XX.

[1]Ch.The Position is demonstrated.

[2]Gen.6. 2.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

[1]Ch.Of the Image of the Mind.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your real and faithful

Friend and Servant.

[1]Ch.Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

[1]Ch.Of the Image of the Mind.

[2]Of the Spirit of Life.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your constant Friend,

and faithful Servant.

[1]Of the seat of the Soul.It.Of the Image of the Mind.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your real and faithful

Friend and Servant.

[1]Ch.Of the Image of the Soul.

[2]Ch.Of the Magnetick cure of wounds.

[3]Of the seat of the Soul.

[4]Ch.Of the Image of the Mind.

[5]Heb.11. 14.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

[1]Ch.The hunting or searching out of Sciences.It.Of the Image of the Mind.

MADAM,

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

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and humble Servant.

Back to Index Next