Part 24

I am not of your _Authors_[1] opinion, That _Time hath no relation to Motion, but that Time and Motion are as unlike and different from each other as Finite from Infinite, and that it hath its own essence or being Immoveable, Unchangeable, Individable, and unmixed with things, nay, that Time is plainly the same with Eternity._ For, in my opinion, there can be no such thing as Time in Nature, but what Man calls Time, is onely the variation of natural motions; wherefore Time, and the alteration of motion, is one and the same thing under two different names; and as Matter, Figure, and Motion, are inseparable, so is Time inseparably united, or rather the same thing with them, and not a thing subsisting by it self; and as long as Matter, Motion and Figure have been existent, so long hath Time; and as long as they last, so long doth Time. But when I say, Time is the variation of motion, I do not mean the motion of the Sun or Moon, which makes Days, Months, Years, but the general motions or actions of Nature, which are the ground of Time; for were there no Motion, there would be no Time; and since Matter is dividable, and in parts, Time is so too; neither hath Time any other Relation to Duration, then what Nature her self hath. Wherefore your _Author_ is mistaken, when he says, Motion is made in Time, for Motion makes Time, or rather is one and the same with Time; and Succession is no more a stranger to Motion, then Motion is to Nature, as being the action of Nature, which is the Eternal servant of God. _But_, says he, _Certain Fluxes of Formerlinesses and Laternesses, have respect unto frail moveable things in their motions, wherewith they hasten unto the appointed ends of their period, and so unto their own death or destruction; but what relation hath all that to Time: for therefore also ought Time to run with all and every motion? Verily so there should be as many times and durations as there are motions._ I answer: To my Reason, there are as many times and durations as there are motions; for neither time nor duration can be separated from motion, no more then motion can be separated from them, being all one. But Time is not Eternity, for Eternity hath no change, although your _Author_ makes Time and Eternity all one, and a being or substance by it self: Yet I will rather believe _Solomon_, then him, who says, that there is a time to be merry, and a time to be sad; a time to mourn, and a time to rejoyce, and so forth: making so many divisions of Time as there are natural actions; whenas your _Author_ makes natural actions strangers to Nature, dividing them from their substances: Which seemeth very improbable in the opinion of,

Madam,

_Your Ladiships_

_faithful Friend, and humble Servant._

[1] In his Treatise of Time.

XVIII.

