make Animal Spirits the top and perfection of all Natures operations nay so far are they from being the Prime Movent of other bodies as they are but moved themselves for to repeat what I mentioned in the beginning Animal Spirits are onely some sorts of rare and pure Inanimate Matter which being thorowly intermixt with the animate parts of Matter are more active then some sorts of more dense and grosser parts of Inanimate Matter I say some for I do believe that some of the most solid bodies are as active as the most rare and fluid parts of Matter if not exteriously yet interiously and therefore we cannot say that rare and fluid parts are more active then fixt and solid or that fixt and solid are less active then fluid bodies because all parts are self-moving But if I was to argue with those that are so much for Animal Spirits I would ask them first whether Animal Spirits be self-moving If they say they are I am of their opinion and do infer thence that if animal spirits which are but a small part of Nature have self-motion much more has Nature her self But if not I would ask what gives them that motion they have If they say Nature then Nature must be self-moving Perchance they 'l say God moves Nature 'T is true God is the first Author of Motion as well as he is of Nature but I cannot believe that God should be the Prime actual Movent of all natural Creatures and put all things into local motion like as one wheel in a Clock turns all the rest for Gods Power is sufficient enough to rule and govern all things by an absolute Will and Command or by a Let it be done and to impart self-motion to Nature to move according to his order and decree although in a natural way Next I would ask whether any dead Creature have such Animal Spirits If they affirm it I am of their mind if not then I would ask what causes in dead bodies that dissolution which we see Thirdly I would ask whether those animal spirits
be annihilated and generated anew If they answer not I am of their opinion but if they say they are annihilated and generated anew then I would fain know who is their Generator and Annihilator for nothing can generate and annihilate it self And if they say God I answer It is not probable that God should have made any thing imperfect especially in the production of Nature for if there be things created anew which never were before in Nature it argues that Nature was not perfect at first because of a new addition of so many Creatures or if any thing could be annihilated in Nature it would likewise argue an imperfection in Nature viz. that Nature was perfecter before those things were annihilated And thus it would inferr as if God had not power either to have made Nature perfect at first or that God wanted work and was forced to create and annihilate every moment for certainly the work of creation and annihilation is a divine action and belongs onely to God Lastly concerning the functions and offices which the animal spirits perform in animal or at least humane bodies by their several motions and migrations from the brain through the spinal marrow nerves tendons fibres into all the parts of the body and their return to the brain I have declared my opinion thereof twelve years since in my work of Poetical Fancies which then came out the first time and I thought it not unfit to insert here out of the same book these following lines both that my meaning may be the better understood and that they may witness I have been of that opinion so many years ago The reason why Thoughts are made in the Head Each Sinew is a small and slender string Which all the Senses to the body bring And they like pipes or gutters hollow be Where animal spirits run continually Though small yet they such matter do contain As in the skull doth lie which we call brain Which makes if any one do strike the heel That sense we quickly in the brain do feel It is not sympathy but all one thing Which causes us to think and pain doth bring For had the heel such quantity of brain As doth the head and scull therein contain Then would such thoughts as in the brain dwell high Descend into our heels and there they 'ld lie Insinews small brain scattered lies about It wants both room and quantity no doubt For did a sinew so much brain but hold Or had so large a skin it to infold As has the scull then might the toe or knee Had they an optick nerve both hear and see Had sinews room Fancy therein to breed Copies of Verse might from the heel proceed And again of the motion of the Blood Some by their industry and Learning found That all the blood like to the Sea turns round From two great arteries it doth begin Runs through all veins and so comes back again The muscles like the tides do ebb and flow According as the several spirits go The sinews as small pipes come from the head And they are all about the body spread Through which the animal spirits are convey'd To every member as the pipes are laid And from those sinew-pipes each sense doth take Of those pure spirits as they us do make 9. Of the Doctrine of the Scepticks concerning the Knowledg of Nature WHen Scepticks endeavour to prove that not any thing in Nature can be truely and thorowly known they are in my opinion in the right way as far as their meaning is that not any particular Creature can know the Infinite parts of Nature for Nature having both a divideable and composeable sense and reason causes ignorance as well as knowledg amongst Particulars But if their opinion be that there is no true knowledg at all found amongst the parts of Nature then surely their doctrine is not onely unprofitable but dangerous as endeavouring to overthrow all useful and profitable knowledg The truth is that Nature being not onely divideable but also composeable in her parts