This book made available by the Internet Archive.

The PREFACE.

$• I. ^ ■ A H E Author of the Letter M which 1 anfiver, being wholly M unknown to me, and making me no return of his fenfe of my Anfiver, I fuppofe it can be no wrong to hifa that I publico it. I have formerly thought, that it is fafer to keep fuch Objections, and falfe reafonings, from mens notice, than pub-lickly to confute them. But now> in London they are fo commonly known, and publifhed in open Difcourfe and IVrit&g, that whether filers cing them be defirable or not, it is become im-pojjible. And tho I have [aid fo much more, e-facially in two Books (The Reafbns of the Chriftian Religion, and the Unreafonable-nefs of Infidelity) as may make this needlefs to them that read thofe ; yet most Infidels and Sadduces being fo felf conceited, and fafii~ dious, as to di(dain, or cafi by all that will coft them long reading and confederation, it may be this Jlwrt Letter may fo far prevail againft their ftoth, as to invite them to read more. I would true Chrifiianity were as common as the: profeffion of it ; 'There would then be fewer that need fuch Difcourfes. But alas! hpii? : numerous are thofe Christiansthat are no Chri* ; (foajfs, no more than a Carcafs or a Vi'B-m^ is a man • yea^ worfe Chriflians, who hate Chri* jiianity I whofe Godfathers and Godmothers 3 % * i 7 * 0 *

(not Parents, iut Neighbours) did promife and vow three things in their Names, i .1 hat they (hould renounce the Devil, and allhjs Works • the Pomps and Vanities of this .wicked World, and all the finful lufts of theflefh. •>,. That they (hould believe all the Articles of the Chriftian Faith. 3. That they ftiould keep Gods holy Will and Commandments, and walk in the fame all the days of their lives. Tea, before they could /peak, the mouth of thefe Godfathers [peaking for them, did. not only promife , that they (hould believe , i^lprofefs in the Infants name,* That even then they did ftedfaftly believe the Articles of the Chriftian Faith. The Iff ant is faid to make both the Promife and Profelfion by thefe Godfathers • who alio undertake to provide, that they Avail [learn all things which a Chriftian ought to know and believe to his Souls health, and (hall be virtuoufly brought up, to lead a godly and a Chriftian life]. JVheiher thefe Godfi r ibers ever intend to perform this^ or the Parents ufe to expeel it of them, I need not tell yen: But hew little mofi cf the baptised perform of }L is too notorious. And what wonder is it, if 2i>e have Chrijbians that in Satans Image fght againfi Chriji \ even PERJURED, MA--UGNANT, PERSECUTING Chnfr inters of thofe that ferioufy practice the b.ip-pf^dtfow p when they arc PERJURED and :

Per*

r

Perfidious Violate?s cf it themfeh es 9 as to the prevalent bent of heart and life.

Thefe Hypocrite nominal Ceremony Chrifii-ans, become the great -hinder ante of the cure of infidelity in the ivorld.lt isnhc SPIRITby its \Vh pernatural Works, which is the great Witnefs ofChrift,and the infallibleproof 'of fupcrnatural Revelation. Thefe witneffing works cf the Spirit > are thefe five: i. His Antecedent Prophecies, i. His inherent Divine imprefs on the Perfbn, Works; and Gofpel of Chrift. 3. His concomitant Teftimony in Chrifts uncontrolled numerous Miracles, Re fur reB ion and ■Afcenfion. 4^ His fubfequent Teftimony in the numerous uncontrolled Miracles of the Apofiles, and fupernatural gifts to the Chriftiansof that Age. But tho the Hifiory of thefe beaf infallibly delivered to us, as any in the wcrld'^yet the di(lance hindereth the belief of fame, who have not this hifiory well opened to them. £• Therefore God hath continued to the end of the world a more excellent Teftimony than miracles (thought not Jo apt to work on fenfe") even the fpecial regenerating fanclifying work of the Spirit of Chrift, on the fouls of all fincere Believers'. The raifing of Souls to a Divine and Heavenly Difpofition, and Convey fat ion, to live to God and the common poodjn the comfortable h r fes of an everlaft'vnv hea venly glory, vsturchaf-ed and given by cur Redeemer, conquering the allurements of the world and fleft jhe temptations

ons of Satan, and-aU the flatteries and frowns 'of the ungodly, This is a work that none but Ood can do and will do, which beareth his h mage and flip erfcript ion.

But now wefe Hypocrites, obfcnreitto them-(elves and other unbeliever^, and tempt m>n to fay, Are not Chrilians as bacj as Heathens ? and Mahometans. Are they not as fiefi-ly,and wMdly, andfelfe, and perjured, and malicious, and hurtful, and pernicious too-.then and themfelvs ? Butlanfwer, No, They are not: Toefe are no more Chrifians, than Images are men: Tioey are the Enemies of Chri-jjfiant, that nnder Chri(ls banner, and in his livery and name, do the ?ncfi psrfideoufly hate him and fight again/} him : Who will tell them, Inafmuch as you did it to the leaft of thefe, you did it tb me. : They betray him for money, as Judas, by Hail-mafter and a Kifs. I challenge any Infidel to find me One that ferioufly belitveth the Gofpdvf Chrift, as perceiving the certain Evidence of its truth, who is not a per-fonofahol)' and obedient heavenly life \ How can a man fine er el y believe that God fent hisSon from Heaven in fiefo, to Redeem man, and to bring ui to Glory,and that he fealed kit Do china by all h;s miracles, refurreciion and afcenfim^ and the ffyly Ghoft, and that he is our Head $# Heaven, v/ith whom we [hall live in joy for e-*ver • and is the Author of eternal SalvatBn to all them that they hmffay: How can a man.

be-

believe thisfericvfly^andnot efieem^and chcofeand feek it, before sill the jhadcws andvaniticto thti world. It is not Chirfiians,butfalfe hypocrites, whofe lives reprefcntChrifiianity^blaffhimoufly as no better than Heathemfm or Mahomet ani^m; It is but for wcrldly Inter-ef.andReputaticn^ or becaufe it is the Religion of the K-ng,Ccu^trey, or jincefitrsjhat they take up fo much as ihenam* and badg of Chrijtianity. And will you j'udg of cur Religion by its, entmies}Jjoyou not fee in their drunkcnneJs,jenfuality,ccvetoufnejs,un^cdlinefs, hew unlike their lives are to the baptijmalVow^ and that they hate^and feek to dejlroy them that areferious in keeping that Vow, and living as Chriftians ?

fy.i.And as Ipublijl) this for the ufe of unbeliever sfi I mufi let the Reader know, that it is become cne of the vfual tricks of the Fopijh decei-svers,to put ofi the Vizor of an infidel,a#// to dif pute about the immortality of the Soul, and the greatest difficulties of Religion: And it is to puzzle men, and convince them^ that by Reafoning they can never attain tofatisfa&icn in thefe matters ; And then to infer, \fTou have no way left, 'but to believe the Church-,&we are that Church/ 'Ifyou leave that eafie quiet wayycu will never 'come to any certainty]. Why do they not try the jame triek about all the difficulties in Philosophy^ AHroncmy,Phyfak,Hifiory,&LC? For every Sa-ence^and Art^hath its difficulties.But are not all thefe as gaeat difficulties to the Popeand his Pre-

setal

fates , as they are to us?But God hath gpzen us d fnore clear and fatisfaciory way of the Solution of fuch Doubts.

$. 3.I muft further give notice to the Reader., That it was the publifoing of Dr.H.MoreV an-fiver to a Letter of mine, which occafioned the jwblijiiing of this. When I was put en the one, I thought it not unprofitable to premife the other, as being of much greater life. It feemed good to the worthy Dr.to defire my thoughts of his De~ fcription of a Spirit,which he laid down in the fir ft Edition of Mr. Glanvile ofApparitions ■; hvhich I gave fam in ahafiy Letter, which he thought meet, without my knowledge to publifh an anfwer to,in his fecond Edition of Mr, Glan-Vl!e Our difference is fcarce worth the Readers notice.And cur velitation is only friendly, and Thilofophical. But yet it may ppjfibly be ufeful to fame y at leafl to excite them to a more profit a-ble fearch than I have made. And it explaineth feme pafj'ages wmy Methodus Theologize.

But1'much more commend to the reading ef the Saddltces and Infidels, the Hifiories them-Mves of Apparituns, andWitchcrafts, which ^lir.Glanvile and Dr.More have there delive-red-many cf them^at lea ft,with undeniable evidence and vroof. To which,if he will but add the Devil of Mafcon.rfW Bodin, and Remigius of Witches, he will fcarce be able to deny belief to the exigence and Individuation of Spirits^ and yah futinelifeoffeparated Souls.

SI R*.

THE

NATURE

AND

IMMORTALITY

OF THE

SOUL

PROVED.

In Anfwer to one who

profeffed perplexing Doiibt-fulnefs,

By RICHARD BAXTER.

LONDON:

Printed for B. Simons, at the Thru

Qvlden Cocks, at the Weft End

' —

■ ■■ ^ v » -»

W- _

I Have Reafon td judg you noStfan ger to fuch Addrefles as thele : and therefore have adventured more bold ! y to apply my felf to you. Others would, it may be, rigedly cenfure this Attempt; but your more Chriftian Temper will induce you ; I hope, to judg more charitably, did you but underftand with what relu&ancy I undertook this task.

1 have had many Difputes with my felf, whether or no I fhould ftifie thefe Doubts, or leek Satisfaction. Shame to own fuch Principles bid me do the tirft 3 but the Weight of the Concern obliged me to the laft. For I could not with any chear-fulnefs , or with that vigor I thought did become me, pnrfiie thofe unfeen Sub-fiances, thofe Objects of Faith Religion holds forth, except Idid really believe their exiftence, and my own capacity of en joyn-mgrhem.

C4 1

I thought at firft to fatisfie my felf iri the certainty of the things I did believe, to confirm and eftablifhmy Faith by thde Studies, that 1 might be able to render a Reafon of the hope that is iri me: but in-ftead of building up, Ianvfhaken.; and in-ftead of a clearer evidence, I am inviron-ed with uncertainties. i

Unhappy that I am ! I had better have taken all upon Truft, could I (b have fa-tisfied my Reafon, than thus to have involved my felf in an endlefc Study. For iiich I am afraid it will prove without help: for that I may not in this Concern relt without fatisfa&ton; and yet the more I confider, and weigh things, the more are my doubts multiplied. I call them only doubts, not to palliate any opinions; for I have not yet efpoufed any ; but becaufe they have not yet attained lb much maturity or ftrength , as to take me off thofe things, my doubts being fatistied, Mhould conclude of indifpenfable neceflky^ they are but yet in the Womb: affift to make them Abortives.

I have not been wanting to my felf, but tq the ufc of all means to me know.\, have fought fetisfattion, both by Prayer, Reading, and Meditation. I have weighed and confuked things according to my

: ^_ # Ca -

Capacity. I have been as faithful to my felf in all my reafonings, as I could, and void of prej idice, have patted impartial Cen-fures on the things in debate, lb far as that light .1 have would enable me ; and what to do more, I know not, exce.pt this courfe I now take, prove etFeihial, you inclining toafM me, that 1 know have itudied thefe things. '

Myrequeftto you therefore is, If your more publick Studies will permit you, That you would condefcend to fatisfie me in the Particulars I {hall mention. I af-fure you, I have no other defign, but to know the Truth ; which in things of fiich moment, certainly cannot be difficult, thp to my unfurnifhed Head they have proved fo: i hope my (baking may prove my efta-blifhment.

That i may therefore put you to as little trouble as I can, I will firft tell, you what I do believe, and then what i ftick at.

Firft, therefore, I do really believe, and am very well fatisfied, That there is a God, or a firir Caufe that hath created all things, and given to every thing its Eeing. For I am not acquainted with any independent Bring. 1 know not any thing that is able tp flibfift without the Contribution of its A j " Fei*. !

Fellow-Creatures. I am confcious to my felf, when ficknefs invades me, and death fummons my Compound to a difiblution, I can do nothing to the prefervation of the Eeing I enjoy. And if I cannot preferve my (rif as I am, much lefs could I make my felf whatl am: For when I was nothing, I could do nothing. And Experience and Senfe tells me, As it is with me, io it is with others ; as there is none can preferve their Beings, fo there is none could acquire to themfelves the Being they nave; and if none, then not the firft man. And indeed that was it I enquired after, from whence every fades had at firft their Beings; the way, how, and means by which they are continued. I know not any Caufe of the Being of any thing, of which again I may not enquire the Caufe: and fh from Caufe to Caufe, till through a multitude of Caufes, I ne-cefianly arrive at the firft Caufe of all Caules 5 a Being wholly uncaufed,and with, out Caufe , except what it was unto it

-, My next.Enquiry was into my felf; anct My next buflneis, to find what Concern I have with my Creator: which I knew no better way to attain, than by fearching the bounds of humane Capacity. For 1

con-

C 7]

concluded it reafonable to judg thofe attainments I was capable* of in my Creation, I was defigned for. Now if man i$ nothing mofe than what is vifible, or maybe made fo by Anatomy or Pharmacy, he is no Subject capable of enjoying, or loving God, nor confequently. of a life of Retro? bution.

In this Enquiry I found Man confided of fbmething vifible and invifible; the Body which is vifible, and fbmething elfe that invifibly actuates, the fame. For I have (een the Body, the vifible part of man; when the invifible, either through indlfpofition of its Orgains, or its felf, or being expelled its Manfion, hath ceafed to aft (I fpeak as one in doubt): the Body-hath been left to .outward appearance the fame; it was yet really void of Senfe, and wholly debilitated of all power to aft: But then what this' invifible is, what to conclude of it, I know not: Here I am at a ftand, and in a Labyrinth , without a , Clue: For I find no help any where. Many 1 have, I acknowledg, defended the Souls Immortality; but none have proved the exiftence of fuch a Being, and a life of Retrobution, and that copiouflye- me f° m] nough; but none- hjive proved a Subjedt filing i capable of it. I know all our Superior thiAmhk A 4 Fa- cm. fj

Faculties and A&ings,. are ufually attributed to the Soul; but what it is in man they call fo, they tell us not. To fay it is that by which I reafon, or that now dictates to me what I write, is not fatisfa-ftory : For I look for a definition , and fiich an one, as may not to ought elfe be appropriated. Is it therefore a real Being, really different from the Body, and able to "be without it? or is it not ? If not, whatever it be, I matter not. If it be, is it a pure Spirit, pr meerly material I If meerly material, and different only ffom the Body gradually, and in fqme few degrees of fhbtilty , it is then a queftion, Whether or not that we call Death, and fuppofe a feparation of the Compound, be not rather a Concentration of this a-6tive Principle in its own Body, which through (bme ihdifpofition of the whole, or ftoppage in its Orgains, through grofs Corporeity, hath fuffocated its a&ings. If it be a pure Spirit, I would then know, what is meant by Spirit ? and whether or no all things invifible, and imperceptable toSenfe, are accounted fiich? If fo, it is then only a term to diftinguifh between things evident to Senfe , and things hot. If other wife, how (hall I diftinguifh between the higheft degree of material,' arid

tlie

the loweft degree of fpiritual Beings, or know how they are diverfified, or be certain the Being of the Soul is rightly appropriated. For to me,an immaterial and fpiritual Being., feems but a kind of Ho'ciis, and a Subftance ftript of all materiality, a fubftantial nothing. For all things at firfi had their Crigine from the deep dark Waters: witnefs Mcfts Fhdojophy, in the ift of Genefs^ on which the Spirit of God is (aid to move. I am far from, believing thofe Wafers (iich as that Element we daily make ufe of; but that they Were material, appears by thole multitudes of material Productions they brought forjh. And if thofe \\ atprs were material, fuch were all things they d d produce, among which was Man, of whom the i extafierts , nothing more plain ; for it (kith, Gvd created man of the duji of tm tartlk the molt grofs part and fedement of thofe Waters, after all things elfe were created. Now the Body only is not Man; for Man is a living Creature : it is- that therefore by which the Body lives and afts, that con-iiitutes the Man. Now the ApofHe mentioned! Man to gonfift of Body, Soul and Spirit.. My Argument then is this, God created man of the dufv of the earth.

But

But Man confifts of a Body Soul and Spirit :

Therefore Body , Soul and Spirit are made of the duft, &c and are material.

The major and minor are undeniable; and therefore the conclufion. Yet do I not therefore .conclude its annihilation: for I know all matter is eternal; but am rather perfwaded of its concentration (as afore) in its own body.

But of its real Being, purely fpiritual, and ftript of all materiality, really di-ftinft from its body, I doubt.

'Becaufe that by feveral accidents happening to the body, the man is incapaci-ted from acting rationally, as before ; as in thofe wecallldeots, therelsnot infbme of them fb much a fign of a reafonable Soul, as to diftinguifli them from Bruits: Whereas were the Soul fuch as reprefent-ed, it would rather ceafe to aft, than aft at a rate below it felf Did it know its Excellencies, fuchaswemake.them, it would as foon defert its being, as degrade its felf by fuch bruitifh afts: it is not any defect in its Organs could rob the Soul of its Reafon , its Eflential Faculty. Tho the Workman breaks his Tools, his hands do notlofe their skill, but ceafeth toad, rather

[ "3

ther than to do ought irregularly : fo like-wife would the Soul then aft contrary to its own nature.

Secondly, Becaufe all the fpecies both of the Mineral, Vegitable, and Animal Kingdoms, appear ro me, but as the more eminent Works of a moft excellent Operator, as Engines of the moft accurate Engineer; they all live, and have a Principle of Life manifeft in their growth. and augmentation, and fo far as they are living weights, as 1 can perceive from the fame lource. But then comes in thofe Natures and Faculties whereby each is diftinguifhed from other, even like feveral pieces of Clock, or Watch-Mork: the one (hews the hour of the day, and no more- the next fhews the hour and minutes, another {hews both the former, and likewife the Age of the Moon; another hath not only the three former motions, but an addition of the rife and fall of Tides; yet all this, and many more that in that way are performed, are (everal diftinft motions, arifingall from the fame Catife, the Spring or Weight, the Principle of motion in them. So a-mong living Weights, the firft do only grow and augment their bulk, and have no poflibility in nature to augment their Kind; the next, to wit, Vegitables, do noc

only grow and increafe their bulkj but likewife have a power of propagating their like: the third Family, I mean the Animal Kingdom , do not only live and encreafe their kind, but likewife are made fenfative. And laftly, we our felves that are not only pollelt of all the former, but of fomething, I know not what, we think more excellent, and call Reafbn, and all this from the fame fource ; namely, that *ve live; which if we did not, we could not perform any of thefe adts. For life in lis is the fame as the Spring or Weight in the Watch or Clock , which ceafing , all other motion ceafeth, as in a Watch or Clock, the Spring or Weight being down.

As Lire therefore is the Caufe of all Motion, and all natural Operation and Faculties; yet thofe multifarious Operations and Faculties, manifeft in, and pro-per to the particular jpecies of the Threp Kingdoms, requires not divers Principles of Life, no more than divers motions fpe-cified in a Watch or Clock, requires divers Weights or Springs. And &S the diver fity of motion in Watch or Clock, a-nfech not from diverfity of Weights or Springs, but rather from other means: fb thole divcrfitics of Natures and Faculties,

ma-

iftanifeft throughout the Three Kingdoms, a rife not from divers Principles of Life^ but from one Principle of Life, manife-fting its power in Bodies diverfly organized. So that a Tree or Herb ,that only vegitates and propagates its kind , hath Ho other Principle of Life than an Animal that hath Senfe, and more eminent Faculties. The difference only, as I conceive, is, this Principle of Life in the ve-gitable, is bound up in a Eody organized to no orhereud, by which Lifeishindred exerting any other power : but in the*A-nimal it's kindled in a purer matter , fry which it's capacitated to franifc more excellent Orgains, in order to the exerting more eminent Acts. For the Principle of Life can no more aft rationally in matter capable of naught but vegitationf* (for it a<fts*in matter according to the nature! thereof, advancing it to its utmoli: excellency ) 3 than 2 mail can faw with'a Coult-A$taff, or file with an Hatchet, or make a Watch with a Becle and Wedges.

I am apt to believe thofe rare Endowments, and eminent Faculties, wherewith men feem to excel meer SenfatiVes, arc only the improvement of Speech, wherein we have the advantage of them, aid the refuk of reiterated At> 7 until tb.cy

become habits. For by the firft we are able to communicate our Conceptions and Experiments each to other \ andby the other we do gradually afcend to the knowledg of things. For is all the knowledg either in the ads, Liberal or Mechanical, any more than this ads reiterated, until they become habits; which wh?n they are, we are faid to know them ? And what is all our reafoning, but an Argument in Di£ coiirfe tolled from one to another, till the Truth be found, like a Ball between two Rackets, till at laft a lucky blow puts an end to the fport? We come into the World hardly men; and many whole natures want cultivation, live, having nothing to diftinguifh them from Brutes, but the outward form, fpeech, and ibme little dexterity, fuch as in. Apes or Monkeys, in the things they have been taught, and the Affairs they have been bred to. And could we imagine any man to have lived Twenty or Thirty years in the World, without the benefit of Humane Converfc, WhEt would appear then, think you, of a rational Soul ? which the wife man well faw when he aflerted the Condition of Men and Beafts to be the fame wliat a meer Ignorant hath, Mofes himfelf made of Adam, that in his fup-

pofed

pofed beft ftate, knew not that he was naked; but I believe the Nine Hundred and Thirty years Experience of his own, and the continual Experiments of Pofte-rity, in that time communicated to him, might quicken his Intellect. So that he died with more Reafon than he was created, and humane nature in his pofterity. The next Generation was imbellifhed with his attainments, to which their own Experiences ftill made a new addition. The next Generation built on their Foundation, and the next on their; and foon : and we are got on the fnoulders of them all. So that it's rather a wonder, that we know no .more , than that*we know . ib much. So that what we have, feems rather times prod aft, through the means aforefaid, than what our Natures were at firft enricht witq.

The which appears likewife in thofe whofe memory fails, and in whom the <vefiigia of things is wore out ; the habits they had contracted, and manner of working in their feveral a&s being forgotten, what filly Animals are they? Whereas were the Soul fuch as- repefented, who could rob it of its Endowments ? It's true' the debilitating of a hand, may impend a-manual labour , but rate what hath formerly

C 16 1

merly been done out of the Memory, ancTyou render Man a perfed Bruit, or worle: for he knows not how to give a fig-nification of his own mind.

And indeed, I know not any thing wherein Man excels the Beafts, but may be referred to the benefit: of Speech and Hands, capable of effe&ing its Conceptions; nor find any better way to attain a right know 7 ledg of our (elves, but.by beholding our felves in Adam , and enquiring, what Nature had endued him With, which will fail far fhcrt of what we now admire in our felves.

But now fuppofing all this anPvVei'd, what will* it avail us to a Life of Retro-bution, if all return to one Element, and be there immerged as .Brooks and Rivers in the Sea ? If we lofe oiir Individuation ; and all the Souls that have exifted, be fwal-lowed up of one, where are the Rewards and Punifhments of each individual. And w 7 e have reafon to judg it will be thus, rather than otherwife, becaufe we fee every thing tends to its own Centre, the Water to the Sea, and all that was of the Earth to the Earth, from whence they were taken. And Solomon faith, The (firit returns to God that gave it. Every thing then returning to its own Element, Iofeth its Individuation,

tut,

cl ividuation. For we fee all bodies returning to the earth , are no more individual bodies, but earth: Have we not reafon then to judg the fame of Spirits returning to their own Element ? And what happinefs then can we hope for, more than a deliverance from the prefent calamity ? or whac mifery are we eapable of, more than what is common to all ?

The fame is more.evident in the body with which we converfe, and are more fenfibly acquainted with , feems wholly, tincapable of either, &c For all bodies are material, and matter it felf is not capable of multiplication , but of being changed. Therefore Nature cannot multiply bodies, but changeth them ; as fome . bodies ariie , others perifli. Natures ex-pence in continual Productions being con-itantly fiipplied by the diffoliition of other Compounds: were it otherwife, her Store-' houfe would be exhauited ; for its by continual Circulations, Heaven and Earth is maintained ; and by her even Circular motion, flie keeps her felf imployedonthe feme ftockof matter, and maintains every fpecies. There is no body the lame to day it was yefterday, matter being in a continual flux; neither immediately on the difc jfolution of a Compound, and Corruption

of thcbptfy, doth the earth thereof rctiis #

any ipecifick difference of that body ft once was* but is immediately beftowed by Nature, and ordered to the new produftion of other things. That part of matter therefore which conftiturcth a humane body, in a (hort time is putrified, and made earth, which a-gain produceth either other inferior Animals, or Grafs, or Corn , for the nourifh-raent of Beafts and Fowl, which again are the nouriftrment of men. Thus circularly innumerable times round, Nature continually im-preffing new forms of the fame matter. So that that matter that now conftitutes my body, it may be a thoufand years ago was the matter of fome other mans, Orjt may be of divers mens, then putrified } which in this time hath fuffered infinite changes, as it may be fometime Grafs, or Corn, or an Herb,or Bird, or Beaft, or divers of them, or all, and that divers times over, before my body was framed •, who then can fay, why this matter fo changeable, fliould at laft be refto-red, my body rather than his, whofe formerly it was, or the body of a Bird, or o-ther Animal ? For by the fame Reafons that the body of man is proved to arife again, mav, I think, be proved the Reftoration of all other bodies,which is tquallyincredible to me (xi underftood atone time;. For Na-

tfutfc*

Mres flock of matter being all at firft exhau* ited, {he could not employ her felf in nevv Produ&ions , without destroying fome of the old ; much lefs can fhe at occe fabricate out of the fame quantity of matter , all the bodies that ever were, are, or (hall be5 which'yet, notwithstanding could fire, they could not be faid to be the lame bodies, because all bodies fufifer fuch alteration daily, that they cannot be faid to be the fame to 4ay they were yefterday i how then can they be capable of Reward or Punishment?