_MADAM,_

Your _Authors_[1] opinion is, That _a bright burning Iron doth not burn a dead Carcass after an equal manner as it doth a live one; For in live bodies_, saith he, _it primarily hurts the sensitive Soul, the which therefore being impatient, rages after a wonderful manner, doth by degrees resolve and exasperate its own and vital liquors into a sharp poyson, and then contracts the fibres of the flesh, and turns them into an escharre, yea, into the way of a coal; but a dead Carcass is burnt by bright burning Iron, no otherwise, then if Wood, or if any other unsensitive thing should be; that is, it burns by a proper action of the fire, but not of the life._ To which opinion, I answer: That my Reason cannot conceive any thing to be without life, and so neither without sense; for whatsoever hath self-motion, has sense and life; and that self-motion is in every Creature, is sufficiently discoursed of in my former Letters, and in my _Philosophical Opinions_; for self-motion, sense, life, and reason, are the grounds and principles of Nature, without which no Creature could subsist. I do not say, That there is no difference between the life of a dead Carcass, and a live one, for there is a difference between the lives of every Creature; but to differ in the manner of life, and to have neither life nor sense at all, are quite different things: But your _Author_ affirms himself, that all things have a certain sense of feeling, when he speaks of Sympathy and Magnetisme, and yet he denies that they have life: And others again, do grant life to some Creatures, as to Vegetables, and not sense. Thus they vary in their Opinions, and divide sense, life, and motion, when all is but one and the same thing; for no life is without sense and motion, nor no motion without sense and life; nay, not without Reason; for the chief Architect of all Creatures, is sensitive and rational Matter. But the mistake is, that most men, do not, or will not conceive, that there is a difference and variety of the corporeal sensitive and rational motions in every Creature; but they imagine, that if all Creatures should have life, sense, and reason, they must of necessity have all alike the same motions, without any difference; and because they do not perceive the animal motions in a Stone or Tree, they are apt to deny to them all life, sense, and motion. Truly, _Madam_, I think no man will be so mad, or irrational, as to say a Stone is an Animal, or an Animal is a Tree, because a Stone and Tree have sense, life, and motion; for every body knows, that their Natural figures are different, and if their Natures be different, then they cannot have the same Motions, for the corporeal motions do make the nature of every particular Creature, and their differences; and as the corporeal motions act, work, or move, so is the nature of every figure, Wherefore, nobody, I hope, will count me so senseless, that I believe sense and life to be after the like manner in every particular Creature or part of Nature; as for example, that a Stone or Tree has animal motions, and doth see, touch, taste, smell and hear by such sensitive organs as an Animal doth; but, my opinion is, that all Sense is not bound up to the sensitive organs of an Animal, nor Reason to the kernel of a man's brain, or the orifice of the stomack, or the fourth ventricle of the brain, or onely to a mans body; for though we do not see all Creatures move in that manner as Man or Animals do, as to walk, run, leap, ride, &c. and perform exterior acts by various local motions; nevertheless, we cannot in reason say, they are void and destitute of all motion; For what man knows the variety of motions in Nature: Do not we see, that Nature is active in every thing, yea, the least of her Creatures. For example; how some things do unanimously conspire and agree, others antipathetically flee from each other; and how some do increase, others decrease; some dissolve, some consist, and how all things are subject to perpetual changes and alterations; and do you think all this is done without motion, life, sense, and reason? I pray you consider, _Madam_, that there are internal motions as well as external, alterative as well as constitutive; and several other sorts of motions not perceptible by our senses, and therefore it is impossible that all Creatures should move after one sort of motions. But you will say, Motion may be granted, but not Life, Sense, and Reason. I answer, I would fain know the reason why not; for I am confident that no man can in truth affirm the contrary: What is Life, but sensitive Motion? what is Reason, but rational motion? and do you think, _Madam_, that any thing can move it self without life, sense and reason? I, for my part, cannot imagine it should; for it would neither know why, whither, nor what way, or how to move. But you may reply, Motion may be granted, but not self-motion; and life, sense, and reason, do consist in self-motion. I answer: this is impossible; for not any thing in Nature can move naturally without natural motion, and all natural motion is self-motion. If you say it may be moved by another; My answer is, first, that if a thing has no motion in it self, but is moved by another which has self-motion, then it must give that