[1]Philos. part.3.a.40.
[1]Philos. part.3.a.40.
MADAM,
ThatRarefactionis onely achange of figure, according to yourAuthorsopinion,[1]is in my reason very probable; but when he sayes, thatin rarified bodies are little intervals or pores filled up with some other subtil matter, if he means that all rarified bodies are porous, I dissent from him; for it is not necessary that all rarified bodies should be porous, and all hard bodies without pores: but if there were a probability of pores, I am of opinion, it would be more in dense and hard, than in rare and soft bodies; as for example, rarifying and dilating motions are plaining, smoothing, spreading and making all parts even, which could not well be, if there were holes or pores; Earth is dense and hard, and yet is porous, and flame is rare and dilating, and yet is not porous; and certainly Water is not so porous as Earth. Wherefore pores, in my opinion, are according to the nature or form of the figure, and not according to the rarity or thinness, and density or thickness of the substance. As for his thin and subtil matter filling up the pores of porous bodies, I assent to yourAuthorso far, that I meane, thin and thick, or rare and dense substances are joyned and mixed together. As for plaining, smoothing and spreading, I do not mean so much artificial plaining and spreading; as for example, when a piece of gold is beaten into a thin plate, and a board is made plain and smooth by a Joyners tool, or a napkin folded up is spread plain and even, although, when you observe these arts, you may judge somewhat of the nature of natural dilations; for a folded cloth is fuller of creases then when plain, and the beating of a thin plate is like to the motion of dilation, which is to spread out, and the forme of rarifying is thinning and extending. I add onely this, that I am not of yourAuthorsopinion, that Rest is the Cause or Glue which keeps the parts of dense or hard bodies together, but it is retentive motions. And so I conclude, resting,
Madam,
Your Faithful Friend
and Servant.
[1]Philos. part.2.a.6, 7.
[1]Philos. part.2.a.6, 7.
MADAM,
That the Mind, according to yourAuthorsopinion,is a substance really distinct from the body, and may be actually separated from it and subsist without it: If he mean the natural mind and soul of Man, not the supernatural or divine, I am far from his opinion; for though the mind moveth onely in its own parts, and not upon, or with the parts of inanimate matter, yet it cannot be separated from these parts of matter, and subsist by its self as being a part of one and the same matter the inanimate is of, (for there is but one onely matter, and one kind of matter, although of several degrees,) onely it is the self-moving part; but yet this cannot impower it, to quit the same natural body, whose part it is. Neither can I apprehend, that the Mind's or Soul's seat should be in theGlandulaor kernel of the Brain, and there sit like a Spider in a Cobweb, to whom the least motion of the Cobweb gives intelligence of a Flye, which he is ready to assault, and that the Brain should get intelligence by the animal spirits as his servants, which run to and fro like Ants to inform it; or that the Mind should, according to others opinions, be a light, and imbroidered all with Ideas, like a Heraulds Coat; and that the sensitive organs should have no knowledg in themselves, but serve onely like peeping-holes for the mind, or barn-dores to receive bundles of pressures, like sheaves of Corn; For there being a thorow mixture of animate, rational and sensitive, and inanimate matter, we cannot assign a certain seat or place to the rational, another to the sensitive, and another to the inanimate, but they are diffused and intermixt throughout all the body; And this is the reason, that sense and knowledg cannot be bound onely to the head or brain; But although they are mixt together, nevertheless they do not lose their interior nature, by this mixture, nor their purity and subtilty, nor their proper motions or actions, but each moves according to its nature and substance, without confusion; The actions of the rational part in Man, which is the Mind or Soul, are called Thoughts, or thoughtful perceptions, which are numerous, and so are the sensitive perceptions; for though Man, or any other animal hath but five exterior sensitive organs, yet there be numerous perceptions made in these sensitive organs, and in all the body; nay, every several Pore of the flesh is a sensitive organ, as well as the Eye, or the Ear. But both sorts, as well the rational as the sensitive, are different from each other, although both do resemble another, as being both parts of animate matter, as I have mentioned before: Wherefore I'le add no more, onely let you know, that I constantly remain,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend,
and Servant.