,, Thefe are now my doubts \ but are they • the fruits of Diligence ? and am I thus rewarded for not believing at a common rate ? A great deal cheaper could I have faje down, and believed as the £hurch believes*, with* putawhy, or a wherefore, have beln ignorant of thefe DifpiUes, and never have e-inerged my felf in this gulf, than thus by Reflection to create my own difturbance. Had I been made a meef Animal, I had had none of thefe Doubts nor Fears that thus torment my mind; for doubting, happy Bruits happy, far mort happy than my felfj With you is none of this*, with you only is fere-nityof mind, and $ou only void of Ansd-eties i you only enjoy what this world is able to accommodate with, and it may be too B z hays

have fhafeCaredes we know not of 5 while we 1 , your poor purveyors, go drooping and dif-ponding, doubting,,fearing, and caring a-bout," and our whole, lives only a preying on one another, and tormenting our felves. You have the carnal content and fatisfadi-on ; we nothing but the fhell, a vain glorious boaft of our Lordfhip over you,with which we feek to fatishq,our felves, as Prodigals, with husks, while the truth is, we are afraid to confront our ValTals, except we ftrft by craft and treachery beguile them from whom likewife we flee, if once enraged : and what a poor comfort is this ? Is this a Priviledg to boaft of? is this all Rea-ibn advanceth to, only a Purveyor to Beafts, and to make my life more referable, ^>y how much more (enfible of mife-ry ! Well might Solontcn prefer the de^d before the living; and thofe that had not beei, before both; intimating thereby,that being belt, leali capable of mifery; that is, of Trees, of Herbs, of Stones, and all in-anlrtiatesi which wanting fenfe, are infen-fible of miitrrv. £e:ter any thing than man therefore, fincethan every brute arid inanimate ftocfc or itone, are more happy in that meafure: they are lef? capable of miiery. it the advantage, then, what the bene-fit that occurs to us from them, or what

pre-

preheminence have we above them, feeinS as dieth the one, fo dieth the other, and tha c they have all one breath ?

Pardon this Degreffion; the real fcnfe andapprelienfion I have of things, extort ic. from me. For I, as job , cannot refrain my mouth, but (peak in the bitternefs of my Spirit, and complain irr the anguifh of my Soul, Why died I not from the womb* why did I not give tip the ghoft when I came cut of the belly ? Why did the kyees prevent me? or why the breafis , that I fiould fuck? 1 had then been among Solomons happy ones: I fliculd now have lain fill and been quiet \ I foculd have ftp?, and been at refi: -whereas now I am weary of life. For tho I /peak, my grief ts not aJJ'waged * and tho I forbear , I am not eafd\ but now he hath made me weary , and made defolate all my company: he bath filled me with wrinkles , which is a witnefs ag&wft me * and my lean-nefs rifing up. in me^ beareth 2Pir?iefs to my face, God hath delivered ?ne to the ungodly , and turned me ever into the hand of the wicked ^ and my familiar, friends have forgotten me. I faid, I fijall die 'in my nefl, and Jhall multiply my days as the fand, when my root was fpread out by the waters, and the dew lay all night on my branch * when my glory was f re fo> and my bow was renewed m my ha?id: B 3 but

C 22 -J

hut I find while my flefli is upon me, I Jhall have fain, and while ?;?y [otitisin we, itfhdll mourn. Have fity upon me, O my frh for the hand cf Cod hath touched me. ve, and become oli\ yea, they

rev, then' feed ts it with them, and they fere their eyes ; thi

\ neither is the red cf God upon them, 8tc. they &rt flSnted, and take root, they grew:

-grforth fruit, yet God is nevtr in . and far from their reins. In tiMhn then do Iwajh my hands in innccency, ing all things come alike to all. 'There is one <?-<vent to the righteous and to the wicked, to the good, to the clean, and to tbeunc -him

that facrificeth, and to him that facrificeth wet: as is the good , fo is the fnner \ and he that fweareth, as he that fear it h an cath.

I have now done (tho I hardly know how ), left I too far trouble ycu; and only beg your perufal of thefe lines, and two or three in anfwer of them by this Bearer , who fhall at your appointment wait on you for the fame. Let me farther beg thefe two things of you: firft, That you w confider you have not to do with a Sophi-ftick Wrangler , or with one that would v/illinglyerr, but with one that defiresto

know

know the Truth. Let therefore your Anfwer be, as much as you can, void of Scho-laftick Terms, or Notions that may lead me mpre into the dark. And then, as Jcb did beg, That God would withdraw' his hand far from him, and that his dread might not make him afraid ; fo I. 'And further, That yoa would not awe me with his greatnefs, nor fupprefsmy Arguments with his Omnipotence. Then call thou, and I will anfwer ; or let me (peak, and anfwer thou me. Thus begging the Divine Influence to diredt you, and enlighten me, 1 fiib-fcrl emyfelf^

g 4 ST»>

SIR, $. i. TT is your wifdom in Cafes of fo _L great moment, to life all juft endeavours for fatisfa&ion ; and 1 think you did but your duty, toftudy this as hard as

' you fay you have done. Bu 11. I wifh yon had ftudied it better j for then you would not have 'been a ftranger to many Books which afford a juft folution of your Doubts, as I muft fuppofe you are, by your taking no notice of what they have laid. 2. And I w : fh you had known, that between the fol-vin. of all your Objeftions, and taking all on frnft from men, or believing as the Church beiieveth 3 there are Two other taays to factsfa<ftiorl fwhich muft be con-A): 1. Difcerning the unanswerable e-vidences in Nature and Providence, of the Souls future Life. 2. And taking it on truft from Divine Revelation; which is o-

. therwife to be proved, than by believing as the Church by Authority requireth you.

I have

£25-1

I have written on this Subject fo much already, that I had rather you had told me, why you think it unfatisfa&ory, than defire me to tranfcribe it, while Print is as legible as Manufcript. If you have not read it, 1 humbly offer it to your confideration; It is moft in two Books: The firft which I in-treat you to read, is called^ The Keafcns of the Christian Religion: the Other is called. The Unreafmabhnefs of Infidelity. If you think this too much labour, you are not fb hard or faithful a-Student of this weighty Cafe, as it deferveth, and you pretend to be. If you will read them (or the firft at leaft), aqd after come to me, that we may fairly debate your remaining Doubts , it will be a likelier way for us to be ufeful to each other, than my going over all the mi-ftakes of your Paper will be. And i fup* po(e you know, that we have full aflurance of a multitude of Verities, againft which many Obje&ions may be railed, which no mortal man can fully folve , efpe-ciallv from Modes and Accidents. Nay, perhaps there is nothing in the World which is not liable to lome fuch Objections. Aftd yet I will not ne^eft your wri-

$. *.WheiJ

.

$.%. When you were convinced, That there is a firfiCaufe, it would haveheen an orderly prcgrefs to think what that Catifi i$; and whether his Works do not prove his Infinite*? erfeBiov, having all that eminently which he giveth formally to the whole World, as far as it belongeth to perfemcn to have it. For none can give more than he hath. And then you (hould have thought what this God is.to man , as manife'ft in his Works: and you (hould have confidered what of man is paft doubt , and thence in what relation he ft amis to God^ and to his fellow-creatures : And this would have led you to know mans certain duty r and that would have allured you of a fufitre life of Retribution, is. not this a juft pro-grefs ?

$. 3. But you would know a Definiti:r> of 'the Soul. But do you know nothing but by Definitions ? Are all men that cannot define, therefore void of all knowledg ? You jknow not at all what feeing is, or what light is, or what feeling, fmelling, tafiing, hearing is, what found or odor is, w!i£t fweet or bitter, nor 4N\\zt.thin king, or knowing, or willing, or loving is, if you know it not before defining tell you, and better than bare defining can ever tell you. Every vital fa-

culty

C v3

cuhy hath a felf perception in • its a&ing • which is an eminent fenfe ? Intuition alfo of ontwaret fenfible Objeffs, or immediate perception of them, as fenfata.& imaginata, i$ before all Argument and Definition, or rea-foning action. By feeing, we perceive that we fee ; and • by under ft anding,. we perceive that we under ft and. I dare fay, That you know the Affs'of your own Soul by afting, tho when you come to reafoning or defining^ you fay you knownot what they are. You can give no definition what fubfiance is, <3r E^i at leaft, much lefs what G0J *>. And yet what is more certain than that there is Sub fiance, Entity, and God? » $. 4. But Pie tell you what the Soul of man is : It is a Vital, Intellectual, Vditvue Spirit, animating a humane organized Body. When it is feparated, it is'not formally 3.Sgul,b\il ■A Spirit ftill.

„$. jr, J%. But what is fiich a menial Spirit ? H ft # #20/? pre Sub/lance, whofe form is a Power or Virtue of Vital ABion, Intel-leBion, and Volition {three in one).

$. 6. I. Are you not certain of all ?hefe % Acts, viz. That you AB vitally, underfiand mid will} If nor, you are not fare that

you.

C *»1

you fee, thae you doubt, that yon wrote xP me, or that you are any thing.

II. If you act thefe, it is cermin that you have the fewer of. fo afting. For nothing doth that which it cannot do.

II f. It is certain, that it is a Subfiance which hath t\\\s fewer: For nothing can dq nothing.

IV. It is evident, that it is not the wjible Body , as compofed of Earth, Water and Air, which is this mental Subftance. Neither any oneoF them, nor all together have Life, Understanding, or Will They are fajfvve Beings, and aft not at all of themselves, but as afted by invisible Powers. They have an aggregative inclination to U-nion, and no other. Were it not for the 7^-neous Nature which is adive, or for Sfirits, they would be ceflant. Therefore ^011 are thus far paft the dark, That there is in man an Invisible Subfiance, which hath, yea, which is a Power or Virtue of Vital Attion, Intellection, and Volition.

V. And that this A&'tve Tower is a di-ftinft thing from meer Pajfive Power, or mobtlitie fer almd, Experience puts pail doubt. There is in every living thing a Slower, or Virtue of felf moving, dfeLife were not Life.

VI. And

VI. And that this is not a meet accident of the Soul, but its ejjeniial form, I have proved fo fully in my Methodm Theokgia , in a peculiar Deputation, that I will not here repeat it. It's evident, That even in the igneous Subftance, the Vis Motiva, Illumi-natty a, CalefaBiva, is more than an accident, even its ejjeniial form: But were it otherwile, it would but follow, That if the very accidental ABs or qualities of a Soul be fo noble /its ejj'ential muft be greater.

VII. But it is certain. That neither Souls, nor any thing, have either Being, Fewer, or Affion, but in conftant receptive dependence on the continued emanation of the prime Caufe; and fo no Inviduation is a total Je-paration from him, or an Independence, or a felf-fufficiency. Thus far natural light tells you what Souls are.

$. 7. You add your felf, That thofe attainments 'which you were made* capable of, you weredejigmd to. Very right. God ma-keth not fuch noble Faculties or Capacities in vain; much le(s to engage all men to a life of duty, which fhall prove "deceit and mifery. But you have Faculties capable of thinking of God, as your Beginning, Guide, and End, as your Maker, Ruler, and Be-

flefa&or;

nefa&of ; and of ftudying your duty to hitrij in hope of Reward, and of thinking what will become of you after Death, and of hoping for future Bleflednefs, and fearing future Mifery: all which no Bruit was ever capable of. Therefore God defigned you to fuch ends which you are thus capable of

$. 8. YdU fay (p. 3.) Many have defendedthe Souls Immortality ; but none have proved a Subjefl capable cf a life of Retribution. It's, a Contradiction to be immortal^ or rewarded, and not to be a Subjett capable. For nothing hath no accidents. Nothing hath that which it is not enable of ha-ing.

§. 9. You fay, Nene tell us what it isl How many Score Volumes have told it us ? I have now briefly told you what it is. You

i?y, [To fay it is that by which I reafon, is not fatisfa&ory. I look for a Definition]. But on Condition you look not to fee or feel it, as you do Trees or Stones, you-may be fatisfied. I have given you a Definition. The Genus is Subfrantia puriffima ; the Differentia is Virtus Vitalis^ ABtva^ Intellefti-va, Voliiiva (trintim a Imago Creatofis). What's here wanting to a Definition ?

E 3i 3 -

€ have told you, That there is an anfim

dent more certain Perception, than by Defini-ticn ; by which I know t\m I fee, hear, tafie, am, and by which the $ct^ inacl^ is confcious of it felf

$. 10. You ask, i. Is it a real Being 4 ? Anfw. I told you, Nothing can do nothing.

a. Is it really different from the Body ? Anfw. A Sub fiance which hath in it felf an Ejjmtial Principle of Life, Intelkclion, and Volition y and that which hath not, are really different. Try whether you can make a Body feel, or underftand without a Soul a. Thofe that are feperable, are really dif- ! . ferent.

o. You ask, Is it able to be without it? Anfw. What fhould hinder it ? The Body made not the Soul: A viler Subftance giveth not being to a nobler. 2. Nothing at all can be without continued Divine fuftentati-dn But we fee, Juxta naturam, God an-nihilateth no Subftance: Changes are but by compofition, and feparatiojf, and action, but not by annihilation. An Atome of Earth or Water , is not annihilated; and why Ihould we fufpeft, that a Spiritual Subftance is? Yea, the contrary is-frilly evident, tho God is able to annihilate all things. .$.11. You

C 33 1

$.11. You fay, If it be mecrly materhl^ and differ from the Body but gradually > Death may be but its concentration of this active Principle in its own Bowj.

Anfiv. If you underftand your owri words, it's well. i. Do you know what material Tigrnrieth? See Crakenthorfs Meta-fhyfcks^ and he will tell you in part, it's an ambiguous word. Sometime it fignift-eth the fame as fubftantia ; and fb Souls are material. Sometime it fignifieth only that fort of Subftance which is called corneal. Dr. More tells you, That Penetrability , and Indivifibility, difference them.

But what if fire fliould differ from air materially, but in degree of fubtilty and purity, or fenfitive Souls from igneous , and mental from fenfitzve , but in higher degrees of purity of mattery Is it not the form that maketh the fpecifick difference ? Air hath not the igneous Virtue of Motion,-Illumination, and Calefaftioii; nor ignis, the fwfitivt Virtues, nor meer fenji-lives' the iptmal Virtues aforefaid. Forma dat ejfe & nomen. This maketh not a meer gradual difference, but a fpeci* fick.

There

t 53 J

There is in Compounds matter* and materia: djfpofftio recepi<va* & forma. There fe fooiewhat anfwerable in fpiritual imcom-pounded Beings. There is fubftantra* and

fubftmtia difpojitio* & forma. Thefe are but intellectually disiinB* artd hot di<vifible>

•and are but inadequate conceptions of one thing. That [ubsiantta is conceptus funda-* mental is* as confeft.. Some make penetrability &nd indivifibility, fubftantia conceptus difpojkicus. But the Virtus' <vitalis a8i<va* intelleBiva* volitiva* in one, is the concept tus formalis.

i. But what mean you by [ the active Trinciples concentration iii its dim body^\ ? It is a ftrange Fxpteflioii. i. If you mean, that it's annihilated* then it remaineth not. «. If you mean, that 'ttremaiqeth an aftive Frineiple* you frie'an a fubFrance* of accident. 1 f a fubStance* it feenots you acknottf-ledg it a felffubfifting being* only not fepa-rate'from \ts carcafs. And if they bttwo 3 Why are they not fef arable ? If fcparable 9 why not feparated ? When the dult of the Carcafs is Scattered, is # the Soul concentred' in every atomej.or but in one? And is it many* ot one concentredSoiii? If you mean, That it's but a!n accident* that's difprov'd before ; what accident is it ? If concentred in the body; the body, and every duft of it, • C • ***

C 54]

is vital and intellectual. And if fo, ev< clod and ftone is fo ; which 1 will not fo much wrong you, as to imagine th^\ you think.

$. ii.' But you would know what's meant % (pint, whether all that is net evident to I Anf It is a pure fltbfiance (.faith Dr. ■ictrable and indivifible) effenttally a! 9 perceptive and appetitive.

§. 13.. You add, [Hew fall I knew the rence between the highefi degree of mate-rials,. and lowest of immaterial* ? To we an immaterial\ and jpirkual being, feems a kind-of Hocus, a fab&antial nothing.

\f. If yoii take matter for the fame with fab fiance, it \s material. B\lt not if you take ■, as irs ufiially taken, for corporeal, Or grefs, and impenetrably , and divifible fab stance, uncapdble of effential, 'vital, felf-tmvidg perception and appetite. If this feems 7%othingto yon, God Items nothing to you, and true Nature, which is Trincipium mottts^ feems nothing to you: And all that performed! all the adion which' you fee in the world-, feems nothing to you. It's pity that you have converit fo little with God and yourfelf y as to think both 'to be nothing.

^14. What

; [ 35 4

#. 14, What you fay* gut of -Gen. i, is little elfe but miftake, when you fay [all was made oitt'cf the deep waters by the /pi-rit of God], The Text nameth what wa,3 macte of them. It faith nothing of the Creation of Angels, or Spirits, out of them' '(no, nor of the Light, or Earth, or Firma-

ment).

And whereas you fay, [ God made man of the duft of the ground -, but the body only is not •man, ergo. ■ Anf. You, ufe.your felf too Unkindly, to leave out half the words, Gen. 2.. 7! And the Lord God formed man of the duft of the ground, and breathed into his no-flrils the breatJi'of lij% and wa?t became a living fouf\ when the Text tells us the two . * works by which God mad'e man, will you leave out ofa, and then argue exclufively againftit? What if I faid, [The Chandler madeaCandhj of Tallow, ^nd then by a-uother kindled it]? or [a man made an hbufe of Bricks, and cemented them with Mortar, dv.J? wiH you thence prove* That he made a Canctle learning with-, out fire, or the Houfe without Mortar ? Words are ufelefs to fuch Expofi* tors.

#, if. Pagfe 4. you fay j Ton know all ((natter is eternal.

C% . Bat

l;s6 7 -

But you know no fuch 'thing. If it be, Eternal^ it hath ewe Divine perfection :«and if ib, it muft have the reft, and fo Ihould be God. But what's your proof?

• You again (believe the Souls concentratitn iff its bct{j\ . Anf, Words ihfignificant. It's Idem or Aliud. If Idem^ then dull:isEflen-tially "Vital -and Intellectual. Deny not fpiritual forms, if every clod or ft'one have them. If Aliud, how prove you it to be there, rather than elfetvhere-? 'And if yoii considered well, you would not believe tjjcntial % fubsia?nial life and ' mind< to lye ■ dead and ur.active , (6. long # as the duft is for

6. 1 6. You come to the hardeft Objedli^ \jlhe Sends defective aBing in infants^ id£ots, the Jick, 6cc .aftd fay, \Jt would rather not act^ if 'it were as represented. •]

Anf i. ft cannot be" denied, but. tlue Operations of the Soul here, are much of them upon the organized body j and tho .net crganicaU as if they adted.^' an Organ^ yet organicaU asa&ing. on an Organ ; which is the material Spirits primarily. And fo there go various Caufes to fome Effetts, sailed Acts.

jl And

C 37 1

a. And the Soul doth nothing indepeiv Gently,.. hut as dependent on God, in Being and. Operation: and therefore doth what God knoweth, and ufetb it too, as his Inftrument, in the forming of the body ; and' in what it kno.weth not it felf. And as Cod/ as fens natune necejjitdteth the Natural agency of the Soul, as he dbth the Soul of Bruits. But as the wife and free Governor of the world, he hath to moral acls, given mans Soul free-v/ilU and therefore conducing"Reafcn ; which it .needs not to necejjitated afts, as digeftion, motion of the blood/ formation of the body, &c.

And as it is not made to *do all its acts freely Zt\d rationally^ fo neither at all times* as in Apoplexies*, Infancy, Sleep, <?c lc is effential to the Soul, to have the aBiye fewer or virtue of Intellection and Free-willy -but not always to life it. As it is effcntial to the fubftance of fire, tho latent in a flint, to have the power ofmoticn^ light and heat.

And its confiderable,.thatasa traveller in his joifrney, thinking and talkingoqly of other* tilings, retaindth ftill afecret act of in-te*d r.g his end -, (elfe he would not go on) when he perceiveth and obferveth it not at all. He that playeth on the Lure or Harpfi- * fal, ceafeth when his Inftrument is out of C 3 . tune ?

C?8]

tune , bepaufe heafteth by freeT

But the Soul of an Idiot or mad-man a-fteth only per modum .nature no* hy free* abs % but neceOltated by God by the order ofnature. Only moral a£ts are free j and that fome other 'are but bnitifh ? and fbme tu.it vegitative, is no-more a wonder, than that it fhould under (land in the£W, and be fenfibk only in the molt of the bod y 3 and vegitative only in the Xz;r<- and rfarh. It operateth in all the body by the Spirits, • tgM'i but about the e/o\ and 0j>e# /??*->, 'by Spirits alfo as /m^,' fojr tha'c

ftfe" 1

i

$. 14. Bnt'never forget this, That nothing; at r doth what it cannot do : but many can do that which they do not. The the Soul in the Womb, or Sleeps rememl not, or reafon not • if ever it'do ht, that proveth it had the f cover o^ doiug it. -And that power is not a novel accident, tho the ait maybefo.

$.18. To your Explications p. 4. I fay. 1. None doubts , but all the world is the work of one "prime operating Caufe \ \\ horn I hope you fee in-them, is of perfeft power, wifdom aud goodnefs, the chief ejfaen: rigentznd final caufe of all.

£ S9'l

i. I doubt nor, but the'created univerfe is all one thing or frame ; and no one atome or .part totally fepacated from, and independent 011 the reft.

3. But-yet the parts are multitudes, and • heterogeneous , and'have their Individuation and are at once many and me in (eve-ral refpefts. And the unity of the Uni- • verfe, or of inferior univerfal <Gaufes (as the Sun, pr an anhna tellum* &c:) are certainly confident with the fpedtick and individual differences of the part's.

E.g. Many individual Appfcs g'roiv on the fame Tree; yea, Crabs and Apples by divers grafts, nouri-flied'on the feme frock: One may rot, • or be lower, and .not another. Millions of Trees, as alfo of Herbs and Flowers, good and poyfbnofts, all grow in the fame earth, Here is Unity, and great Diverfity. And tho felf-ifnd^idg Animals' *be not.fixed on the earth, no dotibr they have a contiguity, Or -Continuity, as parrs with" the Univerfe. But for &U that, a Toad is not a Man, .nor a man in torment, itndif-ferencedfrom another at eafe, nor a bad man all one with a;good.

#. 19. And if any fhould have a conceit, That there is nothing but God and ma . I'kave fully confuted it in the Appendix to C 4 * Rta-

Reaf. of Chriftian Religion. Matter is nQ fuch omnipotent fapiential thing in it felf, as to need no caufi or maker, any more than Xpwpounds. • And to think, 'that the infinite God would make no nobler Creature than dead matter , no likdr hi'mfeU; to.glorifie • him, is antecedently abfurd, but cqpfe-quently notorionfiy falfe. For tho nothing be aded without him^ it's evident that he hath made activeNatures with a principle of [elf moving in themfelves. The Sun differs from a c/orf, by more than being matter <va-riottjly moved by God, §ven by a [elf-moving power alfo. EKe there were no frsawj $ro£ ture 9 *bm bodies in themfelves dead, animated by Gcd. But it would be too tedu ous to fay all againft this that's to be faid.

$. xo. When you tell us of [One life m all y differenced only by diverfity of Organs 1 ^ you mean Gcd, or & common created Soul If Godj I tell you where I have confuted it. It's pity to torment or punifh God \namur-d>rer. or call him wicked in a wicked, man: or that one man fhould be hangd y and another prais'd* becaufe the Engines of .their bodies are diverfe. But the belt Anatomifts fay, That nothing is to be feen in the brain of other Animals, why they might not be

as

C 4i 3

as rational as Men. And if it be an Animi creata communis that you mean either you think it is a* univ'erfal Soul to the uni<verfal world, or only to this Eftrth or Vortex. If to all the World, you feign it to have Gods Prerogative. If to part of the world , if each Vortex, Sunj Star, §tc. haveadiftinct individuate fuperior Soul, why not men al-fo inferiors ? And why may not millions of individual Spirits confift With more co'mmm or tiniverfal Spirits, as well as the life of Worms in your belly with yours. That which hath no Sad or Spirit of its own* is not fit for ftich reception and communion with fuperior Spirits, as that which hath. Communion requireth fome fimilitude. We fee God ufeth hot all things alike, becaufe he makes thenxnot like.

4. 11. But if the difference between Beafts, Trees-, Stone t s, and Mon y be only the organical contexture of the body\ then 1. Either alkhefe have but one Soul y and fo arc but one, fave corporeally, a. Orelfee-very Stone, Tree and Beaft hath an InteU leftual Soul { for it is evident that man hath, by its Operations.

I: Had you. made but Virtue and Vice*to be only the .effects of the bodies contexture, . furc you Would only blame the maker of

your

C42]

^our hody , and ijpr your fclf™ for any of . your Crimes: For yen did not make }'Oiir own body, if you were nothing.

Is the common light and ienfe of Nature no Evidence? Doth not all j:he world difference Virtue and Vice, moral good and tvil ? Is it only the difference of an Inftrument in Tune, and cut of Time? Either then all called fin As good -^o?God, or the Un'yvrtfa I Soul, only if to be blamed. Then to call you a Knave,- or a Lyar, or Perjured; &c, is no more difgrace, than to fay,that you are fick, or blind. Then all Laws are made only to bind G#</, or the Amima mundiy and. all punifhmentis threatned to God, or this cowmen SottL And it is God, or the cowmen Soul only in a body, which fcrroweth, fear-eth, feeleth pain or pleafure.

