Part 37

I have taken several questions out of your new _Author_, which I intend to answer in this present Letter according to the conceptions of my own sense and reason, and to submit them to your censure; which if you vouchsafe to grant me without partiality, I shall acknowledg my self much obliged to you for this favour. The first question is, _Why wet Linnen is dried in the Air?_ I answer; That, according to my sense and reason, the water which is spred upon the linnen, being not united in a full and close body, dilates beyond the Circle-degree of water and wetness, and so doth easily change from water to vapour, and from vapour to air, whereby the linnen becomes as dry, as it was before it became wet. The second question is, _Why Water and Wine intermix so easily and suddenly together?_ I answer: All wet liquors, although their exterior figures do differ, yet their interior natures, figures and forms are much alike, and those things that are of the same interior nature, do easily and suddenly joyn as into one: Wherefore Wine and Water having both wet natures, do soon incorporate together, whereas, were they of different natures, they would not so peaceably joyn together, but by their contrary natures become enemies, and strive to destroy each other; but this is to be observed, that the sharp points of the Circle-lines of Wine, by passing through the smooth Circle-lines of Water, help to make a more hasty and sudden conjunction. The third question, is, _Why Light, which in its nature is white, shining through a coloured Glass, doth appear of the same colour which the Glass is of, either Blew, Green, Red, or the like?_ I answer: The reason is, that though Light in its nature be white, and the Glass clear and transparent, yet when as the Glass is stained or painted with colours, both the clearness of the glass, and the whiteness of the light, is obstructed by the figure of that colour the glass is stained or painted withal, and the light spreading upon or thorow the glass, represents it self in the figure of that same colour; indeed, in all probability to sense and reason, it appears, that the lines or beams of light, which are straight, small, even, and parallel, do contract in their entrance through the glass into the figure of the colour the glass is stained or painted with, so that the light passes through the glass figuratively, in so much, as it seems to be of the same colour the glass is of, although in it self it is white, lucent, and clear; and as the light appears, so the eye receives it, if the sight be not destructive. The fourth question, is, _Whether_ (as your _Authors_ opinion is) _kisses feel pleasing and delightful by the thinness of the parts, and a gentle stirring and quavering of the tangent spirits, that give a pleasing tact?_ I answer: If this were so, then all kisses would be pleasing, which surely are not; for some are thought very displeasing, especially from thin lips; wherefore, in my opinion, it is neither the thinness of the parts of the lips, nor the quavering of the tangent spirits, but the appetites and passions of life, reason, and soul, that cause the pleasure; Nevertheless, I grant, the stirring up of the spirits may contribute to the increasing, heightening, or strengthning of that tact, but it is not the prime cause of it. The fifth question, is, _Whether the greatest man have always the greatest strength?_ I answer, Not: for strength and greatness of bulk doth not always consist together, witness experience: for a little man may be, and is oftentimes stronger then a tall man. The like of other animal Creatures: As for example, some Horses of a little or middle size, have a great deal more strength then others which are high and big; for it is the quantity of sensitive matter that gives strength, and not the bigness or bulk of the body. The sixth question, is, _Whether this World or Universe be the biggest Creature?_ I answer: It is not possible to be known, unless Man could perfectly know its dimension or extension, or whether there be more Worlds then one: But, to speak properly, there is no such thing as biggest or least in Nature. The seventh question, is, _Whether the Earth be the Center of Matter, or of the World?_ As for Matter, it being Infinite, has no Center, by reason it has no Circumference; and, as for this World, its Center cannot be known, unless man knew the utmost parts of its circumference, for no Center can be known without its circumference; and although some do imagine this world so little, that in comparison to Infinite Matter, it would not be so big as the least Pins head, yet their knowledg cannot extend so far as to know the circumference of this little World; by which you may perceive the Truth of the old saying, Man talks much, but knows little. The eighth question is, _Whether all Centers must needs be full, and close, as a stufft Cushion; and whether the matter in the Center of the Universe or World be dense, compact, and heavy?_ I answer: This can no more be known, then the circumference of the World; for what man is able to know, whether the Center of the world be rare, or dense, since he doth not know where its Center is; and as for other particular Centers, some Centers may be rare, some dense, and some may have less matter then their circumferences. The ninth question is, _Whether Finite Creatures can be produced out of an Infinite material cause?_ I answer: That, to my sense and reason, an Infinite cause must needs produce Infinite effects, though not in each Particular, yet in General; that is, Matter, being Infinite in substance, must needs be dividable into Infinite parts in number, and thus Infinite Creatures must needs be produced out of Infinite Matter; but Man being but a finite part, thinks all must be finite too, not onely each particular Creature, but also the Matter out of which all Creatures are produced, which is corporeal Nature. Nevertheless, those Infinite effects in Nature are equalized by her different motions which are her different actions; for it is not _non_-sence, but most demonstrable to sense and reason that there are equalities or a union in Infinite. The tenth question is, _Whether the Elements be the onely matter out of which all other Creatures are produced?_ I answer: The Elements, as well as all other Creatures, as it appears to humane sense and reason, are all of one and the same Matter, which is the onely Infinite Matter; and therefore the Elements cannot be the Matter of all other Creatures, for several sorts of Creatures have several ways of productions, and I know no reason to the contrary, but that Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals, may as well derive their essence from each other, as from the Elements, or the Elements from them; for as all Creatures do live by each other, so they are produced from each other, according to the several ways or manners of productions. But mistake me not, _Madam_, for I speak of production in General, and not of such natural production whereby the several species of Creatures are maintained: As for example, Generation in Animals; for an Element cannot generate an Animal in that manner as an Animal can generate or produce its like; for as Nature is wise, so her actions are all wise and orderly, or else it would make a horrid confusion amongst the Infinite parts of Nature. The eleventh question is, _What is meant by Natural Theology?_ I answer: Natural Theology, in my opinion, is nothing else but Moral Philosophy; for as for our belief, it is grounded upon the Scripture, and not upon Reason.