MADAM,
That all other animals, besides man, want reason, yourAuthorendeavours to prove in hisdiscourse of method, where his chief argument is, That other animals cannot express their mind, thoughts or conceptions, either by speech or any other signs, as man can do: For, sayes he,it is not for want of the organs belonging to the framing of words, as we may observe in Parrats and Pies, which are apt enough to express words they are taught, but understand nothing of them.My answer is, That one man expressing his mind by speech or words to an other, doth not declare by it his excellency and supremacy above all other Creatures, but for the most part more folly, for a talking man is not so wise as a contemplating man. But by reason other Creatures cannot speak or discourse with each other as men, or make certain signs, whereby to express themselves as dumb and deaf men do, should we conclude, they have neither knowledge, sense, reason, or intelligence? Certainly, this is a very weak argument; for one part of a mans body, as one hand, is not less sensible then the other, nor the heel less sensible then the heart, nor the legg less sensible then the head, but each part hath its sense and reason, and so consequently its sensitive and rational knowledg; and although they cannot talk or give intelligence to each other by speech, nevertheless each hath its own peculiar and particular knowledge, just as each particular man has his own particular knowledge, for one man's knowledge is not another man's knowledge; and if there be such a peculiar and particular knowledg in every several part of one animal creature, as man, well may there be such in Creatures of different kinds and sorts: But this particular knowledg belonging to each creature, doth not prove that there is no intelligence at all betwixt them, no more then the want of humane Knowledg doth prove the want of Reason; for Reason is the rational part of matter, and makes perception, observation, and intelligence different in every creature, and every sort of creatures, according to their proper natures, but perception, observation and intelligence do not make reason, Reason being the cause, and they the effects. Wherefore though other Creatures have not the speech, nor Mathematical rules and demonstrations, with other Arts and Sciences, as Men; yet may their perceptions and observations be as wise as Men's, and they may have as much intelligence and commerce betwixt each other, after their own manner and way, as men have after theirs: To which I leave them, and Man to his conceited prerogative and excellence, resting,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend,
and Servant.
MADAM,
ConcerningSenseandPerception, yourAuthorsopinion is,[1]That it is made by amotion or impression from the object upon the sensitive organ, which impression, by means of the nerves, is brought to the brain, and so to the mind or soul, which onely perceives in the brain: Explaining it by the example[2]of a Man being blind, or walking in dark, who by the help of his stick can perceive when he touches a Stone, a Tree, Water, Sand, and the like; which example he brings to make a comparison with the perception of Light;For, says he,Light in a shining body, is nothing else but a quick and lively motion or action, which through the air and other transparent bodies tends towards the eye, in the same manner as the motion or resistance of the bodies, the blind man meets withal, tends thorow the stick towards the hand; wherefore it is no wonder that the Sun can display its rays so far in an instant, seeing that the same action, whereby one end of the stick is moved, goes instantly also to the other end, and would do the same if the stick were as long as Heaven is distant from Earth.To which I answer first, That it is not onely the Mind that perceives in the kernel of the Brain, but that there is a double perception, rational and sensitive, and that the mind perceives by the rational, but the body and the sensitive organs by the sensitive perception; and as there is a double perception, so there is also a double knowledg, rational and sensitive, one belonging to the mind, the other to the body; for I believe that the Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, and all the Body, have knowledg as well as the Mind, onely the rational matter, being subtil and pure, is not incumbred with the grosser part of matter, to work upon, or with it, but leaves that to the sensitive, and works or moves onely in its own substance, which makes a difference between thoughts, and exterior senses. Next I say, That it is not the Motion or Reaction of the bodies, the blind man meets withal, which makes the sensitive perception of these objects, but the sensitive corporeal motions in the hand do pattern out the figure of the Stick, Stone, Tree, Sand, and the like. And as for comparing the perception of the hand, when by the help of the stick it perceives the objects, with the perception of light, I confess that the sensitive perceptions do all resemble each other, because all sensitive parts of matter are of one degree, as being sensible parts, onely there is a difference according to the figures of the objects presented to the senses; and there is no better proof for perception being made by the sensitive motions in the body, or sensitive organs, but that all these sensitive perceptions are alike, and resemble one another; for if they were not made in the body of the sentient, but by the impression of exterior objects, there would be so much difference betwixt them, by reason of the diversity of objects, as they would have no resemblance at all. But for a further proof of my own opinion, did the perception proceed meerly from the motion, impression and resistance of the objects, the hand could not perceive those objects, unless they touched the hand it self, as the stick doth; for it is not probable, that the motions of the stone, water, sand, &c. should leave their bodies and enter into the stick, and so into the hand; for motion must be either something or nothing; if something, the stick and the hand would grow bigger, and the objects touched less, or else the touching and the touched must exchange their motions, which cannot be done so suddenly, especially between solid bodies; But if motion has no body, it is nothing, and how nothing can pass or enter or move some body, I cannot conceive. 'Tis true there is no part that can subsist singly by it self, without dependance upon each other, and so parts do always joyn and touch each other, which I am not against; but onely I say perception is not made by the exterior motions of exterior parts of objects, but by the interior motions of the parts of the body sentient. But I have discoursed hereof before, and so I take my leave, resting,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and Servant.
