(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
See other formats

Full text of "Of the immortality of man's soul, and the nature of it, and other spirits : two discourses .."






O F 

And the Nature of it, and 

other Spirits, 

Two Difcourfes : 
One in a Letter to an unknown 
Doiibter , The other in a 
Reply ro Dr. Henry Moms 
Animadverfions on a private 
Letter to him ; which he 
publifhed in his Second Edi- 
tion of Mr. Jojeph GldnviF-9 
SacfdacififtHS Triumphatus^ or 
Hijiory of Apparitions* 



Printed for B. Simons, at the Three Golden 

Cie\s at the Wifi End of St fattls. 1682. 


$• 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 fen fe 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 f elf conceited, and fafii~ 
dious, as to di(dain, or cafi by all that will c oft 
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 Christians that 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 * * 

(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 Com- 
mandments, 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 be- 
lieve the Articles of the Chriftian Faith. The 
Iff ant is faid to make both the Promife and 
Profelfion by thefe Godfathers • who alio un- 
dertake 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- 
inters of thofe that ferioufy practice the b.ip- 
pf^dtfow p when they arc PERJURED and : 



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 infallible proof 'of fupcrnatural 
Revelation. Thefe witneffing works cf the Spi- 
rit > are thefe five: i. His Antecedent Pro- 
phecies, i. His inherent Divine imprefs on 
the Perfbn, Works; and Gofpel of Chrift. 
3. His concomitant Teftimony in Chrifts un- 
controlled numerous Miracles, Re fur reB ion and 
■Afcenfion. 4^ His fubfequent Teftimony in the 
numerous uncontrolled Miracles of the Apo files , 
and fupernatural gifts to the Chriftiansof that 
Age. But tho the Hifiory of thefe be af infal- 
libly delivered to us, as any in the wcrld'^yet 
the di (lance hinder eth 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 fle ft jhe temptati- 

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 we fe 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 li- 
very 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 chal- 
lenge 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. 


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.and Re putaticn^ 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 
hew unlike their lives are to the baptijmalVow^ 
and that they hat e^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 unbelie- 
ver sfi I mufi let the Reader know, that it is be- 
come 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 puz- 
zle men, and convince them ^ that by Reafoning 
they can never attain tofatisfa&icn in thefe mat- 
ters ; 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- 


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 of Apparitions ■; 
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. 

But 1 '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 evi- 
dence 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*. 








In Anfwer to one who 

profeffed perplexing Doiibt- 



Printed for B. Simons, at the Thru 

Qvlden Cocks, at the Weft End 

of St. Pauls. 1 68 a. 

t 3 1 

' — 

- ■ ■■ ^ 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 un- 
dertook 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- 

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 in- 
volved 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 matu- 
rity 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 weigh- 
ed 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- 

That i may therefore put you to as lit- 
tle trouble as I can , I will firft tell, you 
what I do believe, and then what i ftick 

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*. ! 

I 6 ] 

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 no- 
thing, I could do nothing. And Experi- 
ence 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 


C 7] 

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

In this Enquiry I found Man confided 
of fbmething vifible and invifible; the Bo- 
dy 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. Ma- 
ny 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 attri- 
buted 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 di- 
ctates 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 Be- 
ing, 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 de- 
grees 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 be- 
tween the higheft degree of material, ' arid 


the loweft degree of fpiritual Beings , or 
know how they are diverfified, or be cer- 
tain the Being of the Soul is rightly appro- 
priated. For to me,an immaterial and fpi- 
ritual 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 dai- 
ly make ufe of; but that they Were mate- 
rial, appears by thole multitudes of ma- 
terial 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 cre- 
ated 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 men- 
tioned! Man to gonfift of Body, Soul and 
Spirit. . My Argument then is this, God cre- 
ated man of the dufv of the earth. 


But Man confifts of a Body Soul and Spi- 
rit : 

Therefore Body , Soul and Spirit are 
made of the duft , &c and are mate- 

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 hap- 
pening 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 Ex- 
cellencies, fuchaswemake.them, it would 
as foon defer t 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, ra- 

[ "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 King- 
doms, appear ro me, but as the more emi- 
nent 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 augmentati- 
on, and fo far as they are living weights, 
as 1 can perceive from the fame lource. 
But then comes in thofe Natures and Fa- 
culties 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 perform- 
ed, 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 


C i? 1 

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 

As Lire therefore is the Caufe of all 
Motion, and all natural Operation and 
Faculties; yet thofe multifarious Opera- 
tions 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 di- 
vers Weights or Springs. And &S the di- 
ver 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, 