11. And if you equal theSouls of Beafts, Trees, Stones and Men, you'mull: make them all to. have a n hi elk Hud Seal If man had not-, he could never underftand. And if they have fo alfo, fruftra fi potentia vp4<e nunquam frgducitur in actum, it is certain that it is not the body (Earth, Air or Water) that feeleth, much lefs that underfrandeih or wffleth. If therefore all men have but 'one SouU why is it not you that are in pain or . joy, -when any,, or all others -are fo ? Tour ' funering and joys are as.much fficirs. You

hun

C 43 1

hurt your felf when you hurt a Male-fa&or* Why are you not anfwerablefof the Crimes of every Thief, if all be

one

$. '22. You.vairtfy Ifken feveral Naturts and Faculties to (everal pieces oj Clock-work. For Natures and Faculties Qxefetfracfcxg Principles under the prime Agent: but a Clockis onlypuijfrve> moved by another: Whether the motwsgravimtioxis in the poife, be by an intrinflck Principle, or by .another nnfeen aftivg Nature, is all that's controvertible there. All that ypur finiilitude will infer, is th Sj That as tli£ gravitation of one poife > moves every wheel according to it's receptive aptitude ; fo God, the-univerfal Spirit, mo-veth ail that is moved, according to their •feyeral aptitudes, paiTives as pafltve, adives asa&ive, vitals as felf-movers, intellectuals as imelleftual-fcee-felf-movers under him. No Art can make a Clock feei>' fee •or under-ft and.

But if the World haye but one foul, what mean you by its. -concentring in the Car-cafs I Is the univerfal Soul there fallen a-fleep, • or frnpriioned in a Grave, or what is it?

f 23. Add

C 44 3 • §. 13. Add p*g* 5r. You well fay, Thar

Ii/£ ij the caufe of all motion : Yea, infinite Life, m Wifdom and Love, is the caufe of all: but there be fecond Caufes under it: Pluri-ma ex uno^ *And it maketh things .various, which it moveth vatioufly5. and maketh • them vital, fenfitive or mental, which he will move to vital, fenfitiveand mental ads. Qperari fequitur ej]^

$. 14. You are apt to believe, Tioat thofe •eminent Faculties wherewith men feem meer Senfitives, are only the improvement cf Speech, /ind reiterated Afts , till they become Habits.

Anf 1. I had a Parrot that fpoke fo very plainly, that no Man could difcern but he could have fpoke as well as a Man, if he had but had the Intellect of a Man ; and •quickly would learn new words, but (hewed riounderftanding of them. • ^. Many men born deaf and dumb, are of a ftrong underftanding ( enquire of a Brother of Sir Richard Dyetfc, a Son of Mr* "Peter Whalley. of Northampton, a Son in Law of thie Lord 1Vharton% &c.

g. The Faculty and the Habit are Two things. The Faculty is the Ejfential form of the Subftance. The Habit, or Act , is bat an Accident* The Faculty is nothing

'but

- [45 1 •

hit the aShve Tower. And the Power go'etfo before the AB. Doth actings without Power to aft, canfe the Power i What need you the Power, if you can aft without it ? And what's a Contradiftion, if this be not, to fay, I do that which! cannot do, or lean Ho that which I have no power to do ? Ybii * are not a man whhoitJ die Faculty , but you are Without the Aft • or.elfe you are no man in ypur fleep. The act then is but the Faculties aft ; and Habits' are nothing but the Faculties promptitude to aft. And this indeed is caufed fometime by very frrong aBs, arid fometime, and ufually, by frequent afts ; and fometime fuddenly, by a fpeciafl Divine Operation. No .doubt, but 'Oratory, and alf Arts and Sciences, are caufed by frequent ads, and their Objefts: But thofe aHs are caufed'by humane Faculties, under God, the firit Caufe. You can never caufe a Carcafs, or a-Parrot, or any Bruit, "to think 'lof Gcd y and the glory to come j nor to do any proper humane aft..

Credible Hiftory affureth us,. That Dc-vils^ or feparate Souls, have afted Carcafc fes, and difcourfed in them, and (eemed to commit Forrficationm them, and left them dead behind them ; and they were known to be the lame that were lately executed,

C ^ 1

or <fead,and were re-buried. Here the dead Organ was- capable, when a Spirit did but ufeV

You too much co'nfouftd Intellection and 'Ratiocination'. The prime adts "of" intellective Perception/are before Ratiocination. And there area multitude of Complex Ve-> rities, which all found men know without SyllogHms. The difpofiyon to know them, isfaftrong, tl;at fome call it AdtualKnow-ledg.

$. %$-.. Add page 6. Trt Well known, That-the Natives in New England 9 the. moll barbarous k Abajjinesy Gallancs, 8tc. in Ethiopia^ have as good natural Capacities as the Europeans. So far are they from being but like' Apes and Monkeys ; if they be not Ideots, i or mad, they fometime Ihame learned men in their words and deeds. I have known thofe that havp.been fo courfly clad, and fo clownifhly bred , even as to Speech,' Looks and Carriages, that Gentlemen and Scholars, atriiefirftcon'grefs, haveefteem-ed them much according toyourdefcripti-on, when *in;Difcourfe they "have proved more ingenious than they. And if improvement can bring them to Arts; the Faculty was there before. When will you fhetv its \ an Ape or a Monkey, that was ever brought

to

to the Ads or Habits before mentioned of Men ? Tea, of thofe that were born deaf and dumb?

■ $. z6. Your miftakeof Adam's cafe^nc\ Solomons words, is fo grofs, that I will not confute it, left the. description of it offend you. & •

§. 17. The c^fe of failing memories is anlwered before, in the cafe of Infancy and ^Apoplexies, &c. Our memory faileth in our fleep: and yet 'when we awake, \ye find that there remains the fame knowledg- of Arts and Sciences. They did not end at night, and were not all new made tne next morning. The Acts ceafed, becaufe the receptivity or the paffive Organ ceafed: but the Habit/and Faculty -continued. And when ifiemory in old men faileth about names, and words, and little matters, their judgments about great things are ufuallv' ftronger ( by better Habits ) than young mens.

$.28. You fay, You know nothing wherein Man excels Beatts, but may be referred to the benefit of fpeecb and hands^ capable of effecting its Concept io?ts.

Art

C 43 ]

Anf. This is anfwered before. Thole Conceptions are the caufe of mwy/j and anions : and is there no caufe of thole Conceptions ? And if mans Conceptions differ from the heafts, the £*«/« differed. And if the fir ft Conceptions did not differ, the Subfequent would not differ neither, without ft difference in the caufal Faculties** Why do not Beafts fpeak as well as Men f Parrots fhew, That it is not in all for want of a fpeaking Organ. If one be born dumb, and not deaf, he will know but little the lefs for his. dumhnefs. If he be born deaf and dumb, and not blind, he will ftill be rational, as V>vWallis can tell you, Who hath taught fiich to talk and converle intelligibly by their fingers, and other figns, without words. I confefe, if all the outward Senfes were ftopt from the Birth*, I fee not how the Soul Could know outward fenfibk things, as being no Objects to it. Arid how it would work on it (elf* alone, we know not y but understand, and willy we are litre it doth : and therefore can doit. And it's one thing to prove Beafts to be men, or rational^ and another thing to prove Men to be Beafts, or irrational If you could prove the former, i;/*,. That Beafts have Souls that can think of God, and the Life to come, if they ceuldbat lpeak, this would rather prove

them,.

C 49 ^

them immortal^ than prove man unreafonable^ or of a mortal Soul. Your whole fpeech makes more to advance bruit s^ than to deny.

the reafon of man.

4.29. You fay, You know no better way to attain a right kmwledgof our [elves -, than by beholding our felves in AdSm, and enquiring what Nature had endued him with^ which ovill fall far (hort of vjhdt we now admire in cur J elves.

Anfw. 1. As a Multitude of Objects, and Experiences, more tend to Wifdom than one alone ; fo to know both what Adam was, and what all men are^ and do^ doth evidence mo£e to our information, than to know Adam's firft Cafe alone.

a. Adam's firft Powers are to be know*n by his a els ; and.'Aar aBs were not to be done at once, in a minute, or a day : And behave not theHiftory of his Life much after his Fait. But we may be fure, that Adam's Nature in Innocency, was no baler than ours corrupted'. And therefore Adam had the Powers of doing whatever other men fiiice have done.

f. But let us come to your Teft : 1. A-dam Was made a living Soul by the breath of God, after the making of his body of the earth,

D i, Man

i. Adam and Eve were blefled with a generative multiplying Faculty: but they did not generate God ; nor did every bruit that had alfo that Faculty. Therefore there is a Soul which is not God , in e-very Animal, (nor yet an Universal Soul).

3. Adam, rlo doubt, could not know external fenfible ObjeftSjtill they were brought within the reach of his fenfe : no more can we.

4. Adam knew the Creatures as foon as he (aw them j and gave them Names fuit-ablej This is more than we could ib foon do.

5. Adam had a Law given him; and therefore knew that God was his Ruler. He knew that God was to be obeyed ; he knew what was his Law: elfe it had been no fin to break it. He knew that he ought to love, and believe, and truft God, and cleave to him : elfe it bad been no fin to for-fake him, and to believe the Tempter, and to love the forbidden Fruit better than God. He knew that Death was the threatned Wages of Sin. In a word, He was made in the Image of Gcd: And Paul tells us, it is that I-mage into which we are renewed by Chrift : And he defcribeth it to covfift in wijdcm $ righ-^eoujnejs^and true holwefs.

6. And

& And we have great reafon to think, that it was Adam that taught Abel to offer Sacrifice in Faith , and delivered to his Po-fterity the Traditions which he had from God. Tho Adam did not do all this at once, he did not receive a new Soul or Faculty for every new aft. Can Apes and Monkeys do aU this ? Doth God give them Laws to know and keep as moral free-agents ?

But you fay, Adam knew not that, he was naked. Anf. What! and yet knew God and his Law, and how to name the Creatures, and how to drsfs and keep the Garden ? He knew not that Makednefs was fhame-ful; for he had newly made it fhame- • ful.

Perhaps you think of Adam's forbidden dejire of knowledge and hjs miferable attainment of it. But that did not make him a new Soul y that had no fuch Faculty before. Adam was the Son of God by Creation,L#£. 3. and it was hi§ duty and tnterefl to live as a Son, in abfblute trufi on his Fathers careand love: and inftead of this, he was tempted to ielf dependance,and mutt needs know more than his dnty,& his fathers love and reward: He mult know good and evil for himfelfilike a Child that mult know what Food,and Ray -ment, and Work is fitteft for him; which D 2 he

he fhould know only by miffing his Far thers choice -or as a Patient that ruuft needs know every Ingredient in his Phyfick, and the Nature andReafonof it, before he will take it, when he fhould implicitly tru ft his Phyfician. Man fhould have waited on God for all his Notices, and fought to know no more than he revealed. But a diftruftful, and a felfifh knowledg, and bufy enquiring into unrevealed things, is become our fin and mifery.

$. 36. You fay, Suppofe all this anfwered : what will it avail, as to a life of Retribution, jf all return to one element , and be there immersed as Brooks and Rivers in the Sea, and we lofe cur individuation.

Anf I anfwer'd this in the Appendix to the Reap of the Chrifiian Religion. I add 1. Do you believe, that each one hath now cne individual Soul, or not?. If not, how can we lofe that which we never had ? If we have but tf//^univerfal mover, which mo-veth us as Engines, as the Wind and Water ffriove Mills, how come fome motions to be -iofwift (as a Swallow), andothers (6 flow, -or none at all, in as mobile a body) ? Yea, how cometh motion to be (6 much in our Power, that we can fit fill when we will, and rife, andjjo, and rtm 9 and fpeak when

we

$>t wit? $ and ceafe, or change it when _we will ? A ftong that falls, or an arrow that is {hot, cannot do fo. Sure it is fome inward formal Principle j and not a material Mechanical mobility of the matter, which can caufe this difference.

Indeed if we have all b\it one Soul, it's eafie to love our Neighbours as our ftl-ves, becaufe piir Neighbours are our fefoes. But it's as eafie to hate our [elves as our Enemies* and the ^W as the W, if all be one "(for forma* dat nomen & ejfe). But it's ifrange, that either God, or the Soul of the World, fliall hate h Jelfy and put it felf to pain, and fight againft it felf, as in Wars, &c.

But if you think (till, Thajt there is nothing but God and dead matter actuated by him, I would beg your Anfwer to theie few Queftions.

i. Do you really believe, that there is a God ? that is , an eternal infinite felf beings who hath all that power, knowledge and goodnefs of will, in tranfcendent Eminen-cy, which any Creature hath formally, and is the efficient Governor of allelfe that is. If not, all the world condemneth you: for it is not an uncaufed Being, and can have nothing but from its Caufe, who can give nothing greater than it felf.

D 3 z,b*

C 54 1

z. Do you think this God can make a Creature that hath a fubordkiate Soul, or Spirit, to be the Principle of its own Vital Aftion, 'Intellection, and Volition, or not ? Cannot God make a Spirit ? If not, it is either becaufe it is a Contradiction ( which none can pretend), or becaufe God is not Omnipotent; that is, is not God-, and (b there is no God j and fo yon deny What you granted. But if God can make a Spirit,

?. Why fhould you think he would not ? Some of your mind fay, That he doth all the o-ood that he can\ or elfe he were not per*' ft elly good. Certainly his goodnefs is equal "to his greatnefs , and is commmunica-

tive.

4. Hath he not imprinted his Perfeftions in fbme meafnre, in his Works? Do they not {hew his glory ? Judg of his Greatnefs bv the Sun, Stars, and Heavens ; and of his Wifdom, by the wonderful Order, Contexture, and Government of all things. E-ven the Fabrick of a Fly, or any Animal, pofeth us. And do you think, that his love and goodnefs hath no anfwerable ef-feft?

5. Do you think, that fajfi<ve matter doth as much manifeft Gods Perfection, and honour the Efficient, as vital and Intellectual

t 55 ]

al Spirits ? If it be a far nobler Work for God to make a free, thtal, mental Sprit , to ad under him freely, mentally, and vitally , than to make meer atcmes , why fhould you think that God will not do it?

6. And do you not difhonour, or bla£ pheme the prime Caufe, by fuch difho-nouring of his Work, as to fay , he never made any thing more noble than Atomes, and Compofitions of them.

7. Is there not in the Creatine a communicative difpofition to caufe their like? A-nimals generate their like : Fire kindteth fire : Wife men would make others wife : God is effential infinite Life, Wifdom and Love: and can he, or would he make nothing liker to himfelf than dead Atomes ? Yea, you feign him to make nothing but by Compofition, while you fay, Th^zmatter it felf is eternal.

8. But when the matter of Fa& is evident, and we fee by the aftions, that there is a difference between things moved by God, fome having a created Life and m'ma 3 and fome none, what needs then any further proof?

£. 31. But if you hold, That we have

now difiincf Sprits, which are individual

D 4 Sub z

C^3

'Subfiances, why fliould you fear the lofs of our individuation, any more than our annihilation, or fpecifick alteration ? If God made as many fubftantial individual Souls, as men, is there any thing in Nature or Scripture, which thteatneth the lofs of Individuation ? I have (hewed you, and (hall further fhew you enough againft it.

$. 32. You fay, page 7. Every thing re-tnrneth to its element , and lofeth its individuation : Earth to Earth, Water to the -Sea, the Spirit to God that gave it. What happit nejs then can we hope for more than deliver from the prefent calamity * or what mifery are we capable of] more than is common to ell?

.Anf. 1. Bodies lo(e but* their Composition, and Spiritual forms. Do you think, that any Atome lofeth its individuation ? If it be ftill divifible in partes infmtas, it is infinite. And if every Atome be infinite , it is as much, or more than all the world ; and fo is no part of the world ; and fo there would be as many Worlds, or Infinites, as Atonies. It is but an aggregative motion which you mention. Birds of a Feather will flock together, and yet are Individuals fiill. Do you think any duft , or drop, anv Atome of Earth or Water, Io-V feth

C 57 1

feth any thing of it felf, by its unlcan with the reft ? Is any Subflance loft ? Is the fim-ple Nature changed ? Is it not Earth an4 Water ftill? <s not the Hacceity, as they call it, continued i Doth not God knowe-very duft, and every drop from the reft ? Can he not feparate them when he will ? And if Nature in all things tend to aggregation, or union, it is then the VerfeBion of every thing. And why fhould we fear Perfection ?

a. But Earth, and Water, and Air, are partible matter. Earth is eafily feparable : The parts of Water more hardly, by the means, of fome terrene Separaror : The parts of Air yet more hardly: and the Sun-beams, or fubftance of fire, yet harder than that (tho it's contraction and effc&s are very different) : And Spirits either yet harder, or not at all. Some make it eflen-tial to them to be mdijcerptible ; and all muft fey v That there is nothing in the Na-' tare of them, tending to divifton, or fepa-ration. And therefore tho God, who can annihilate them, can divide them into parts, if it be no Contradiction { yet it will never be, becaufe he itfeth every thing according to its nature, till be cometh to miracles. Therefore their dijjdltition of farts is no more to be feared, than their annihilation, i

But

a*

C 53 1

*. But if you take Souls to be partible and unibki then you muft fuppofe every part to have ftill its own exiftence in the whole. And do you think, that this doth not more advance Souls than abate them ? Yea, yon feem to Deifie them', while you make them all to return into God, as drops into the Sea. And if you feign God to be -partible, is it not more honour and joy to be a fart of God , who is joy it t'dr\ than to be a created Soul} If a thoufand Candles wore put out, and their light turned into one Luminary, as great as they all, e-very part would have its fhare in the en-lightning of the place about it. Is it any lofs to a (ingle Soldier, to become pare of a victorious Army.

4. But indeed this is too high a Glory for the Soul of man to defire, or hope for. It is enough to have a bleifed union with Chrift, and the holy Society, confident with our Individuation. Like will to like, and yet be it felf. Rivers go to the Sea, and not to the Earth. Earth turns to Earth, and not to the Sun, or Fire. And the holy and bleQed , go to the holy and bleflfed: And I believe , that iheir union will be nearer than we can now well conceive, or than this felfifh ftate of man de-fireth : But as every drop in the Sea is the

fame Water it was, fo every Soul will"be the fame Soul.

X. And as to the incapacity of rnifery which you talk of, why fhould you think it more hereafter than here? If you think all Souls now to be but one, doth not an a-king Tooth, or a gouty Foot, or a calculous Bladder, differ pain, tho it be not the body that feeleth ; but the fame fthjtfwe Soul is pain'd in one part, and plcas'd in another. And if all Souls be now but God in divers Bodies, or the Ahima mundi, try if you can comfort a man under the torment of the Stone, or other Malady, or on the Rack,-or in terror of Confcience, by telling him, That his Soul is a fart of God. Will this make a Captive bear his Captivity, or aMalefaftorhisDeath? If not here, why fhould you think that their mifery hereafter will be ever the lefs; or more tolerable for your conceit, that they arc parts of God ? They will be no more parts of him then , than they were here. But it's like, that they alfo will have an urn-ting inclination, even to fuch as themtelves ; or that God, will leparate them from all true unity, and lay, Go you cur fed into ever-Lifting fire, prepared for the Tk*vil andbh An-gels, &c.

C 60]

$.55. Nib doubt it's true, that you (gy f page 7, and 8. That matter is (till the jame^ and liable to all the changes which you mention. But it's an unchanged God , who doth all this by Spirits , as fecond Caufes, who are not of fuch a changeable, diflblu-ble, partible nature, as Bodies are: It is Spirits that do all that's done in the world, And I conjecture, as well as you, That 0-niverfal Spirits are universal Cannes. 1 flip-pofe, That this Earth hath a vegitative form , which maketh it as a matrix to receive the Seeds, and the more active influx of the Sun. But Earth and Sun art but general Caufes. Only God y and the fcmi-nalVirtuey caufethe (pedes, asfuch. The Sun caufeth every Plant to grow ; but it cauleth not the difference between the Rofe, and the Kettle, and the Oak. The wonderful unfearchable Virtue of the Seed gaufeth that. And if you would kyioiv that Virtue, you maft know it by the effects. You cannot tell by the Seed only of a Rofe, a Vine, an Oak, what is in it. But when you lee the Plants in ripe-nefs, vou may fee that the Seeds had a Jpe-cifymgVirtue, by the influx of the general Caufe, to bring forth thofe Plants, Flowers, &c. Neither can you know what is in the Egg, but by the ripe Bird- nor

what

C 6i 3

vhat the Soul of an Infant is, but by Man* lood and its Adts.

£. 34. You here pag. 7. divert from the )oint of the Immortality or Nature of the >oul> to that of the RefurreBion of the Body: )f which I will now fay but this ^ Chnft ofe, and hath promised us a RefurreBion , tnd nothing is difficult to God. aW*<w oft ignifieth our living another life after this. Hie Body hath more parts than Earth and Vater. The Spirits as we call them, which ire the igneous parts, lodged in the pureft lereal in the blood, &c arc that body in and >y which 'the Soul doth operate on the reft. 4ow much of thefe material Spirits the >oul may retain with it after Death, we enow not; and if it have fuch a body, it lath partly the Jame ; and God can make .vhat Addition he pleafe, which ftiall not :ontradicl identity: Paul faith of Corn, 3od giveth it a body aspleafeth him, in fbme refped the fame, &c. in fbme not the fame that was fown. We do not hold, That all the flefti that ever a man had, (hall berai-fed as that mans. If one man that was [at, grow lean in his ficknefs, we do not fay, that all the fleih that ficknefs wafted > (hall rife : It (hall rife a^irhual body. God knovvcththat which j<w and I know not. [

$.35-. You add, hnv eafieit. would have teen to you to believe as the Church believeth 9 and not to have imrHerved your (elfin the fedif* iicuities r

Anf.ifthtChurchh nothing but all zWi-vidual' Cbriffians>and it is their Ifc/iefwhich makes them capable of being of the Church' As we muft be w*» in order of Nature, before we are a Kingdom of «;e&; fo we are Believers before we are a Church of Believers. A Kingdom or Policy maketh us not men , but is made of men ; and Church-fo-ciety or £0/;^ maketh us not Relievers , but is made up of Believers. Therefore Belief is fir (I , and is not caufed by that which followeth it ? And why doth the Church believe ? Is it becaufe they believe ?

And whom do they believe ? Is it them-felves ? I doubt you have fallen into acquaintance With thofe whofe Interest hath made it their Trade to puzzle and confound men about things as hard to themfelves as others, that they may bring them to truft the Church D and then tell them that it's they that are that Church, as a neceflary means ro the quieting their minds. And they tell them, Ton are never able by reafon to com-prebend the myshries of Faith ; the more you fear(h 7 the more you are confounded. But if

you

you believe as the Church helieveth, you fiat jpeed as the Church fyeedefh., But it's one thing to believe the fame thing which the Church believeth ; and another to believe it with the fame faith, and upon the fame Authority. If a man believe all the Articles of the Creed only becaufe men tell him that they are true, it is but a human Faith, as refting only on mans Authority • but the true Members of the Church believe all the fame things, becaufe God revealeth and at-teshth them ; and this is a Divine Faith; And fo muft you.

If you love light more than darknefs and deceit, diftinguifh, i. Believing men for Authority, a.Believing men for their Hcnefty, 3. Believing menforthe^mvz/ rmpxjfibdity of their deceiving.

• And the foundation of this difference fe here : Mans Soul hath two forts of afts, NeceJJary and Contingent, or mutably free.

To love our felves, to be unwilling to he miferabk, and willing to be happy • \o love God as good, if known, &c. are ads of the Soul as neceffary, as for fire to bum combu-ftible contiguous matter; or for a Bruit to eat 5 fo that all the Teftimonies which is produced by thefe necefary ads by knowing men, hathaPhyiical certainty, the contrary being impcllible. Ard this U infallible hi-

fcrical

C H 1

ft orient knowledg of matter of fact. Tims', we know there rs fucha City as Rome, Tarts, Venice, &c. and that there was fuch a man as K. fames,Ed. 6. Hen. S.JVilliamthe Conqueror, &c. And that the Statutes now afcribed to Ed. 3. and other Kings and their Parliaments are genuine. For Judges; judge by them, Lawyers plead them,Kings own them, all men hold their Eftates and Lives by them. Contrary mens Intereft by Lawyers are daily pleaded by them againft each other ; and if any one would deny , forge or corrupt a Statute, Intereft would engage the reft againft him to detect his fraud.

1. The certain effeff of natural necejjary Caufes hath natural necejjary evidence of Truth.

But when all knowing men of contrary Dijbojitions and Interefis. acknowledg a thing true , this is the effetl of nataral necejjary Caufes.

Ergo it hath natural necejjary evidence of Truth.

1. It is impofible there foould be an EffeEl without a (ufficient Caitfe.

But that a thing Jlwuld be falfe which all hnowing men of contrary Difpoftions and Interefts acknowledg to be true, would be an Effect without a Qaufe • for there is no Caufe'

r<$5 r

in nature to cffeft it. It is impofllble in nature that all men ill England (hould agree to fay, There was a King James, K. Ed-ward, Q^Mary, or that thefe Statutes were made by them, if it were falfe. This is infallible Hi (tor teal Testimony* It were not (b ftrong if it were only by one Tarty, and not by Enemies alfo , or men of contrary Minds and Interefts. And thus we kpow the Hiftory of the Gofpel • and this Tradition is naturally infallible.

11. But all th« Teftimony which depend-eth on humane Adts, not necefj'ary, but free, have but an uncertain moral humane Credibility. For fb all men are Lyars j i. e. fallible, and not fully to be trailed.

And I. Thofe Teftimonies which depend ©n mens Honefiy , are no farther credible, than we know the Honefiy of the men: which in fame is great, in fome tewni, in moft is mixt, and lubricous, and doubtful, Alas ! what abundance of falfe Hiftory is in the world ! Who can truft the Honefiy of liich men, as multitudes of Popes, Prelates, and Priefts have been * Will they ftick at a Lye, that ftick not at Blood, or any wickednefs ? Befides, the ignorance which invalidates their Teftimony..

11. And to pretend Authority to rule our

faith, is the moft unfatisfa&ory way of all

E For

For before you can believe that jefus is the Chrift, and his Word true, bow many im-poffibilities have you to believe ? i .You muft believe that Chrift hath a Church.2.And hath authorized them to determine what is to be believed, before you believe that he is Chrift.