[1]Philos. part.4.a.189.
[1]Philos. part.4.a.189.
[2]Diopt. c.1.a.2, 3. &c.4.a.1.
[2]Diopt. c.1.a.2, 3. &c.4.a.1.
MADAM,
I cannot conceive why yourAuthoris so much for little and insensible parts, out of which the Elements and all other bodies are made; for though Nature is divideable, yet she is also composeable; and I think there is no need to dissect every creature into such little parts, to know their nature, but we can do it by another way as well; for we may dissect or divide them into never so little parts, and yet gain never the more knowledg by it. But according to these principles he describing amongst the rest the nature of Water, says,[1]That those little parts, out of which Water consists, are in figure somewhat long, light and slippery like little Eeles, which are never so closely joyned and entangled, but may easily be separated.To which I answer, That I observe the nature and figure of water to be flowing, dilating, divideable and circular; for we may see, in Tides, overflowings, and breaking into parts, as in rain, it will always move in a round and circular figure; And I think, if its parts were long and entangled like a knot of Eeles, it could never be so easily contracted and denced into snow or ice. Neither do I think, ThatSalt-water hath a mixture of somewhat grosser parts, not so apt to bend;[2]for to my observation and reason, the nature of salt-water consists herein, that its circle-lines are pointed, which sharp and pointed figure makes it so penetrating; yet may those points be separated from the circle lines of water, as it is seen in the making of Salt. But I am not of yourAuthorsopinion, That those little points do stick so fast in flesh, as little nails, to keep it from putrefaction; for points do not always fasten; or else fire, which certainly is composed of sharp-pointed parts, would harden, and keep other bodies from dissolving, whereas on the contrary, it separates and divides them, although after several manners. But Putrefaction is onely a dissolving and separating of parts, after the manner of dilation; and the motion of salt is contracting as well as penetrating, for we may observe, what flesh soever is dry-salted, doth shrink and contract close together; I will not say, but the pointed parts of salt may fasten like nayls in some sorts of bodies, but not in all they work on. And this is the reason also, that Sea-water is of more weight then fresh-water, for being composed of points, those points stick within each other, and so become more strong; But yet do they not hinder the circular dilating motion of water, for the circle-lines are within, and the points without, but onely they make it more strong from being divided by other exterior bodies that swim upon it. And this is the cause that Salt-water is not so easily forced or turned to vapour, as Fresh, for the points piercing into each other, hold it more strongly together; but this is to be considered, that the points of salt are on the outside of the watery Circle, not on the inside, which causes it to be divideable from the watery Circles. I will conclude, when I have given the reason why water is so soon suckt up by sand, lime, and the like bodies, and say that it is the nature of all spongy, dry and porous bodies, meeting with liquid and pliable bodies as water, do draw and suck them up, like as animal Creatures being thirsty, do drink: And so I take my leave, and rest,
Madam,
Your Faithful Friend
and Servant.
[1]Of Meteor. c.1.a.3.
[1]Of Meteor. c.1.a.3.
[2]C.3.a.1.
[2]C.3.a.1.