it cannot be absolutely affirmed that there is either a total ignorance or a universal knowledg in Nature so as one finite part should know perfectly all other parts of Nature but as there is an ignorance amongst Particulars caused by the division of Natures parts so there is also a knowledg amongst them caused by the composition and union of her parts Neither can any ignorance be attributed to Infinite Nature by reason she being a body comprehending so many parts of her own in a firm bond and indissoluble union so as no part can separate it self from her must of necessity have also an Infinite wisdom and knowledg to govern her Infinite parts And therefore it is best in my judgment for Scepticks and Dogmatists to agree in their different opinions and whereas now they express their wit by division to shew their wisdom by composition for thus they will make an harmonious consort and union in the truth of Nature where otherwise their disagreement will cause perpetual quarrels and disputes both in Divinity and Philosophy to the prejudice and ruine of Church and Schools which disagreement proceeds meerly from self-love For every Man being a part of Nature which is self-loving as well as self-moving would fain be at least appear wiser then his fellow-creatures But the Omnipotent Creator has ordered Nature so wisely as to divide not onely her power but also her wisdom into parts which is the reason that she is not Omnipotent being divideable and composeable When as God can neither be divided nor composed but is one simple and individual incomprehensible being without any composition of parts for God is not material 10. Of Natural Sense and Reason THose Authors which confess That vulgar Reason is no better then a more refined Imagination and that both Reason Fancy and the Senses are influenced by the bodies temperament and like the Index of a Clock are moved by the inward springs and wheels of the corporeal Machine seem in my opinion to confirm that natural sense and reason is corporeal although they do it in an obscure way and with intricate arguments But truly do what they can yet they must prove reason by reason for irrational discourse cannot make proofs and arguments to evince the truth of Nature But first it must be proved what Sense and Reason is whether Divine or Natural Corporeal or Immaterial Those that believe natural sense and reason to be immaterial are in my opinion in a great error because Nature is purely corporeal as I have declared before And those which affirm that our understanding will and reason are in some manner like to God's shall never gain my assent for if there be so great a difference between God's Understanding Will and Decree and between Natures as no comparison at all can be made betwixt them much more is there between a part of Nature viz. Man and the Omnipotent and Incomprehensible God for there
who pretend to have searched the depth of Nature and disclosed her secrets it causes great admiration in any body and may well serve for an argument to confirm the variety and difference of sensitive and rational knowledg and the ignorance amongst natural parts for if Creatures of the same particular kind as men have so many different Perceptions what may there be in all Nature But Infinite Nature is wise and will not have that one part of hers should know more then its particular nature requires and she taking delight in variety orders her works accordingly 16. Whether Animal Parts separated from their Bodies have Life SOme do question Whether those Parts that are separated from animal Bodies do retain life But my opinion is That all parts of Nature have life each according to the propriety of its figure and that all parts of an animal have animal life and motion as long as they continue parts of the animal body but if they be separated from the body to which they did belong although they retain life yet they do not retain animal life because their natural motions are changed to some other figure when they are separated so that the parts which before had animal life and motion have then such a kind of life and motion as is proper and natural to the figure into which they are changed or transformed But some separated parts of some Creatures retain longer the life of that composed figure whose parts they were then others according as the dissolving and transforming motions are slower or quicker as for example in some Vegetables some Trees if their boughs armes or branches be lopt or cut from a lively stock those boughs or branches will many times remain lively according to the nature of the figure whose parts they were for a good while nay if they be set or planted they will grow into the same figure as the stock was or if joyned into another stock they will be partly of the nature of the stock which they did proceed from and partly of the nature of the stock into which they were ingrafted But yet I do not perceive that animal kind can do the like for I make a question whether a man's arm if cut off from his body and set to another mans body would grow and keep its natural form and figure so as to continue an arm and to receive nourishment from that body it is joyned to nevertheless I will not eagerly contradict it considering that Nature is very different and various both in her productions and nourishments nay so various as will puzzle if not confound the wisest part or Creature of Nature to find them out 17. Of the Splene COncerning the splene of an animal Creature whether it may artificially be cut out and the body closed up again without destruction of the animal figure as some do probably conceive I am not so good an artist as to give a solid judgment thereof onely this I can say that not all the parts of an animal body are