Logicians the Gyants her Architects c. But before all things she having got a soveraign power from the Emperor over all the World desired to be informed both of the manner of their Religion and Government and to that end she called the Priests and States-men to give her an account of either Of the States-men she enquired first Why they had so few Laws To which they answered That many Laws made many Divisions which most commonly did breed factions and at last brake out into open wars Next she asked Why they preferred the Monarchical form of Government before any other They answered That as it was natural for one body to have but one head so it was also natural for a Politick body to have but one Governor and that a Common-wealth which had many Governors was like a Monster of many heads besides said they a Monarchy is a divine form of Government and agrees most with our Religion for as there is but one God whom we all unanimously worship and adore with one Faith so we are resolved to have but one Emperor to whom we all submit with one obedience Then the Empress seeing that the several sorts of her Subjects had each their Churches apart asked the Priests whether they were of several Religions They answered her Majesty That there was no more but one Religion in all that World nor no diversity of opinions in that same Religion for though there were several sorts of men yet had they all but one opinion concerning the Worship and Adoration of God The Empress asked them Whether they were Jews Turks or Christians We do not know said they what Religions those are but we do all unanimously acknowledg worship and adore the Onely Omnipotent and Eternal God with all reverence submission and duty Again the Empress enquired Whether they had several Forms of Worship They answered No For our Devotion and Worship consists onely in Prayers which we frame according to our several necessities in Petitions Humiliations Thanksgiving c Truly replied the Empress I thought you had been either Jews or Turks because I never perceived any Women in your Congregations But what is the reason you bar them from your religious Assemblies It is not fit said they that Men and Women should be promiscuously together in time of Religious Worship for their company hinders Devotion and makes many instead of praying to God direct their devotion to their Mistresses But asked the Empress Have they no Congregation of their own to perform the duties of Divine Worship as well as Men No answered they but they stay at home and say their Prayers by themselves in their Closets Then the Empress desir'd to know the reason why the Priests and Governors of their World were made Eunuchs They answer'd To keep them from Marriage For Women and Children most commonly make disturbance both in Church and State But said she Women and Children have no employment in Church or State 'T is true answer'd they but although they are not admitted to publick employments yet are they so prevalent with their Husbands and Parents that many times by their importunate perswasions they cause as much nay more mischief secretly then if they had the management of publick affairs The Empress having received an information of what concerned both Church and State passed some time in viewing the Imperial Palace where she admired much the skil and ingenuity of the Architects and enquired of them first why they built their Houses no higher then two stories from the Ground They answered her Majesty That the lower their buildings were the less were they subject either to the heat of the Sun to Wind Tempest Decay c. Then she desired to know the reason why they made them so thick They answered That the thicker the Walls were the warmer were they in Winter and cooler in Summer for their thickness kept out both cold and heat Lastly she asked why they arched their roofs and made so many Pillars They replied That Arches and Pillars did not onely grace a building very much and caused it to appear Magnificent but made it also firm and lasting The Empress was very well satisfied with their answers and after some time when she thought that her new founded societies of the Vertuoso's had made a good progress in their several employments which she had put them upon she caused a Convocation first of the Bird-men and commanded them to give her a true relation of the two Celestial bodies viz. the Sun and Moon which they did with all the obedience and faithfulness befitting their duty The Sun as much as they could observe they related to be a firm or solid Stone of a vast bigness of colour yellowish and of an extraordinary splendor but the Moon they said was of a whitish colour and although she looked dim in the presence of the Sun yet had she her own light and was a shining body of her felf as might be perceived by her vigorous appearance in Moon-shiny nights the difference onely betwixt her own and the Suns light was that the Sun did strike his beams in a direct line but the Moon never respected the Centre of their World in a right line but her Centre was always excentrical The spots both in the Sun and Moon as far as they were able to perceive they affirmed to be nothing else but flaws and stains of their stony bodies Concerning the heat of the Sun they were not of one opinion some would have the Sun hot in it self alledging an old Tradition that it should at some time break asunder and burn the Heavens and consume this world into hot embers which said they could not be done if the Sun were not fiery of it self Others again said This opinion could not stand with reason for Fire being a destroyer of all things the Sun-stone after this manner would burn up all the near adjoining bodies besides said they Fire cannot subsist withoutfuel and the Sun-stone having nothing to feed on would in a short time consume it self wherefore they thought it more probable that the Sun was not actually hot but onely by the reflection of its light so that its heat was an effect of its light both being immaterial But this opinion again was laught at by others and rejected as ridiculous who thought it impossible that one immaterial should produce another and believed that both the light and heat of the Sun proceeded from a swift Circular motion of the aethereal Globules which by their striking upon the optick nerve caused light and their motion produced heat But neither would this opinion hold for said some then it would follow that the sight of Animals is the cause of light and that were there no eyes there would be no light which was against all sense and reason Thus they argued concerning the heat and light of the Sun but which is remarkable none did say that the Sun was a globous fluid body and had a swift circular
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
Creatures may cause several refractions reflections and inflections of the rayes of light Wherefore Mechanicks may very much be mistaken concerning the truth of the interior Nature of bodies or natural Creatures by judging them onely according to their exterior figures 24. Of Salt and of Sea or Salt-water THe reason why Salt is made or extracted out of Salt-water is that the Circular lines of Sea or Salt-water are pointed exteriously but not interiously which is the cause that the saltish parts may be easily divided from those watry lines and it is to be observed that those points when joyned to the watry circles are rare but being once separated either by Art or a more natural way by some sorts of dividing motions they become more dense yet not so dense but they may melt or return again into the first figure which is a rare figure and so become liquid salt and afterwards they may be densed or contracted again for there is no other difference between dry and liquid salt but what is made by the rarity or density of those sorts of points As for that sort of Salt which is named volatile it is when some of those rare points become more dilated or rarified then when they are joyned to the watry circle-lines I say some not all for as some points do condense or contract into fixt salt so others do dilate or arise into volatile salt But perchance some will say How can there be several sorts of points since a point is but a point I answer There may very well be several sorts considering the Nature of their substance for some sorts are rare some dense some contracting some dilating some retenting c. besides all points are not alike but there is great difference amongst several pointed figures for all are not like the point of a Pin or Needle but to alledg some gross examples there be points of Pyramids points of Knives points of Pins points of the flame of a Candle and numerous other sorts which are all several points and not one like another for I do not mean a Mathematical or imaginary point such as is onely made by the rational matter in the mind although even amongst those imaginary points there is difference for you cannot imagine or think of the several pointed figures of several sorts or kinds of Creatures or parts but you will have a difference in your mind but I mean pointed figures and not single points It is also to be observed that as some watry Circles will and may have points outwardly so some have also points inwardly for some watry Circles as I have mentioned in my Philosophical Opinions are edged to wit such as are in vitriol water others pointed as those in salt water and others are of other sorts of points as those in cordial or hot waters but those last are more artificial and all these are different in their sorts or kinds although a litttle difference in their own natures may appear great in our humane perception Concerning Oyl there is also difference between Oyl and other wet bodies for Oyl although it be rare liquid and moist yet we cannot say it is absolutely that which we name wet as other liquors are viz. Water and Wine or natural juices and since the interior natural figure of oyl is burning and hot it is impossible to divide those interior fiery points from the circle figure of Oyl without dissolving those liquid circle lines But as the Penetrations