MADAM,
Concerning Vapour, Clouds, Wind and Rain, I am of yourAuthorsopinion,[1]ThatWater is changed into Vapour, and Vapour into Air, and that dilated Vapours make Wind, and condensed Vapours, Clouds and Mists; But I am not for his little particles,whereof, he says,Vapours are made, by the motion of a rare and subtil matter in the pores of terrestrial bodies; which certainly I should conceive to be loose atoms, did he not make them of several figures and magnitude: for, in my opinion, there are no such things in nature, which like little Flyes or Bees do fly up into the air; and although I grant, that in Nature are several parts, whereof some are more rare, others more dense, according to the several degrees of matter, yet they are not single, but all mixt together in one body, and the change of motions in those joyned parts, is the cause of all changes of figures whatever, without the assistance of any forreign parts: And thus Water of it self is changed to Snow, Ice, or Hail, by its inherent figurative Motions; that is, the circular dilation of Water by contraction, changes into the figure of Snow, Ice, or Hail or by rarifying motions it turns into the figure of Vapour, and this Vapour again by contracting motions into the figure of hoar frost; and when all these motions change again into the former, then the figure of Ice, Snow, Hail, Vapour and Frost, turns again into the figure of Water: And this in all sense and reason is the most facil and probable way of making Ice, Snow, Hail, &c. As for rarefaction and condensation, I will not say that they may be forced by forreign parts, but yet they are made by change and alteration of the inherent motions of their own parts, for though the motions of forreign parts, may be the occasion of them, yet they are not the immediate cause or actors thereof. And as forThunder, that clouds of Ice and Snow, the uppermost being condensed by heat, and so made heavy, should fall upon another and produce the noise of thunder, is very improbable; for the breaking of a little small string, will make a greater noise then a huge shower of snow with falling, and as for Ice being hard, it may make a great noise, one part falling upon another, but then their weight would be as much as their noise, so that the clouds or roves of Ice would be as soon upon our heads, if not sooner, as the noise in our Eares; like as a bullet shot out of a Canon, we may feel the bullet as soon as we hear the noise. But to conclude, all densations are not made by heat, nor all noises by pressures, for sound is oftener made by division then pressure, and densation by cold then by heat: And this is all for the present, from,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend,
and Servant.
[1]Of Meteor., c.2, 4, 5, 6.
[1]Of Meteor., c.2, 4, 5, 6.
MADAM,
I cannot perceive the Rational Truth of yourAuthorsopinion, concerningColours, madeby the agitation of little spherical bodies of an Æthereal matter, transmitting the action of Light; for if colours were made after this manner, there would, in my opinion, not be any fixed or lasting colour, but one colour would be so various, and change faster then every minute; the truth is, there would be no certain or perfect colour at all: wherefore it seems altogether improbable, that such liquid, rare and disunited bodies should either keep or make inherent and fixed colours; for liquid and rare bodies, whose several parts are united into one considerable bulk of body, their colours are more apt to change then the colours of those bodies that are dry, solid and dense; the reason is, that rare and liquid bodies are more loose, slack, and agil, then solid and dry bodies, in so much, as in every alteration of motion their colours are apt to change: And if united rare and liquid bodies be so apt to alter and change, how is it probable, that those bodies, which are small and not united, should either keep or make inherent fixed colours? I will not say, but that such little bodies may range into such lines and figures, as make colours, but then they cannot last, being not united into a lasting body, that is, into a solid, substantial body, proper to make such figures as colours. But I desire you not to mistake me,Madam, for I do not mean, that the substance of colours is a gross thick substance, for the substance may be as thin and rare as flame or light, or in the next degree to it; for certainly the substance of light, and the substance of colours come in their degrees very neer each other; But according to the contraction of the figures, colours are paler or deeper, or more or less lasting. And as for the reason, why colours will change and rechange, it is according as the figures alter or recover their forms; for colours will be as animal Creatures, which sometimes are faint, pale, and sick, and yet recover; but when as a particular colour is, as I may say, quite dead, then there is no recovering of it. But colours may seem altered sometimes in our eyes, and yet not be altered in themselves; for our eyes, if perfect, see things as they are presented; and for proof, if any animal should be presented in an unusual posture or shape, we could not judg of it; also if a Picture, which must be viewed side-wards, should be looked upon forwards, we could not know what to make of it; so the figures of colours, if they be not