[ 13 1 

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 organi- 
zed. 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 con- 
ceive, 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 ex- 
cellent 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: excel- 
lency ) 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 Endow- 
ments, and eminent Faculties, wherewith 
men feem to excel meer SenfatiVes, arc 
only the improvement of Speech, where- 
in we have the advantage of them, aid 
the refuk of reiterated At> 7 until tb.cy 

C 14] 

become habits. For by the firft we are able 
to communicate our Conceptions and Expe- 
riments 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 no- 
thing to diftinguifh them from Brutes, 
but the outward form, fpeech, and ibme 
little dexterity, fuch as in. Apes or Mon- 
keys, 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- 


[15 3 

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 crea- 
ted, 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 Foun- 
dation, 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 forgot- 
ten, what filly Animals are they? Where- 
as 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 for- 

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 Concep- 
tions; nor find any better way to attain a 
right know 7 ledg of our (elves, but. by be- 
holding our felves in Adam , and enqui- 
ring, 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, ra- 
ther 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 ta- 
ken. And Solomon faith, The (fir it returns 
to God that gave it. Every thing then re- 
turning to its own Element, Iofeth its In- 


cl ividuation. For we fee all bodies return- 
ing 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 delive- 
rance 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 ca- 
pable of multiplication , but of being 
changed. Therefore Nature cannot mul- 
tiply 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 conti- 
nual flux; neither immediately on the difc 
jfolution of a Compound, and Corruption 

a of 

Ci8 3 

of thcbptfy, doth the earth thereof rctiis # 

any ipecifick difference of that body ft once 
was* but is immediately beftowed by Na- 
ture, 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 Ani- 
mals, or Grafs, or Corn , for the nourifh- 
raent of Beafts and Fowl, which again are the 
nouriftrment of men. Thus circularly innume- 
rable times round , Nature continually im- 
preffing new forms of the fame matter. So 
that that matter that now conftitutes my bo- 
dy, 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 for- 
merly 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- 


1 16, ] 

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 be 5 
which'yet, notwithstanding could fire, they 
could not be faid to be the lame bodies, be- 
cause 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 Punish- 

, , Thefe are now my doubts \ but are they 
• the fruits of Diligence ? and am I thus re- 
warded 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 ig- 
norant of thefe DifpiUes, and never have e- 
inerged my felf in this gulf, than thus by Re- 
flection 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 hap- 
py, 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 

[ 2 o] 

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 glo- 
rious boaft of our Lordfhip over you,with 
which we feek to fatishq, our felves, as Pro- 
digals, 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 enra- 
ged : 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 refera- 
ble, ^>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, fince than every brute arid inani- 
mate 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 


[ 21] 

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 gh oft 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 de folate 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 wic- 
ked ^ 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 [otitis in 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 

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 


t 2 ? 1 

know the Truth. Let therefore your An- 
fwer 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 Influ- 
ence to diredt you, and enlighten me, 1 fiib- 
fcrl emyfelf^ 

g 4 ST»> 

[2 4 ] 

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

' you fay you have done. Bu 1 1 . 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 

I have 


I have written on this Subject fo much al- 
ready, 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 Objecti- 
ons. Aftd yet I will not ne^eft your wri- 

$. *.WheiJ 


C 25] 

$.%. When you were convinced, That 
there is a firfiCaufe, it would haveheen an 
orderly prcgrefs to think what that Catifi 
i$; 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 de- 
fine, 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 be- 
fore defining tell you, and better than bare 
defining can ever tell you. Every vital fa- 


C v3 

cuhy hath a felf perception in • its a&ing • 
which is an eminent fenfe ? Intuition alfo of 
ontwaret fenfible Objeffs, or immediate per- 
ception 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 fub fiance 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 Spi- 
rit ? 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 


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 no- 
thing 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 

I V. It is evident, that it is not the wjible 
Body , as compofed of Earth, Water and 
Air, which is this mental Subftance. Nei- 
ther any oneoF them, nor all together have 
Life, Understanding, or Will They are 
fajfvve Beings, and aft not at all of them- 
selves, 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 acci- 
dent, 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 

V I I. 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 at- 
tainments '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 fear- 
ing future Mifery : all which no Bruit was 
ever capable of. Therefore God defigned 
you to fuch ends which you are thus capa- 
ble of 

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

§. 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 Diffe- 
rentia 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 no- 

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 re- 
ally 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 acti- 
on, 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 Prin- 
ciple 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 cor- 
neal. Dr. More tells you , That Pe- 
netrability , and Indivifibility , difference 