These, _Madam_, are the questions which I have pickt out of your new _Author_, together with my answers, of which I desire your impartial Judgment: But I must add one thing more before I conclude, which is, I am much pleased with your _Authors_ opinion, That Sound may be perceived by the Eye, Colour by the Ear, and that Sound and Colour may be smell'd and tasted; and I have been of this opinion eleven years since, as you will find in my Book of Poems, whose first Edition was printed in the Year, 1653. And thus I take my leave of you, and remain constantly,

Madam,

_Your Faithful Friend_

_to serve you._

XVI.

_MADAM,_

Concerning your question of the ascending nature of fire, I am absolutely of _Aristotle's_ Opinion, that it is as natural for Fire to ascend, as it is for Earth to descend; And why should we believe the nature of one, and doubt the nature of the other? For if it be granted, that there are as well ascending, as descending bodies in Nature, as also low and high places, (according to the situation of Particulars) and Circumferences, as well as Centers, (considering the shape of bodies) I cannot perceive by humane reason, but that the Nature of fire is ascending, and that it is very improbable, it should have a descending or contracting nature, as to tend or endeavour to a Center. But, _Madam_, give me leave to ask what sort of Fire you mean, whether a Celestial, or a Terrestrial Fire, _viz._ that which is named an Elemental fire, or any other sort of fire? for there may be as many several sorts of fire, as of other Creatures; or whether you mean onely that sort of fire that belongs to this terrestrial Globe, or all the fire in general that is in Infinite Nature? and if you mean onely that sort of fire which belongs to this Terrestrial World we live upon; I answer, There are many several sorts of that fire too; for all the fire belonging to this Earthly Globe, doth not lie in one place, body, or part, no more then all metal, or but one sort of metal, as Gold, lies in one mine, or all Mankind in one womb. Neither can I believe, that the Sun is the onely Celestial Fire in Nature, but that there may be as numerous Suns, as there are other sorts of Creatures in Nature. But as for the ascending propriety of this terrestrial Fire, you may say, That the Elements do commix and unite in this worldly Globe, and if Fire should have an ascending motion, it would pierce into other Globes, or Worlds, and never leave ascending. I answer: That, first of all, the strength of fire is to be considered, consisting not onely in its quantity, but also in its quality; as whether it can ascend to those bodies and places which are far above it: For example; A Man, or any other Creature, hath never so much strength, or ability, or length of life, as to travel to the utmost parts of the Universe, were the way never so plain and free, and the number of men never so great: the like for Elementary fire, which hath life and death, that is, generation and dissolution, and successive motion, as well as other Creatures. But you would fain know, whether fire, if it were left at liberty, would not turn to a Globous figure? I answer; That, to my sense and reason, it would not: but some men, seeing the flame of fire in an arched Oven, descend round the sides of the Oven in a Globous figure, do perhaps imagine the nature of fire to be descending, and its natural figure round as a Globe, which is ridiculous; for the fire in the Oven, although every where incompassed and bound, yet, according to its nature, ascends to the top of the Oven; and finding a stoppage and suppression, offers to descend perpendicularly; but by reason of a continual ascending of the following flame, the first, and so all the following parts of flame are forced to spread about, and descend round the sides of the Oven, so that the descension of the flame is forced, and not natural, and its Globous figure is caused, as it were, by a mould, which is the Oven. But some are of opinion, that all bodies have descending motions towards the Center of this worldly Globe, and therefore they do not believe, that any bodies do ascend naturally: But what reason have they to believe one, and not the other? Besides, how do they know that all bodies would rest in the Center of this terrestrial Globe, if they came thither? For if it was possible, that a hole could be digged from the superficies of this Earthly Globe thorow the middle or Center of it unto the opposite superficies, and a stone be sent thorow; the question is, whether the stone would rest in the Center, and not go quite thorow? Wherefore this is but an idle Fancy; and the proof that Fire tends not to a Center, is, because it cannot be poised or weighed, not onely by reason of its rarity, but of its dilative and aspiring Nature; and as fire is ascending, or aspiring, so likewise do I, _Madam_, aspire to the top of your favour, and shall never descend from the ambition to serve you, but by the suppression of death. Till then, I remain,