of other acid and salt liquors are caused by their exterior points so oyl whose points are interiously in the circle-lines cannot have such quick effects of penetration as those that are exteriously pointed But mistake me not I do not mean such exterior parts as are onely subject to our humane perception but such as cause those Creatures or parts to be of such a figure or nature 25. Of the Motions of Heat and Cold. THose which affim that Heat and Cold are the two primary and onely causes of the Productions of all natural things do not consider sufficiently the variety of Nature but think that Nature produces all by Art and since Art is found out and practised by Man Man conceits himself to be above Nature But as neither Art nor any particular Creature can be the cause or principle of all the rest so neither can heat and cold be the prime cause of all natural productions no more then paint can produce all the parts of a man's face as the Eyes Nose Forehead Chin Cheeks Lips and the like or a 〈◊〉 can produce a natural Head or a suit of Clothes can make the body of Man for then whensoever the fashioned Garments or Mode-dresses do change men would of necessity change also but Art causes gross mistakes and errors not onely in sensitive but also in rational perceptions for sense being deluded is apt to delude Reason also especially if Reason be too much indulgent to sense and therefore those judgments that rely much upon the perception of sense are rather sensitive then rational judgments for sense can have but a perception of the exterior figures of objects and Art can but alter the outward form or figure but not make or change the interior nature of any thing which is the reason that artificial alterations cause false at least uncertain and various judgments so that Nature is as various in mens judgments as in her other works But concerning heat and cold my opinion is that they are like several Colours some Natural and some Artificial of which the Artificial are very inconstant at least not so lasting as those that are not made by Art and they which say that both heat and cold are not made by the sensories or sensitive organs are in the right if their meaning be that both heat and cold in their natures and with all their proprieties as they are particular Creatures are not made or produced by humane or animal senses nevertheless the sensitive animal perception of heat and cold is made by the sensitive motions in their sensitive organs for what heat and cold soever an animal Creature feels the perception of it is made in the sense of touch or by those sensitive motions in the parts of its body for as the perception of any other outward object is not made by a real entrance of its parts into our sensories so neither is all perception of heat and cold made by the intermixture of their particles with our flesh but they are patterned and figured out by the sensitive motions in the exterior parts of the body as well as other objects I will not say that cold or heat may not enter and intermix with the parts of some bodies as fire doth intermix with fuel or enters into its parts but my meaning is that the animal perception of heat and cold is not made this way that is by an intermixture of the parts of the Agent with the parts of the Patient as the learned call them that
intermediate temper which heat being heightened by the burning motions of fire beyond its natural degree causes a burning and smarting pain in the same part and therefore as the fire did occasion an immoderate heat by an intermixture of its own parts with the parts of the flesh so a moderate heat of the fire may reduce again the natural heat of the same parts and that by a sympathetical agreement betwixt the motions of the Elemental and Animal heat But it is to be observed first that the burning must be done by an intermixture of the fire with the parts of the body Next that the burning must be but skin deep as we use to call it that is the burned part must not be totally overcome by fire or else it will never be restored again Neither are all burned bodies restored after this manner but some for one and the same thing will not in all bodies occasion the like effects as we may see by Fire which being one and the same will not cause all fuels to burn alike and this makes true the old saying One Mans Meat is another Mans Poyson The truth is it cannot be otherwise for though Nature and natural self-moving Matter is but one body and the onely cause of all natural effects yet Nature being divided into infinite corporeal figurative self-moving parts these parts as the effects of that onely cause must needs be various and again proceeding from one infinite cause as one matter they are all but one thing because they are infinite parts of one Infinite body But some may say If Nature be but one body and the Infinite parts are all united into that same body How comes it that there is such an opposition strife and war betwixt the parts of Nature I answer Nature being Material is composeable and divideable and as Composition is made by a mutual agreement of parts so division is made by an opposition or strife betwixt parts which opposition or division doth not obstruct the Union of Nature but on the contrary rather proves that without an opposition of parts there could not be a union or composition of so many several parts and creatures nor no change or variety in Nature for if all the parts did unanimously conspire and agree in their motions and move all but one way there would be but one act or kind of motion in Nature when as an opposition of some parts and a mutual agreement of others is not onely the cause of the Miraculous variety in Nature but it poyses and ballances as it were the corporeal figurative motions which is the cause that Nature is steady and fixt in her self although her parts be in a perpetual motion 29. Several Questions resolved concerning Cold and Frozen Bodies c. FIrst I will give you my answer to the question which is much agitated amongst the Learned concerning Cold to wit Whether it be a Positive quality or a bare Privation of Heat And my opinion is That Cold is both a Positive quality and a privation of heat For whatsoever is a true quality of Cold must needs be a privation of Heat since two opposites cannot subsist together in one and the same part at one point of time By Privation I mean nothing else but an alteration of Natures actions in her several parts or which is all one a change of natural corporeal motions and so the death of Animals may be called a privation of animal life that is a change of the animal motions in that particular Creature which made animal life to some other kind of action which is not animal life And in this sense both Cold and Heat although they be positive qualities or natural beings yet they are also privations that is changes of corporeal figurative motions in several particular Creatures or parts of Nature But what some Learned mean by Bare Privation I cannot apprehend for there 's no such thing as a bare Privation or bare Motion in Nature but all Motion is Corporeal or Material for Matter Motion and Figure are but one thing Which is the reason that to explain my self the better 〈…〉 of Motion I do always add the word corporeal 〈◊〉 â—â—gurative by which I exclude all bare or immaterial Motion which expression is altogether against sense and reason The second Question is Whether Winds have the power to change the Exterior temper of the Air To which I answer That Winds will not onely occasion the Air to be either hot or cold according to their own temper but also Animals and Vegetables and other sorts of Creatures for the sensitive corporeal Motions in several kinds of Creatures do often imitate and figure out the Motions of exterior objects some more some less some regularly and some irregularly and some not at all according to the nature of their own perceptions By which we may observe that the Agent which is the external object has onely an occasional power and the Patient which is the sentient works chiefly the effect by vertue of the perceptive figurative motions in its own sensitive organs or parts Quest. 3. Why those Winds that come from cold Regions are most commonly cold and those that come from hot Regions are for the most part hot I answer The reason is That those Winds have more constantly patterned out the motions of cold or heat in those parts from which they either separated themselves or which they have met withal But it may be questioned Whether all cold and hot winds do bring their heat and cold along with them out of such hot and cold Countries And I am of opinion they do not but that they proceed from an imitation of the nearest parts which take patterns from other parts and these again from the remoter parts so that they are but patterns of other patterns and copies of other copies Quest. 4. Why Fire in some cold Regions will hardly kindle or at least not burn freely I answer This is no more to be wondered at then that some men do die with cold for cold being contrary to fire if it have a predominate power it will without doubt put out the fire not that the cold corporeal motions do destroy fire by their actual power over it but that fire destroys it self by an imitation of the motions of cold so that cold is onely an occasional cause of the fires destruction or at least of the alteration of its motions and the diminution of its strength But some might ask What makes or causes this imitation in several sorts of Cretures I answer The wisdom of Nature which orders her corporeal actions to be always in a mean so that one extream as one may call it does countervail another But then you 'l say There would always be a right and mean temper in all things I answer So there is in the whole that is in Infinite Nature although not in every particular for Natures Wisdom orders her particulars to the best of the whole and although
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-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 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