equally necessary for life but some are convenient more then necessary Neither do I perfectly know whether the Splene be one of the prime or principal vital parts for although all parts have life yet some in some particular Creatures are so necessary for the preservation of life as they cannot be spared whereas others have no such relation to the life of an Animal but it may subsist without them And thus although some parts may be separated for some time yet they cannot continue so without a total dissolution of the animal figure but both the severed and the remaining parts change from their nature if not at all times suddenly yet at last And as for the spleen although the separation should not be so great a loss as the pain in loosing it yet some persons will rather lose their lives with ease then endure great pain to save them but the question is if a man was willing to endure the pain whether he would not die of the wound for no creature can assure another of its life in such a case neither can any one be assured of his own for there is no assurance in the case of life and death I mean such a life as is proper to such a Creature for properly there is no such thing in Nature as death but what is named death is onely a change from the dissolution of some certain figure to the composition of another 18. Of Anatomy I Am not of the opinion of those who believe that Anatomifts could gain much more by dissecting of living then of dead bodies by reason the corporeal figurative motions that maintain life and nourish every part of the body are not at all perceptible by the exterior Optick sense unless it be more perceiving and subtiler then the humane optick sense is for although the exterior grosser parts be visible yet the interior corporeal motions in those parts are not visible wherefore the dissecting of a living Creature can no more inform one of the natural motions of that figure then one can by the observing of an egg be it never so exact perceive the corporeal figurative motions that produce or make the figure of a Chicken Neither can artificial optick glasses give any advantage to it for Nature is so subtil obscure and various as not any sort or kind of Creatures can trace or know her ways I will not say but her parts may in their several Perceptions know as much as can be known for some parts may know and be known of others and so the infinite body may have an infinite information and knowledg but no particular Creature no not one kind or sort of Creatures can have a perfect knowledg of another particular Creature but it must content it self with an imperfect knowledg which is a knowledg in Parts Wherefore it is as improbable for humane sight to perceive the interior corporeal figurative motions of the parts of an animal body by Anatomy as it is for a Micrographer to know the interior parts of a figure by viewing the exterior for there are numerous corporeal figures or figurative motions of one particular Creature which lie one within another and most commonly the interior are quite different from the exterior as for example the outward parts of a mans body are not like his inward parts for his brain stomack liver lungs splene midriff heart guts c. are of different figures and one part is not another part no not of the like nature or constitution neither hath a man a face on the inside of his head and so of the rest of his parts for every part has besides its exterior interior figure and motions which are not perceptible by our exterior senses Nevertheless there is some remedy to supply this sensitive ignorance by the perception of Reason for where sense fails reason many times informs it being a more clear and subtile perception then sense is I say many times because reason
ever as it is now how is it possible that it should be reduced into Atomes He says also That the Vniniverse is immovable and immutable If he mean it to be so in its Essence or Nature so that it cannot be changed from being material and that it is immovable so that it cannot be moved beyond or without it self I am of his opinion For Nature being purely and wholly material cannot be made immaterial without its total destruction and being infinite has nothing without it self to move into Otherwise Nature is not onely a self-moving body but also full of changes and varieties I mean within her self and her particulars As for his infinite Worlds I am not different from his opinion if by Worlds he mean the parts of infinite Nature but my Reason will not allow that those infinite Worlds do subsist by themselves distinguished from each other by Vacuum for it is meer non-sense to say the Universe consists of body and Vacuum that is of something and nothing for nothing cannot be a constitutive principle of any thing neither can it be measured or have corporeal dimensions for what is no body can have no bodily affections or properties God by his Omnipotency may reduce the World into nothing but this cannot be comprehended by natural reason 2. The Matter or Principle of all natural Beings Epicurus makes Atomes For say he There are Simple and Compounded bodies in the Universe the Simple bodies are the first matter out of which the Compounded bodies consist and those are Atomes that is bodies indivisible immutable and in themselves void of all mutation consisting of several infinite figures some bigger and some less Which opinion appears very Paradoxical to my reason for if Atomes be bodies I do not see how they can be indivisible by reason wheresoever is body there are also parts so that divisibility is an essential propriety or attribute of Matter or Body He counts it impossible that one finite part should be capable of infinite divisions but his Vacuum makes him believe there are single