placed rightly to the sight, but turned topsie-turvie as the Phrase is, or upside-down, or be moved too quick, and this quick motion do make a confusion with the lines of Light, we cannot possibly see the colour perfectly. Also several lights or shades may make colours appear otherwise then in themselves they are, for some sorts of lights and shades may fall upon the substantial figures of colours in solid bodies, in such lines and figures, as they may over-power the natural or artificial inherent colours in solid bodies, and for a time make other colours, and many times the lines of light or of shadows will meet and sympathize so with inherent colours, and place their lines so exactly, as they will make those inherent colours more splendorous then in their own nature they are, so that light and shadows will add or diminish or alter colours very much. Likewise some sorts of colours will be altered to our sight, not by all, but onely by some sorts of light, as for example, blew will seem green, and green blew by candle light, when as other colours will never appear changed, but shew constantly as they are; the reason is, because the lines of candle light fall in such figures upon the inherent colours, and so make them appear according to their own figures; Wherefore it is onely the alteration of the exterior figures of light and shadows, that make colours appear otherwise, and not a change of their own natures; And hence we may rationally conclude, that several lights and shadows by their spreading and dilating lines may alter the face or out-side of colours, but not suddenly change them, unless the power of heat, and continuance of time, or any other cause, do help and assist them in that work of metamorphosing or transforming of colours; but if the lines of light be onely, as the phrase is, Skin-deep; that is, but lightly spreading and not deeply penetrating, they may soon wear out or be rubbed off; for though they hurt, yet they do not kill the natural colour, but the colour may recover and reassume its former vigour and lustre: but time and other accidental causes will not onely alter, but destroy particular colours as well as other creatures, although not all after the same manner, for some will last longer then others. And thus,Madam, there are three sorts of Colours, Natural, Artificial, and Accidental; but I have discoursed of this subject more at large in my Philosophical Opinions, to which I refer you, and rest,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and Servant.
MADAM,
My answer to yourAuthorsquestion,Why flame ascends in a pointed figure?[1]is, That the figure of fire consists in points, and being dilated into a flame, it ascends in lines of points slope-wayes from the fired fuel; like as if you should make two or more sticks stand upright and put the upper ends close together, but let the lower ends be asunder, in which posture they will support each other, which, if both their ends were close together, they could not do. The second question is,Why fire doth not alwayes flame?[2]I answer, Because all fuel is not flameable, some being so moist, as it doth oppose the fires dryness, and some so hard and retentive, as fire cannot so soon dissolve it; and in this contest, where one dissipates, and the other retains, a third figure is produced,viz.smoak, between the heat of one, and the moisture of the other; and this smoak is forced by the fire out of the fuel, and is nothing else but certain parts of fuel, raised to such a degree of rarefaction; and if fire come near, it forces the smoak into flame, the smoak changing it self by its figurative motions into flame; but when smoak is above the flame, the flame cannot force the smoak to fire or enkindle it self, for the flame cannot so well encounter it; which shews, as if smoak had a swifter motion then flame, although flame is more rarified then smoak; and if moisture predominate, there is onely smoak, if fire, then there is flame: But there are many figures, that do not flame, until they are quite dissolved, as Leather, and many other things. Neither can fire work upon all bodies alike, but according to their several natures, like as men cannot encounter several sorts of creatures after one and the same manner; for not any part in nature hath an absolute power, although it hath self-motion; and this is the reason, that wax by fire is melted, and clay hardened. The third question is,Why some few drops of water sprinkled upon fire, do encrease its flame?I answer, by reason of their little quantity, which being over-powred by the greater quantity and force of fire, is by its self-motions converted into fire; for water being of a rare nature, and fire, for the most part, of a rarifying quality, it cannot suddenly convert it self into a more solid body then its nature is, but following its nature by force it turns into flame. The fourth question is,Why the flame of spirit of Wine doth consume the Wine, and yet cannot burn or hurt a linnen cloth?I answer, The Wine is the fuel that feeds the flame, and upon what it feeds, it devoureth, and with the food, the feeder; but by reason Wine is a rarer body then Oyle, or Wood, or any other fuel, its flame is also weaker. And thus much of these questions, I rest,
Madam,
Your Faithful Friend
and Servant.
[1]P.4.art.97.
[1]P.4.art.97.
[2]Art.107.
[2]Art.107.