3. You muft know who they be whom you muft believe • whether all,orfbme,or a major vote.Whether outof all the world,oraparty.

4. And how far their Authority extended! ?. Whether to judg whether there be a God, or no God \ a Chrift, or no Chrift ; a Heaven, or none; a Gofpel, or none: or what.

5. And how their determinations out of all the world mav come with certainty to us: and where to find them.6. And when Countreys and Councils contradid and condemn each other,which is to be believed.Many fiich im-prffibilities \nthcRoman way,; muft be belie-ved.before a m3n can believe that Jefus is the Chrift. In a word,you muft not puzzle your head to know what a man &r, or whether he have an immortal foul-Jbuiyou muft, 1 .believe the Church of Believers, before you are a Believer in Chrift. 2.Andyou mult believe,that Chrift was God and Man, and came to fave man, before you believe that there is fuch a creature a$.wan,orwhat be i^and whether he have a foul capable of falvation.But * have oft elfewhere opened thefe Abfurdities and Con-

tx'adidtiops ^

txadi&ions ; where you may fee them con* fated, if you are willing.

$. 3 6. Your queftion about the fouls nature, *xi/hnce, and Individuation, maybe refolved by a furer and eafier way : as followeth :

I. By your own certain experience.

i. You perceive that you fee, feel, under* fiand, will and execute, % You may know,as is oft faid, that therefore you have an atirue. power to do thefe. 3 You may'thence know, that it is a fubftance which hath that power-Nothing c^n do nothing. 4. You may perceive, that it is not the terrene fubftance, but an invifible fubftance, actuating the body. 5.Y011 may know, that there is no probabili-ty,that (b noble a fubftance fhould be annihilated. 6. Or that a fare and firnple fubftance ihould'be dijj'ofoed by the feparation of parts (or if that were^every part would be zfpirit ftill)7.You have no caufe to fufpe&^that this fubftance fhould lofe thofe powers or faculties which are its effential form^nd be turned into fome other (pedes, or thing. 8. And you have as little caule to fufpe£t,that an effential vital intellective power, will not be aFtrve y when active inclination is its Ejjence. 9. Yoil have no caufe to fiifpe<5t,that it will want Objects to a&ibn in a World of fuch variety of Obje&s. 1 o. And you have as little caufe to E x ftifpefti

fnfpect, that it will be nna&ive, for want of Organs, when God hath made its EjJ'ence a-ctive ; and either can make new Organs-or that which can aft on -matter^n a&ivithout, or on other matter. He that can play on a Lute,can do fomewhat as good 3 if that be broken. 11. And experience might fatisfie yon, that feveral men have feveral fouls, by the fever al and-contrary Operations. i2.Andyou have no reafon to fufpeft, that God will turn many fcom being many,into me\ or that unity ffcould be any of their lofs. All this, Reafon tells you 5 beginning at your own experience, as I bave(and elfewhere more fully)opened.

$-. 57.11. And you have at hand fcnfibk proof of the individuation of fpirits^by Witches, ContraBs&wd Jpparitionsiof which the world J%8S unquefrionable proof,tho there be very many Chears.Read Mr.Glanvili's new Book, publ.ifhed by Dr. Moore, Lavater JeSpettris, i Za : <c^y de AngiitisManlii Colleel.Bodm 7 s Da-woiujlog. Remigius of Witches, befides all the MalUt Afalificoruw, and doubt if you can. If you do, I can give you yet more, with full proof.

£. 3 8. III. 'But all that I have faid to you, but the leaft-parti in companion of thea£ ranee which you, mav have by the fvii

re-

-

C 69 3

rtvelatHn of Jefus Chri;}, who hath brought life and immortality to light in the Go/pel* where the ftate, the doom, the rewards and punifhment of fouls is afferted.

And without dark and long Ambages, or Roman juggles, we prove the troth of this Gofpel, briefly and infallibly thus:

I. The Hiftbry of Chrift's Life, Miracles, Doctrine, Death, Refurrection , At cenfion, the x^poftles Miracles, &c. h proved by fiich forementioned evidence, as hzthphyjlcal certainty: Notfuch asdependeth only on mens hone fly 3 or moral argument, much lefe on a pretended 'determining authority j but fuch as dependeth on necejfary ails of man-> even the confent of all forts of contrary minds and interefts, as we know the Statutes of the Land, or other certain Hiftory. But we are fb far from needing to ask, which part of Chrifiians it is that is this Churchi that is to be believed, that it tendeth to the aflertaining of us, that all the Chrifrian World, Papifis, Trotefiantfi Greeks , Mofcvvites , Armenians y Jacoiites, Nefiorians, &c. herein agree, even while they oppofe each other. To know whether there was a Julius, or Auguftm Csc-far % a VirgiUOvid Cicero, and which are their Works ; yea, which are the Ails of Councils, no man goeth to- an authorised determining E 3 Judg

C 70 3

jWg for the matter of Fad, but-'to hifiori-cd proof And this we have moft full.

R And if the HiBory be true, the A>-Brinemuit needs be true, feeing it is fully proved by tjie matters of Fad. Chrift being proved to be Chrift, all his Words muft needs be true.

$. 39. The Gofpel of Chrift, hath thefe four pares of its infallible evidence.

I. The antecedent and inhererent Prophecies fulfilled.

II. The inherent imprefs of Divinity oil the Gofpel it felf unimitable by man. It h&th Gods Image and Superfcripticn ; and its Excellency , propria luce , is difcerni-ble.

III. All the Miracles, and Refurrefiicn, and Afcenxion of Chrift, the Gift of his Spii rit, and extraordinary Miracles of the Ape* files, and firft Churches.

IV. The fanBifying work of the Spirit by this Gofpel, on all Believers in all Ages cf the World, by which they have the Witnefs in themfelves. A full conftant unimitable Teftimony.

$. 40. And now how highly fbever you ihink of Bruits, think not too bafely of Men, for whom Cbrifi became a Savin* :

And •

And yet think not fo highly of Men, Bruits and Stones, as to think that they are God; And think not that your true diligence hath confounded yon,. but either your negligence, or feducers, or the unhappy ftifling of obvious truth, by the ill ordering of your thoughts. And I befeech you remember, that Gods Revelations are (hired to mans ufe t and our true knowledg to his Reflations Hz hath not told us all that man would'knotv,btt( what we muft know. Nothing is more known to us than that of God which is necejjary for us : Yet nothing fo incompf ehenfible as God. There is much of thc'Nature of Spirits,znd the world to come, imfearchable to us, which will pofeall our Wits: yet we have fufficient certainty of (b much as tells us our duty.and our hopes.God hath given us Souls to ufe ,znd' to know only fo far as is ufefdHt that made your IVatch, taught not you how it's made, but how to life it. Infread therefore of your concluding-complaints of your condition, thank God, who hath made man capable to leek him, ferve him, love him, praife him, and rejoyce in hope of promifed Perfe&ion. Live not as a willful ftranger to your Soul and Gg^.Uie faithfully the Faculties which he hath given you : fin not willfully againft the truth revealed>and leave tUngs (ecret to God, till you come into the clearer light: and vou

. C 72 3

(hall have n~> caufe to complain, that God* whofe goodnefs is equal to his greatnefsj hath dealt hardly with mankind. Inftead of trailing fallible man , truft Chri(i^ who hath fully proved his truftinefs ;and his Spirit will advance you to higher things than bruits are capable of. God be merciful to us dark unthankful Turners.

Jl4ar. 14. Ri. Baxter.

1681.

E R RATA.

& K K A 1 Jt. TN the Second Part, p. 12..I. p.for primus tPrimu •*- p. 16. I.21. fori* r. are.

I have not leifure to gather the refr, if there be anv.

OF THE

NATURE

O F

SP

I

ESPECIALLY

MANS SOUL.

In a placid Collation with the Learned

Br Henry Adore,

In a Reply to his Anfvvar to a private Letter, Printed in his fecond Edition of Mr. GUnvihs Saddncsifmis Trs-umphatus.

v . _

By Richard Baxter,

LO NDO N, Printed for B. Simmo»s,\ snhe Three Golden Cocks at the Weft I End of St. Pauli. i68z.

A Letter to the Reverend Dr.Henry More at Chrijls-Colledge in Cambridge.

Reverend Sir, B

I Had anfweredyour defire [ooner 0 but having lent out the Sadduc e Iriumph. 1 ft aid till now to have haA it retumed^being loth to buy a-not her', it cofting me 6 s.) But I was fain to get another at laft, and on the review I find that I have ex-^refly given yon my thoughts already of your notion of a Spirit in my Methodus, having noted it in your Book of Atheifm, and your Encb. Metaphyf. In fhort. i. I think you A a and

and tare agreed that we cannot conceive of a Sprit unico conceptu, but mufl have two 'inadequate conceptions of it: of which one is that which T)r. Gliffon De Vita naturae, calls conceptus fundamenta-lis, and is that which we call Substantia : for we can fcarce think of a Virtus iormalis, which is not fub-ftantiae alicujus virtus, but qua virtus fimpliciter exiflethof itfelf (milefs We r/wft fo think x with fome of God. ) And though this makhh not an aBualcompo/ition, as Matter and Form in mxxxisyet inte lie Eiu ally we muft take it as a diftinff inadequate conceptus.

The other inadequate conceptus is Formal; and I think you andl are agreed that this is Virtus tlna-trina, as described by me, viz,. Virtus Vi-talis, vitalitcr adtiva, perceptivo, appeticiva, as "Dr. GSifTon fpeaks: (of which I make three (pedes as definbed.) And 1 am my felf far better acquainted with the nature of

a Sprif by the eftential.Vinas fcr-rnalis, known to us by itsatis ; (for nothing doth thai which it cannot do ) than from the notion offubftdn-tzatity. And yet I dare not fay thit a fefy-movingprinciple is proper to a Spirit. Nor do I cc panella dc fenfu rer Giiflbn thai would m.: alive hy an tfttntiating.fi very-Elements.

I dijiinguijh Natures into and Paffivc $ andPsifiivity :s a wo fa thatfervtthme as well as materiality .• But whence the Defcenfus gra-vium is, I defeair of knowing ; and if it be of an innate principle J. call it not therefore a Spirit, because it is but paffivcrum motus aggregati-vus ad unicnem in quiete, when Sprits motion is vital and fo eften-tialto them, that they tend not to union in quiescence, but in ever-lajting activity; quitfetnee in inactivity, being as much againft their nature as motion againft a St ones.So A 3 that

that I think we are agreed of th e formal notice cf a Sprit in gene~ ral, and cf an intellective,fenfihve> and vegetative in fpecie.

But truly lam at a lofs about the conceptus fundamentalis,. wherein the true difference lieth between Subftanria and Materia. *Do we by —Subflantia mean a conceptus rea-lis, or only Relative. To f.iy it doth fubftare accidentibuf, freaks but a Relation direffly, and leaves the que ft ion unanfwered, Quid eft quod fubftat accidentibus. To fay it is not 'an Accident i tells us not what it is* bat what it is not. To fay it dothjub-Jlft per fe, either faith no more than that it is Ens reale, or elfe tells us not what it is that doth fubfift. Quoad notationem nominis diftinff from ttfe. doth not materia and fab-ftantiz Jignify the fame fundamental conceptus? And is not the form the 'notifyingdifference? Tou difference Subftance and Mitt er antecedently to the formal difference by Pcne-

trabili-

trability & Impenetrability, Indivi-fibility^Divifibility.^f i.Idefpair knowing m this life, how far Spiritual Subftances are penetrable and indivisible. J grant you fuch an extenfion as Jball free them from being nothing fubftantial, and from being Infinite as God is. z. We grant Spirits a quantitas difcreta ; they are numerous, individuate ; and fornix fe multiplicand Generation is the work of Sprits, and not of Bodies. And how can I tell that God that can make many out of one , cannot make many into one, and unite and divide them as well as Matter ? But ifbejhould, that would be' no deftru5tion of their Species, as the mixtorum dillbluitio is ; but as every drop of divided Water is Water x & one Candle lighting many, andmany joyned in one, are all the fame fire; fo much more would it be with Spirits, were they united or divided; and their locality A 4 and

♦

and getoetrability are pajl cnr conceit. 3. Bat were we \tire of "what we [ay therein ; thefe two ("Penetrability and Jndivifibi!ity ) (peak but Accidents, though proper ; and therefore are no fi:isfymg notice of the notion c/Subfiancc Spiritual as JiJiinB from Matter. I am hitherto therefore ccnffr<?ined to contain many thoughts in the following compafs.

i. I know Sprits beft by the Virtus vitalis fcrmaiis una trina.

2. / hold that of Created Spirits fubfhntia as notifying a Ba-f s "rcalis, mtfi be the Conccptus Fundamentals.

3. The word ImrrAterial Signifying nothing {but a negation) and Materia being by many Antients nfed in the fame fenfe as we do SubfUntia, / vfiially lay hy the words.

4. I hold to the diflinclion oj Natures, or Subflanccs Paflive and

5. I difnnguijh Spiritual Sub-fiances as [tick by the Parity of the Subftance, be fides the Formal Difference.

6. Ttt I doubt fiot but all Created Sprits are Comewbat Pa/five, quia influxutn caufe prima: recipiunc: And-you grant than a SpilTitude and Extenfion, which fgnifie as much as many mean thai call them Material. But Cnftom having made Materia, bat fpecially Corpus, to fgnifie onely fuc fyftfofc fcr Subftance as the three c Paj]lve Elements have, I yield fo to fay, that Jpirits arc not Corporeal w Materia!.

7. Though I run not into the excefs of Ludov. Le Grand de Igne (nor ^/Te!cfius or Patricius } I would Ignis were better ft tidied: But this Room will not Jerve me to fay what I think of it. But in fo*ie$\ He that knoweth that Ignis is a SubHance, whofe Form it the Pctentia Aftiva movendi,

illuminandi, calefaciendi, thefe as received in a grofs Paflive Body, being but their Accidents oft, but the Igneous Jubilance /// act operating on. them, and ccnceiveth of Spirits, but as Ignis eminenter, that is, of a purer fubflance than Ignis is, which we bell conceive of (next the Formal Virtue) by its similitude, I think knows as much as I can reach of the Subftance of Created Spirits. AndtheGreek Fathers thc\t called Spirits Fire, and difinguifjed Ignem per for-tnas into ]melle:9:ive,Senfitive, and Vegetative or Vifible Fire, (as it is m Aere Ignite,) allowing an Incomprchenfible Purity of Jubilance in the higher above th,> lower Q as in Pajfives Air hath above Water, ^r.) I think di$ {peak tolerably, and as informingly as are the notions of Penetrability and Indivisibility; though perhaps, thefe alfo miy be ufefuA , Sir, I crave your pardon of thefe

curt

curt exprejfions of the thoughts which you defired concerning the dejcnpttcn of a S^rit. fjf God make us truly holy, we /ball quickly know more to our fatisjaffiion. 1 reft

You make £ a Spirit to be Ens, ideoque, Unum, Verum, and that True denotes the anfwe-rablenefs of the thing to its proper Idea, and implies right matter and form duly ton joined. ] Q^ Do you not here make Spirits material ? But no doubt whether

to be called Material or Sub ft an-tial, the form is no: an Jdjujfued thing, but the form of a iina-ple elTence is but an inadeq te conceptus, making no compo-iition.

NATURE

SPIRITS:

A Placid Collation with the Learned Dr Henry More; irpon his Anfwer to a private Letter, publifhed in thefecond Edition of Mr. GUnviks Sadduceifmtis Triumphatm*

Reverend Sir,

§ i.' # l 'Hat my haffy LetterJfjctiU j| occafwnycu to benefit the World with more ofy:<ur Informa-lion, info cmfiderable a pointy as ts the nature of a Spirit,was more than 1 thought of or could hope for : Had J imagined that you would have fa fir honoured it^ I jhoitld have fo written it, as might have drawn outwore of your lnftri0Jop t and made your Anmadvirfions y e t more edifying, § z t J

$ i. I defired you to have for horn the title of Pfychopyrift, for theft Reasons: i. Btcauft it ttndtth plainly to mifinform the Reader, as if I held that Souls (or Spirits') are Fire; whereas in my Books and Letters, I [till fay otherwise . And that they may be fo called not for-nialiter, or univoce, but only emi-nenter and analogice. And when a name on the Title page\ & through the whole, and a fnppqfition in much of your arguing, imply eth that I hold what I renounce, it may wrongyour Reader's under ft anding, though I am below the capacity of being wrofiged.

a. And the fanning of Nick-names en one another in Controver-fiesof Religion,hathfo much caused Schifms, and other mifchiefs i that I confers I the lefs like it about Thi-lofophy. Butlmiift fubmit.

$ 5. My underftanding is grown fo (iijpicioits of ambiguity in almojl all words, that I mufl CQnfefs that what you jay alfoagainfl thofewhom

you

[?]

you call Holenmerians /WNuIlibifts fatisfieth me not, unlefs many terms ufedin the controversies, were farther explainedthanl findthemhere 9 or in your Metapkyficks [your Booh agamft Judge Hale I have not feen. ) But I may take it for granted that you know that they .who ufe the faying of [ Tota in toto, & tota inqua-libet parte ] ordinarily tell us; i. That they ufe the word Tota relatively, and improperly; feeing that which hath no parts is improperly calledTota^. That they mean it but negatively, viz. That the Soul is not in the parts of the body, per partes, part in one party and part in a* not her , but indivifibly. And one Would think this fhould fait with your own hypothejis.

And when I better know in what fenje Locus is ufed, I/hall be fitter to enquire whether Spirits be in loco. Whenfome take it for a circtfmfcri-bing body, and fome for a fubjcdtive body {on which it operaieth) and fome for a me err com pojfef in vacuo,

'andfome for God himfclf in tykom

are all things, the name of a Nulii-bift is as ambiguous to me.

$ 4. Ton tell your Reader that [All created Spirits are Souls in ail probability, and actuate fooie Matter or other. ]

Sir, Thilofophers freedom is if a ally taken eafilycr than 23 Hvines ; 1 will therefore pre fume that cur mutual freedom Jhall not be in the leaf difaftful to either of i.s : And jo I mil ft tell you that I have long taken it for a matter of very great uft to difinguifj unknown things from known, and to bridle my underf and-ing from -prelim 1 rig to enquire into unrevealed things : And I take that boldnefs of Thilofcfihers to have had a great hand in corrupting ^Divinity. Secret things are for God, and things revealed for ns and cur Children, faith Mofes. And when I p'efume ?noft % I do but rnjfl 'lo\e my ft If and tnifufe my underfanding : nothing is goodfor thatvjjuch it 'was not made

for :

15 1 for :Our under ft andings as our Eye3 are made only for things revealed. In many of your Books 1 take this to be an excefs ; And I have oft won-dredatyour Friend, andQfometime ) wine, Mr, G!anvi!e, that after his Scepfis fciemifica, he could talk and write of doubtful things with that firange degree of confidence, and cen-furing ofTDiffenters as he did. I ant accujed of overdoing, and curiofity fny felf: But I tndeavcnr to confine toy enquiries to things revealed.

ThispremifedI fay, undoubtedly it is utterly untevealed, either as to any certainty or probability, that all Spirits are Souls, and actuate Matter. Alafs how Jhould we come to know it. Neither Nature nor Scrip-tilre tells it us.

But i. If this be fa; the diffe-rence between you and the 'Pfychopy-rifis niufi be opened as it is ( much like that of Mammertus and Fauft-us, ) whether the Soul ( or i Spirit ) have Matter by compofition, orfim-B ply

ply uncompounded .• for a body you fuppofe it ft ill to have. Is it Jepara-Me from a Body cr wot ? Jf it be, ivfyy fhouldyou think that it is never fe-paratedl If it can fubjift without a Body, who can fay that it doih not ? Jf it cannot but be inseparable, it is aftrange compofition that God cannotdijfolve. And if it-per if upon the dtftolution, then it was but an Accident of the body y and. not a compounding Subfance. T)r. GlifTons iW^/^ampanella's way is as probable as this ; And I marvel that whenycu have dealt with Jo many forts oj i>if (enters you meddle not with Jo fub~ tile a piece as that old Doff or s de Vita Nature .• I have talkt with divers high pretenders to Thilofo-phy hereof the new [train , and askt them their judgment of D>\ GlifTons Book, and 1 found that none cf than understood /t> but negleiledit as too hard for them> and yet contemned it. He fuppofeth allMatter to be animated without compofition, the Matter andForm being but concept us inade-

cjua-

qitati, of an tmcompounded beingi

however that Matter as fuch bedi-

vifiblejnto atonies, every atome ftill

being uncomfounded living Matter.

Toufttfpofe all Spirit to be in Matter*

but by way of compofition as diftinEi

fabftances, Igo the middle way^and

fefppofe that fubfiance (fimple) is

A&ive or Faflive : that the three

Taffive Elements, EarthJVaterand

Air are animated only by com*

poflticn, or operation of the a£live$

But that the aElive fub fiances have

no comjpofition, ( but intellectual)but

Subftance and\orm <3r^ conceptuS e-

jufdem inadequau. So that what

7)r. Gliilbn faith of every clod and

/lone, I fay only of Spirits, Qoffre I

Jjallfpeak after. )

2. And do you think that the Soul carrieth a body oat of the body in-fipar able with it y or only that it re-ceneth a new body when it puffetb out of the old. If the latter, is there any inftant of time between the difi poffe/Jion of the old, and thepoffefficn of the new, Jf any, then the Soul is B i fome-

[3] Jomet/m* without a body : And bow can you tdlhow long.Tjnot what bo m dy is it that you can imagine fo ready to receive it without any inlerpofiti-on ? I have not been without temptations to over inquifitive thoughts a-bout thefe matters: And I never had fo much ado to overcome any fuch temptation, as that to the opinion of Av-r r hoes, thit as extinguished Candles go all into one illuminated air, fo ftparated Souls go all into one common Anima Mundi, and lofe their individuation i and that Materia rcceptiva individual:. And then indeed your notion Wouldbe probable; for the Anima roundimundum Temper aninm, and fi my (eparated Soul jhould be pill imbodyed in the world, cind fhould hwe its part in the worlds animation ; But both Scripture and Apparitions a^fure us of the individual i*-on of Spirits, andfeparate Souls.

And I confefs to you that I have oft told the Sadduces and Infidels, that urge feeming impofjibilities a-

gainft

gainft theRefurreffiicn, and the aEif vity of feparate Souls for want of Organs, that they are not jure that the Soultaketh not with it, at its departure hence y fome feminal material Spirits {ethereal and airy ; ) and Jo that this spirituous or igneous body, which tt carrieth hence, is a femen to the body, which it (hall have at the Refurreffiion y no man know el h the contrary^ and no man knoweth that itisfo.

The Soul is many months here in organizing its own body in generate on j and more in nourijhing it to a ufe-ful[tate : Thaiparticular organical bodies are made ready to receive themjuft at death , is hard to be believed: That the matter of theVni-verfe is fii II ready is paft doubt.But how orgamzed,or Itow the Soulwor-keth without Organs, we (hall better know hereafter. Tour opinion much favoureth the Tythagoreans ; If the Soul be never out of a body, is tt not as like to come into one new forming in the womb : asintQwe know not what or w her el B * 5 $ 5

[,o]

$ 5. Jcouldwtjhyouhad'printed my Letter wholly by itfelf before y&u had annexed your anfwer, that the Reader might haze under flood it ; which I can hardly do my (elf as you have parceled it. But we mi ft not have what we would have from wi-fer men. \

I take it for an odd method,when I never averted Spirits to be fire, bat denyed it,frfi to bt in your Epiftle feigned to have [aid it, and yet in the aid of it foryju to fay that [ I mean not ordinary five, but that my meaning is mere iubtile and refined] and never tell the Pleader wfyat ri is before you difpute it, and then through the whole anfwtr to dilute en a wrorfg fuppcfition, and mi he end of the Book to confefs again that 1 fay not that Spirits are fire or material.

§ 6. Had I been to choofe an edifying method, we would fir ft have ft ate dour qv.eftion, and agree don the meaning of our terms ; But I mufp follow your ft eps j though I had rather have done other \zi\e.

Ad.

Hit]

**» *&+ *4» «*» *fr* «&♦ «&» «4» «&* ♦ «*» *&>

Ad SEC t: I.

§ i.^TpHat my Notions are likethofeof J Judge Hale, i* no wonder 5 we were no Itrangers to each others thoughts about thefe matters ; and though he and you have had fome peaceable Velitations, I take it for no dilhonour to be of his mind.

1. Be Nomine : There is no fuch agreement among Philofophers of the nams Matter a3 ycu fuppofe. I refer you for brevity, but to a very fmal] Book ofa very Learned Author (advanced by the Preface of one eminent for fubtilty) the Me-taphyficks of Dr. Rich. Crakemhorp, who tells you at large, that Matter is taken either. properly fas you and I do Subftanci) and fo Spirits are material^ or improperly and narrowly for that only which hath the three dimensions 5 and fo Spirits are not materia/. It's unprofitable to cite many more r o to the fame purpofe: And I B 4 fuppofe

[**3

fuppofe you know, that not only Tertul-iian,but many other of the Fathers (many of whom you may find cited by Fattens Reg. whom Mammert-M anfwereth ) fo iifed both Matter and Corpus alfo.

§ 2. The word [Formj is as ambiguous; You and I afe not the only perfons that uie it not in the fame fenfe. Matter in its firit Conceptns called fV/w#/,hath no Form; that is, is conceived of abftra&ed from all Form. Matter in its next Comepttu is conceived of as diverfified by accidents, as quantity, figure,^*;. And fo the 3 pafTive Elements, Earth,Air & Water, are diverfified by many accidents,makingup thatC<w-fiftcnce M which is called their (everal forms\ known only by fenfe, and capable of no perfetft definition. Many fuch paflive Materials conjunft have their Relative Form, which is that Contexture in which con-fifteth their aptirude for their ufe: as a Houfe, a Ship, a Gun, a Watch. In Com-pofitions where the Active natures are added, and operate unitedly on the paifive, there the A&ive is the Form of the Compound, cjuite in another fenfe than any of the former, viz.. as it is principlum motus.