Madam,

_Your constant Friend,_

_and faithful Servant._

XVII.

_MADAM,_

In your last, you were pleased to desire my answer to these following questions: First, _What the reason is, that a Vessel, although it be of a solid and compact substance, yet will retain the smell or odour of a forreign substance poured into it, for a long time?_ I answer: The Vessel, or rather the perceptive corporeal motions of the Vessel, having patterned out the figure of the sent of the odorous substance, retain that same figure of sent, although the odorous substance is gone; and as long as that patterned figure is perfect, the sent will remain in the Vessel, either more or less, according as the figure doth last or alter. But you must consider, _Madam_, that although it be the natural motions that make those patterns of odours, yet those patterned figures are but as it were artificial, like as a man who draws a Copy from an Original; for Nature has divers and several ways of such motions as we call Art, for whatsoever is an imitation, is that which man calls Art. Your second question was, _How it came, that the mind and understanding in many did die or dissolve before the body?_ I answer: The reason is, because the rational corporeal motions alter before the sensitive; for as in some, as for example, in Natural fools, the rational motions never move to a regular humane understanding, so in some dying Persons they do make a general alteration before the sensitive. Your third question was, _Why a man, being bitten by a mad Dog, is onely distempered in his mind, and not in his body?_ The reason, according to my judgment, is, that the rational part of Matter is onely disturbed, and not the sensitive. The fourth question was, _Why a Basilisk will kill with his eyes?_ I answer: It is the sensitive corporeal motions in the organ of sight in the man, which upon the printing of the figure of the eyes of the Basilisk, make a sudden alteration. Your fifth question was, _Why an Asp will kill insensibly by biting?_ The reason, in my opinion, is, That the biting of the Asp hath the same efficacy as deadly _Opium_ hath, yea, and much stronger. Your sixth question was, _Why a Dog that rejoyces, swings his tail, and a Lyon when angry, or a Cat when in a fear, do lift up their tails?_ I answer: The several motions of the mind may produce either but one, or several sorts of motions in some part or parts of the body; and as the sensitive motions of anger will produce tears, so will the motions of joy; but grief made by the rational motions of the mind, may by excess disturb and make a general alteration of the sensitive motions in an animal: the same may excessive joy. But, _Madam_, you may perhaps find out better reasons for your own questions then these are; for my endeavour was onely to frame my answer to the ground of my own opinions, and so to satisfie your desire, which was, and is still the ambition of,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

XVIII.

_MADAM,_

In your last, you were pleased to desire an account, how far, or how much I did understand the ancient and modern Philosophers in their Philosophical Writings. Truly, _Madam_, I can more readily tell you what I do not understand, then what I do understand: for, first, I do not understand their sophistical Logick, as to perswade with arguments that black is white, and white is black; and that fire is not hot, nor water wet, and other such things; for the glory in Logick is rather to make doubts, then to find truth; indeed, that Art now is like thick, dark clouds, which darken the light of truth. Next: I do not understand in particular, what they mean by second matter; for if they name figures and forms second matter, they may as well say, all several motions, which are the several actions of Nature, are several matters, and so there would be infinite several matters, which would produce a meer confusion in Nature. Neither do I understand, when they say, a body dissolves into the first matter; for I am not able to conceive their first matter, nor what they mean by _magna_ and _major materia_; for I believe there is but one matter, and the motion of that matter is its action by which it produces several figures and effects; so that the nature of the matter is one and the same, although its motions, that is, its actions, be various, for the various effects alter not the nature or unity of the onely matter. Neither do I understand what they mean by corruption, for surely Nature is not corruptible. Nor do I understand their individables in Nature, nor a bodiless form, nor a privation, nor a being without a body; nor any such thing as they call rest, for there's not any thing without motion in Nature: Some do talk of moving _minima's_, but they do not tell what those _minima's_ or their motions are, or how they were produced, or how they came to move. Neither do I understand when they say there is but one World, and that finite; for if there be no more Matter then that which they call the whole World, and may be measured by a _Jacob's_ staff, then certainly there is but little matter, and that no bigger then an atome in comparison to Infinite. Neither can my reason comprehend, when they say, that not any thing hath power from its interior nature to move exteriously and locally; for common sense and reason, that is sight and observation, doth prove the contrary. Neither do I know what they mean by making a difference between matter and form, power and act; for there can be no form without matter, nor no matter without form; and as act includes power, so power is nothing without act: Neither can I conceive Reason to be separable from matter; nor what is meant when they say, that, onely that is real, which moves the understanding without. Nor do I understand what they mean by intentionals, accidentals, incorporeal beings, formal _ratio_, formal _unity_, and hundreds the like; enough to puzle truth, when all is but the several actions of one cause, to wit, the onely matter. But most men make such cross, narrow, and intricate ways in Nature, with their over-nice distinctions, that Nature appears like a Labyrinth, whenas really she is as plain as an un-plowed, ditched, or hedged champion: Nay, some make Nature so full, that she can neither move nor stir; and others again will have her so empty, as they leave not any thing within her; and some with their penetrations, pressings, squeezings, and the like, make such holes in her, as they do almost wound, press and squeeze her to death: And some are so learned, witty, and ingenious, as they understand and know to discourse of the true compass, just weight, exact rules, measures and proportions of the Universe, as also of the exact division of the _Chaos_, and the architecture of the world, to an atome. Thus, _Madam_, I have made my confession to you of what I understand not, and have endeavoured to make my ignorance as brief as I could; but the great God knows, that my ignorance is longer then that which is named life and death; and as for my understanding, I can onely say, that I understand nothing better, but my self to be,