MADAM,
To conclude my discourse upon the Opinions of these two famous and learned Authors, which I have hitherto sent you in several Letters, I could not chuse but repeat the ground of my own opinions in this present; which I desire you to observe well, lest you mistake any thing, whereof I have formerly discoursed. First I am for self-moving matter, which I call the sensitive and rational matter, and the perceptive and architectonical part of nature, which is the life and knowledg of nature. Next I am of an opinion, That all Perception is made by corporeal, figuring self-motions, and that the perception of forreign objects is made by patterning them out: as for example, The sensitive perception of forreign objects is by making or taking copies from these objects, so as the sensitive corporeal motions in the eyes copy out the objects of sight, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the ears copy out the objects of sound; the sensitive corporeal motions in the nostrils, copy out the objects of sent; the sensitive corporeal motions in the tongue and mouth, copy out the objects of taste, and the sensitive corporeal motions in the flesh and skin of the body copy out the forreign objects of touch; for when you stand by the fire, it is not that the fire, or the heat of the fire enters your flesh, but that the sensitive motions copy out the objects of fire and heat. As for my Book of Philosophy, I must tell you, that it treats more of the production and architecture of Creatures then of their perceptions, and more of the causes then the effects, more in a general then peculiar way, which I thought necessary to inform you of, and so I remain,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and Servant.
MADAM,
I received your questions in your last: the first was,Whether there be more body compact together in a heavy then in a light thing?I answer, That purity, rarity, little quantity, exteriour shape, as also motion cause lightnesse; and grossness of bulk, density, much quantity, exterior figure and motion cause heaviness, as it may be confirmed by many examples: but lightness and heaviness are onely conceptions of man, as also ascent and descent; and it may be questioned, whether there be such things really in nature; for change of motions of one and the same body will make lightness, and heaviness, as also rarity and density: besides, the several figures and compositions of bodies will cause them to ascend or descend, for Snow is a light body and yet descends from the clouds, and Water is a heavie body, and yet ascends in springs out of the Earth; Dust is a dense body and yet is apt to ascend, Rain or Dew is a rare body and yet is apt to descend; Also a Bird ascends by his shape, and a small worm although of less body and lighter will fall down; and there can be no other proof of light and heavy bodies but by their ascent and descent; But as really there is no such thing as heavie or light in nature more then words, and comparisons of different corporeal motions, so there is no such thing, as high or low, place or time, but onely words to make comparisons and to distinguish different corporeal motions. The second question was;When a Bason with water is wasted into smoak, which fills up a whole Room, Whether the air in the room doth, as the sensitive motions of the eye, pattern out the figure of the smoak; or whether all the room is really fill'd with the vapour or smoak?I answer, If it be onely the pattern or figure of smoak or vapour, the extension and dilation is not so much as man imagines; but why may not the air, which in my opinion hath self-motion, pattern out the figure of smoak as well as the eye; for that the eye surely doth it, may be proved; because smoak, if it enter the eye, makes it not onely smart and water much, but blinds it quite for the present; wherefore smoak doth not enter the eye, when the eye seeth it, but the eye patterns out the figure of smoak, and this is perception; In the same manner may the air pattern out the figure of smoak. The third question was,Whether all that they name qualities of bodies, as thickness, thinness, hardness, softness, gravity, levity, transparentness and the like, be substances?I answer, That all those, they call qualities, are nothing else but change of motion and figure of the same body, and several changes of motions are not several bodies, but several actions of one body; for change of motion doth not create new matter or multiply its quantity: for though corporeal motions may divide and compose, contract and dilate, yet they cannot create new matter, or make matter any otherwise then it is by nature, neither can they add or substract any thing from its nature. And therefore my opinion is, not that they are things subsisting by themselves without matter, but that there can no abstraction be made of motion and figure from matter, and that matter and motion being but one thing and inseparable, make but one substance. Wherefore density and rarity, gravity and levity, &c. being nothing else but change of motions, cannot be without matter, but a dense or rare, heavie or light matter is but one substance or body; And thus having obeyed your commands, I rest,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend,
and Servant.