of the body there are so many several sorts consisting in features shapes and proportions of bodies as it is impossible to describe properly what Beauty is and wherein it really consists for what appears beautiful to some may seem ill-favoured to others and what seems extraordinary fair or handsom to one may have but an indifferent character of another so that in my opinion there 's no such thing as a Universal Beauty which may gain a general applause of all and be judged alike by every one that views it nay not by all immortal souls neither in body nor mind for what one likes another may dislike what one loves another may hate what one counts good another may proclaim bad what one names just another may call unjust And as for Temperance which he joins to Justice what may be temperance to one may be intemperance to another for no particular knows the just measures of Nature nay even one and the same thing which one man loves to day he may chance to hate or at least dislike to morrow for Nature is too various to be constant in her particulars by reason of the perpetual alterations and changes they are subject to which do all proceed from self-moving Matter and not from incorporeal Ideas Thus Rational souls are changeable which may be proved by the changes of their Fancies Imaginations Thoughts Judgments Understandings Conceptions Passions Affections and the like all which are effects or actions of the rational soul nay not onely natural rational souls but even divine souls if they were all good none would be bad nor vary as we find they do and therefore I cannot believe that all souls can have the same likeness being so different amongst themselves 3. Upon the Doctrine of Pythagoras 1. THe most Learned of the Pythagoreans do assert That things apparent to sense cannot be said Principles of the Universe for whatsoever consists of things apparent to sense is compounded of things not apparent and a Principle must not consist of any thing but be that of which the thing consists To which I answer First I cannot conceive what they mean by things apparent to sense if they mean the sensitive organs of humane Creatures they are mistaken for there may be and are really many things in Nature which are not apparent to humane sense and yet are not Principles but natural effects wherefore not all things that are not apparent to humane sense are principles of Nature Besides there may be many other Creatures which do far exceed Men or Animals in their sensitive perceptions and if things be not subject to humane sense they may be subject to the sense of other Creatures But if by sense they mean the sensitive life of Nature they commit a far greater error for there 's nothing which is not subject or has a participation of this Universal sense in Nature as well as of Reason 'T is true particular senses cannot perceive the infinite figurative motions of Nature neither can the subtilest sense have a perception of the interior innate figurative motions of any other Creature but I do not speak of particular senses but of that infinite sense and reason which is self-moving Matter and produces all the effects of Nature But you 'l say How can Infinite be a principle of particular Finites I answer As well as the Infinite God can be the Author of Nature and all natural Beings which though they be finite in their particular figures yet their number is Infinite 2. Concerning the Numbers of Pythagoras which he makes so great a value of I confess wheresoever are Parts and compositions and divisions of parts there must also be number but yet as parts cannot be principles so neither can numbers for self-moving Matter which is the onely principle of Nature is infinite and there are no more principles but this one 'T is true regular compositions and divisions are made by consent of parts and presuppose number and harmony but number and harmony cannot be the cause of any orderly productions without sense and reason for how should parts agree in their actions if they did not know each other or if they had no sense nor reason truly there can be no motion without sense nor no orderly motion without reason and though Epicurus's Atomes might move by chance without reason yet they could not move in a concord or harmony not knowing what they are to do or why or whither they move nay if they had no sense it is impossible they should have motion and therefore in my opinion it is the rational and sensitive parts which by consent make number and harmony and those that will deny this sensitive and rational self-moving Matter must deny the principles of motion and of all constant successions of all sorts and kinds of Creatures nay of all the variety that is in Nature Indeed I am puzled to understand Learned men what they mean by Principles by reason I see that they so frequently call Principles those which are but effects of Nature some count the Elements Principles some Numbers some Ideas some Atomes and the like And by their different opinions they confirm that there is as well discord and division as there is concord and composition of the parts of Nature for if this were not there would be no contrary actions and consequently no variety of figures and motions 3. Whatsoever is comprehended by man says Pythagoras is either body or incorporeal amongst which Incorporeals he reckons also time But this opinion is contradicted by regular sense and reason for no humane nor any other natural Creature is able to comprehend an incorporeal it self being corporeal and as for time place and the like they are one and the same with body which is so how can they be incorporeal Neither is it possible that incorporeal Beings should be principles of Nature because there is as much difference between corporeal and incorporeal as there is between Matter and no Matter but how no Matter can be a principle of matterial effects is not conceivable For God though he be an Immaterial Essence and yet the Author of material Nature and all natural Beings yet he is not a natural material Principle out of which all natural things consist and are framed but a supernatural decreeing ordering and commanding Principle which cannot be said of created Incorporeals for though Nature moves by the powerful Decree of God yet she cannot be governed by finite Incorporeals by reason they being finite have no power over a material Infinite neither can there be any other Infinite Spirit but God himself 4. Pythagoras's Doctrine is That the World in its nature is Corruptible but the Soul of the World is Incorruptible and that without the Heavens there is an Infinite Vacuum into which and out of which the World repairs As for the corruptibility of the World I cannot understand how the Soul can be incorruptible and the World it self corruptible for if the World should be
can neither be single actions or single perceptions but as the parts or actions of Nature move in one body and not singly several infinite ways so the self-active parts in one composed figure make perceptions of those several compositions in exterior objects But since my Opinion is that the Perception of the exterior animal senses is made by that sort of motion which is call'd Imitation or Patterning as for example that the perception of Seeing is made by the sensitive corporeal figurative motions in the Organ of sight which is the Eye by their patterning out the figure of an exterior object some perhaps will question how it be possible that an eye as also a glass which is a more solid and dense body than an eye should pattern out so many different figures of exterior objects and yet keep their own figures perfect To which I answer first That not all the corporeal motions of an Object are perceptible by animal sense which is too gross a sort of perception to perceive them all for can we say that Air Light Earth c. have no other motions but what we perceive We observe in a Sun-dial that the light removes but we cannot see how it removes and therefore our eye cannot perceive all the motions or actions of an object Next I say as for the patterns of the sensitive motions the framing of them is no hinderance to those motions that preserve the organ in its being for there are many numerous and different sorts of motions in one composed figure and yet none is obstructive to the other but each knows its own work and they act all unanimously to the conservation of the whole figure also when some actions change it is not necessary that they must all change at the same time for if it were so there would be no difference between the actions of Nature nor no difference of figures Again it may be objected That if we can perceive the figure of an object then we must of necessity perceive the substance also figure and body being but one thing for example if we can perceive the figure of a thought we must also perceive that degree of matter which is named Rational the same may be said of the other degrees of matter the Sensitive and Inanimate I answer That although the Figures are perceived yet the degree of matter cannot be perceived at least not in all objects nor by all our sensitive organs for though the eye perceives light yet it does not perceive what light is made of neither does the Ear perceive it but onely the Eye also the Ear perceives sound yet the Eye does not nor does the Ear know or perceive the proper and immediate motions and parts that make the sound Again although the Eye or rather the sensitive motions that make the perception of sight perceive the light of fire yet they do not perceive the heat thereof which is onely subject to Touch the same may be said of Smell and Tast so that not all the parts are subject to one sense and if this be onely in one sort of Creatures what difference of perception may there be in the infinite parts of Nature The truth is our humane perception is stinted so that we cannot perceive all objects but those that are within the compass of being perceived by our senses nay it is without question but that there are more perceptions in man than these Five because there are Numerous different perceptive parts which have all