You and I are enquiring of the different Firms of Matter and Spirit : You fay that IrhpcKetrabitityj and DivifibiUty are. the

Form

Form of Matter,and the contrary of Spirit: I fay, that i. Snbftance as Subfiance, f and Matter taken for Subftance, which Dr. Crakenthorpe thinketh is the propereft fenfe ) as fuch hath no Form, that is, in conceptn prima. 2. That fubftance diftinr gui(hed by fubtilty&eraffkude, vifibility and invifibility, quantity, (hape, motion, &c. doth herein differ Modally : And this Mode may well enough be called the Form, before it have another Form: And as the divers forefaid Elements thus differ, fo the fubftance cf Spirits no doubt hath fome Modal Excellency above all Bodies or Matter ftri&Iy or narrowly fo called: And if you will call this a Form, I contend not about the word, but it is but equivocally fo called,.Spirits having another nobler fort of Form. 3. Nothing Hath two Forms univoeally fo called: But Spirits have all that Virtus formails, which I oftdefcribed. which is their very form : There is no Spirit without it: It's not a Compounding part, but the form of a fimple fubftance. Vital Virtue, Vis, Voten-tia attiva, fignificth not the fame thing wjth Penetrability, and Indifcerpibility $ Therefore both cannot be the Form univoeally fo called: And how you could put |>oth thefeyour felfiRto one definition^

as*

[Ml as a kind of Compounded form I wonder. Yea, your two words themfdves fignify roc the fame thing : Penetrable and In-difcerpible are not words of one Signification. And fa rely you will grant that thefe two, Penetrable and hidijcerpibie can be no otherwife a Form to Spirits^ than Impenetrable andDifcerpibk are a Form to Matter. And it's apparent that the firftis but a modal CGnccptHs % and the latter a relative notion of Matter, and ne ; therone nor both are contrary to Firtus VitMis in a Spirit (or Virtus aftiva: ) Meer pafjivc potentiality is rather the contrary difference here.

•And I know not why yon might not as well have named divers other Accidents or Modes, efpecially^wtf;//,and them-no, dimenfio, and called them all the Form of Matter ^as well as your two.

Indeed when we have from fenfe a true notion of Matter, we muft know that it hath jQaantity-:U)d is fmewhere^wd therefore that one part of ir, and ano:hcr pare caravot poffefs juft the fame place, and fa ntyou the Impenetrability: And yon prove Spirits to be fiich fub-f ire extended, and have Amph-

tk , • ycu tiff;pig* 105-. ) and fptjfi-tu<k d be in loco) and in more or left

fpace

fpace varioufly 3 and yet that they have no dimenfions which the Divine Intellect or Power kielf can meafure$ and whether al! the Spirits in the univerfe can be in ecdem p/»»S^anddlI that are finite,con-trafted into that one point, I leave this to Wits more fibril than mine ro judge of. For to tell you the truth, I know nothing at all without the mediation of fenfe, except the immediate ftrtfatioh ic ftlf 1 & the afts of Intellection & Volition orNolition,&'what the Intelftft inferreth of the like, by the perception of theft. I have fcen & felt how Water differtth from Earth, and from that fenfation my Intel* left hath that Idea of the difference which ic hath: But without that feeing and fecU ing it, all the definitions in thewor!d D and all the names of hard and fofr, and dry and moift, would have given me no true notice of the forma! difference, Nowhoicc I in!er, that I have no fenfe ac all of the difference of a Spirits Subftantiality in fuch modes and accidents from that of Matter ; and therefore how can I know ic ? I know by Rowing what kjio^ivg is, and by willing what willing is: And I know that thefe Afts prove a power ,(Jqt nothing doth that which it cannot do, ) and that Aft and Pomr prove a Sk&hahce* (Tor

C 16] nothinghath nothings andean do nothing:') ab eft tertii adjefti ad efifecundi valet ar-gumentum : And I know, that unlefs Light might be called Spirit, Spirits are to me invifible: And fo I can knowingly fay, i. What they do, 2. What they can do M 3. What they are in the genus of Snb-Jtantiality, 4. And what they are not as to many Attributes proper to Vifible Subftances or Bodies $ 5. And I have elfcwhere fully proved in aTpecia! Dif-pute (in Aatthodo Theol.) that the Power of Vital Action, Intellejftionand Volition, is not a meer Accident of thcm,but their very effentidl form. But as to that Modification of their Subftance which is contrary to Impenetrability and Divijibiiitj, I may grope, but I cannot know it pofi-tively, for want of fenfation.

§ 2. Is an Atom Matter ? or is it not ? If one Atom be no matter, then two is none, and then there is none. If an Atom be matter, is it Difcerpibk or not ? If not, how is this the Form of Matter? If it be divifible 3 it is not an Atom 5 that's a contradi&ion. And if every Atom be di-vifible in infinitum, it is as great, or greater than the world, and then there are as many Infinites as Atoms. That three Atoms united pannot be divided juft in

the

the middle, ettamper Divinam Vctentiam, is becaufeitimplietb a contradiction,^/*,, that an Atom is divifible 5 f6 that by you an Atom is a Spirit.

Do you take the word [ Penetrable 3 aBtvely, or pajfivety, or both ? If a£tively according to you Matter is penetrable 9 for it can penetrate a Spirit, that is, po£ fefs the fame place. But I perceive you mean that Spirits can penetrate Bodies, & alfb that they can penetrate one another.

And I fuppofe that by Penetration you mean not that which feparateth parts, of the Matter, & cometh in between thefe parts, i but you mean poflefllng the fame place,as is faid: And if fo,doyou put no limitation? or whar?I ask before,can all the Created Spirits in Heaven and Earth be in the fame Atom cf matter? If fo,are they fhen abfent from all other place ? or is every Spirit ubiquitary ? You confute the Nullibifts by the operation of the Soul on the Body : Ibi cptratnr^ ergo ibi efi : And do you think that all the Angels in Heaven, and all Created Souls may be in one Body by Penetration ? If fo, Are they one Soul there, or innumerable in one man ? And if they may be all in one point, and fo be all one, may they not be divided again ? I confefs my ignorance of the Confidence of fpitkoal . Subftance

[i8] Subftance is fo great, that I am notable to fay 3 that God who hath given Souls anantitattm dtferetam, and made them enumerable, is not able to make one of two, or many, and to turn that one into two, or many again : I am not fure that it is a contradiction; cfpecially if it be true that Sennertns, snd many more fay of the multiplication of Forms by Generation.

But if you take Penetrability pajfivelj i 'then you mean that Spirits may be penetrated by Bodies, or by ore another, of both. No doubt you mean both, and fo, aslfaid, Bodies alfo are penetrable^ both actively and pafTively 5 that is, Bodies can per>etrate Spirits, and be penetrated by Spirits. Whether any Bodies penetrate each other, viz.. whether Light or its vehicle at teaft be a Body, and whether it penetrate the body of Glafs or Chry-ftaJ 3 with more about thefe macters, I have heretofore fpoken in my Rcafons of the Chrifti3n Religion Append. Qbj. 2. p. 525*. and forward.

§ 3. To conclude this3 as in natural mixt Bodies, there are three principles, Materia^ Materia Qifpojitio ( for.that I think is a fitter exprelfion than Privatio) & Forma 5 fo in Jimple Beings there are three (not parr?, but) cencepttts inadtqn*-fianftverafele hereto \ viz,. J- In

I. In the three paffive Elements^Eartby Water and Air, there is in each, i. The Matter, z. The Difpofition of that matter by contexture, and various modes, of which Impenetrability and Divifibility are parts ; 3. The paflive Form reflating from all thefe,which confifteth in their various aptitude to their ufes ; efpeci-ally their Receptivity of the Influx of the A<!tive Natures. Here you put two Attributes together, wtijch are both but parts of the Materia bifpoJitu> y and call them two the Form.

II. In the ASive Natures, there is, 1. The Subjltntiality, 2. The SubftantU Difpoftio, 3.The Form.

Of the firft (notpart^but) inadequate Conccpttis^Snbfiantiality, we agree, of the fecond Conceptus we differ: That fuct Subftances have an incomprehenfible Purity, of which we can have no diftin£ Idea for want of Senfttion, but a General Conception onty 5 and that this Purity (whatever it be) is not the Form of Spirits, but the Subfiantit Difpoftio, is that 1 which I fay : And you fay that Penetrability and Indivifibility are the For?n 9 which fat moft) are but the Difpofmo Subftan-tia; and yet you Joyo the Vital Ktitw as pare of the formal Conception too;

tyiii#

which is quite of another conception. And fo we differ of the third Concerns , viz.. the Form alfo 5 which I affirm of all fimple active natures to be the Virtus jittiva : And it they are Vital 3 the Virtus Vitalis.

Of the name Vita, there is a Contro-verfie^ which muft be diftinguifhed from that de re, If it be true that Dr. Gliffon faith, that every Atom of matter hath in it a Motive Principle without Compofi-tion, then the Motive Virtue is the form of all Matter, as well as of Spirit. If all be to be called Living or Spirit, which hath a Virtus Motiva for its Effential Form, then Ignis ( or <zs£ther ) is Vital and Spirit $ for it hath an Effential Motive Vrinaple as its Form. Therefore the Queftion whether Ignis or <ss£ther) be Life or Spirit, is but a queftion de nomine (fuch as too many ufually in Difputes ma* nage, as if it were de re.) It is no Life or Spirit, if by thofe names you mean only Senftive and Intellectual Natures : But it is Life and Spirit j if by that name you mean only an Effential Formal Motive principle.

I have oft profefled that I am ignorant whether Ignis and Vegetative Spirit be all one (xo which I molt incline) or whether*

■ L2I J

ther Ignis be an A&ive Nature, made to be the Inftrument by which the three Spiritual Natures, Vegetative, Senfitive and Mental work tin the three Paffive Natures: And though I was wont eo think, that what I knew not my fclf, all men of great Learning knew, fpecially fuchas you, in the points which you have with lingular induftry ftudicd ; yet now experience hath banifhed that modeft Errour, and convinced me that other men muft be content with an humble Ignoramus as well as I.

§ 4. And here I muft note, that § 18. p. 127. where you purpofejy define a Spirit, you agree with me : Your definition is [ A Spirit is an Immaterial Sub-fiance intrinfecally endued with Life b and the Vacuity of Motion."] Forgive me for thinking that you are not ftricft enough in your terms for a definition j but plainly you feem to mean the fame as I do, You (hould, I think, have mentioned a Spirit as a fimple Subftance differing from a mixtj and have faid, not only [intrinfe-cally~] endued, forfo is every Animal who is Body as well as Spirit, but alfo endued with it as its fimple Formal EJfhxe.; And whether all Faculty of Motion (e.g. Gravitation) be Life^l am in doubt. But here C 1. You

I. You agree with me inthefirft Concept tm \Subfiarxe{\ And 2. As to that mode of Subftance which I call the Dijpofmo Sub ft an: i& ad Fcrmarr^ you call it but V*'Imm*uri*T\ which is a negative, and fpeaketb nothing pofitivelyj which is fuch an honeft ConfefFion as we poorIg-fiorantsapercly make,, that what the excellent Purity or modal Confidence of Spiritual Subitaoce is as compared to Material (ar Corporeal) becaufe we never faw or felt It as we do Corporeal 5 we do nor formally know, and therefore only tel! men de ger^re, that ir is moft f:*rt and excellent $ hot in fpecial^that we have no true Idea of it, and therefore only tell men what k is not [jiot material'] and not what it is. 3 Bin you name no Formal Differo-ce but Life : When you add [[the Faculty of Motiohl it is a defective Explication of the Virtus Vithli< % which is ever Vmca-triplex^ viz. A8.iv*~ Ve~cepti'v*-ApPttitiva, when it operaterh ro generation or augmentation Ad do you think that 'Life and Immateriality are Sjnonyma\i Or that Life and Penetrable and . Injtjcerpiple, are Synonyma's ? Or that the Form of a Spirit is a Cor//pour?d of fuch and fo many Heterogeneals ? H*d you held to this definition, I think you had done beft. § 5-

§5. Pdg.i29« You fom to. explain immaterial (o as to make Indifcerpibtlitj an immediate Attribute,and expound it, It is indtjcerpible into real Physical parts : (Co is an Acom.) Bat zsPhyficalfigmfieth corporeal, fomewill fay, ic may yet be per po-tenviam divinam divided into Spiritual parts. And you expound Penetrability actively, that it can penetrate the waiter and things of its own kind 2 that is, pafs through Spiritual Sxbftancts : And fuch any grofs Body can pafs through.

§ 6. When Anfw. p. 3. you fay of a Spirit, that it is.jV* fitbtil as to be in fuch (on penetrable."] Anii in Seft. 3 1. to which you refer us, you make the difference of Spirit penetrativg^znd Body impenetrable to be fab tilty and crajfitttde,~] Could atiy of us have (aid more whom you contra1 did? Is SubtUty and Crajfitude the difference between Spiritual Subfiance and Material in their Confiftency ? I have notfaid fo much as this.

§ 7. As to your oft-mentioned per [e <& non per almd, as proper to Spirits, I am pift doubt, that Spirits more depend on God for Being and Morion, than Matter doth on Spirits (^Created. ) But it's difference enough that God giveth them an Effential Formal Virtue felf-movinjj G 21 receptive

CM] receptive of his moving Influx , when Paffives move only as moved by fclf-movers: funlefs the aggregative Motion muft be excepted , of which afterward.)

Ad SECT. II.

§ i. ^TpHree Faults, of which one is a JL Mifchief\ . you find with my Ccnceptus formalis. i. That it leaveth out what is contained in the Conceptus formalis of a Spirit in General^ Penetrability and IndifcerpibilitJ.

Anf. i. It is but the difp*fitioSub$an-ti& at moft, and not a proper Conceptus formalis. z. You leave out other modifications as eflfential. 3. Ic leaveth none out that is known., while I fay that it is Substantia puriffima, which contain-eth your Modes and Attributes with inore if they be true, if not, it avoideth the errours.

§ 2. 2. You fay, [ It puts in Perception, and we have no affurance that apla-ftfcl^ Spirit hath Perception , .but as fuch

hath

hath none : Elfe the Soul would perceive the Organisation of its own Body.

Idnf Dr. GUffon^ ds Vita Nature and CampanelU) have faid fo much againftyou of this, that fap(5ofvng the Reader to have perufed them, I will not repeat ir. Did you think that there is no Perception but fenfitive or Intellectual? Such indeed the vegetative Spirit hath not 3 but it hath a vegetative Perception. A Plant groweth in a Soil of various qualities: ft attra&eth to itfelf that part of Nutriment which is congruous to it, anddi-geftcch that fo Attracted : And therefore it hath an anfwerable Perception, which fort is congruous to it, and which not, when it negledfceth one fort, and draweth another. It doth not fee or feel it, nor under ft and it # but infenfibly perceiveth it.

3. You fay, you [do not eafily affent to that conceit of a Trinity in this Conceptus formalis which 1 make to confift in Virtute una-trrna, vitali, perceptiva, appetitiva.J Anf Nor did I eafily aflent to it 5 nor did Dr.GIiJfon after §0 Years of agc.eafily procure men to aflent to it 5 nor Campanella* take fo marvelloufly with others as he did with our Commsntus and fome fuchj And far be it from me to expect you IJiouId eafily affent to it, when I come C 3 not

not to you as a Teacher. But whereas you fay, that thefe make three no more than lihitnuh Homo, and Brut urn, or C«-piditas, Dcfideritim^ and Fuga^ you fi-Jence me; for it befeemeth me not to fpeak to you in a Teaching Language, 2nd. there is no other- to convince you. And if aH that I have fa id in Method, TheoL will not do ir 3 I confefs it will not cafily be done, Animal, Homo, and Bru-turn, are three words containing only a Generic*l % . and fpecificl^ nature, in twodi-ftindt fpecies of Subjefts: If you think that in the Sun Virtus-motiva^ illumina-tiva, & calefattiva , or in mans Soul a vegetative , fenfitive , and Intellective power or in the latter, mentally-ailtve 0 Intelkllive , and Votiiivt Virtue , are no other, I will not perfuadcycu to change your mind, much lefsgive you any An-fwer to your [imile of Ctipid'ttas. defideri-

Hm > fa£ a > ^ ave thar y° u m 'g' nt almoft as well have named any three Words.

§ 3. But you fay {The Omiffion of Immaterial in )our Conceptus forrnalis, or which is all one of Penetrability and Indif-cerpibiliij is not only a mifta\c but a mif-chzef; it implying that the Virtus Appeti-tiva & perceptiva may be in a Subflance though materia^ whicfc betrays much of the

fa-

L>7 3

fiicccurs which Philofophji a fords to Religion, &c.

Anf. Melancholy may caufe fears by feeming Apparitions. I hope no body will be damned for ufing or not ufirg the Word Material or Immaterial: It's eafie to ud either to prevent fuch dangtr.And I am net willing again to examine the fenfe of thefe words every time you ufe them. You know I laid not thar Spirits are Material: And you fay they are Sab-fiances of Exte/ijiov, Amplitude t SpiJ/itude, Locality, and SubttUj^ as oppotire to Craffitude. And what if another think juft fo of thern^ (or. not fo grofly) and yet call them Matter, will the word undoe him? But you fay I omitt Immaterial._ Anf % See Ifly Append, to Reaf, ofChrift. ReL whether I omit it: But is a bare Negative EJfemial to a juft definition" here ? Why then not many Negatives more, (as invifitrle, infenfible, &c ) To fay that Air is not Water, or Water is not Earth, was never taken for defining ' nor any mif-, chief to omit it.

But that the ppfitive term Tariffim* doth not include Immaterial, and is not as good 3 you have not as yet proved. Is Sttbftantia purijfima material? Do not you by that intimation do more to ajQTerc C 4 the

the Materiality of Spirits than ever I did ? Have you read what I have anfwered to no Objections of the Somatifts in the a-forefaid Append.

But you fay 5 It impljeth that Virtus perceptiva, &c. maj be in a fnbftance ma-terial. An[. JN(gatnr. If I leave out 20 Negatives in my Definition, it followeth not that the form may be with their positives. But canyouexcufe your felffrom what you call a Mifchief, when you intimate that Subftantia purifiima may be material* Becaufe I onfy called \tf unfit-ma y you fay I imply it may be material*

But I confefs I am too dull to be fure that God cannot endue matter itfelf with the formal Virtue of Perception : That you fay the Cartejians hold the contrary, and that your Writings prove it, certih-eth me nor. O the marvellous difference of mens Conceptions! Such great Wits as CampAxella, Dr. Giifion, &c. were confident that no Matter in the world was without the una-trina Virtus^ viz. Percept ive % Appetitive, and Motive ; I agree not with them : But you on the contrary fay, that Materia qtialnercun^He modtfi-cata is uncapable of Perception. I doubt nor, materia qua materia, or yet qua mere moiificata hath no Life: But that it is

UYIC0,-

uncapable of it; and that Almighty God cannot make perceptive living Mattered that by informing it without mixture, I cannot prove, nor I think you: Where is the Contradi&ion that makes it impofli-b!e ? Nor do I believe that it giveth a man any more caufe to doubt (as you add) of the Exiftence of God, or the Im-rnortality of the Soul^ than your Opinion that faith, God cannot do this.

To pafs by many other I will, but recite the words of Micrdim Ethncphron $ li. i.e. 13.p. 23, 24. inftancing in many that held the Soul to be Par* Matter. {] c Earn Sententiam inter veteres: probavit 4 apud Macrobium , Heraqlitus Phyficus y € cuianima eft Ejfentia Stellaris feintilia ; c Et Hipp arc bus apud Plinium } cui eft c%-c li pars : Ef slfricanus apud Ciceronem € qui dctrahit anitnum ex illis fempiternts

* ignibus qua Sidera vocamusy qu<zqy olobo-c Jt & rotunda divinis animata menvibus

* circulcs fuos orbesq-, conftcinnt edentate c mirabili: Et Seneca qui defcendtjfe e#m c ex illo coelefti Spiritu ait $ Et Plato ipfe 1 qui alicubi animam vocat avJhaJi; tyua* f radians & fplendidum vehiculum : Et £-

* piEletm qui jifira vocat nobis c«aa ^ <royfa l v%&to£dj arnica & cognata element a: Ipfe-

* que $um Peripatetics Arijhides qui earn

quints

[303

\ quint a effentia conftare 9 & ctvihoyy itf c mufor$ ciu^m in animabus ineffc dicit : /»-€ ternoftrates qnoqueScaliger vocat animam € Natxram ccelcftcm & quintan* ejfenttam * alia quidcni a quit nor Element is naiura c pr<editjm } fed non fine onim materia : £4-e dern Opinio arridet Roberto de Flutiibus > &c. And what many Fathers fay I have eJfevvhere fhewe'd.

And yet on condition you will not make the name Subftancs to ilgnifie no real Bsinf^ but a meer Relation, or Jjhfali* tj> I think you and I (hall fcarce ditler in ftnfe.

§ 4, Bat you magnifie our difference^ faying \Jn this you and I fundamentally differ, in that you omit t but I include, Penetrability and IndifcerpibUity in r>&^Goncep^ rns formalis of a Spirit. Anf I thinkyou mean better than you fpeak, and err not fundamentally. 1. I do not think that you: tvYo hard words are fundamentals,, nor that one or both are Synonym* to Immaterial. 2. I do not think but Purijfima includeth all that is true in them, and ib leavetb them not out. 3. I do not leave them out of the Difpfl'io v el modus Snt-ftantia , though I leave them out of the Conceptusformalis. 4. Your fdfaffirm the vital Virtue to be the Concepttt$ formalis,

4 And

[3i] And hath a Sprrit more forms than one? You know of no exiftent Spirit in the World that hath not its proper fpecifick form : And if your raw words had been a Centrical Form, that's no form to the fpecies, but a Subftjnti* difpofirio. Doth he fundamentally err that faith Corpus hu~ manum organicum is not forma hominu ? Or that the puriras vel fabtilitas materia is not forma ignis vel foils y but only the materia difpvfitio? If our little felf made words were fo dangerous on either fide 3 Ifhould fear more hurt by making the form of a Spirit i. To be but the Confidence or mode of the Subftance, 2. And that to confift in divers accidents conjunct, 3, And thofe uncertain in part, or unintelligible, 4. And Spirits to have two Form?, or one made up of divers things, y. And to place the form in a Negation of Matter. What a jumble is here, when the true definition of a Spirit is obvious ?

§5-. You fay ^Penetrability maketh it pliunt andfiibtil, and to a Subftance of fitch Oncnefs and Subtility is rationally attributed^whatever Ailivity^S)mpatby^Synenerry y ^Appetite and perception' is found in the World.

slnf. There is Omnefs in Matter ( \n\ Atoms at lea ft) and doth Penetrability

make

[3*-] make Subtilty? And is Subtilty the difference ? fure, if you make any fenfe of this, ic muft favour the conceit of Materiality more than my term Pnrijfima.

But do yeu verily believe that Penetrability or Subtilty is a fufficient 5 *efficient,or Formal Caufe of Vitality , Perception^ Appetite fandfo of Intellect ion and Volition? I hope you do not: It is the Effential Virtus Formalts (including Potentiam atti-vam, Vim & Inclinationem) which muft immediately caufe the A£ts \ Subtiltyand Penetrability elfe will not do it: No man will grant you that the Propofition is good, ex pi CatifalitatiSj [Gtuodcunqi penetrable vel fubtile eji, ideo necejfariv vivit % percipit^ appetW\ unlefi it proceed a necsf* fitate concomitants & exiflenri*. Yet where you are molt out of the way, you are at it again, that This Miflake is a mifchief,

Ad SECT. ILL <Sr IV.

§ i.\TOut Third Sedtion I am not con-

\ cerned in ; I tell you kill I deny

not your Penetrability and Indifcerpibility,

though I lay not the ftrete on them as to

G<rt?

C33]

\Certainty or Importance, as you do, and |am paft doubt that they do bttt defectively fpeak the Substantiality fub concept!* \modali& difpofitivo^ and are unskilfully called the Forma Spiritus.

§ 2. Your 4th Seftion I had rather not have feen. 1. You diflike that I fay, that [ a felf-moving Principle I dare not fay improper to a Spirit,'} I hope Ignorance I is never the worle for being confeft : All are not fo wife as you. I deny it not 5 but I am not certain that Stones, Earth, and other heavy things,move not to the Earth by a (elf moving Principle. I am not fure that if a Stone in the Air fall down, it is by a Spirits motion, and that God hath not made Gravitation^^ other aggrava-tive motion of Paffives, to be an Effential felf-moving Principle. Few men I think have thought otherwife. And yet I am not fure that all Stones and Clods are alive. If you are, bear with our Ignorance ; for that is no Err our.

§ 3. When I fay [/ confent not to Cam-panelfade fenfu rerum, or Dr Xj\\$qt\ jthat would mak? all things alive by an Effenttoting Form in the very Elements .] Here you talk of foul play, to make one part fijh, and the other fiejhi one part of Matter felfmoved, and other nor,}

ml

'An[. But, worthy Sir, the foul play is yours,that feem to tell your Reader that I do fo, which I never do: That is fcanc fair play. I faid not that Spirits are Matter, and I do but fay I aril ignorant whether Gravitation be from the Motion of a Spirit thruitingdown the.Stone^c. or from an Efiential Principle in the Matter. May not one be ignorant where he cannot chufe? I cannot but much difference the motm aggregative, fuch as Gravitation cau(eth,which is only the tendency of the parts to the wW^thatthey may there reft from motion, from the natural motion of known Life, which abhorreth ceffation. I take Motiu to be no Entity, but a mode of Stibftance j to be in motion or quief-cence,, are feveral modes of ir; and that mode which is mo ft ftated, molt fheweth nature. I lee no contradi&ion in ir, tfrat a Stone fhould fall without Life : I dare not fay, that God cannot make a Rock or Clod to fall by an intrinfick Principle of Gravitation^ without vital motion. And vet I am rndft inclined to your Opinion : But the ftreamofDifiTentcrs obiigeth fuch a one as I am to more modefty than mult beexpe&ed from one of your degree.