MADAM,
I am very ready to give you my opinion of those two questions you sent me, whereof the first was,Whether that, which is rare and subtil, be not withal pure?To which I answer, That all rare bodies are not subtil, nor pure, and that all which is dense is not gross and dull: As for example, Puddle-water, or also clear water, is rarer then Quicksilver, and yet not so subtil and pure as Quicksilver; the like of Gold; for Quicksilver and Gold may be rarified to a transparentness, and yet be so dense, as not to be easily dissolved; and Quicksilver is very subtil and searching, so as to be able to force other bodies to divide as well as it can divide and compose its own parts. Wherefore my opinion is, that the purest and subtilest degree of matter in nature, is that degree of matter which can dilate and contract, compose and divide into any figure by corporeal self-motion. Your second question was,Why a man's hand cannot break a little hard body, as a little nail, whereas yet it is bigger then the nail?I answer, It is not because the hand is softer then the nail, for one hard body will not break suddenly another hard body, and a man may easily break an iron nail with his hand, as I have bin informed; but it is some kind of motion which can easier do it, then another: for I have seen a strong cord wound about both a man's hands, who pulled his hands as hard and strongly asunder as he could, and yet was not able to break it; when as a Youth taking the same cord, and winding it about his hands as the former did, immediately broke it; the cause was, that he did it with another kind of motion or pulling, then the other did, which though he used as much force and strength, as he was able, yet could not break it, when the boy did break it with the greatest ease, and turning onely his hands a little, which shews, that many things may be done by a slight of motion, which otherwise a great strength and force cannot do. This is my answer and opinion concerning your proposed questions; if you have any more, I shall be ready to obey you, as,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and humble Servant.
MADAM,
I understand by your last, that you are very desirous to know,Whether there be not in nature such animal creatures both for purity and size, as we are not capable to perceive by our sight.Truly,Madam, in my opinion it is very probable there may be animal creatures of such rare bodies as are not subject to our exterior senses, as well, as there are elements which are not subject to all our exterior senses: as for example, fire is onely subject to our sight and feeling, and not to any other sense, water is subject to our sight, taste, touch and hearing, but not to smelling; and earth is subject to our sight, taste, touch and smelling, but not to our hearing; and vapour is onely subject to our sight, and wind onely to our hearing; but pure air is not subject to any of our senses, but onely known by its effects: and so there may likewise be animal creatures which are not subject to any of our senses both for their purity and life; as for example, I have seen pumpt out of a water pump small worms which could hardly be discerned but by a bright Sun-light, for they were smaller then the smallest hair, some of a pure scarlet colour and some white, but though they were the smallest creatures that ever I did see, yet they were more agil and fuller of life, then many a creature of a bigger size, and so small they were, as I am confident, they were neither subject to tast, smell, touch nor hearing, but onely to sight, and that neither without difficulty, requiring both a sharp sight and a clear light to perceive them; and I do verily believe that these small animal creatures may be great in comparison to others which may be in nature. But if it be probable that there may be such small animal creatures in nature, as are not subject to our exterior senses, by reason of their littleness; it is also probable, that there may be such great and big animal creatures in nature as are beyond the reach and knowledg of our exterior senses; for bigness and smallness are not to be judged by our exterior senses, onely; but as sense and reason inform us, that there are different degrees in Purity and Rarity, so also in shapes, figures and sizes in all natural creatures. Next you desired to know,Whether there can be an artificial Life, or a Life made by Art?My answer is, Not; for although there is Life in all natures parts, yet not all the parts are life, for there is one part of natural matter which in its nature is inanimate or without life, and though natural Life doth produce Art, yet Art cannot produce natural Life, for though Art is the action of Life, yet it is not Life it self: not but that there is Life in Art, but not art in life, for Life is natural, and not artificial; and thus the several parts of a watch may have sense and reason according to the nature of their natural figure, which is steel, but not as they have an artificial shape, for Art cannot put Life into the watch, Life being onely natural, not artificial. Lastly your desire was to know,Whether a part of matter may be so small, as it cannot be made less?I answer, there is no such thing in nature as biggest or least, nature being Infinite as well in her actions as in her substance; and I have mentioned in my book of Philosophy, and in a letter, I sent you heretofore concerning Infinite, that there are several sorts of Infinites, as Infinite in quantity or bulk, Infinite in number, Infinite in quality, as Infinite degrees of hardness, softness, thickness, thinness, swiftness, slowness, &c. as also Infinite compositions, divisions, creations, dissolutions, &c. in