their peculiar perceptions which we do not know of what they are nor how they are made But as I said before although the figure may be perceived yet the substance may not and yet this does not prove that figure and body are not one thing for though such a figure is not bound to such parts yet parts cannot be figureless no more then figure can be bodiless and the change of figures is not an annihilation or a total separation of figure from body a mans face may change from being red to pale and from pale to red and yet the substance of his face may remain the same the like may be said of the figures in our Eyes or of the figures made by a Looking-glass of exterior objects they may change and yet the Eye remain perfect and although the subtilest corporeal motions cannot be perceived by us so perfectly as the grosser actions of Nature yet we cannot but know by our rational perception that there are such subtile actions which are no wayes subject to our exterior sensitive perception For though all actions of Nature are perceptive yet none can be more agil and active then the rational and next to them none more but the sensitive action of imitation and patterning for as we may perceive the actions of production dissolution growth decay c. are far more slower then the actions of patterning or copying out of exterior objects by reason those sorts of actions are gross but these are subtil purer and finer and therefore quicker and agiler But some may ask Whether in the sensitive action of imitating or patterning out the figures of forreign objects there be inanimate matter mixt with it I answer Yes for 't is impossible that one should either be or work without the other by reason it is the propriety of the sensitive corporeal motions to work upon and with the inanimate parts and the chief difference that is between the rational and sensitive parts for the rational can act within their own degree of matter but the sensitive are always incumbred with labouring on the inanimate and cannot work so as the rational do But then they 'l say If the sensitive parts be so incumbred with the inanimate how is it possible that they can make such quick perceptions as we observe they do I answer There are many kinds and sorts of Perceptions whereof some are slower and some quicker then others according to the several degrees of grossness and purity of the inanimate parts so that we have no reason to wonder at the variety of perceptions and how some come to be quicker and some slower for some parts of inanimate matter may be so pure and fine that were they subject to our perception we should take them to be parts of the Animate degree Lastly Some might say That although the sensitive degree of matter be not the same with the inanimate yet they being so closely intermixt as I have described may by a voluntary agreement alter the parts of Nature as they please as from a Vegetable into a Mineral from a Mineral into an Animal c. and that either of their own accord or by imitation I answer It may be possible in Nature but yet it is not probable that they do so by reason all the self-moving parts do not in all composed figures work agreeably or alike but their actions are for the most part poised by Opposites not onely in infinite Nature but also in all composed figures
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
Incomprehensible Deity not what it is in its Essence or Nature but that it is existent and that Nature has a dependance upon it as an Eternal Servant has upon an Eternal Master But some might say How is it possible that a Corporeal finite part can have a conception of an Incorporeal infinite Being by reason that which comprehends must needs be bigger then that which is comprehended Besides no part of Nature can conceive beyond it self that is beyond what is Natural or Material and this proves that at least the rational part or the mind must be immaterial to conceive a Deity To which I answer That no part of Nature can or does conceive the Essence of God or what God is in himself but it conceives onely that there is such a Divine Being which is Supernatural And therefore it cannot be said that a natural Figure can comprehend God for it is not the comprehending of the Substance of God or its patterning out since God having no Body is without all Figure that makes the knowledg of God but I do believe that the knowledg of the existency of God as I mentioned before is innate and inherent in Nature and all her parts as much as self-knowledg is Speaking of the difference between Oil and other liquors for the better understanding of that place I thought fit to insert this Note Flame is fluid but not liquid nor wet Oil is fluid and liquid but not wet but Water is both fluid liquid and wet Oil will turn into flame and encrease it but Water is so quite opposite to flame that if a sufficient quantity be poured upon it it will totally extinguish it When I say that Sense and Reason shall be the Ground of my Philosophy and not particular natural effects My meaning is that I do not intend to make particular Creatures or Figures the Principles of all the infinite effects of Nature as some other Philosophers do for there is no such thing as a Prime or principal Figure of Nature all being but effects of one Cause But my Ground is Sense and Reason that is I make self-moving matter which is sensitive and rational the onely cause and principle of all natural effects When 't is said That Ice Snow Hail c. return into their former Figure of Water whensoever they dissolve I mean when they dissolve their exterior Figures that is change their actions When I say That the Exterior Object is the Agent and the Sentient Body the Patient I do not mean that the Object does chiefly work upon the Sentient or is the immediate cause of the Perception in the Sentient body and that the Sentient suffers the Agent to act upon it but I retain onely those words because they are used in Schools But as for their actions I am quite of a contrary Opinion to wit That the sentient body is the principal Agent and the external body the Patient for the motions of the sentient in the act of perception do figure out or imitate the motions of the object so that the object is but as a Copy that is figured out or imitated by the sentient which is the chiefly Agent in all transforming and perceptive actions that are made by way of patterning or imitation When I say That one finite part can undergo infinite changes and alterations I do not mean one single part whereof there is no such thing in nature but I mean one part may be infinitely divided and composed with other parts for as there are infinite changes compositions and divisions in Nature so they must be of parts there being no variety but of parts and though parts be finite yet the changes may be infinite for the finiteness of parts is but concerning the bulk or quantity of their figures and they are call'd finite by reason they have limited and circumscribed figures nevertheless as for duration their parts being the same with the body of Nature are as eternal and infinite as Nature her self and thus are subject to infinite and eternal changes VVhen I say A World of Gold is as active interiously as a world of Air is exteriously I mean it is as much subject to changes and alterations as Air for Gold though its motions are not perceptible by our exterior senses yet it has no less motion then the activest body of Nature onely its motions are of another kind then the motions of Air or of some other bodies for Retentive motions are as much motions as dispersing or some other sorts of motions although not so visible to our perception as these and therefore we cannot say that Gold is more at rest than other Creatures of Nature for there is no such thing as Rest in Nature although there be degrees of Motion VVhen I say That the parts of Nature do not drive or press upon each other but that all natural actions are free and easie and not constrained My meaning is not as if there was no pressing or driving of parts at all in Nature but onely that they are not the universal or principal actions of Natures body as it is the opinion of some Philosophers who think there is no other motion in nature but by pressure of parts upon parts Nevertheless there is pressure and reaction in Nature because there are infinite sorts of motions Also when I say in the same place That Natures actions are voluntary I do not mean that all actions are made by rote and none by imitation but by voluntary actions I understand self-actions that is such actions whose principle of motion is within themselves and doth not proceed from such an exterior Agent as doth the motion of the inanimate part of matter which having no motion of it self is moved by the animate parts yet so that it receives no motion from them but moves by the motion of the animate parts and not by an infused motion into them for the animate parts in carrying the inanimate along with them lose nothing of their own motion nor impart no motion to the inanimate no more than a man who carries a stick in his hand imparts motion to the stick and loses so much as he imparts but they bear the inanimate parts along with them by vertue of their own self-motion and remain self-moving parts as well as the inanimate remain without motion Again when I make a distinguishment between voluntary actions and exterior perceptions my meaning is not as if voluntary actions were not made by perceptive parts for whatsoever is self-moving and active is perceptive and therefore since the voluntary actions of Sense and Reason are made by self-moving parts they must of necessity be perceptive actions but I speak of Perceptions properly so call'd which are occasioned by Forreign parts and to those I oppose voluntary actions which are not occasioned but made by rote as for example the perception of sight in Animals when outward Objects present themselves to the Optick sense
infallible and thorow perception of all their interior parts and motions which is a knowledg impossible 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.