But what if fire fliould differ from air 
materially, but in degree of fubtilty and pu- 
rity, or fenfitive Souls from igneous , and 
mental from fenfitzve , but in higher de- 
grees 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 ig- 
nis, the fwfitivt Virtues, nor meer fenji- 
lives ' the iptmal Virtues aforefaid. For- 
ma dat ejfe & nomen. This maketh not 
a meer gradual difference, but a fpeci* 


t 53 J 

There is in Compounds matter* and ma- 
teria: djfpofftio recepi<va* & forma. There 
fe fooiewhat anfwerable in fpiritual imcom- 
pounded Beings. There is fubft antra* 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 penetra- 
bility &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 fub France* of acci- 
dent. 1 f a fub Stance* 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 concentred Soiii? If you mean, 
That it's but a!n accident* that's difprov'd be- 
fore ; 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 

$. ii.' But you would know what's meant % 
(pint, whether all that is net evident to 
I Anf It is a pure fltb fiance (.faith Dr. 
■ictrable and indivifible) effent tally 
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 perform- 
ed! 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- 


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 li- 
ving 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 Mor- 
tar ? Words are ufelefs to fuch Expofi* 

#, 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 Be- 
ing 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 Na- 
tural 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 there- 
fore conducing "Reafcn ; which it .needs 
not to necejjitated afts, as digeftion, moti- 
on of the blood/ formation of the body, 

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 ? 


tune , bepaufe heafteth by free- T 

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 


$. 14. Bnt'never forget this, That no- 
thing; 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 

$.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 inde- 
pendent 011 the reft. 

3. But -yet the parts are multitudes, and 
• heterogeneous , and 'have their Individua- 
tion 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 ano- 
ther. 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 active Natures 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, ani- 
mated by Gcd. But it would be too tedu 
ous to fay all againft this that's to be 

$. 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 
God j 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 ano- 
ther 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 


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, Sun j 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 



^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 dif- 
ference 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'yvrt fa 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 on- 
ly to bind G#</, or the Amima mundi- y 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. 

1 1. 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 


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 


$. '22. You.vairtfy Ifken fever al Naturts 
and Faculties to (everal pieces oj Clock-work. 
For Natures and Faculties Qxefetfracfcxg Prin- 
ciples under the prime Agent : but a Clockis 
only puijfrve> moved by another: Whether 
the motws gravimtioxis 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 vatioufly 5. 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 Ha- 

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 


- [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 aft s ; 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 Facul- 
ties, 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 

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 

You too much co'nfouftd Intellection and 
'Ratiocination'. The prime adts "of" intelle- 
ctive 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- 

$. %$-.. Add page 6. Trt Well known, That- 
the Natives in New England 9 the. moll bar- 
barous k Abajjinesy Gallancs, 8tc. in Ethiopia^ 
have as good natural Capacities as the Eu- 
ropeans. 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 improve- 
ment 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 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. & • 

§. 1 7. 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 

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


C 43 ] 

Anf. This is anfwered before. Thole 
Conceptions are the caufe of mwy/j and ani- 
ons : and is there no caufe of thole Concepti- 
ons ? 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 diffe- 
rence 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 fin- 
gers, 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 under- 
stand, 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 ano- 
ther thing to prove Men to be Beafts, or ir- 
rational 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 


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 enqui- 
ring 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 

D i, Man 

1 50 1 

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 

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

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 

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 Wa- 
ges 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 

L 5i J 

& 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 Crea- 
tures, and how to drsfs and keep the Gar- 
den ? He knew not that Makednefs was fhame- 
ful ; for he had newly made it fhame- • 

Perhaps you think of Adam's forbidden 
dejire of knowledge and hjs miferable attain- 
ment 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 

I 52 3 

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 
Phy fician. 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 im- 
mersed 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), and others (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 


I 5?] 

$>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 Me- 
chanical 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 ei- 
ther 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 no- 
thing but God and dead matter actuated by 
him, I would beg your Anfwer to theie few 

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 no- 
thing but from its Caufe, who can give no- 
thing 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 ei- 
ther 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 Spi- 

?. 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 ell y good. Certainly his goodnefs is equal 
"to his greatnefs , and is commmunica- 


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, Con- 
texture, 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- 

5. Do you think, that fajfi<ve matter doth 
as much manifeft Gods Perfection, and ho- 
nour the Efficient , as vital and Intellectu- 

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 vi- 
tally , than to make meer atcmes , why 
fhould you think that God will not do 

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 commu- 
nicative difpofition to caufe their like? A- 
nimals generate their like : Fire kindteth 
fire : Wife men would make others wife : 
God is effen tial infinite Life, Wifdom and 
Love : and can he, or would he make no- 
thing liker to himfelf than dead Atomes ? 
Yea, you feign him to make nothing but 
by Compofition, while you fay, Th^z mat- 
ter it felf is eternal. 

