Part 26

Your _Authors_ comparison[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 those _Authors_ which I have read as yet, the most difficult to be understood is this _Author_ which 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.

XXIV.

_MADAM,_

Your _Author_ relates,[1] how by some the _Immortal 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 your _Author_ has 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 your _Author_ frequently 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, (your _Author_ calls him _Ideal 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. Your _Author_ also 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, your _Author_[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 of _Adam_. 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. Your _Author_ says, 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, your _Author_[4] says, That an _Angel 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.

XXV.

_MADAM,_

Reason and Intellect are two different things to your _Author_;[1] for _Intellect_, 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 your _Author_ did 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: For _Reason 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 your _Authors_ opinion, 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 your _Author_ makes 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 your _Author_, 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 your _Author_ speaks 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? Your _Author_ is 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 your _Author_ says 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 your _Author_ to 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.

XXVI.

_MADAM,_