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
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
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-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-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-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
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
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
out a Tree which stands in a direct line opposite to them but if there be Meadows or Hedges on each side of the Tree then the extream or side parts of each eye pattern out those meadows or hedges for one eyes perception is not the other eyes perception which makes them perceive differently when otherwise they would perceive both alike But if a thousand eyes do perceive one object just alike then they are but as one eye and make but one perception for like as many parts do work or act to one and the same design so do several corporeal motions in one eye pattern out one object the onely difference is that as I said every eye is ignorant of each others perception But you 'l say There are so many copies made as there are objects I answer 'T is true But though there are many composed parts which join in the making of one particular perception yet if they move all alike the perception is but one and the same for put the case there were a hundred thousand copies of one original if they be all alike each other so as not to have the least difference betwixt them then they are all but as one Picture of one Original but if they be not alike each other then they are different Pictures because they represent different faces And thus for a matched pair of eyes in one Creature if they move at the same point of time directly to one and the same parts in the same design of patterning out one and the same object it seems but as one act of one part and as one perception of one object Q. 15. How comes it that some parts for all they are Perceptive can yet be so ignorant of each other that in one composed figure as for example in the finger of a Man's hand they are ignorant of each other when as other parts do make perceptions of one another at a great distance and when other parts are between I answer This question is easily resolved if we do but consider that the differerence of Perception depends upon the difference of the corporeal figurative motions for if the parts be not the same the perceptions must needs be different nay there may infinite several perceptions be made by one and the same parts if Matter be eternal and perpetually moving And hence it follows that some parts may make perceptions of distant parts and not of neighbouring parts and others again may make perceptions of neighbouring or adjoining parts and not of those that are distant As for example in the animal Perception taste and touch are onely perceptions of adjoining objects when as sight and hearing do perceive at a distance for if an object be immediately joined to the optick sense it quite blinds it Wherefore it is well to be observed that there are several kinds and sorts of Perceptions as well as of other composed figures As for example there are Animals Vegetables Minerals and Elements and these comprehend each several particular kinds of Animals Vegetables Minerals c. Again these particular kinds are divided into several sorts and each of them contains so many particulars nay each particular has so many different parts of which it consists and each part has its different particular motions The same may be said of Perceptions For as the several compositions of several parts are so are they not that the bare composition of the parts and figures is the cause of Perception but the self-knowing and self-moving parts compose themselves into such or such figures and as there are proprieties belonging to such compositions so to such composed perceptions so that the composed parts at the end of a finger may not have the same perceptions with the middle parts of the same finger But some may say If there be such ignorance between the parts of a composed figure How comes it that many times the pain of one particular part will cause a general distemper throughout all the body I answer There may be a general perception of the irregularities of such particular composed parts in the other parts of the body although they are not irregular themselves for if they had the same compositions and the same irregularities as the distempered parts they would have the same effects that is pain sickness or numbness c. within themselves but to have a perception of the irregularities of other parts and to be irregular themselves are different things Nevertheless some parts moving irregularly may occasion other parts to do the same But it is well to be observed That adjoining parts do not always imitate each other neither do some parts make perceptions of forreign objects so readily as others do as for example a man plays upon a Fiddle or some other instrument and there are hundreds or more to hear him it happens oft that those at a further distance do make a perfecter perception of that sound then those which are near and oftentimes those that are in the middle as between those that are nearest and those that are furthest off may make a perfecter perception then all they for though all parts are in a perpetual motion yet all parts are not bound to move after one and the same way but some move slower some quicker some livelier some duller and some parts do move so irregularly as they will not make perceptions of some objects when as they make perceptions of others and some will make perfect perceptions of one and the same objects at some times and not at other times As for example some men will hear see smell taste c. more perfectly at some then at other times And thus to repeat what I said before The several kinds sorts and particulars of Perceptions must well be considered as also that the variety of Nature proceeds but from one cause which is self-knowing and self-moving Matter Q. 16. Why a Man's hand or any other part of his body has not the like Perception as the eye the ear or the nose c. because there are sensitive and rational motions in all the parts of his body I answer The reason why the same perception that is within the eye cannot be in the hand or in any other part of a mans body is that the parts of the hand are composed into another sort of figure then the eyes ears nose c. are and the sensitive motions make perceptions according to the compositions of their parts and if the parts of the hand should be divided and composed with other parts into another figure as for example into the figure of an eye or ear or nose then they would have the perception of seeing hearing and smelling for perceptions are according to the composition of parts and the changes of Natures self-motions But then some will say perhaps That an Artificial eye or ear will have the same perceptions c. being of the same figure I answer That if its interior nature and the composition of its parts
were just the same as its exterior figure as for example if an artificial eye or ear were of animal flesh and the like it would have the like perception otherways not Q. 17. How do we perceive Light Fire Air c I answer By their exterior figures as we do other objects As for example my Eye patterns out the exterior figure of Light and my Touch patterns out the exterior figure of Heat c. But then you will say If the Eye did pattern out the figure of Light it would become Light it self and if Touch did pattern out the figure of Heat it would become Fire I answer No more then when a Painter draws Fire or Light the copy should be a natural Fire or Light For there is difference betwixt the copy and the original and it is to be observed that in the Perception of sense especially of sight there must be a certain distance betwixt the object and the sentient parts for the further those are from each other the weaker is the perception by reason no corporeal figurative motion is infinite but finite and therefore it can have but fueh a degree of power strength or activity as belongs to such a figurative action or such a part or degree of Matter But as for Fire and Light it is a certain and evident proof that some perceptions at least those of the exterior animal senses are made by patterning for though the nature of Fire and of Light for any thing we know be ascending yet if Fire be made in such a manner that several may stand about underneath and above it yet they all have the perception of the heat of fire in what place soever provided they stand within a limited or determinate compass of it I say of the heat which is the effect of fire for that is onely patterned out and not the substance of the flame or fire it self But on the contrary if the heat of the fire did actually and really spread it self out to all the places nominated as well downwards upwards and sideways then certainly it would be wasted in a little time and leave its cause which is the fire heatless Besides that there are Copies and Originals and that some perceptions are made by patterning is evident by the appearance of one Candle in several distances which several appearances can be nothing else but several copies of that Candle made by those parts that take patterns from the Original which makes me also believe that after the same manner many Stars which we take for Originals may be but so many copies or patterns of one Star made by the figurative motions of those parts where they appear Q. 18. Whether the Optick Perception is made in the Eye or Brain or in both I answer The perception of Sight when awake is made on the outside of the Eye but in sleep on the inside and as for some sorts of Thoughts or Conceptions which are the actions of reason they are to my apprehension made in the inner part of the head although I am not able to determine properly what part it is for all the body is perceptive and has sense and reason and not onely the head the onely difference is that the several actions of several parts cause several sorts of perceptions and the rational parts being the most active and purest and moving within