immovable body motion of its own, or else it could not move, having no motion at all; for it must move by the power of motion, which is certain; and then it must move either by its own motion, or by a communicated or imparted motion; if by a communicated motion, then the self-moveable thing or body must transfer its own motion into the immoveable, and lose so much of its own motion as it gives away, which is impossible, as I have declared heretofore at large, unless it do also transfer its moving parts together with it, for motion cannot be transfered without substance. But experience and observation witnesseth the contrary. Next, I say, if it were possible that one body did move another, then most part of natural Creatures, which are counted immoveable of themselves, or inanimate, and destitute of self-motion, must be moved by a forced or violent, and not by a natural motion; for all motion that proceeds from an external agent or moving power, is not natural, but forced, onely self-motion is natural; and then one thing moving another in this manner, we must at last proceed to such a thing which is not moved by another, but hath motion in it self, and moves all others; and, perhaps, since man, and the rest of animals have self-motion, it might be said, that the motions of all other inanimate Creatures, as they call them, doth proceed from them; but man being so proud, ambitious, and self-conceited, would soon exclude all other animals, and adscribe this power onely to himself, especially since he thinks himself onely endued with Reason, and to have this prerogative above all the rest, as to be the sole rational Creature in the World. Thus you see, _Madam_, what confusion, absurdity, and constrained work will follow from the opinion of denying self-motion, and so consequently, life and sense to natural Creatures. But I, having made too long a digression, will return to your _Authors_ discourse: And as for that he says, _A dead Carcass burns by the proper action of the fire_, I answer, That if the dissolving motions of the fire be too strong for the consistent motions of that body which fire works upon, then fire is the cause of its alteration; but if the consistent motions of the body be too strong for the dissolving motions of the fire, then the fire can make no alteration in it. Again: he says, _Calx vive, at long as it remains dry, it gnaws not a dead Carcass; but it presently gnaws live flesh, and makes an escharre; and a dead carcass is by lime wholly resolved into a liquor, and is combibed, except the bone and gristle thereof; but it doth not consume live flesh into a liquor, but translates it into an escharre_. I will say no more to this, but that I have fully enough declared my opinion before, that the actions or motions of life alter in that which is named a dead Carcass, from what they were in that which is called a Living body; but although the actions of Life alter, yet life is not gone or annihilated; for life is life, and remains full the same, but the actions or motions of life change and differ in every figure; and this is the cause that the actions of Fire, Time, and _Calx-vive_, have not the same effects in a dead Carcass, as in a living Body; for the difference of their figures, and their different motions, produce different effects in them; and this is the cause, that one and the same fire doth not burn or act upon all bodies alike: for some it dissolves, and some not; and some it hardens, and some it consumes; and some later, some sooner: For put things of several natures into the same Fire, and you will see how they will burn, or how fire will act upon them after several manners; so that fire cannot alter the actions of several bodies to its own blas; and therefore, since a living and a dead Body (as they call them) are not the same, (for the actions or motions of life, by their change or alteration, have altered the nature or figure of the body) the effects cannot be the same; for a Carcass has neither the interior nor exterior motions of that figure which it was before it was a Carcass, and so the figure is quite alter'd from what it was, by the change and alteration of the motions. But to conclude, the motions of the exterior Agent, and the motions of the Patient, do sometimes joyn and unite, as in one action, or to one effect, and sometimes the motions of the Agent are onely an occasion, but not a co-workman in the production of such or such an effect, as the motions of the Patient do work; neither can the motions of the Agent work totally and meerly of themselves, such or such effects, without the assistance or concurrence of the motions of the Patient, but the motions of the Patient can; and there is nothing that can prove more evidently that Matter moves it self, and that exterior agents or bodies are onely an occasion to such or such a motion in another body, then to see how several things put into one and the same fire, do alter after several modes; which shews, it is not the onely action of fire, but the interior motions of the body thrown into the fire, which do alter its exterior form or figure. And thus, I think I have said enough to make my opinions clear, that they may be the better understood: which is the onely aim and desire of,