§ 4. Next you complain o{[horr:bU Confrfioi^ What's the matter ?* why, to ,

>

include Life in the Conceptus Formalism/ a Spirit (of which Self-motion is certainly an Effect} and jet [ay It is not proper to a, Spirit, \atnf. It's worfethan corifufion to intimate that 1 faid what I did not. Your raying [It's certain^ is no conviction of Hie, thac there is no Self-motion but by Lfe. You think not that Fire livethj and I am not fure that a Stone is a ftlf- mover : I only fay, I kjww net. I never yet faw your proof, that*Ged is able to make no felf-movcr but vital! And if he can, how know I that he doth not /The World fuffers fo much by mens taking on them to know more than they do, that I fear it in my (elf, as one of the worft Difeafes of Mankind.

§ 5". You conclude [ We are to deny Self-motion in the matter it [elf every where as not belonging theretoJntt to Sptr t ]

An[ No doubt but Materia qua talis efi mere pajfiva : But that God can put no ITiOriYc inclination in it, or that he cannot give a Spiritual Viralicy to any matter,are conclufions titter for you than for me.

§ 6. To jfhew why I oft negkdt the name {Matetiaf] (feme taking it for the fame with Sabftance^ and fome only for Corporeity) I faid, that the diftinftion of Nalfres into Active and Ptfiive^ ih'veth

as

C16J

as wel/J] To this you fay [Materiality is a Notion wore ftriEt, dijtintt and fteady.~] Anfi The contrary is commonly known, and before and elfewhere proved 5 when Materia, is not only a very hard ambiguous word (and you have not yet enabled me by all your words, to know what you jnean by it)buteven fuch great men as before named make the more general fenfe (equal toSubftance) to be the more proper: Had all ufed it, as you do, and you made us underftand what you mean by it, I would hold to it accordingly.

You fay, Pajftvity belongs to things Immaterial. Anf I. Pajftvity as exclufive of Attivity, or as predominant, doth not. 2. No Paflivity belongeth to that which is not Matter in the forefaid large fenfc of Matter % of which more anon.

Ad SECT. V, VI

§ i.T Confeft my Ignorance of the

X. C*t*fe of the defcenfa gravium 9 whether it be from a Principle made by God efiential to the matter that deftend-

erii

C37 3 eth, or from an intrinfkk compounding Adive nature, or only from an extriniick Mover. You here bid me not defpair, for it is demonfirable that the defcenfus gravium ts net from any principle fpringing from their own Matter, but from an Immaterial principle diftinft therefrom.

Anfi. All doth not demonftrate to me^ which fbme call demonftration*, I perceive you note not at ^11 what is my doubt, and how can you then folve it ? I do not think that the Gravitation is from a principle fpringing from the Matter. How can a Principle of Motion fpring (rem Matter* But the doubt is of the (everal waies fore-named: i. Whether it be from a principle' in the Matter ,as Dr. Ghffon thought, as a Conceptm inadaquttus of its EfTence, fcr atlea'ft an infeparable Quality or Accident. 2. Or whether it be by an Effentiat Compounding Principle^^«/w*i inhomine: 3. Or by an extriniick Agent only j Did you think thatyou had anfvered thefe ?

You fay, £ which Frincipli to be the Mover of the Matter of the Univerfe^ I have over and over again dsmonjlrated in Ench, Metaph,]

Anf I would have had it plainer, but muft take it as it is. It feems then that yoo think that it is only the 'Ammo. D Mundi t

L 3° J

Mundi, without any fiibordinate moving Principle : But you fhauld have fpoken out. I will not wrong you fo much as to fuppofe that you think any Indifcerpible Spirit proper to a Stone, or a Fox, or an Afs, movcthall the World : Therefore I muft judge that to the Motion of all the Stones, Clods, &c. in the world, there is none but an Univerfal Mover. I confeft I think (as Dr.Gilbert d$ Magn?) and many ethers, that the wlfole7V//^ hath one Adive Principle (which I plainly think is Fire;) and if he call it Amma Tellurite I leave him to his liberty. But I think there are fubordinate particular Moving Principles befides the Univerfal ?

Do you think that only the AnimA Mundi animateth all Animals ? I think you do not $ elfe all Apparitions fiiould be but by one Soul.Befides zwAnima Vni-. verfaltj, there muft be a particular (or fingularj Saul in every Man 3 Beaft, Bird, &c. There muft be more than the Uni r verfal Soul , to make you write, fpeak, do better than others: And if fo,how am I fure that nothing under the Univerfal Spirit moveth defcendemia gravia? In mow projeclorum (another inftance of my IgnoranceJ there is fure fome caufality in Anirna fingulari projicientis. The Univerfal

[39] verfal Caufe is ever one, but excfudeth not fubordinare Moving Caufes. My old Friend Mr. Sam. Got (on Mofis Fhilof.) fuppofeth each Element to have its fpe-cial Spirit: I am not Co well skilled in fuch things, as to come to that certainty which others pretend to: I think to an equal common Motion an UniverfalCaufe may fuffice $ but when Motions differ, I know no^ the different Caufes fo well as fome think they do. How you anfwered Judge Halt of the Rundle in the Water, I know not: But you that think Fire in the Sun to be no Spirit but Matter,I am confident will never make me believe,thatFire and Sun are moved only by the Univerfal Mover, without any motive principle in themfelves. YourMetaphyCc. 13.1 have perufed, and am paft doubt of a Spiritual Moving Power: But two things I fee not proved 5 1. That there are not particular Moving Principles fubordinate to the more Univerfal. 2. That the God of Nature hath not put into the paffive Ele-^ ments, aftrong inclination of the parts to union with the whole, and to aggregative Motion when forcibly feparatedj which Inclination Dr. Gltjfon calleth their EiTen-tial Life ; but I think is fomewhat that deferveth not that name, I have not read

D z your

your Vol Thilofi nor Adnotam. nor An-^ fwer to Judge Hale.

§ 2. Se&. 6. You fay, This is to jojn the property of a Spirit to Matter. Anfa. That's it that I doubt of, whether all Self A motion (under the Univerfal MoverJ be proper to a Spirit,or only Vital Self mot ion. § 3. Your AflTurance of the Earth's Mo-/;^,a(Tureth not me: I have feen a M. S. of your Antagonift's Judge Hale, that in-clineth me to deny it 5 and nothing more than the Igneous nature of the Sun, to which Motion is natural, and the torpid flature of Earth j God making every thing fit for its u(e. But of this, as my judgment is of little value, fo I profefs Ignorance.

§ 4. That there is AVcivitj in fixed Thoughts2 I grant $ for Thinking is siblings But that there is as much A&ivity in the rot-afting of a Rock, e.g. I deny.

§ y. Again, you are at the Mtfcbief of Xeaving out your Penetrability, and Indifi cerp4MUt?,%r\f\ Immateriality $ to which I have oft anfwereipL And I now add, you make it an abfurdity to name that as a Form, which is not proper to the thing : But ImmatcriaIity,Penetrability, or Indif-cerpibility in your own Judgment ( I think) are none of them proper to Spirit.

For

For they are common to divers Accidents in your account, viz* Light, Heat, Cold 3 &c. are all thefe.*.

Ad SECT. VII, VIII

§ i.\7"OU come to the main thing X which I importuned you to blefs the world with your explication of, viz. The true difference of Sub fiance and Matter. And you (ay, It's obvious to any obferving Eje. They differ as Genus and Species. Anf. I would I had an obferving Eye. If hy Matter you mean fenfible Matter, ftich as Man can fee, feel, or rneafure, &c % the difference indeed is obvious: My doubt is here -, feeing you confefs that fabfi are accidentibus is but a relative notion j (and it's.commonly faid that God hath no Accidents, and yet is a Subftance : How true I fay not,) and all your notice of it,befides Negatives is, that [Subftance is a Being fnbfifiing by it [elf] and call this [acomplcat Definition 5] 1. How you can call that a compleat Definition of that wl^ich indeed is not definable^for want o£a Genus: For you fay Metaph.c.z. that Ens quatenm Ens non vajfe effe gbjcftfimMetapbyfica cum tamgene-D 3 rah

rale fit'at & Or dim & Natura & Doftri-*)<z res Thyficas antecedat, &c. But this I Trick not at: Things not definable may be partly known. But 2. whereas it's granted by you, that Subftantia and Vita (or Virtus AH iva) are two inadequate Con* ceptu* of a Spirit, do you hold that the Concepts of Substantiality hath any more in it of Real Entity, than the bare Concepts of Virtus Acliva (or Vitalis) alone ? Or whether the meaning be, that as it is Jies the Virtus AQiva is its total Concepts, and Subfiantia is but added to fignifie that Res ilia qua dicitur Vita vel Virtus Vitalis fubftftit per fe, & non in alio y id efi, von eft Accidens. If this be the meaning that the word J^or Virtus 9 (peak all that is Res, and Subftance fpeak only its ftate,as beings no Accident, but a Self-Being j this is intelligible, and it agreeth with fome mens thoughts of God himfelf. But this feemeth neither to be true (at leaft of Creatures ) nor to be your fenfe. Not true 5 for a Created Virtu* (vel Vita) qtt$ non e(i alicujus Subfiantia Virtus, vel ut Forma vel ut Accidens* feemeth above our reach to conceive. Though \ know many call God Furus AElus,Sc theSchools moftlv agree that Subfiantia is not univo-tally fpoken of God and us, and deny it

C43l to be properly (aid of God $ and I can eafi-ly grant that God is utterly above all formal knowledge of ours $ yet that Created Spirits (hould be a meer Virtus (or Potentia AZiiva^ or Attn*) feemeth hard to believe.

And many words intimate that it is not your Judgment,but that Subftantiality fig-nifieth not only the Modm of the ExV iftence of the ABus Emitativus ,or Virtus, but is the firft half and fundamental 0»-ceptus of a Spirit as Res, fpeaking halfly its Entity. In this I think we agree.

And now if this be fb, this very Concepts of Fundamental Reality, is but that fame which Schibler, and abundance o-thers call Materia Metaphyfica, as different from Materia Phyfca^nd which Dr, • C^^r^rp^&manyothers^takethegene-ral and moft proper fcnfe of 'Materia to contain^ therefore I fay but,thatyou fhould not take an equivocal word for univoca! 3 and lay fo great a ftrefs on an ambiguous name. And I confefs ftill all your names of Indifierpibility, Penetrability and Immateriality^ give me no fcientifical notion of the true difference between the lowed Substantiality of a Spirit, and the higheft of Fire or vEther, or Arifiotelis quint a, ^W*>(which you call Matter.)But lam P 4 fully

[44] fully fatisfiedof an Incomprehenfible Parity of Subftance ; 2. And of the true Form ofa Soul j and I find myfelf to need no more.

§ 2. The 7%omifts take the Faculties of the Soul to be but Accidents fas Mr. Femble de Ong.Formar. doth the Souls of Brutes to be but Qualities of Matter) which I have elfewhcre confuted : And thefe muft needs think that the.Notion of Subftar.tiality is almcft all oi the Soul.

§ 3. You add out of yourEthicks, nuU lim rei intimam nudamq; effentiamcognofci peffe, fed Attributa tantum ejfentialia y ef-fentiales^ habitudines. We are not any way able to difcover the very bare Effence or Subftance of any thing.'] Anf. Yet you fay before, [What can be more plain ? ] and f/r/ obvious to every observing Eye.~] I con-iefs I understand you not: I know no </-fentia that is not tnfima: And if by nudam you mean accidentibus nudatam^ we know no Subftance fo, becaufe there is none fuch created: but we can abftraft the Ef-fence from the Accidents. And if we know-not the nudam ejfentiam of any accident we know nothing. EJJential Attri-fates, and Habitudes are hard words: If by the Attributes you mean the names or fecondjignal notions > we know the EfTence

[4*3

of Letter?, Names, Sentences 5 but by them ut per figna we know the things themfelves, but fcientia abftraftiva non intmtiva. But this is true knowledge of the Eflence fignified. If by the Attributes you mean any Accidents fignified by thofe Names, thofe are noteflential Attributes. But if you mean the Effence fignified you fay and unfay. I am paft doubt that we know the Effences of the immediate Objects of Senfe, and alfo of our own Intellectual A&s. But how? There is fcientia ad&quata and inad&quata: I am paft doubt that nihil ftitur fcientid ad&qttHtd^ ('but only inad<zqnata : And (bftritte, Res if fa non fcitur quia tot a ejus Ejfentia non fcitur $ but aliquid rerum fcitur ^ and this is true of the Eflence itftlf. All our knowledge is partial and imperfeft, a half Science, but it reachech Effaces.

Ad SECT. Fill

§ i.T 7i THereas I think that only %J>4 V V f a Z* mu & expound the difference between the fenfe of Sxbftancc and A/atter^ you deny it not 3 but ft ill mif-"fuppofe that ufe taketh Matter but in one

(enfe^,

[4*] ftnfe^nd never applieth it to fpiritual Sub-ftance. All this de nomine is to little pur-pole, bat I will recite fome words of your own: Ench. Metaph. c.2. p.8,9,io. EJfentia qua nihil aliud eft qnam materia & forma (imul fumpta—Duo principia ilia Entis interna & incomplexa quatenm ens eft % ejfe Materiam & formam Logicam---Et w nin$cu]ufq\ rei quatenm ens eft EJfentia con-fifth ex Amplitudine & Differentia qua am* plitudinem ab amplitudine difcriminat % Nam quod res qualibet aliquatenus Ampla fit > ex eo patet, turn quod id 'voci materia valde confonumfit qua tanquam principium Entis quatenm Ens eft conftderatur 5 turn etiam quod nullam aliam ideam menti noftr& ea afferre pot eft prater banc amplitudinem\ Nee r ever a quicquam ab animis noftris con-cipi omni amplitudine deftitutum — p. 1 o. Ex quibm omnibus tandem proftmt ptacla-rum hoc confe&arium quod omne Ens qua-tenus Ens */?--Quantum, Quale— Ens di-citut refpettu forma^ legitimaq; conditions materia,— Jgjtodomne Ens fit $)jantum } ex

illiw Materia intelligitur Then you

blame them qui imaginantur quadam En-tia omni Materia carentia, etiam hac Lc-gica, otpniqi ad materiam relatione. —p. 12, Omnisfubftantia ex eo quod Ens fir, Mate* riam quandam vel Amplitudinem in fe in-cludat* You

C47]

You fee here how much more now you write againft your felf than me: I never (aid that Spirits are material, nor that every Subftance hath fbme matter, as you do.

§ 2. But this is but Materia Logica. Anf. And thofe that I excufe do but call it Materia metaphyjica : And what's the meaning of Materia Logical If Logick or Grammar ufe fecond Notions, Names, and Signs, if they be not rebus apt at a they are falfe. What is it now but the aptitude of the Name that we fpeak of?

Yea, you that make Spat turn to be God, calling it Locus internus, really diftinU from Bodies^ yet fay that you prove by Apo-dettical Argument s^tt \t\%tribm dimenfi~ cnibm pr&ditum: And no doubt God is a Spirit, fo that you your felf make a Spi^ rit, even the Father of Spirits, to be Matter that hath Amplitudei Quantity , and the three dimenfions 5 And yet write a Book againft one as aflerting Spirits to be matter, who never aflerted it, unlefs the word Matter fignifie but Subftance: For I afcribe no more to it than your Amplitude, if fo much. And yet I take the word Amplitude to fignifie no form at all, no more than Quantity or Dimenfions, or In-divifibility, or Penetrability, but to be

the

the Confiftent Difpofitio SubfiarifU.

And you once hit on that true notion of the Conditio materia as a neceflary Consent us Enti* prater ipfam materiam & for-mam l MetaphyCc. 2. p. 10. \Vernm Ens. dicitttr refpettu forma, Legit imaf, Conditions materia : Neq\ enim Galea ex tenni Papyro fabric at a & concinnata vera, galea eft, fed potius ludicrum illius imitamentum. And foelfewhere. Yet now you make the Conditio Sxbjlavtia to be the Form.

§ 3. And whenyou make all Spirits to be Souls, and to animate fame matter, You feem to make God to be but Anima Man-di: And if fo, he animateth it either as a diftind compounding Subftance , as we fay the Soul doth the Body, or elfe a3 the forma rei fimplicis which is but Conceptus inadacjnatpps, as Vitality is forma anima. If in the firft fenfe, you that fay that operation of the Soul proveth locality, and afcribc Amplitude and Qjantity to God, and the three dirnenfions 9 do feem to make him Intellectually though not a&u-ally Divifible: That is, the Intellect may conceive of God as partly in the Sun, and partly on Earth, &c, or elfe you mult ask pardon of your oppofed Holenmerians as you name them,and fay as they,that God is totta in toto & tot us in qsulibet parte.

If

If in the 2d fenfe, then you make the matter only to be Subftance, and God to be but the Form of that Subftance (or as fome dreams a Jguality.) And then I con* fefs yoxJfaNotions of Indifcerpible and Pe± netrablszh very eafily intelligible^ as a-greeing to the meer Far^, (Vitality, A&-ive-power, Wifdom, and Love.)

But how either of thefe notions will ftand, either with Gods Exiftence utfpa-tium infinitum, beyond all Matter, (which you (bmetime hint) or the Infinitenefs of Matter 5 but with intermixt Vacuities ± which (fag. 44. Metafh.) you feem to fuppofe to be communi nature voce coxfir-tnatum) I know not: For then the vactt* am is Deus extra materia???, and fo all Spirit is not in matter. I think that all matter and Spirit is in God $ and that he is much more than Anima Mmdi & omnium ani* marttm.

di SECT. IX,

§ I.HPO your InAifcerfihiiity I further JL fayjdiftinguifh, 1. Bet we en Actual and Intetteftnal dividing $ 2. Between wfcat God can do, and what a Creature

can

.._.-..'

can do, and 3. Between the Father of Spirits and created Spirits: And fo I fay, 1, That if you had fpoken of the meer Virtu* Vitalis of a Spirit, I think it is a contradiction to fay that it is Difcerpible or impenetrable 5 But feeing you afcribe Amplitude, Quantity, and Dirrtenfions, and Logical Materiality to the Subftantiality of Spirits, I fee not but that you make them Intellectually divifible 5 that is, that one may think of one part as here and another there, 2. And if fo, though man cannot Separate or divide them, if it be no contradi&ion God can. Various Elements vary in divifibility : Earth is molt divifible: Water more hardly, the parts more inclining to the clofeft contact: Air yet more hardly: And if as you think theSub-ftance of Fire be material, no doubt the Difcerpibility is yet harden And if God have madeaCreture fo ftrongly inclin'dto thellnity of all the parts^that no otherCre-ture can feparate them butGod only,as if a Soul were fuch$ it's plain that fuch a Being need not fear a DifTolution by feparation of parts: For its own Nature hath no tendency to it, but to the contrary, and no fellow Creature hath power to do it, and God will not do it. God maketh all things apt for their ufe 2 and ufeth things as he

hath

hath made them, He made not Marble and Sand alike 5 nor ufeth them alike. And if he (hould make a Spirit (e.g. an Ani-ma hujm Vorticis, SolisfitelU, &c.) Sfich as he only can divide, but hath no natural tendency to divifion,butfb muchlndifc cerpibility as no Creature can overcome* this (bcfides Scripture) intimateth Gods purpofe about it.

3. But doiibtlefs God and Creatures are both called Spirits equivocally or ana« logically and not univocally: And it is the vileft Contradiction to fay that God i$ capable of Divifion : But whether it be Co with created Spirits I know not: They have paflivity and God hath none. It's no great Wifdom to confefs ones Ignorance $ But not to confefs it is very great folly.

I am fcarce of your mind, that a man may be in the like pxz,z,le in another World as he was in this, tf he methodise not his 'Thoughts aright. But if it be fo 9 you are befi think again.

§ 2. For Penetrability you fay, that one Spirit may have a greater Amplitude than another , and that the parts , as I may jo call them, of the fame Spirit, may in the Contraction of itf If penetrate one another 3 fo that there may be a Reduplication ofEf-fence through the whole Spirit. Anf. You

tempt

tempt me to doubt left you talk Co much againft materiality of Spirits to hide the name of your own Opinion 5 for that which others call materiality. If Spirits have parts which may be extended and con-traded, you'I hardly fo eafily prove as fay, that God cannot divide them. And when in your Writings fhall I find fatisfa-ftion, into how much fpace one Spirit may be extended, and into how little it may be contracted ? And whether the Whole Spirit of the World m^y be contrasted into a Nut-fhell, or a Box, and the Spirit of a Flea may be extended to the Convexe of all the World.

Ad SECT. X.

§ i.T Said, [We grant that Spirits have a X Qnantitas difcfeta $ they are numerous, individuate\ and Formse it muf-tiplicant : Generation is the worl^ofSpirits^ and not of Bodies. *And how can I tell, that jhut God that can make many out of one^ cannot make many into one^ and unite and divide them as well as Matter, ,] You fay, £ This pajfage is worth our attentive confederation. And it. You hence infer Amplitude

LSI J rude and Dimenfion of Spirits. Jlnfat* I meddle not for you, not* againft you : What's this tome ?

§2. Vou ask what arfc the Forrxd cjts<z fs mnltipUcant ? Avf. Senfnive and Rational as well as Vegetative Spirits: You fay, That muft be Creation^ or Self divijion. An[>. No $ it is but Generation. And in Append, to the Reaf of Chriftian Religion, I have partly fliewed that Generation is from God as the Prime Caufe, and yet the Parents Souls as a Second Gaufe 3 Co that fomewhat of a fort of Creation and Traduftion concur: which having further opened in Method. TheoL I here pretermit.

. § 3. But to my Qneftion, IVhy God car,-not mal(e two ofone % or one cftwo, you put me off with this lean Anfvver, that we be not bound to puiLTde our Jelves about it m \Anf. I think that Anfwer might ferve to much ofyourPhilofophical Difputes. Bun if you will puzzle us with a naked Aifer-tion of Indifcerpibility, we muft ask your proof of \x i why God cannot divide and unite extendedamplequantitative Spirits? and if hecan,how you know that he doth not ? or that Indivifibility is the Form of a Spirit 5 when as if Water be divided into drops, every drop is Water iliih

E M

*M SECT. Yl _ t.

§ i.TN your further thoughts of this X Sed. ii. you do firit raif-fuppofe that my Qneftion intimatech fuch a Divi-fibility of Souls, as of terrene Bodies into Atom*, or a contrary Union. Terrene Atoms have the molt imperfed Union. . All the Sands on the (hoar are not only divifible,but partly divided : I cannot fay, that all the parts of the Air are fo 5 much left of the Fire. There is a far clofer U-Monofallthe Subfiance of that LueidCa-'lefaftive Element, than of Earth, Water, or Air.

§ 2. And here I muft inferr, that after Jong thoughts,I doubt not but all things Created are truly one, and truly many : No one particle of the Univerfe is independent on the reft : Parts they are 5 as every part of a Clock or Watch : Every Leaf, and Grape, and Apple on the Tree hath a certain individuate or numerical Being, and yet every one is a part'of the Tree : And every Herb and Tree is a part of the Garden or Orchard, and that a part of £ffg/W,&*c. and all a part of the Earth in which they grow $ and no doubt the

Earth

CJ5]

Earth is as dependant on other pafts of she Univerfe 5 and all on God. We dreani af no total reparation-of any Creature roru the reft, much lefs Spirit?,

But all the Illuminated siirj% mofeofte lamma tenuis (.though compound of^/'r nd Fire,anA called by us Light) tl\an the Sands are oneEartt): And I doubt not but hat Fire, which is the Motive, Illumina-'/w,and Calefaffive Sobftance, in all the [Mr, and elfewhere, is yet much lefs divi-fible than the Air, and Souls than it : So :bat fhouIdGod make many into one,they would be many Individuals no more, but one again Divifible by God himfclf.

§ 3. And you mif-fuppofe me to flip-pole that the whole Subltance of all Hu-maneSouls,ane but the fame which once in Adam- was but one,and from him divided. Writing is a tedious work, becaufe it (b hardly caufeth men to underftand us. I fuppofe that a continued Creative Emanation from the Father of Spirits,giveth out all that Spiritual Subftantialitv which be-cometh new Souls; but thit God hath ordained that the Generating Souls (hall firft receive this Divine Emanation, and be or-^ ganical in communicating it to the Semeti^nd fo to new organ'calBodieSj not that the Parents Souls only difpofe E i the

£M3

the feminal recipient Matter, but are themftlves partly receptive, and then active in the communication: It will be i defedive funilitude if I fay, as a Burning-%te($ by a receptive contra&ion of theSui Beams, is inftrumental in kindling com-buftible matter: Rather as one Candli kindleth a thoufand, and yet the fubftanc* of the Lucid and Calid Being, js communi cated from the Ignite Air by the means o that one Candle. (For that it is only Mo pus a MotUt I believe not.)

That you have drawn me thus effutir qx<g circa generationtm, opinor, mull hel| you to be patient with my tedioui nefs. And the rather, becaufe to avoi( offending you, I will now pais by any fur ther Anfwer to your Queries, Whethr Ad am 5 s Soul was a Legion? which elje wz Adam 5 j- Soul? How come they to be Mai and Female ? was that number of Souls ex pandect or contracted? what a change bj Ve nery I what becomes of th? many Souls tn th Chaft? and the reft. I would not by particular Anfwer difgrace your Que ftions, or the jocular urgent amplificati ons. No doubt Lights are too low Illu ftrations 5 but the higheft within the read of fenfe. There was not a Legion o Candles in that which lighted a Legion

no

IU7J or need I tell you whicfi of the lighted Randies was that which lighted it } nor vrhy lighting more confumed not thefirftj ior why it kindled a Wax-Candle , and

Tallow-Candle, &c. I knew not till now hat you thought Souls differed in fcex 3 :>ecaufe the Perfons do. But I will not kive againft your Conceit, The Soul of

Male and Female I better undcrftatfd 3 than a Male and Female Soul,

§ 4, But you tell me; / mujl confidcv the Nature of*Light throughly , and IJhall find it nothings but a certain motion of a Medium, whofe panicles are fo or Jo. qualified, fame fuch way as Cartefianifm drives at: But here*s not Subfiances but Motion communicated, &c.