Madam,

_Your most faithful Friend_

_and humble Servant._

XIX.

_MADAM,_

Since I have given you, in my last, an account how much I did understand the Philosophical works of both the ancient and modern Philosophers, or rather what I did not understand of them, you would fain have my opinion now of the persons themselves. Truly, _Madam_, as for those that are dead, or those that are living, I cannot say any thing, but that I believe they all were or are worthy persons, men of vast understandings, subtil conceptions, ingenious wits, painful students, and learned writers. But as for their works, as I told you heretofore, I confess ingeniously, I understand them not, by reason I am ignorant in their Scholastical Arts, as Logick, Metaphysick, Mathematicks, and the like: For to my simple apprehension, when as Logicians argue of natural causes and effects, they make natural causes to produce natural effects with more difficulty and enforcement then Nature knows of; and as for Mathematicians, they endeavour to inchant Nature with Circles, and bind her with lines so hard, as if she were so mad, that she would do some mischief, when left at liberty. Geometricians weigh Nature to an Atome, and measure her so exactly, as less then a hairs breadth; besides, they do press and squeeze her so hard and close, as they almost stifle her. And Natural Philosophers do so stuff her with dull, dead, senceless _minima's_, like as a sack with meal, or sand, by which they raise such a Dust as quite blinds Nature and natural reason. But Chymists torture Nature worst of all; for they extract and distil her beyond substance, nay, into no substance, if they could. As for natural Theologers, I understand them least of any; for they make such a gallamalfry of Philosophy and Divinity, as neither can be distinguished from the other. In short, _Madam_, They all with their intricate definitions and distinctions set my brain on the rack: but some Philosophers are like some Poets, for they endeavour to write strong lines. You may ask me, what is meant by strong lines? I answer: Weak sense. To which leaving them, I rest,

Madam,

_Your Faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

XX.

_MADAM,_

I am not of your opinion, That nice distinctions and Logistical arguments discover truth, dissolve doubts, and clear the understanding; but I say, they rather make doubts of truth, and blind-fold the understanding; Indeed, nice distinctions and sophistical arguments, are very pernicious both in Schools, Church, and State: As for the Church, although in Divinity there is but one Truth, yet nice distinctions, and Logistical sophistry, have made such confusion in it, as has caused almost as many several opinions as there are words in the Scripture; and as for natural Theology, which is moral Philosophy, they have divided vertues and vices into so many parts, and minced them so small, that neither can be clearly distinguished. The same in Government; they endeavour to cut between command and obedience to a hairs breadth. Concerning causes of Law, they have abolish'd the intended benefit, and banish'd equity; and instead of keeping Peace, they make War, causing enmity betwixt men: As for Natural Philosophy, they will not suffer sense and reason to appear in that study: And as for Physick, they have kill'd more men then Wars, Plagues, or Famine. Wherefore from nice distinctions and Logistical sophistry, Good God deliver us, especially, from those that concern Divinity; for they weaken Faith, trouble Conscience, and bring in Atheism: In short, they make controversies, and endless disputes. But least the opening of my meaning in such plain terms should raise a controversie also between you and me, I'le cut off here, and rest,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

XXI.

_MADAM,_