Madam,

_Your humble and_

_faithful Servant._

[1] Of the disease of the Stone, _Ch._ 9.

XIX.

_MADAM,_

Your _Author_ is not a Natural, but a Divine Philosopher, for in many places he undertakes to interpret the Scripture; wherein, to my judgment, he expresseth very strange opinions; you will give me leave at this present to note some few. First, in one place,[1] interpreting that passage of Scripture, where it is said,[2] That the _sons of God took to wives the daughters of men_: He understands by the Sons of God, those which came from the Posterity of _Adam_, begotten of a Man and a Woman, having the true Image of God: But by the Daughters of Men, he understands Monsters; that is, those which through the Devils mediation, were conceived in the womb of a Junior Witch or Sorceress: For when Satan could find no other ways to deprive all the race of Men of the Image of God, and extinguish the Immortal mind out of the flock of _Adams_ Posterity, he stirr'd up detestable copulations, from whence proceeded savage Monsters, as Faunes, Satyrs, Sylphs, Gnomes, Nymphs, Driades, Najades, Nereides, &c. which generated their off-springs amongst themselves, and their posterities again contracted their copulations amongst themselves, and at length began Wedlocks with Men; and from this copulation of Monsters and Nymphs, they generated strong Gyants. Which Interpretation, how it agrees with the Truth of Scripture, I will leave to Divines to judg: But, for my part, I cannot conceive, how, or by what means or ways, those Monsters and Nymphs were produced or generated. Next, his opinion is, That _Adam_ did ravish _Eve_, and defloured her by force, calling him the first infringer of modesty, and deflourer of a Virgin; and that therefore God let hair grow upon his chin, cheeks, and lips, that he might be a Compere, Companion, and like unto many four-footed Beasts, and might bear before him the signature of the same; and that, as he was lecherous after their manner, he might also shew a rough countenance by his hairs; which whether it be so, or not, I cannot tell, neither do I think your _Author_ can certainly know it himself; for the Scripture makes no mention of it: But this I dare say, that _Eves_ Daughters prove rather the contrary, _viz._ that their Grandmother did freely consent to their Grandfather. Also he says, That God had purposed to generate Man by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, but Man perverted the Intent of God; for had _Adam_ not sinned, there had been no generation by the copulation of a Man and Woman, but all the off-springs had appear'd out of _Eve_, a Virgin, from the Holy Spirit, as conceived from God, and born of a woman, a virgin, To which, I answer, first, That it is impossible to know the Designs and secret purposes of God: Next, to make the Holy Spirit the common Generator of all Man-kind, is more then the Scripture expresses, and any man ought to say: Lastly, it is absurd, in my opinion, to say, that frail and mortal Men, can pervert the intent and designs of the Great God; or that the Devil is able to prevent God's Intent, (as his expression is in the same place.) But your _Author_ shews a great affection to the Female Sex, when he says, that God doth love Women before Men, and that he has given them a free gift of devotion before men; when as others do lay all the fault upon the Woman, that she did seduce the Man; however in expressing his affection for Women, your _Author_ expresses a partiality in God. And, as for his opinion, that God creates more Daughters then Males, and that more Males are extinguished by Diseases, Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, and the like: Truly, I am of the same mind, that more Men are kill'd by Travels, Wars, Duels, Shipwracks, &c. then Women; for Women never undergo these dangers, neither do so many kill themselves with intemperate Drinking, as Men do; but yet I believe, that Death is as general, and not more favourable to Women, then he is to Men; for though Women be not slain in Wars like Men, (although many are, by the cruelty of Men, who not regarding the weakness of their sex, do inhumanely kill them,) yet many do die in Child-bed, which is a Punishment onely concerning the Female sex. But to go on in your _Authors_ Interpretations: His knowledg of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, reaches so far, as he doth not stick to describe exactly, not onely how the blessed Virgin conceiv'd in the womb, but first in the heart, or the sheath of the heart; and then how the conception removed from the heart, into the womb, and in what manner it was performed. Certainly, _Madam_, I am amazed, when I see men so conceited with their own perfections and abilities, (I may rather say, with their imperfections and weaknesses) as to make themselves God's privy Councilors, and his Companions, and partakers of all the sacred Mysteries, Designs, and hidden secrets of the Incomprehensible and Infinite God. O the vain Presumption, Pride, and Ambition of wretched Men! There are many more such expressions in your _Authors_ works, which, in my opinion, do rather detract from the Greatness of the Omnipotent God, then manifest his Glory: As for example; That Man is the clothing of the Deity, and the sheath of the Kingdom of God, and many the like: which do not belong to God; for God is beyond all expression, because he is Infinite; and when we name God, we name an Unexpressible, and Incomprehensible Being; and yet we think we honour God, when we express him after the manner of corporeal Creatures. Surely, the noblest Creature that ever is in the World, is not able to be compared to the most Glorious God, but whatsoever comparison is made, detracts from his Glory: And this, in my opinion, is the reason, that God forbad any likeness to be made of him, either in Heaven, or upon Earth, because he exceeds all that we might compare or liken to him. And as men ought to have a care of such similizing expressions, so they ought to be careful in making Interpretations of the Scripture, and expressing more then the Scripture informs; for what is beyond the Scripture, is Man's own fancy; and to regulate the Word of God after Man's fancy, at least to make his fancy equal with the Word of God, is Irreligious. Wherefore, men ought to submit, and not to pretend to the knowledg of God's Counsels and Designs, above what he himself hath been pleased to reveal: as for example, to describe of what Figure God is, and to comment and descant upon the Articles of Faith; as how Man was Created; and what he did in the state of Innocence; how he did fall; and what he did after his fall: and so upon the rest of the Articles of our Creed, more then the Scripture expresses, or is conformable to it. For if we do this, we shall make a Romance of the holy Scripture, with our Paraphrastical descriptions: which alas! is too common already. The truth is, Natural Philosophers, should onely contain themselves within the sphere of Nature, and not trespass upon the Revelation of the Scripture, but leave this Profession to those to whom it properly belongs. I am confident, a Physician, or any other man of a certain Profession, would not take it well, if others, who are not professed in that Art, should take upon them to practise the same: And I do wonder, why every body is so forward to encroach upon the holy Profession of Divines, which yet is a greater presumption, then if they did it upon any other; for it contains not onely a most hidden and mystical knowledg, as treating of the Highest Subject, which is the most Glorious, and Incomprehensible God, and the salvation of our Souls; but it is also most dangerous, if not interpreted according to the Holy Spirit, but to the byass of man's fancy. Wherefore, _Madam_, I am afraid to meddle with Divinity in the least thing, lest I incur the hazard of offending the divine Truth, and spoil the excellent Art of Philosophying; for a Philosophical Liberty, and a Supernatural Faith, are two different things, and suffer no co-mixture; as I have declared sufficiently heretofore. And this you will find as much truth, as that I am,

Madam,

_Your constant Friend,_

_and faithful Servant._

[1] _Ch._ The Position is demonstrated.

[2] _Gen._ 6. 2.

XX.

_MADAM,_