finite parts distinguished from each other by little spaces or intervals of vacuity which in truth cannot be but as soon as parts are divided from such or such parts they immediately join to other parts for division and composition as I mentioned before are done by one act and one countervails the other 'T is true there are distinctions of parts in Nature or else there would be no variety but these are not made by little intervals of vacuity but by their own figures interior as well as exterior caused by self-motion which make a difference between the infinite parts of Nature But put the case there were such Atomes out of which all things are made yet no man that has his sense and reason regular can believe they did move by chance or at least without sense and reason in the framing of the world and all natural bodies if he do but consider the wonderful order and harmony that is in Nature and all her parts Indeed I admire so witty and great a Philosopher as Epicurus should be of such an extravagant opinion as to divide composed bodies into animate and inanimate and derive them all from one Principle which are senseless and irrational Atomes for if his Atomes out of which all things consist be self-moving or have as he says some natural impulse within themselves then certainly all bodies that are composed of them must be the same He places the diversity of them onely in figure weight and magnitude but not in motion which he equally allows to all nay moreover he says that although they be of different fifiures weight and magnitude yet they do all move equally swift but if they have motion they must of necessity have also sense that is life and knowledg there being no such thing as a motion by chance in Nature because Nature is full of reason as well as of sense and wheresoevever is reason there can be no chance Chance is onely in respect to particulars caused by their ignorance for particulars being finite in themselves can have no Infinite or Universal knowledg and where there is no Universal knowledg there must of necessity be some ignorance Thus ignorance which proceeds from the division of parts causes that which we call chance but Nature being an infinite self-moving body has also infinite knowledg and therefore she knows of no chance nor is this visible World or any part of her made by chance or a casual concourse of senseless and irrational Atomes but by the All-powerful Decree and Command of God out of that pre-existent Matter that was from all Eternity which is infinite Nature for though the Scripture expresses the framing of this World yet it doth not say that Nature her self was then created but onely that this world was put into such a frame and state as it is now and who knows but there may have been many other Worlds before and of another figure then this is nay if Nature be infinite there must also be infinite Worlds for I take with Epicurus this World but for a part of the Universe and as there is self-motion in Nature so there are also perpetual changes of particulars although God himself be immovable for God acts by his All-powerful Decree or Command and not after a natural way 3. The Soul of Animals says Epicurus is corporeal and a most tenuious and subtile body made up of most subtile particles in figure smooth and round not perceptible by any sense and this subtile contexture of the soul is mixed and compounded of four several natures as of something fiery something aerial something flatuous and something that has no name by means whereof it is indued with a sensitive faculty And as for reason that is likewise compounded or little bodies but the smoothest and roundest of all and of the quickest motion Thus he discourses of the Soul which I confess surpasses my understanding for I shall never be able to conceive how senseless and irrational Atomes can produce sense and reason or a sensible and rational body such as the soul is although he affirms it to be possible 'T is true different effects may proceed from one cause or principle but there is no principle which is senseless can produce sensitive effects nor no rational effects can flow from an irrational cause neither can order method and harmony proceed from chance or confusion and I cannot conceive how Atomes moving by chance should onely make souls in animals and not in other bodies for if they move by chance and not by knowledg and consent they might by their conjunction as well chance to make souls in Vegetables and Minerals as in Animals 4. Concerning Perception and in particular the Perception of sight Epicurus affirms that it is performed by the gliding of some images of external objects into our eyes to wit that there are certain effluxions of Atomes sent out from the surfaces of bodies preserving
Aristotle makes the Principles of Nature Matter Form and Privation and leaves out the chief which is Motion for were there no motion there would be no variety of figures besides Matter and Form are but one thing for wheresoever is Matter there is also form or figure but privation is a non-being and therefore cannot be a principle of natural bodies 4. There is no such thing as simple bodies in Nature for if Nature her self consists of a commixture of animate and inanimate Matter no part can be called simple as having a composition of the same parts besides no part can subsist single or by it self wherefore the distinction into simple and mixt bodies is needless for Elements are as much composed bodies as other parts of Nature neither do I understand the difference between perfect and imperfect mixt bodies for Nature may compose mix and divide parts as she pleaseth 5. The primary Qualities of the Elements as Heat and Cold Humidity and Siccity says Aristotle are the cause of Generation