themselves can make more figures in the same compass or magnitude and in a much shorter time then the sensitive which being burthened with the inanimate parts cannot act so agily and freely Neverthess some of the sensitive actions are much agiler and nimbler then others as we may perceive in several sorts of productions But the rational parts being joined with the sensitive in the exterior parts of a figure do for the most part work together with the same otherwise when they move by themselves in Thoughts Conceptions Remembrance and the like they are more inward as within the head for there are Perceptions of interior parts as well as of exterior I mean within a composed figure by reason all parts are perceptive Neither does this prove that if there be so many perceptions in one composed figure there must be numerous several perceptions of one object in that same figure for every part knows its own work or else there would be a confusion in Natures actions Neither are all perceptions alike but as I said according as the several actions are so are the perceptions Q. 19. What is the reason that the nearer a stick or finger is held against a Concave-glass the more does the pattern of it made by the glass appear to issue out of the glass and meet with the object that is without it I answer 'T is not that something really issues out of the Glass but as in a plain Looking-glass the further the object goes from it the more does its copy or image seem to be within the glass So in the same manner does the length of the stick which is the measure of the object or distance that moves For as to a man that rides in a Coach or sails upon Water the Shore Trees Hedges Meadows and Fields seem to move when as yet 't is the man that moves from them so it is with the figure in a Looking-glass Wherefore it is onely a mistake in the animal sense to take the motion of one for the motion of the other Q. 20. Whether a Part or Figure repeated by the same Motions be the same part or figure as the former or onely like the former as also whether an action repeated be the same with the former I answer That if the Parts Figures and Actions be the same they will always remain the same although they be dissolved and repeated millions of times as for example if you make a figure of wax and dissolve it and make that figure again just as it was before and of the same parts and by the same action it will be the very same figure but if you alter either the parts or the figure it may be like the former figure but not the very same The like for action if one and the same action be repeated without any alteration it is nothing else but a repetition of the corporeal figurative motions but if there be any alteration in it it is not made by the same figurative motions and consequently 't is not the same action for though the self-moving parts be the same yet the figurative motions are not the same not that those figurative motions are not in the same parts but not repeated in the same manner Wherefore it is well to be observed that a Repetition is of the same parts figures and actions that were before but an alteration is not a repetition for wheresoever is but the least alteration there can be no exact repetition Q. 21. Whether there may be a Remembrance in Sense as well as there is in Reason I answer Yes for Remembrance is nothing else
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
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
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
into earth and of this again into vegetables minerals and animals proves no more but what our senses perceive every day to wit that there is a perpetual change and alteration in all natural parts caused by corporeal self-motion by which rare bodies change into dense and dense into rare water into slime slime into earth earth into animals vegetables and minerals and those again into earth earth into slime slime into water and so forth But I wonder why rational men should onely rest upon water and go no further since daily experience informs them that water is changed into vapour and vapour into air for if water be resolveable into other bodies it cannot be a prime cause and consequently no principle of Nature wherefore they had better in my opinion to make Air the principle of all things 'T is true Water may produce many creatures as I said before by a composition with other or change of its own parts but yet I dare say it doth kill or destroy as many nay more then it produces witness vegetables and others which Husbandmen and Planters have best experience of and though some animals live in water as their proper Element yet to most it is destructive I mean as for their particular natures nay if men do but dwell in a moist place or near marrish grounds or have too much watery humors in their bodies they 'l sooner die then otherwise But put the case water were a principle of Natural things yet it must have motion or else it would never be able to change into so many figures and this motion must either be naturally inherent in the substance of water or it must proceed from some exterior agent if from an exterior agent then this agent must either be material or immaterial also if all motion in Nature did proceed from pressure of parts upon parts then those parts which press others must either have motion inherent in themselves or if they be moved by others we must at last proceed to something which has motion in it self and is not moved by another but moves all things and if we allow this Why may not we allow self-motion in all things for if one part of Matter has self-motion it cannot be denied of all the rest but if immaterial it must either be God himself or created supernatural spirits As for God he being immoveable and beyond all natural motion cannot actually move Matter neither is it Religious to say God is the Soul of Nature for God is no part of Nature as the soul is of the body And immaterial spirits being supernatural cannot have natural attributes or actions such as is corporeal natural motion Wherefore it remains that Matter must be naturally self-moving and consequently all parts of Nature all being material so that not onely Water Earth Fire and Air but all other natural bodies whatsoever have natural self-motion inherent in themselves by which it is evident that there can be no other principle in Nature but this self-moving Matter and that all the rest are but effects of this onely cause Some are of opinion That the three Catholick or Universal principles of Nature are Matter Motion and Rest and others with Epicure that they are Magnitude Figure and Weight but although Matter and Motion or rather self-moving Matter be the onely principle of Nature yet they are mistaken in dividing them from each other and adding rest to the number of them for Matter and Motion are but one thing and cannot make different principles aud so is figure weight and magnitude 'T is true Matter might subsist without Motion but not Motion without Matter for there is no such thing as an immaterial Motion but Motion must necessarily be of something also if there be a figure it must of necessity be a figure of something the same may be said of magnitude and weight there being no such thing as a mean between something and nothing that is between body and no body in Nature If Motion were immaterial it is beyond all humane capacity to conceive how it could be abstracted from something much more how it could be a principle to produce a natural being it might easier be believed that Matter was perishable or reduceable into nothing then that motion figure and magnitude should be separable from Matter or be immaterial as the opinion is of those who introduce a Vacuum in Nature and as for Rest I wonder how that can be a principle of any production change or alteration which it self acts nothing Others are for Atomes and insensible particles consisting of different figures and particular natures not otherwise united but by a bare apposition as they call it by which although perhaps the composed body obtains new qualities yet still the ingredients retain each their own Nature and in the destruction of the composed body those that are of one sort associate and return into Fire Water Earth c. as they were before But whatever their opinion of Atoms be first I have heretofore declared that there can be no such things as single bodies or Atomes in Nature Next if there were any such particles in composed bodies yet they are but parts or effects of Matter and not principles of Nature or Natural beings Lastly Chymists do constitute the principles of all natural bodies Salt Sulphur and Mercury But although I am not averse from believing that those ingredients may be mixt with other parts of Nature in the composition of natural figures and that especially Salt may be extracted out of many Creatures yet that it should be the constitutive principle of all other natural parts or figures seems no ways conformable to truth for salt is no more then other effects of Nature and although some extractions may convert some substances into salt figures and some into others for Art by the leave of her Mistress Nature doth oftentimes occasion an alteration of natural Creatures into artificial yet these extractions cannot inform us how those natural creatures are made and of what ingredients they consist for they do not prove that the same Creatures are composed of Salt or mixt with Salt but cause onely those substances which they extract to change into saline figures like as others do convert them into Chymical spirits all which are but Hermaphroditical effects that is between natural and artificial Just as a Mule partakes both of the nature or figure of a Horse and an Ass Nevertheless as Mules are very beneficial for use so many Chymical effects provided they be discreetly and seasonably used for Minerals are no less beneficial to the life and health of Man then Vegetables and Vegetables may be as hurtful and destructive as Minerals by an unseasonable and unskilful application besides there may be Chymical extracts made of Vegetables as well as of Minerals but these are bestused in the height or extremity of some diseases like as cordial waters in fainting fits and some Chymical spirits are as far beyond cordial waters