nature; and my meaning is, that all these Infinite actions do belong to the Infinite body of nature, which being infinite in substance must also of necessity be infinite in its actions; but although these Infinite actions are inherent in the power of the Infinite substance of nature, yet they are never put in act in her parts, by reason there being contraries in nature, and every one of the aforementioned actions having its opposite, they do hinder and obstruct each other so, that none can actually run into infinite; for the Infinite degrees of compositions hinder the infinite degrees of divisions; and the infinite degrees of rarity, softness, swiftness, &c. hinder the infinite degrees of density, hardness, slowness, &c. all which nature has ordered with great wisdom and Prudence to make an amiable combination between her parts; for if but one of these actions should run into infinite, it would cause a horrid confusion between natures parts, nay an utter destruction of the whole body of nature, if I may call it whole: as for example, if one part should have infinite compositions, without the hinderance or obstruction of division, it would at last mount and become equal to the Infinite body of nature, and so from a part change to a whole, from being finite to infinite, which is impossible; Wherefore, though nature hath an Infinite natural power, yet she doth not put this power in act in her particulars; and although she has an infinite force or strength, yet she doth not use this force or strength in her parts. Moreover when I speak of Infinite divisions and compositions, creations and dissolutions, &c. in nature, I do not mean so much the infinite degrees of compositions and divisions, as the actions themselves to be infinite in number; for there being infinite parts in nature, and every one having its compositions and divisions, creations and dissolutions, these actions must of necessity be infinite too, to wit, in number, according to the Infinite number of parts, for as there is an Infinite number of parts in nature, so there is also an infinite number and variety of motions which are natural actions. However let there be also infinite degrees of these natural actions, in the body or substance of infinite nature; yet, as I said, they are never put in act, by reason every action hath its contrary or opposite, which doth hinder and obstruct it from running actually into infinite. And thus I hope, you conceive cleerly now, what my opinion is, and that I do not contradict my self in my works, as some have falsly accused me, for they by misapprehending my meaning, judge not according to the truth of my sense, but according to their own false interpretation, which shews not onely a weakness in their understandings and passions, but a great injustice and injury to me, which I desire you to vindicate when ever you chance to hear such accusations and blemishes laid upon my works, by which you will Infinitely oblige,
Madam,
Your humble and faithful Servant.
MADAM,
Being come now to the Perusal of the Works of that learnedAuthorDr.Moor, I find that the onely design of his Book calledAntidote, isto prove the Existenceof a God, and to refute, or rather convert Atheists; which I wonder very much at, considering, he says himself,[1]Thatthere is no man under the cope of Heaven but believes a God; which if so, what needs there to make so many arguments to no purpose? unless it be to shew Learning and wit; In my opinion, it were better to convert Pagans to be Christians, or to reform irregular Christians to a more pious life, then to prove that, which all men believe, which is the way to bring it into question. For certainly, according to the natural Light of Reason, there is a God, and no man, I believe, doth doubt it; for though there may be many vain words, yet I think there is no such atheistical belief amongst man-kind, nay, not onely amongst men, but also, amongst all other creatures, for if nature believes a God, all her parts, especially the sensitive and rational, which are the living and knowing parts, and are in all natural creatures, do the like, and therefore all parts and creatures in nature do adore and worship God, for any thing man can know to the contrary; for no question, but natures soule adores and worships God as well as man's soule; and why may not God be worshipped by all sorts and kinds of creatures as well, as by one kind or sort? I will not say the same way, but I believe there is a general worship and adoration of God; for as God is an Infinite Deity, so certainly he has an Infinite Worship and Adoration, and there is not any part of nature, but adores and worships the only omnipotent God, to whom belongs Praise and Glory from and to all eternity: For it is very improbable, that God should be worshipped onely in part, and not in whole, and that all creatures were made to obey man, and not to worship God, onely for man's sake, and not for God's worship, for man's use, and not God's adoration, for mans spoil and not God's blessing. But this Presumption, Pride, Vain-glory and Ambition of man, proceeds from the irregularity of nature, who being a servant, is apt to commit errors; and cannot be so absolute and exact in her devotion, adoration and worship, as she ought, nor so well observant of God as God is observing her: Nevertheless, there is not any of her parts or creatures, that God is not acknowledged by, though not so perfectly as he ought, which is caused by the irregularities of nature, as I said before. And so God of his mercy have mercy upon all Creatures; To whose protection I commend your Ladiship, and rest,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and Servant.