when heat and cold overcome the Matter I wonder he makes qualities to be no substances or bodies but accidents which is something between body and no body and yet places them above Matter and makes Generation their effect But whatsoever he calls them they are no more but effects of Nature and cannot be above their cause which is Matter neither is it probable there are but eighteen passive qualities he might have said as well there are but eighteen sorts of motions for natural effects go beyond all number as being infinite 6. Concerning the Soul Aristotle doth not believe That it moves by it self but is onely moved accidentally according to the Motion of the body but he doth not express from whence the motion of the Soul proceeds although he defines it to be that by which we live feel and understand Neither says he is there a Soul diffused through the World for there are inanimate bodies as well as animate but sense and reason perceives the contrary to wit that there is no part of Nature but is animate that is has a soul. Sense says he is not sensible of it self nor of its organ nor of any interior thing for sense cannot move it self but is a mutation in the organ caused by some sensible object But the absurdity of this opinion I have declared heretofore for it is contrary to humane Reason to believe first that sense should be sensible of an outward object and not of it self or which is all one have perception of exterior parts and not self-knowledg Next that an external object should be the cause of sense when as sense and reason are the chief principles of Nature and the cause of all natural effects Again Sense says he is in all Animals but Fancy is not for Fancy is not Sense Fancy acts in him that sleeps Sense not To which I answer first Fancy or Imagination is a voluntary action of Reason or of the rational parts of Matter and if reason be in all Animals nay in all Creatures Fancy is there also Next it is evident that Sense acts as much asleep as awake the difference I have expressed elsewhere viz. That the sensitive motions Work inwardly in sleep and outwardly awake The Intellect to Aristotle is that part of the Soul by which it knows and understands and is onely proper to man when as sense is proper to animals It is twofold Patient and Agent whereof this is Immortal Eternal not mixt with the body but separable from it and ever in action The Patient Intellect is mortal and yet void of corruptive passion not mixt with the body nor having any corporeal organs But these and many other differences of Intellects which he rehearses are more troublesome to the understanding then beneficial for the knowledg of Nature And why should we puzzle our selves with multiplicity of terms and distinctions when there 's no need of them Truly Nature's actions are easie and we may easily apprehend them without much ado If Nature be material as it cannot be proved otherwise sense and reason are material also and therefore we need not to introduce an incorporeal mind or intellect Besides if sense and reason be a constitutive principle of Nature all parts of Nature do partake of the same nor hath man a prerogative before other Creatures in that case onely the difference and variety of motions makes different figures and consequently different knowledges and perceptions and all Fancies Imaginations Judgment Memory Remembrance and the like are nothing else but the actions of reason or of the rational parts of Animate Matter so that there is no necessity to make a Patient and Agent Intellect much less to introduce incorporeal substances to confound and disturb corporeal Nature 6. Of Scepticisme and some other Sects of the Ancient THere are several sorts of Scepticks different from each other for though almost every one of the ancient Philosophers has his own opinions in Natural Philosophy and goes on his own grounds or principles yet some come nearer each other then others do and though Heraclitus Democritus Protagoras and others seem to differ from the Scepticks yet their opinions are not so far asunder but they may all be referred to the same sect Heraclitus is of opinion That contraries are in the same thing and Scepticks affirm That contraries appear in the same thing but I believe they may be partly both in the right and partly both in the wrong If their opinion be that there are or appear contraries in Nature or in the essence of Matter they are both in the wrong but if they believe that Matter has different and contrary actions they are both in the right for there are not onely real but also apparent or seeming contraries in Nature which are her irregularities to wit when the sensitive and rational parts of Matter do not move exactly to the nature of their particulars As for example Honey is sweet to those that are sound and in health but bitter to those that have the over-flowing of the Gall where it is to be observed that Honey is not changed from its natural propriety but the motions of the Gall being irregular make a false copy like as mad men who think their flesh is stone or those that apprehend a Bird for a Stone a Man for a Tree c. neither the Flesh nor Stone nor Tree are changed from their own particular natures but the motions of humane sense in the sentient are irregular and make false copies of true objects which is the reason that an object seems often to be that which really it is not However those irregularities are true corporeal motions and thus there are both real and seeming contraries in Nature but as I mentioned before they are not contrary matters but onely contrary actions Democritus says That Honey is neither bitter nor sweet by reason of its different appearance to differently affected persons but if so then he is like those that make