Vegetables and the Fire and in the power of their corporeal figurative motions as any other figure whatsoever otherwise it would never have been produced nay not onely Glass but millions of other figures might be obtained from those parts they being subject to infinite changes for the actions of self-moving Matter are so infinitely various that according to the mixture or composition and division of parts they can produce what figures they please not by a new Creation but only a change or alteration of their own parts and though some parts act not to the production of such or such figures yet we cannot say that those figures are not in Nature or in the power of corporeal figurative self-motion we might say as well that a man cannot go when he sits or has no motion when he sleeps as believe that it is not in the power of Nature to produce such or such effects or actions when they are not actually produced for as I said before although Nature be but one material substance yet there are infinite mixtures of infinite parts produced by infinite self-motion infinite ways in so much that seldom any two Creatures even those of one sort do exactly resemble each other But some may say How is it possible That figure being all one with Matter can change and matter remain still the same without any change or alteration I answer As well as an animal body can put it self into various and different postures without any change of its interior animal figure for though figure cannot subsist without matter nor matter without figure generally considered yet particular parts of matter are not bound to certain particular figures Matter in its general nature remains always the same and cannot be changed from being Matter but by the power of self-motion it may change from being such or such a particular figure for example Wood is as much matter as Stone but it is not of the same figure nor has it the same interior innate motions which Stone hath because it has not the like composition of parts as other creatures of other figures have and though some figures be more constant or lasting then others yet this does not prove that they are not subject to changes as well as those that alter daily nay every moment much less that they are without motion for not all motions are dividing or dissolving but some are retentive some composing some attractive some expulsive some contractive some dilative and infinite other sorts of motions as 't is evident by the infinite variety which appears in the differing effects of Nature Nevertheless it is no consequence that because the effects are different they must also have different principles For first all effects of Nature are material which proves they have but one principle which is the onely infinite Matter Next they are all self-moving which proves that this material principle has self-motion for without self-motion there would be no variety or change of figures it being the nature of self-motion to be perpetually acting Thus Matter and Self-motion being inseparably united in one infinite body which is self-moving material Nature is the onely cause of all the infinite effects that are produced in Nature and not the Aristoteleon Elements or Chymists Tria prima which sense and reason perceives to be no more but effects or else if we should call all those Creatures principles which by the power of their own inherent motions change into other figures we shall be forced to make infinite principles and so confound principles with effects and after this manner that which is now an effect will become a principle and what is now a principle will become an effect which will lead our sense and reason into a herrid confusion and labyrinth of ignorance Wherefore I will neither follow the Opinions of the Ancient nor of our Moderns in this point but search the truth of Nature by the light of regular reason for I perceive that most of our modern Writings are not fill'd with new Inventions of their own but like a lumber stuff'd with old Commodities botch'd and dress'd up anew contain nothing but what has been said in former ages Nor am I of the opinion of our Divine Philosophers who mince Philosophy and Divinity Faith and Reason together and count it Irreligious if not Blasphemy to assert any other principles of Nature then what they I will not say by head and shoulders draw out of the Scripture especially out of Genesis to evince the finiteness and beginning of Nature when as Moses doth onely describe the Creation of this World and not of Infinite Nature But as Pure natural Philosophers do not meddle with Divinity or things Supernatural so Divines ought not to intrench upon Natural Philosophy Neither are Chymists the onely natural Philosophers because they are so much tied to the Art of Fire and regulate or measure all the effects of Nature according to their Artificial Experiments which do delude rather then inform their sense and reason and although they pretend to a vast and greater knowledg then all the rest yet they have not dived so deep into Nature yet as to perceive that she is full of sense and reason which is life and knowledg and in parts orders parts proper to parts which causes all the various motions figures and changes in the infinite parts of Nature Indeed no Creature that has its reason regular can almost believe that such wise and orderly actions should be done either by chance or by straying Atomes which cannot so constantly change and exchange parts and mix and join so properly and to such constant effects as are apparent in Nature And as for Galenists if they believe that some parts of Nature connot leave or pass by other parts to join meet or encounter others they are as much in an error as Chymists concerning the power of fire and furnace for it is most frequently observed thus amongst all sorts of Animals and if amongst Animals I know no reason but all other kinds and sorts of Creatures may do the like nay both sense and reason inform us they do as appears by the several and proper actions of all sorts of drugs as also Minerals and Elements and the like so that none ought to wonder how it is possible that medicines that must pass through digestions in the body should neglecting all other parts shew themselves friendly onely to the brain or kidnies or the like parts for if there be sense and reason in Nature all things must act wisely and orderly and not confusedly and though Art like an Emulating Ape strives to imitate Nature yet it is so far from producing natural figures that at best it rather produces Monsters instead of natural effects for it is like the Painter who drew a Rose instead of a Lion nevertheless Art is as active as any other natural Creature and doth never want imployment for it is like all other parts in a perpetual self-motion and
seasonably applied can work good effects so they may also produce ill effects if they be used improperly and unseasonably and therefore wise Physicians and Surgeons know by experience as well as by learning and reason what is best for their Patients in all kind of distempers Onely this I will add concerning diseases that in the productions of diseases there must of necessity be a conjunction of the Agent and Patient as is evident even in those diseases that are caused by conceit for if a man should hear of an infectious disease and be apprehensive of it both the discourse of him that tells it and the mind of him that apprehends it are Agents or causes of that disease in the body of the Patient and concur in the production of the disease the difference is onely that the discourse may be called a remoter cause and the rational motions or the mind of the Patient a nearer or immediate cause for as soon as the mind doth figure such a disease the sensitive corporeal motions immediately take the figure from the mind and figure the disease in the substance or parts of the body of the Patient the Rational proving the Father the Sensitive the Mother both working by consent Whereby we may also conclude that diseases as well as other sorts of Creatures are made by Natures corporeal figurative motions and those parts that occasion others to alter their natural motions are most predominant for although Nature is free and all her parts self-moving yet not every part is free to move as it pleases by reason some parts over-power others either through number strength slight shape opportunity or the like advantages and natural Philosophy is the onely study that teaches men to know the particular natures figures and motions of the several composed parts of Nature and the rational perception is more intelligent then the sensitive 23. Of several sorts of Drink and Meat SOme Physicians when they discourse of several sorts of Drinks and Meats do relate several wonderful Cures which some Drinks have effected And truly I am of opinion that they may be both beneficial and hurtful according as they are used properly and temperately or improperly and excessively but I find there are more several sorts for curiosity and luxury then for health and necessity Small Ale or Beer is a soveraign remedy to quench drought and one Glass of Wine proves a Cordial but many Glasses may prove a kind of poyson putting men oftentimes into Feavers and the like diseases And for Diet-drinks I believe they are very good in some sorts of diseases and so may Tea and Coffee and the water of Birches for any thing I know for I never had any experience of them but I observe that these latter drinks Tea and Coffee are now become mode-drinks and their chief effects are to make good fellowship rather then to perform great cures for I can hardly believe that such weak liquors can have such strong effects Concerning several sorts of Meats I leave them to experienced Physicians for they know best what is fit for the bodies of their Patients Onely as for the preservation or keeping of several sorts of meats from putrefaction I will say this That I have observed that what will keep dead Flesh and Fish as also Vegetables from putrefaction will destroy living Animals for if living Animals should