Anf. I had as willingly have heard Car-tefim tell me any Dream elfe that ever came into his Brain: For this I greatly defpife: And wonder not that any man is ignorant of the nature of Spirits, who is fo grofly ignorant of the igneous analogical Nature as he was. I have faid fo much in divers Books sgainft-it, that I will not here in tranfitu any further touch fo no* ble a Subjeft, than to tell you that if you have ftudied the old Stoicks, Platonifts ,• &c % and Tatricim Telefus, Campaneila^ l,ud, U Grande &c. as much as Carte$w t E 3 I piety

I pltty you for believing him. -I doubt not the Subftance of Fire hath a Virtus c< mctiva, as well as illuminative & cale-faftiva: And confcquently that Light and Heat are neither of them without Motion: But that they are a tripple operati-h on of the Vna-trina forma igwa, I am paftlr doubt, (after as hard ftudy as you can ad-vife me to.) But your terms [certain motion] and an (unnamed) Medium, and particles fo and Jo qtialified^ and fome way, &c. are not notifying terms to ine.

That Ltitnen is ipfe motus methinks a man ofc half Cartefmis Age fhould-never dream : That it's an effeS of Motion many flay, and think it fo, as much as Intellection is an effe£t of mental-Vitality, and Volition of Intelle&ion. But (to lay no ftrefs on Sir Ken. Digbfs Arguments) I make no doubt Ignis lacens is as truly a Subftance as a Spirit is. If Light be an Aft or Quality it hath fome immediate Agent or Subject : Ic doth not exift fepa-rated fromtbem.lt is in'the-^/V but as the Recipient, as it is to the Oil of the Candle. The Air fhineth not of itfelf (as the Night informeth us.) It is therefore a Subftance 'that moveth and illuminateth the Air: And ifCkriesYfiW calljrhat Subftance Gtc~ Mi atb?rei 3 or fnateriaf^til^^l need not

a gam?

Z$9l

a game at fuch toyifh words: hi Motm caufeth Senfation^ and IntcllcEtion, which yet by meer motion would never have been caufed, without the conjunct A<fts of the Senfitive and Intellective Faculties as fuch J fo is it of Light. Really when I read how far you have efcaped the delu-fions of Cartefianifm, I am forry that you yet ftick in fo grofs a part of it as this \$$ when he that knoweth no more than motion in the Nature of Fire, which is the a&ive Principle by which mental and fen-fitive Nature operateth on Man, and Bruits, and Vegetables, and all the pa£ five Elements, (if it be not ipfa forma tefforts) and all the vifible aftions in this lower World are performed, what can that mans Philofophy be worth ? I therefore return your Counfel , ftudy more throughly the Nature of /Ethereal Fire,

I find caufe to imagine (by your Wri-tingsj that you are (as Mr. Gfmvile) for the pre-exiftence of Souls before Generation. And when do you think they were all made? And what Bodies did all the Souls that have ever fince been in the Worldanimate,when there was no human Bodybut^Wsand££>/s?Can you con|« fture what A~imaFsthey were before they were men's ? If you o&.rtie one ex-4 E 4 tream

tream (thinking that God made as many "Souls, yea Animals the firft week., asever are in Being to the end of the World) and the Averrhoifts on the other extream (who think all Souls are but one indivi duated by receptive Matter , as "one Sun lighteth many Candies by a Burning-Glafs, and all return as Candles put our, into one again) were to difpute it out by meer Phifofophy (without the Experience of apparitions^) I know not which would get the better.

Ad SECT. XII, XLU.

THe 12. Section being all meer fi&i-on needs no further Anfwer.

§ u Itfeemsyoucall that the [excited Spirit of Nature^] lighting every Candle which other men call Fire : And fo you will number Fire with Spirits.

§2. Your 13. Seftion is ftrangr. r. You fay Penetrability and indr/ilibilicy are not accidents at all, no more than Rationale of a man. Anf Ammarationdis is fo?m<x- hominU in rhe ftrict proper fenfe pf For?nAa$ an Aftive Principle. Indivifi-b!e is a Negative, and it and Penetrable vre the confiftency or mode of the Subv

ftar^oe

ftance ('or, as you call it, Matter:) As Amplitude, Quantity, Spiflitude, Dimen-fions,Locality arc by you fa id to be,which are called Forms in another fenfe, as the paffive Elements differ from each other. But the Principium ABivttm being the true and only Form of a Spirit, thefe modalities and Confiftencies are but conditio materia^ as you call it, or SubftantU as I call it, as to the Form, Yet that Difpoft-tio materia isEflential I have averted.

§ 3. And yet though all along I deny not your two words to be the conditio om-r>isSubftanti&fpirituahs()ome<i with more) I ftill tell you that difficulties make me not lay fo much on them as you do. To . add one more, As I told vou Quality is penetrably as well as Spirit, e.g. heat, Co yet though we commonly fay, it is indi-vifeble, I wifh you would folve this Ob-jeftion ; You prove the locality of Spirits by their operation on this or that Body, (And doubtlefs you may well prove that the Recipient body is in loco , and confe-quently the Agent relatively.J But how fhall we avoid the divifion of Qualities or Spirits ex d'rcijione materia fabjettiva. Eg l£ a red hot Iron be penetrated by the heat,yet if this Iron becqMfrtwo, while hot, andSMcb part fct (per poicntiam ft-

peri-

periorem) at 20 Miles diftance. is not the heat divided with the Iron ? So if a mans Head be ftruck off, and ( by fuch a quick mover as you think moveth the EartbJ the Head in a moment were carried far off, while both parts of the Body are yet alive, is not the Soul in each part? And if the Parts were 20 or 100 Miles a funder, is it ftill one undivided Soul ? % lean fay fomwhat to fatisfiemy feifof this 5 but hardly without croffing fomwhat that you fay.

§ 4. Again when my chief diffent from you is more againft your Confidence than your Ferity, yet you again tell us, that we know not bare EJfences , but Effcntial Attributes. I tell you I take not thefe to be notifying Expreffions : We know fome Eflences either intuitively^ Qck^m faith) or without figns., immediately, e.g. what it is to fee, tafte, hear, fmell, &c. and what to underftand and will. And we know other Eflences Scientia abfira&iv* perfigna. And what good would the knowledge of Attributes elfe do us. Attributes in notione prima are the thing itfelf: And to know an EfTential Attribute, and to know ipfam Ejfentiam Scientia inad&cjuata is all one.But an EfTencial Attribute as no-lio fecund-*} is but (igvum per qnqd res fignu

fie at 4

[63] ficata cegnofcenda e(t : And this is know. ing the Eflence roo, butfcientia abflrafti-vd: And all is fcientiavalde imperfeBa.

§ j. You fay, that Neither the faculty nor Operation of Reafoning is the EJfence^ and confequently not rationale.

Anf Things of fo great Moment fhould not not be obtruded on the World with a bare ipfe' dico. The Acft of Intelle&ion or Reafoning is but tbeEflfence in hoc mo-do: but theF acuity is theEffentialForm of the Soul. When you have confuted the Scotifts, and my peculiar Difpnt. inMeth. TheoL where I think I fully djfprov<e what you fay, I may hear you further.

Ad SECT. XIV, XV, XVI

§ TT^ re y ou w 9 u 'd firft know, How i 11 / know that f^Vitalitas forma-lis belongs net to Matter^ unlefs I have an Antecedent notion of Spirit diftin£t from Matter. Anf. i. I confent not to Dr. GliJfon T who thought aft Matter had a Vital Form. But I undertake not to prove that God cannot endow any Matter with a Vical Form. And forma denominate where I find tfie Form of a Spirit Tie call \i Spirit, . ' 2, Di\

C*4 3

2. Dr. Henry Moore in his Metapb. would ask me, how I know that a Helmet may not be made of Paper 5 and he and I would agree that Paper is not materia difpofitaflni yet we would not call it Galea formam.

§2. Your denial of Subftantiality to be ex traduce , I anfwered before; telling you'that 1 think it is both ex tmanatione creative & ex traduce 9 but not by either alone $ nor allSouls that ever will be, created in Indifcerpible Individuality at once 5 and tranfmutcd from Body to Body. . § 3. When I fay,the NegativeImmateri-4/notifieth not the form, you fay that//»-material implieth Pofitivenefs, An[. Therefore giveus the pofnive notion^ory ougive us no definition, nor any notifying word,

§ 4. When you fay, [Ton believe it is not eafte td gilts #n Example that materia is put in lieu of fubftantia in that adequate* fenfe.2 What abundance of Authors could I name you, yea, have I oft named^ be-fides Dr. Crakenthorp ?

§ y. When- yod fay, [_A!l created Svb-fiance is both Aftive and Tajfive in fome finfe or other.'] It's but to fay, all words a?e ambiguous. So all created Sxbftar>& is matter in firm [enfe or otfor. But one would have though: by your ofc repeat-.

C.60 td denial of the [elf-moving Pcfrer &/ Matter , that jon had thought only Spirits have a feif moving popper. And if fo, will you yet fty, that [this is a di-ftinttion which diftingutfheth nothing ?]] I think thus, Nairn a aftiva as meet a name as Spirits. And that yec it hath fome Pajjivitjr, Damafcene, yea, and Auguftine y de Spir. & Anim. c. 8. fay that is becaufe the Soul \refpsttu incorporei Dei corporea eft."] though in refpettto our Bodies it is Incorporeal: Other Fathers fay much more, but I juftify not their words.

§ 6. Ad 15. Sett. I pretend not to have fueh an Haa cf Spiritual Subftance, as to denominate its confidence more fitly than by Purity ,a word which you alfo'ufe, yet not denying your feveral Attributes,

§7. As to your Do&rine of Atonies , I think no wife man dare fay tfiat God made matter firft in divided Atomes^ and after kt them together. But that God is able to divide all matter into Atomes or indivifible parrs I doubt not. The Virtus FormaHs of Spirirs(and fo fome qualities) confift not ofAtomes: But how farGod can divide the ampleSubftance of themj only teilyou that t know not; and to pre tend tQ know it would be none of my Wifdom. Your Attributes of amplitude, quantity,

dimen-

dimenfions^imply thatGod made fomeSpi-rirs bigger in amplitude than others, as well as Virtuti* fortiori*. Y<ju think I fup-pofe that which you call the Spirit of the Worlds or Nature, bigger in amplitude than the Spirit of a Wren:

§ 8. Ad Sett\ \6. You that fay, Spirits have Extenfion and Sp'Jfitttde, fay that fpijfitude jignifieth wore J ubfiancein lefs com-pafsAnd thetePhrafes found liker to Corporeity than any that I have ufed: More fubftance and lefi fubftance, fpiffitude by Contraction fignifie much change, and fig-nifie that which the Intellect may diftin-guifh into partes extra partes, though undivided which would increafe a mans doubt, whether God be not able to make a bigger Spirit lefs, and a lefs bigger,and to feparate the parts that are fo diftin-guifhablfc in amplitude, and to make one into two, or two into one.

§ 9. Whether zsEtbcr or Fire be materia^ merhinks you fhould be as uncertain at leaft as I. For you fay Light is but motus y of fomwhat excitingfoe Spirit of the World. If it be the Spirit of the world that is the neareft caufe of Illumination by way of Natural activity, than that which VOU call the Spirit of the World, I call Fire $ and fo we differ but de nomine. But

I have

[67 3 I have oft profeft my Ignorance whether Fire, and the Vegetative Nature be all one, (which I encline to think) or whether Fire be a middle aftive Nature between the Spiritual and the raeer paffive,' by which Spirits work on Bodies. I think I fhall quickly know all this better thjin you do.

Ad SECT. XVII, XyiU,XLX.

. § i-/^F your Do&rine of Atomes I Vj' fpake before : I have no mind to examine the weight of your Reafons publickly.

§2.1 thought you that fo extol the Atomifts Doctrine, would have deigned to read at leaft fome of the Leaders of the various Sects: And my undervaluing them is no excufe to you : for as you knew not my judgment/ Co I fuppofe you do not much efteem it. That wJiich I blame them for, is, that Lud. le Grand over-magnifieth Fire y TeUfwszwd Cam-pattella over-magnifie Heat, Patricks o-ver-magnifierh Light, *& Carte fins doth Motion : But if the one Principle of Motion, Light, and Heat, had been better handjed as vne, (as it is) it had been founder, § ?. I

§3.1 need hot your hydn?ftatical experiment of the rifing Rankle to convince me of the Motion of the matter of the World by a fpiritual power: I doubt as little of Spirits as of Bodies : But I un-derftand not What greater wo'nder there is in the riling of your Rundle., than in the rifing of a piece of Timber from the bottom of the Sea j or that the heavieft bo-dy fhould fink loweft if it have way. Whether Water confift of oblong flexible Bodies, I am not much regardful to know: Each of thofe oblong <fres are divifible into Atonies.

§ 4, But as to what hence you infer of Fire, I make no doubt but the FUmcs and the red hot Iron are compouud things j and that the oily or fulphureous matter moved and heated, is the Subftance which we fee. Bat I believe not that bare motion as motion, were it never fo fwifr, wo'd caufe this : But that thefe effecfts are cauied in the capable matter by the fpeci-al adion of a permeant Subftance in itfclf invifiblc as Subftance., whofe form is the Aftive Virtue of 'moving, illaminati ig % and heating, and fo is fenfible only in this triple Effeft. And if you call this a Spirit I jeave you to your Liberty.

# Ad

UW1

JtisIcT. XX. XXL

S i. T^HE feven Propofnions which -L you find in my words I own, fave that the fourth fhould be thus formed [ That xhtSubftantU difpofkio in fire diftinft from the form,beareth fome fuch Analogy to a Spirit ( if it be not one,i//£. Vegetative ) that may fomewhat ferve us to conceive of it thereby, and they that from this Analogy, call it Ignis non formatter fed eminent fr, are excufable } though it can be no ftri$: proper name that cometh not* forma.

§. %. Ad feft. 21. But you ask [Woe-ther by Attive power I mean a power al-xvaies exerting it [elf into ait^fo that this fire isalwaies moving^enlightning^and hot fotm2« liter, elfe why Jhould it be called Ignis? ]

Anfi Anfwer your fe!f,when you (peak of a power ofSenfation, and Intellc&ion and Volition in a Saul, do you mean a power alwaies exerting itfclf into fenfa-tion, Intelleftion and Volition, elfc why is it called a Soul. ] Anf %. I mean a power which hath alwaies an inclination to Ad; & hath its own fecret imminent a<ft 3 &al-vvaiesafts ad extra, when it hath fit re* F cipicnt

[7o] cipicnt objefts.As to your oft mentioned Confutation of Judge Hale, having not read it, I am no Judge of your performance.

You Queftion what is this new igneous fubftance never heard of before ] while in afl Ages it hath been To famous a contro-verfy$ when not only theStoicks but mod oMPhilofophers gave to it fo much more than meet $ when Lnd. Le Grand, would make us believe that it wasalmoft the only God of all the Heathen World, under various names, and while (6 many new Sefts have written fo many volumes of ir, who would have believed that even Dr. Hetiry Afore had never heard of it before f

To your queftion, Is it material or immaterial?"] I itill zn{wtx^material is a word of larger or narrower fenfe, ambiguous : I know that it harh the aforefaid Aftions: And by them I know that it hath the Power fo to adt: and by both I know it is a fubftance capable of fuch power & Afts : And I know that the fubftance is invifible /»y>,buc (ten in its Effe&s. And my brain is too dark to be confident of more: Let him thatknoweth more boaftof it.

§ 3. You fay [ A material Fire diftinEl from the flame of a Can die^ or Fire-Jricl^, or red hot Iron, thtrs is no more ground for ,

than

L7*J dj than material Water dijiinct from Wellsfii-\ vers) Seas, &c.*]

Anf Do you not take Cartefiiu materia fubtilis, \f not globali cetherei, to be in-vifible,8r not alwaies appearing in Candles or Fire-fticks? If a Soul may be a fenfi-rive and intellective Subftance^and yet not be alwaies feeling or underftariding, why may there not be Fire where it fhineth nor. It feemeth you take not the illuminated Air to be Ignite , becaufe it is not a Candle or Fire-ftick: I doubt not but Fire is a Subftance permeant and exiftent in all mixt Bodies on Earth $ & in ipfa tel-lure{m Minerals j in your Blood it is the prime part of that called the S/?*Vif/,which are nothing but the Igneous Principle in a pure aerial Vehicle, and is the Organ of the Senfitive Faculties of the Soul: And if the Soul carry away any Vehicle with it, it's like to be fome of this. I doubt you take the fame thing to be the Spirit of the world 3 whileyou feem to vilifie it.

§ 4. It's ftrange when I tell you that 1 conceive of a Spirit but as Ignis eminent r*r 3 and notformaliter y that you fhould ftili ask whether [take it not for ignis formali-terf I have often faid, that I think Sub-ftances differ fo gradually, that the lower bath ftill fonle Analogy to the higher r F z And

And I ftill fay that Natura Mentalis, & fsnfttiva are not Ignis formaliter^ But whether the NatHYafogetativa be any other than ipfe ignis I know not $ but think it is no other. Do you that better know its confiftence call it Spirit or not as you pleafe.

Ad Seci. 22. 23, 24, 25, 26,27.

§ *• VT Oil puzzle me more and more : JL Before you faid, Fire is nothing bat motion q{ [nlphureous particles^ and only in Candles,Fire-fticks,hot Irons, &c. And yet now T The vehicles of singe Is are Igneous or athereal. ] Is 2n Angel only in a Candle or hot Iron, &c. h motion, yea motion of fulphureous particles their vehicle ? If they are Animals, and have bodies, as you think^ they arefuch as de-ferve a nobler Charader.

§ 2. I tell you ftil], the Greek Fathers, I think,as well as I, calPd mental and (en-fit ive Spirit?, fgnis,but Analogic ally ,which you call Sjmbvlicaily : If that fatisfy you, what have you all this while difputed a-gainft? And if Fire be the vehicle of An* gels it isaftfbftance. An& when you fee Ithe Motion, Light, and feel the heat., do

you

[73] you think, what ever is the Recipient moved Matter, that the invifible Mover is not prefent and contiguous* It is that immediate mover which I call Fire, and am fully fatisfied doth it not by Motion only, but the exerting of its triple Virtue. § 3. You confefs, Sed. 24. the common ufe of the name of Fire applied to Souls by the old Philofophers: and itill you fay it was but Symbolically: and did they find no Reafon to make Fire a Symbol rather than Earth or Water. When I ftill tell you that it is only analogically that Souls may be called Fire, did you fairly to pretend the contrary ?

§ 4. Yea Sett. 2y. You are at it again, faying that £ I Jeem to conceive the Fathers to fpeak^ not Jymbolically , but properly. ] An\. where and when did I fay a-ny fuch thing i will you tell the world that a Man holds that which he never faid,and hath oft written againft,and write a Book againft him on fuch a fuppofition 5 and at laft have nothing to fay but ?mtotem ? I ufe not the words Symbolical and Proper ; they are not precife enough for this fubjeft : I faid more when I faid that Souls and Angels are calledjfr^ only emU nenter & analogice^butnotformaliter : and forma dat nornzn.

F 3 Bat

C743

But you are offended that I fay thofe fSreeli Fathers fpake tolerably and inform-ingly 9 and you fay, It was mifchievoujly, inducing wen to believe the SohI mortal.For Light may be blown out, and hot Iron cooled. Anf Alas! Wha; dry Philofophy is this of Fire7 Is any thing annihilated .when the Candle go^th out ? Was therq not an invifible aftive principle moving your fuppofedfulpbureous particles, which was as immediate an Agent as your Soul is of Senfation or Imelledtion : which re-maineth the fame? But indeed it is Air and not Sulphur which is the firft and neareft Recipient of the illuminating ^ft, and is Conjux Ignis , I fuppofe you'I fay, The Spirit of the World dotb this. Anf Call it by what name you will,//- ts a pure aB-ive Subftance, whofe form is the Virtus mo-tiva, illuminativa & calefa&ivaj I think the fame which when itoperateth on due leminal matter is Vegetative. But the World hath Spiritual Natures more noble than this $ viz,, fenfitive and intellective.

§j. Ad Sett. 26. You fay againft the Fathers^ [When we enquire into the diftinft Nature of things we muft bid adieu to Me-taphors7\ Anf. When I am ignorant of my own Ignorance, I will hear you, I am far from dreaming that I have one formal

Conception

£75]

Conception of God^ but only Analogical: Only that of Ens is difputed between the Thomifts and Scotifts , whether it be Univocal de Deo & Creaturis. And here Analogical is but Metaphorical : And yet ic is not nothing to fee as in aGIafs & enigmatically. And when I can perceive that your two hard words do not only fig-nifie more than negatively and modally 5 or qualitatively, but alfogive us an Idea of a Spirit which hath nothing Metaphorical, but all formal, I (hall magnine them more than I do.

§ 6. You fay we muftfearch out the adequate definition.'] An[ % That [adequate'] is a word too big for me : I dare fay that you have not an adequate knowledg of a-ny thing in the World 5 not of one Fly cr Flea or Pile of Grafs: And can you make adequate Definitions of Angels and all Spirits.? Even who before twice told us that we" know not the intimate effence of things, but the Attributes? Indeed I perceive your Attributes are fuch as will not notifie EflTences. I ask my own experience whether Indifcerpible is a word that giv~ eth 3ny Idea of the Effence, fave negative ( that it cannot be torn into pieces ) and modal ? and I find no other that it ma-Jceth on my Mind.

F 4 The

[?6] The common noce of Matter is, that it hath partes extra partes : and I think you thus make Spirits materia!. You make them parts of the compound Animal: and you deny them to be toti in toto; and you give them !ocalitv,& amplitude, & quantity. And if fo, though they be indifcer-pible, they have continued parts intelligible $ and that part of the Soul is not in one hand which is in the other: and as partes Animalis they are adtually fepara-b!e from the matter. The Spiritus Mxndi you fuppofe to be a great continued amplitude or extended Subftance. ^nd A-tomes are in fome Elements a clofelv continued Subftance. You feem to make all Subftance to be Atonies, fpiritual atomes 2nd material atomes. ^nd I am notfure that God cannot make material atomes fo continued a matter as that no Creature can difcerp them : is it any contradiction? and I doubt not but Souls and^ngels are fo indivifible, as that their Nature tend-eth to continued, undivided Unity, and no Creature can divide them. But that God cannot do it I cannot fay.

Even of the Souls Mortality not only simobius, but many otberChriftian Writers maintain^ that it is mortal naturd, but immortal ex dono\ which is unfitly

fpoken

[77] fpoken but well meant: that is, God hath made their Natures fuch as have no tendency in themfelves to a Diffolution or Deftruftion, but not luch as he cannot difiblve or deftroy; Yea I doubt not but I without a continued Divine Suftentation, all the World would in a moment be annihilated ; Prefervationbeinga continued fort of Creation. Your owning nothing in Fire but what's vifible, I have fpoke to.

di SECT. XXVlll

§ i.T^Hat Spirits are each Ens unum A perfe, Co as to have no divided parts, or fuch as tend to diffolution I doubt not : that they are each one by the continued uniting Influx of that God who continueth their Being, and fo far per aliud , is paft doubt. You here make Metaphyfical Monades abfurd and ridiculous. But is not that a Monad and Atome which is one and indivtfible? though it be not minimum: and if your Penetrability imply not that all the Angular Spirits can contract themfelves into a pHnttumi yea, that all the Spirit of the World may be Co contracted, I find it not yet fufficiently explained: For you never

[78] tell us into how little parts only it may be contracted: And if you put any limits I will fuppofe that one Spirit hath contracted itfelf into the leaft compafs p9fli-We j and then I ask, cannot another and another Spirit be in the fame compafs by their Penetration; If not, Spirits may have a contracted Spifficude which is not penetrable, and Spirits cannot penetrate contra&ed Spirits^ but only dilated ones. If yea, then qu&ro whether all created Spirits may not be fo contracted.

And I (hould hope that your Definition of Spirit excludeth not God; and yet that you do not think that his Eflence may be contracted and dilated. O that we knew how little we know !

And as to your rejection of Metaphor* I (ay, the very name Spirits which you ufe is a Metaphor : rbe firft fenfe being our Breath afpirando, or theAiror Wind: Martinm nameth no fewer than Fifteen fenfesofit^ and Wifdomitfelf faid, i Cor. IC, There is a natural Body , and there is afpiritual Body.

§ 2. You add, [// you will fay ^ that if ^he (hould create juch a Spirit with metaphyseal Amplitude, which though fo large bimfetfyinnot divide^ and fever into part /, be would thereby puzzle his own Omnipotent

[79] cy, at this rate hefhall be allowed to create nothing, no not (o much as matter, nor bim-felf indeed to be.

Anf I had rather tremble at this than boldly anfwerit/Whateverisacontradi&ion cannot be \ and it is not for want of power that God cannot do it: It is no work of power: Had you proved it a Contradiction for God, to make two Spirits of one, or one of two, you had done that part in an eafier way, which I (hould not gainfay. But this Speech of yours is as if you fa\d£He denieth God to be the Creator, or to be God y who faith that God is able to divide an Ample fpiritnai Sabfkance ; that is^ whofaith 9 that this is no contradiction, and that God is Almighty : when our Creed faiths that God is the Father Almighty ma-k p r of Heaven 'and Earth. Cannot he alter or annihilate his own works: Before he made the World, he could have made the ample Subftance of the Spirit of the World into many Spirits: And is he lefs able fo to change it ? If Spirits be unified as the Bodies which they animate, cannot God make many Bodies into one ? Cannot he make many Stars into one ? And then would that one have many unifying Spirits, or but one ? It's a thing fo high as required fomefhew of proof, to intimate

that

[8*3

that God cannot be God, if he be Almighty, and cannot conquer his own Om-nipotency.