like dead flesh be pickled up and kept from air they would soon be smother'd to death and so would Fire which yet is no Animal Neither can Ladies and Gentlewomen preserve their lives as they do several sorts of fruit Nevertheless both this and several other Arts are very necessary and profitable for the use of man if they be but fitly and properly imployed but we may observe that when as other Creatures have no more then what is necessary for their preservation Man troubles himself with things that are needless nay many times hurtful Which is the cause there are so many unprofitable Arts which breed confusion instead of proving beneficial and instructive 24. Of Fermentation FErmentation of which Helmont and his followers make such a stir as 't is enough to set all the world a fermenting or working is nothing else but what is vulgarly called digestion so that it is but a new term for an old action And these digestions or Fermentations are as various and numerous as all other actions of Nature to wit Respiration Evacuation Dilation Contraction c. for action and working are all one But there are good and ill Fermentations those are done by a sympathetical agreement of parts but these by an antipathetical disagreement Those tend to the preservation of the subject these to its destruction Those are regular these irregular So that there are numerous sorts of fermentations not onely in several sorts of Creatures but in several parts of one and the same Creature for Fermentation or Digestion is according to the composition of the fermenting or digestive parts and their motions 25. Of the Plague IHave heard that a Gentleman in Italy fancied he had so good a Microscope that he could see Atomes through it and could also perceive the Plague which he affirmed to be a swarm of living animals as little as Atomes which entred into mens bodies through their mouths nostrils ears c. To give my opinion hereof I must confess That there are no parts of Nature how little soever which are not living and self-moving bodies nay every Respiration is of living parts and therefore the Infection of the Plague made by the way of respiration cannot but be of living parts but that these parts should be animal Creatures is very improbable to sense and reason for if this were so not onely the Plague but all other infectious diseases would be produced the same way and then fruit or any other surfeiting meat would prove living Animals But I am so far from believing that the Plague should be living animals as I do not believe it to be a swarm of living Atomes flying up and down in the Air for if it were thus then those Atomes would not remain in one place but infect all the places they passed through when as yet we observe that the Plague will often be but in one Town or City of a Kingdom without spreading any further Neither do I believe as some others say that it is always the heat of the Sun or Air that causes or at least increases the Plague for there are Winterplagues as well as Summer-plagues and many times the Plague decreases in Summer when it is hot and increases in Winter when it is cold Besides the air being generally hot over all the Country or Kingdom would not onely cause the infection in one Town or City but in all other parts Therefore my opinion is that as all other diseases are produced several manners or ways so likewise the Plague and as they generally do all proceed from the irregularities of corporeal natural motions so does also
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
Animal tell what perception a Vegetable or Mineral has We may perceive that the Air which is an Element doth pattern out sound for it is not done by reverberation as pressure and reaction by reason there will be in some places not onely two several Ecchoes of one sound but in some three or four but surely one sound cannot be in several distant places at one time Also a Looking-glass we see does pattern out the figure of an object but yet we cannot be certainly affirmed that either the Glass or the Air have the same perceptions which Animals have for although their patterns are alike yet their perceptions may be different As for example the picture of a Man may be like its original but yet who knows what perception it has for though it represents the exterior figure of an Animal yet it is not of the nature of an Animal and therefore although a man may perceive his picture yet he knows not what perception the picture has of him for we can but judg by our selves of the perceptions of our own kind that is of Animal kind and not of the perceptions of other Creatures for example I observe that the perception of my exterior senses is made by an easie way of patterning out exterior objects and so conclude of the rest of my own kind to wit that the perception of their exterior sensitive organs is made after the same manner or way nay I perceive that also some perceptions of several other sorts of Creatures are made by way of patterning as in the forementioned examples of the Air and Glass and in Infectious Diseases where several Creatures will be infected by one object which certainly is not by an immediate propagation on so many numerous parts proceeding from the object but by imitation of the perceiving parts but yet I cannot infer from thence that all perceptions in Nature are made by imitation or patterning for some may and some may not and although our rational perception being more subtil then the sensitive may perceive somewhat more and judg better of outward objects then the sensitive yet it cannot be infallibly assured that it is onely so and not otherwise for we see that some animals are produced out of Vegetables whose off-spring is not any ways like their producer which proves that not all actions of Nature are made by imitation or patterning In short our reason does observe that all perception in general whatsoever is made by corporeal figurative self-motion but it cannot perceive the particular figurative motions that make every perception and though some Learned are of opinion that all perceptions are made by pressure and reaction yet it is not probable to sense and reason for this being but one sort of action would not make such variety of perceptions in the infinite parts of Nature as we may perceive there are Whensoever I say that outward objects work or cause such or such effects in the body sentient I do not mean that the object is the onely immediate cause of the changes of those parts in the sentient body but that it is onely an external or occasional cause and that the effects in the sentient proceed from its own inherent natural motions which upon the perception of the exterior object cause such effects in the sentient as are either agreeable to the motions of the object and that by way of imitation which is called Sympathy or disagreeable which is call'd Antipathy When I say That the several senses of Animals pattern out the several proprieties of one object as for example the Tongue patterns out the taste the Nostrils the smell the Ears the noise the Eyes the exterior figure shape colour c. and do prove by this that they are different things dividable from each other and yet in other places do affirm that colour place figure quantity or magnitude c. are one and the same with body and inseparable from each other 't is no contradiction for to be dividable from such or such parts and to be dividable from Matter are several things Smell and Taste although they be material or corporeal and cannot be divided from Matter yet there is no necessity that all parts of Nature must be subject to smell or taste or that such parts must have such smells and such tastes for though Colour Place Taste Smell c. are material and cannot be without body yet may they be conceived by our sense and reason to be different and several figures parts or actions for as there is no such thing as single parts or single divisions in Nature but all compositions divisions changes and alterations are within the body of Nature and yet there is such a variety and difference of natural figures and actions that one figure is not another nor one action another so it is likewise with the mentioned proprieties or what you 'l call them which although they cannot be separated from body or matter yet they may be altered changed composed and divided with their parts several ways and be perceived as various and different actions of Nature as they are for as one body may have several different motions at one and the same time so it may also have several proprieties though not dividable from Matter for all that is in Nature is material nor can there be any such thing as Immaterial accidents qualities properties and the like yet discernable by their different actions and changeable by the self-moving power of Nature But mistake me not when I say they are several different figures parts or actions for my meaning is not as if body and they were different things separable from each other or as if Colour Place Figure Magnitude c. were several parts of matter for then it would follow that some parts could be without place some without figure some without colour c. which is impossible for could there be a single Atome yet that Atome would have Colour Place Figure Magnitude c. onely there would be no motion for want of Parts and consequently no Perception But my meaning is That the several properties of a Body as for example Tast Touch Smell Sound being perceived by the several senses of Animals to wit the Tast by the Tongue the Smell by the Nose and Colour and Figure by the Eye c. it proves that they are several corporeal actions for the Tast is not the Smell nor Smell the Sound nor Sound the Colour Nevertheless they are all proprieties of the same body and no more dividable from body then motion is from body or body from matter onely they are made according to the several compositions and divisions of parts And as for Colour Place Magnitude Figure c. as I said before could there be an Atome it would have Colour Place Figure and though parts be changed millions of ways yet they cannot lose Colour Place and Figure The truth is as there are no single finite parts in Nature so there