§ 3. Your words like an intended Rea-fon are [For that cannot be God, from whom all other things are not produced & created.] Anf 1. Relatively (as a God to m) vC* true 5 though quoad exifientiam EJfcntU he was God before the Creation. 2. But did you take this for any flie w of a proof? The fenfe implied is this, [All things a*e not produced and created by God, ifafpiri-tual ample Sub fiance be divifible by his Omnipotence that made it: Tea, then he is not God. Negatur Confequentia.

M SECT.XXIXXXXXXXL

§ i. \7^0ll fay your definition is more in-X forming than defining a Spirit by Fire, viz. £ a Spirit is an immaterial fub~ fiance indued with Life, and the faculty of Motion ] and virtually containing in it Penetrability, and Indifcerpibility] Anfi. Your definition is common 5 good and true, allowing for its little imperfe^ions, and the common imperfection of mans knowledge of Spirits! The fame things need pot be fo very oft repeated in anfWer to

you;

[SO you : but briefly I fay 5 if by Immaterial

you mean not [without fubft ance~] it fig-nifieth truth: but a negation fpeaketh not a formal eflence. 2. Spirit is itfelf but a Metaphor. 3. Intrinfecal , indued with Life , tells us not that it is the form : Qualities and proper accidents are intrinfecal^.The [ faculty of motion ] is either a tautology included in life, or elfe if explicatory of life, it is defective $ or if it diftribute Spirits into two fores, vital and motive, it fliould not be in the common definition. 5. No Man can underftand that the negative [Immaterial'] by the terms, inclu-deth Penetrability and Indifcerpibility. 6 You do not fay here that they are the form, but elfewhere you do: and the form fhould be expreft, and not only wr-tuallj contained as you fpeak* 7. They are not the form, but the Difpofitio vel conditio adfermam. 8. If fuch modalicies or conftjlence were the/<?m?,rnorefuch fhould be added which are left our. 9. Penetra-* bilitj and Indijctrpibility are two notions, and you fhould not give us a compound form. 10. Yea you compound them with a quite different notion, [ Life and the fa* cultj of motion :] which is truly the form 3 and is one thing, and not compounded of notions fadifFerenr,as Confftence and Virtue

ttie or Popper. ] ii. You fay Life intrin* fecally ijfties from this immaterial fubftance : Bat the form is concreated with it, and iffbes not from it.

You mean well: It is informing truth which you intend, and offer to the world. And we are all greatly beholden to you for (6 induftrious calling foolifh fenfualifts to the ftudy and notion of invifible be-ings^ without which what a Garkafs or nothing were the world. But all our conceptions here iriuft have their allowances, and we muft confefs their weaknete.

And you might have informed us of all that you know, without fathering opinions on others, which they never owned, and then nicknaming them from your own fi&ion : As if we faid that Souls are fire, and alfo took fire as you do for Can-dies, and hot Irons, &c. only.

§ 2. Now I that pretend not to a perfect definition repeat that which is the neareft to it that I underftand.

And firft I am for agreeing on the ftnfe of words before wc ufe them in definitions.

i. I take not the word [ Spirit'] to be of univocM fignification here, but fo analogical as to be equivocal.God and Creatures are not univocally called [Spirits. }

2. I

2. I know not ( and I think no other ) that all Created Spirits in the univerfeare fo far of one fubftantial confidence as thar the word [ Spirit ] univocally fits them all, as a Genus anpong the 15 fenfes of the word beforefaid mentioned by Maxtininsi when we confine it to one, men are apt to boggle at the ambiguity: yet when we have defined it, the name is to be ufed.

3. Materia is as ambiguous as Spirits ; and is oft ufed for Res or Subftantia i which is fundamental to modes and qualities and aftive forms: and oft for fub-ftance of fuch a confiftence as is fenfible (to the higheft fenfes) and a? a mind in the flefh can have an Idea of in its confiftence$ and if you will, fuch as you call Impenetrable and Difcerpibte.

4. The word [fabftance^ itfelf, if ufed only tofignitie, either QwdAity and not Jguiddity y ( as Ens for Qnod eft, and not Qvid e/t 9 and fubfiftit for aliquid fab ft ft it i not telling what ) or relatively only for £&Hod fabfiat accidentikus $ or negatively for S^todnon eft accidens j fid alicjmdfubftffens infe % and include not the notion of Res fundamentalist is not fit hereto be ufed as a Genus 5 but in this fenfe it is.

y. Forma being ofc taken for fitbftan-ti* figttta $ and ofc for the contexture of

cor-

corporealparts making it receptive ofMo-tion, and oft for the union of the moving and the moved parts, and ofc for the moving principle in a compound, and ofc for the Motive or A&ive Virtue in a fimple fubftance, but ever ftrictly for the fpeci-fick conftitucive caufe, per qnam res eft id quod eft $ I take it to be but improperly andequivocally applied to the meerRecep-meconfiftence prefuppofed to the form. Thefe things fuppofed. I prefume not to give a definition of God, but fuch a defcription as we can reach.

Suppofing the word [ Nature ] to fig-nify in general [ Qnoddity and Qniddity ] Ifirftdiftinguifh [ Nature ] into Aftive and Pajfive : By Attive I mean that Nature which hath a formal Power, Virtue, and Inclination to Activity. By PaJJive I mean that Nature which having no fuch A£tive form 5 is formed to receive the Influx of the Aftive.

I refufe not to call the firft Spirit : but beeaufe they fo greatly differ^ I choofe rather the common name of Attive Na* tare jbeing not metaphorical.

2. I fuppofe there is no fuch thing as Spirit ( or Active Nature ) which is not lome fpeciesoi Spirit : Therefore I give no definition of [Spirit] or Active Na-

[*5] Nature in general, for where there is no form and no [pedes there is no proper de-finition.And all Spirit being actually Men-tal, Serfiive oxVegetative^ every thing having but one univocal/orai, I name no form but of each fpeeies, but as in compounds, fo in fimples we mentally diftin-guifh the materia ( velfobfiantia ) Di[-pofitio & forma.

Therefore defining only the fpeeies, I define,N*f*r*!tf Mentalem to be £fabftan-tia PurijfimaVirtttofiflima, Virtute [dlicet. FtrmaliVitaliter-ABiva, Intelleciiva, Vo-litiva (una-trina: ) I define Naturam Ani-fnaltm foufonfitivam^ to be \_foMantiaPu-rior VinucfW)fcilicet, virtute l r itali-Atii-vafovfitiva, Perceptiva-fenfitiva, Appeti-tiva-fcnfitiva.

I have told you oft enough why I fay Purijfoma , including' as much of vour r Immaterial , Penetrable , Indifcer-pible] and more, as is really the fob-ftantia di[po[itioi and if you will call it as fome do forma dtfpofuiva, I quarrel not: But I ufe[?utij[wtal i- to avoid many words, and 2, To avoid pretending to more diftind conceptions of fpiritual con-fiftencies than I find any idea of in my mind.

I ufe but the Comparative degree of G [P*-

£ Vurior and Virtuofor ] to fenfitives, not -being fure that there is not a gradual difference in both confiftency and virtue in thefe fpecies of Spirits.

I define the Vegetative Nature, fuppo-fingit to be ipfe Ignis, to be [fubftantia Pur a, Virtuofa,fcilicet Virtute formaliAcli-va, IUttminativa, Calefattiva $ by which prime operations it caufeth Vegetation, & thereby in plants, Difcr etionerx, Attract io-nem, Digeftionem, &c. by an Analagous .perception, appetite and motion. But thefe actions belong to compounds j And I ftill profefs my felf in thisalfo uncertain, whether Natura Vegetativa and Ignea be all one : or whether Ignis be Natnra organi-ca by which the three fuperior operate on the Paflive. But I incline moft to think that they are all one 5 when I fee what a Glorious Fire the Sun is, and what operation it hath on Earth, and how unlikely it is that fo glorious a fubftance, (hould not have as noble a formal Nature as a plant. And I take all the fuperior Virtues to be the inferior, eminentcr+ and the inferior to have analogy to the fuperiour.

Your frequent repetitions draw me to this repetition. If we agree in the defi-nitions,I will not contend about any name.

And I confefs if you could prove that

Indi-

Indivifibility is proper to any fpecies,then it would be a contradi&ion for ictobe thzv fpecies, and yet to be divifiblt 9 anA Co it would be no adt of Omnipotency to do it. But as in iMaterials, fo as far as I can conceive in Spirituals, to make two into one is no change of the Nature of the things, nor to make one into two. This belongs to Individuation, and not to fpe-cification.

Who can doubt but God being all in all thhgs, he is as intimate to us as our Souls to our bodies, and more : And tho the Schools commonly fay,that God hath noAccidents^dirdonmy diffcnt who doubt, not he hath the accidents of Relations., and dare not fay that all the world Is not Dei Accidens^ while in him we live, and move,and have our being : for I will not, and I do not think that it is Fars DjI, as if he were but Anima mundi^ and yet I I will not fay that the world hath no entity or fubftance$ nor yet that the entity of God and the world, is more than the entity^ or fubftancej of God alone; for to be Minor or Pars is below God. But Accidents though no parts are fubjtanua accidentia. And though I think the Fryar ( Benediftas de Benedilvis ) in Rcgula Perfectionis fpeakcth fanatically when he ta-G 2 keth

keth it to be perfection to fuppofe wc fee and know no being but God • yet we muft know nothing quite feparate from God, and that hath not fome dependent union with him. -And yet while all things are in God, and fo infeparable from him that nothing but annihilation can totally feparate them, yet they are multitudes in themfelves, and wicked Men and Devils are feparated from the influx of his Grace and Glory. And the human nature of Chrift hath fome nearer union with God than other Creatures have.And fo I doubt not but every Creature is fo united to the univerfe, that nothing but annihilation can totally feparate it irom the reft $ and yet this is confiftent with individuation. I remember when I told him, whom you fo oft mention cf ^ttguftines words de-Anima, in which he feemeth to favour the faying that [ All Souls areone % and yet many^] rather than that [ Ml Souls are one and not many J or [ many and not one ^ he feemed much taken with it: all which I mention to infer that there is a [epAr■fbili-ty (from God and the univer/e ) which is no way poffible but by annihilation 5 and in compounds fome feparation of parrs will change the [pedes 5 and if it were proveable which uiqmnas holds, that no

two

two Angels are not of d\&m& Specie j t thm every alteration of the individual might alter thcSf eciest but yet it wo'd be aSpirir, And I have long thought that £o much felfifhnefsas is our fin or imperfeftion,is a potent caufe of makingall men more regardful of Individuation and fearful of lofing it byUnion ofSpirits than they oughtj and that holy Souls will be nearlser one with Chrift and one another than we can here defire or conceive; and yet Individuation fecundumquid at leaft, (hall be continued. But yet I fay, while there is ntunerut am-marnm, and it is uncertain whether alio each Orb hath not one, and you plead for Amplitude, and Minority, (Quantity) and the Bodies animated may as vaftiy differ as a Flea, or a Wren, or a Pigmy, and the Sun, it is quite above my reach to know that a change of Individuals, by making one many, or many one, is a contradifti-od, and fo impoffible.

And as to Penetrability I repeat, that feeing by Penetration I fuppofe you mean not piercing interims, but poffeffingthe fame place with other things, and contraction of itfelf, into lefs amplitude , as I know not how a thing that hath no parts (and that extra partes) can contract itielt into lefs fpace, (which is to contract parts 1 G 3 that

that are no parts) fo I cannot fee but fuch Contraction, and Colocality muft needs be limited , fo as that all the World can* not be deferted and mortified by all Spirits Contraction to cue narrow fpace $ no? yet that at once every Spirit is every where; and when the Contraction and Co-locality is come to thenarroweftpoflible, in that ftate Spirits mult needs be further i npenetrable, that is, no more can be in that fpace.

So that while I am paft doubr,that God hath made Spirits of no kind of parts btit what do naturally abhor reparation, and fo are infeparable, unlefs God will fepa-rate them, and (b there is no fear cf altering the Individuation much lefs thefpe-cies of Souls $1 there flop and will put no more into my definitions of Souls orSpiriti than I know, at leaft as firongly probable, much lefs by laying the formal Eifence on a Compofitionof hard& dpubtful word?, tempt all to believe tkat the very Being ofSpirits is as doubtful as thofe words are,

Ji sectTxxhi,

■ \/Ou (aid, [that aSpirit is Ens, ide-\ oqjie verum, and th.tt Trite wi-

plictk

[>]

plieth a right matter and form duly conjoin-. ed7\ To which I faid, [Do you mt here make Spirits material? ] You anfwered, [I do not make Spirits material in any fcnfe derogatory to their Nature and Perfections.] Reply. Nor do thofe that I excufed ; fo then after all thefe Sections, you make Spirits confift ofMatter and form/in a fenfe agreeable to their nature and perfection : And fo de nomine, you come nearer thofe that you accufe than I do.

§ 2. But you fay, [That Matter and Form I there fpeak^ of , is a Matter and

Form that belongs to Ens quatenus Ens

in a mofl general notion prcfcinded from all l^inds of Being whatever, and therefore belongs to Beings Immaterial.']

Anf If you may fay ghiidvis de quovis^ lay not too great ftrefs on words. Ens qua? tenm Ens hath no Form, nor proper Matter. Em is that terminus ir.eomplexm^ to whofe Conception all other are refolved. Therefore every other conception incom-plcx or complex, muft add fomtvhac to if. It can be no Genu 9 or Species : If it have any kind of Matter and Form it is more than Ens qxatenm Ens\ And fure that which is [prefcinded from all particular kinds of Beings is prefcinded from Material and Immaterial^ unlefs the word [parti-G 4 cnlarj

C9«]

cular~] be a Cothurnus. To fay that £/;* hath Matter and Form,is to fay more than Ens, a mo ft general notion, as you call it.

But xtEnt as the mo ft general notion^havc Matter and f^ra*, then fo hath Spirits, and every fubordinate $ for the general is in them all.

§ 3. But you fay, [/>'* only materia & forma logica.] To which I anfwered before. That's but to fay, It is notio fecun-da, which if it be not fitted adprimam, or tit jignum ad rem fignificandam 3 it is falfe.And we fuppofe you to mean to fpeak truly and aptly. If you (hould mean neither materia ex qua, nor in qua, but circa quam, fo Form may be Matte?.

§ 4, You fay 3 [ Nor is the Form adjoined in a Phyf:ca! Senfe to the Matter, un-lefs where the Form and Matter are Substances really diftixtt.

slnf. 1. I believe not this to be true : If it be,then only Compounds have Form and Matter; but I think Simples have Matter and Form, that are not two Sub-ftancesbut one.As I have oft faid,Dr.(j//^ fon after others moftfubtilly laboureth to prove it of every fimple Subftance, that its Matter and Form are not compound-ing parts , but Cone eft us inad&quati : If $xt Intellect compound and divide its

C93]

own Conceptions that maketb not a real Compofition of two Subftances in the ob-;e<fb 3 but as the Seotifts call ir, of two Formalities^ or Conceptm objectivi: w h ich if you will call a Logical Compofuu-n or Inrelle&ual, if you explain it, the matter is fmall. But befides that Earth, Water and Air have their Matter and d iflerencing Forms, which are not two Subftances, f© hath Fire in a more noble fenfe if it be materia!: And by your Application of the word [Pty/icall yon feem to extend it to Spirits: And if fo, lam paft doubt that the Subftavce and Form of Spirits are not two diftinft conjoined Subftances.

Too many Logicians have hitherto taken the Potentia naturals, or Faculties of the Soul to be accidents in the Predicament of Qjality: Let them call them jQHalitics if they pleafe, but the Seotifts have fully prov'd them to be noAccidents, but the formal Effence of the Soul, (and I have anfwered all ZabaxtlPi Arguments ttbi fap.) And this Virtus for-mails , (yelfa-cultaSj vel potentia a&iva) is not a Sub-ftance joined to a Subftance 5 but the form of a fimple Subftance. But I perceive by your next words that you approve all this, and (peak only of mental Cimpofnion as to Spirits. And I fay that the Mind

(hould

Z9il fliould conceive, and the Tongue fpeak of things as they are, and not at once deny Materiality to Spirits, and call them Logically materfal j or at leaft bear with o-ther&that fay but the fame. If Logical Matter fpeak not Substantiality it leaft, it is delufive.

Your Intcrminata amplitudo founds fo like Infinita, that I am not willing to fay that no Spirit hath anyTerminosSubftantia.

Ad SECT. XXXlll, XXXIV.

The Conclajion. § l.VTOu fay that I wrote not ft curtly, but that I have fujjiciently conveyed my mini to you."] knf I would have done fo, had 1 drcamM of your Printing it. Bat that I did not, appear-eth by your grand Miftake, as if I had aflerted that materiality of Spirits which is proper to Bodies.

§.2. As in all, our difference lieth in a much fmailer matter than you thought, fo in your great defign of convincing the blindedSadduces of this Age, and in the truly pious Conclufion m your 34. Sect. I not only agree with yoiijbuc in my own name, and many others, humbly tender yon unfeigned Thanks.

§ 3. And becaufe I would not feem more di-ft mx from you than I am, I fhall firit tell you, that on theft Subjcdh your thoughts and mine bavphcen fo Long working to the fame ends 3C much in die lame way, that, i6yy. your Book

againft

[9*3

againft Atheifm and my popular difcourfcs of the unrcafonablenefs of Infidelity coming out together, we both ufed many of the fame Hi* ftories of Apparitions, Witches,^ for Confirmation ; and in that Book of yours, you have thefe following words, which if chey are not (as I think they are not) rnifchievous, it's like mine of the fame importance are not fo 3 nor are more fo proved by you than your own.

Antid. Li. I .p. 17. {The -parts of a Spirit can be no more feparated though they be dilated, than you can cut off the E{ays of the Sun by a fair ofScif* fars made of pellucide C try (la 1.2

Appcn. p. 304. {Suppcje a point of Light, from which rayes out a luminous Orb according to vhe ki'iodm Principles ofOptsques: This Orb of Light dvth very much refimble the Nature of a Spirit, which is diffufedand extended, and yet indivifibkz For wee'I juppofe in this Spirit the Center of Life to be indivifible, and yet to diffufe itfelf by a kind of circumfcribedOmnipotency, as the point of Light is difcernible in every point of the luminous Sphere* Andyet fuppofing that central lucid point indivi-fibky there is nothing divifib.le in all w&t Sphere of Light. For it is ridiculous to tbin\ of any Engine or Art whatfoever to feparate the luminous ^aies from the (kining Center, and keep them apxrt by themfelves^ as any man will acknowledge that does but confider the thing we fpeakfof. Now there is no difficulty to imagine fuch an Orb as this, as Sub-fiance as well as a Quality. And indeed this Sphere of Light itjelf, it not inhering in any Subject 1 ■place it occupieth, lookj far more li 1 ^ a Sub fiance than any Accident. And what wefanry ntiadvifidty to befal Light and Colour r, that any point of them Will thus ray orbicularly, is more rationally to be admitted infpiritu.il Sub [lances, whoje centra! Bf fencefpr ends out into afecondary Subflince, r

lumi*

luminous fyys are conceived to/boot out from alu* cidpoint. From whence we are enabled to return an Anfwer to the greatefl difficulty in the forego-ingObjetlion, viz. That the conceived parts in a Sprit have an infeparable dependance on the cen* tral Ejjince, from which theyflw, and in which they are radically contained ; and therefore though there be an extenjion of this whole fubjlantial power, yet one part is not feparable or dijcerpible from another, but the entire Subjiance, as well fecendary as primary, or central, is indivifible. But let us again cajl our Eyes on this lucid point andradiant Orb we have made ufe of: It is ma-nifeft that thofe fyiies that are hindered from (hooting out fo far as they would, need not lofe their Virtue or Being, but only be refletled bacl^ toward their fbining Center \ and the Obflacle being removed they mayfhcot out to their full length again : fo thit there is no Generation of a new F{ay» —-

An& p. 3 57, [When I Jpeal^ of Indivifibility that imagination create net new troubles to her felf, I mean not fuch an Indivifibility as is fancied in a Mathematical point, but as we conceive in a Sphere of Light made from one lucid point or radiant Center. For that Sphere or Orb of Lights though it be infomefenfe extended, yet it is truly indivifible, fuppojing tfie Center fuch. Fot there is no fneans imaginable to difcerpe or feparate any one ${ay of this Orb, and keep* it apart by it felf dhjoined from the Center.

Now a little to invert the Property of this lumi~ nous Orb, when we would apply it to a Soul or Spirit : As there can be no alteration in the radiant Center.but therewith it is ncceffarily in every part cfthe Orb, fo there is alfo that Unity and Individ Jibility of the exterior parts, if I may fo call them, of a Spirit or Soul, with their inmofl Center, that if any of them be affected, the Center of Life

C971

is thereby alfo necejfarily affecled, and theje e£te-rtour farts of the Soul being affetled by the parts of the ObjcEl with fuch Circumftances as they are triythe inward Center receives all Jo circumftanti-a ted, that it hath neceffarily tlx entire and im-confufed Images of thirgs without, though they be contrived into fo ftgall a compafs, and are in the very Center of this fpiritualfubftance; This Symbolical Reprefentation I ufid before % and I cannot excogitate any thing that will better fit off the nature of a Spirit, occ.']

Here is the lame and more than I have faid > unlefs you think Light here to be no Fire 5 buc take Light for a Subftance, and Fiie but for Motion: which if you fay, Jam willing to believe you will recal.

And that a Spirit is in its Contraction impenetrable, let your words tcftific, p. 312,

f TAo77«JWa I define thus: A Powerjn a Spirit of offering fo near to a corporeal Emanation from the Center of \jfe, that it willft petjet~lly fill the Receptivity of Matter into which it has penetrated, that it is very difficult or impojfible for any other Spirit topoffefs the fame, and of hereby becoming fo firmly andclo/ely united to a Body, as both to acYuate and be acled upon, ta affeil and be affecled thereby.

So here is a Spirit when it hath filled a Body > that can no more be penetrated by another Spirit or Body; and fo in this contracted ftate is impenetrable. So that this is but bringing dif-fufed parts clofer together, and thennoothcr can be in the fame place. And is this the necef-farv Form of a Spirit. ;

But may not this extenfion and Indivifibiliry alfo be omitted as too hard, without all the mifchief mentioned by you, and a truer nori-fying Form found out ?

Let

[9*3

Let us hear your felf, p. 559. Ttb prevent all fuch Cavils we/hall omit the Spinojities of the Ex-tenfion or Indivifibility of a Sold or Spirit, and conclude briefly thus : That the manifold Contradictions and Repugnancies we find in the nature of matier y to be able to either thinly or fpontane-oufly to move it felf do well affile us that thefe operations belong not to it, but to fome other Jub-fiance : Wherefore we finding thofe operations in us, it is manifeft that we have in us an immateri-. al Beivg really diftint} from the Body, which we ordinarily call a Soul: The fpeculation of whofe bare Efjencs, though i; may wellpu^le us, yet thofe properties that iCe find incompetible to a Body, do fufficiently inform us of the different Nature thereof: for it is plain {he is a Subflance indued with the power of Cogitation, that is, of perceiving and thinking of Objects, as alfo of pene* trativg and fpontancoufly moving of a Body ; which properties are as immedi 0 ite to her as impenetrability and feparability of parts to the matter, and we are not to demand the caufe of the one any more than of the other .]

So here we have the true Form asfufficient notice.

And if voluntary Motion be proper to a Spirit, I think meer Fire (Solar or Ethereal) is no Spirit 5 ^wtiizW felf moving Power be proper to a Spirit, Fire is a Spirit. And from the Form will I denominate., while you oft tell us, that the Eflehce of Subftance is unknown. (By Effence meaning fomwhat elfe than that which I can fully prove to be the Form.

To conclude, there are thefe different Opinions before us.

I. That the whole Entity or Conceptus realis of a Spirit is Virtus vita!js 7 and is mera forma*

or rather /implex atlus Entitativtts; and that fubftantia is added not as a partial real Concept ttHy but as re\fpeElivc, to notifie that this Virtus vitalis is no Accident,buc a thing that may fub-fiftofitfelf. Some hold this true only of God > and fome of all Spirits: If this be true, your notions of Penetrability and Indivifibiliry are moft cafily defended.

II. That Spirits have two inadequate, real Conceptu$> and that Subftantia is the fundamental as truly as materia is inmeer Bodies, and an incomprehenfible purity of Subftance (or that it is Immaterial, not having partes extra partes with the trine dimenfion) is Subftan-tice difpofmo 5 (yet that this hath degrees as ' the Forms have, all Spirits not being of equal Purity 5 ) And that Virtus vitalis is the partial ConceptiiS) viz. Formalis. And this I enclinc to, as to created Spirits.

III. That theC onceptus formalis of Spirit is this Virtus vitalis, velmotiva, perceptiva, appe-titiva, but that all Matter is eflcntially informed by that Vitality, and fo Mattter and Vitality are the inadequate Conceptus of every Subftance, and that nor by Compcfiuon, but as of one fimple thing. And this is Dr. Glijfons and fome others.

IV. That a Spirit is both a real Subftance, fas the fundamental Conceptiu) and informed both by Immateriality, Penetrability, and /«-difcerpibility y and alfo by a vital and moving Power : But that it exifteth only in Bodies or Matter , and fo always makes up a Compound of two Subftances, (laving that God is infinite, beyond all Matter.) And that all fuch

Spirits

Spirits were at firft made together indivifible Individuals, both that of 'the leaft Creature and of the greateft, but changed from Body to Body, and fo are parts of Animals. This I iuppofe is your Opinion.

Our chief difference is, that I profefs to be ignorant of the Confijiency and Incorporation which you ralk of, and mutt be fo ; Though I am affiired of the Substantiality and Form , which fatisfieth me; for Chrift knoweth all the reft for me.

FINIS.

uc