8. But when the matter of Fa& is evi- 
dent, 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 

£. 31. But if you hold, That we have 

now difiincf Sprits, which are individual 

D 4 Sub z 


'Subfiances, why fliould you fear the lofs of 
our individuation, any more than our anni- 
hilation, 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 In- 
dividuation ? 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 indivi- 
duation : 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 

.Anf. 1. Bodies lo(e but* their Compositi- 
on, and Spiritual forms. Do you think, 
that any Atome lofeth its individuation ? If 
it be ftill divifible in partes infmtas, it is in- 
finite. 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 Infi- 
nites, as Atonies. It is but an aggregative 
motion which you mention. Birds of a Fea- 
ther will flock together, and yet are Indivi- 
duals 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 aggre- 
gation, or union, it is then the VerfeBion of 
every thing. And why fhould we fear Per- 
fection ? 

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 



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 Can- 
dles 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 con- 
ceive, or than this felfifh ftate of man de- 
fireth : But as every drop in the Sea is the 

[ 59 ] 

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 calcu- 
lous 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 tor- 
ment 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 Captivi- 
ty, 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 re- 
ceive 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 won- 
derful 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- 
cifymg Virtue, by the influx of the general 
Caufe, to bring forth thofe Plants, Flow- 
ers, &c. Neither can you know what is 
in the Egg, but by the ripe Bird- nor 


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. [ 

1 62 ] 

$.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/ief which 
makes them capable of being of the Church' 
As we muft be w*» in order of Nature, be- 
fore we are a Kingdom of «;e&; fo we are 
Believers before we are a Church of Belie- 
vers. 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 be- 
lieve ? 

And whom do they believe ? Is it them- 
felves ? I doubt you have fallen into ac- 
quaintance 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 


1*3 1 

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 f elves, 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- 


C H 1 

ft orient knowledg of matter of fact. Tims', 
we know there rs fucha City as Rome, Ta- 
rts, 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 

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

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

Ergo it hath natural necejjary evidence of 

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 In- 
tereft s 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 Tra- 
dition is naturally infallible. 

1 1. But all th« Teftimony which depend- 
eth on humane Adts, not necefj'ary, but free, 
have but an uncertain moral humane Credibi- 
lity. 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. . 

1 1. And to pretend Authority to rule our 

faith, is the moft unfatisfa&ory way of all 

E For 

166 1, 

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, ora party. 

4. And how far their Authority extended! ?. 
Whether to judg whether there be a God, 
or no God \ a Chrift, or no Chrift ; a Hea- 
ven, 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 \nthc Roman 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 Be- 
liever 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 ^ 

167 ] 

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 per- 
ceive, 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 annihi- 
lated. 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 facul- 
ties 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 Ob- 
jects to a&ibn in a World of fuch variety of 
Obje&s. 1 o. And you have as little caufe to 
E x ftifpefti 

I 6B 3 

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 bro- 
ken. 1 1. And experience might fatisfie yon, 
that fever al men have fever al 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. 1 1. 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 Angiitis Manlii 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 

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



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, Mira- 
cles, 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 au- 
thority 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 Church i 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 whe- 
ther 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 be- 
ing 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 

I I. 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- 

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 

$. 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 ob- 
vious 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 'knot v,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 ft ranger 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. 



& K K A 1 Jt. 
TN the Second Part, p. 1 2..I. p.for primus tPrimu 
•*- p. 16. I.21. fori* r. are. 

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



O F 





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- 

v . _ 

By Richard Baxter, 

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

A Letter to the Reve- 
rend Dr.Henry More 
at Chrijls-Colledge in 

Reverend Sir, B 

I Had anfweredyour defire [ooner 
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- 
^re fly 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 con- 
ceive of a Sprit unico conceptu, 
but mufl have two 'inadequate con- 
ceptions of it : of which one is that 
which T)r. Gliffon De Vita natu- 
rae, calls conceptus fundamenta- 
lis, and is that which we call Sub- 
stantia : for we can fcarce think of a 
Virtus iormalis, which is not fub- 
ftantiae alicujus virtus, but qua vir- 
tus fimpliciter exiflethof itfelf (mi- 
le fs We r/wft fo think x with fome of 
God. ) And though this makhh not 
an aBual compo/ition, as Matter and 
Form in mxxxisyet inte lie Eiu ally we 
muft take it as a diftinff inadequate 

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 f elf far 
better acquainted with the nature of 

a Spr if by the eftential.Vinas fcr- 
rnalis, known to us by itsatis ; (for 
nothing doth thai which it cannot 
do ) than from the notion of fubftdn- 
tzatity. And yet I dare not fay th it 
a fefy-moving principle 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 materiali- 
ty .• 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 inacti- 
vity, 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 intellect ive,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 
'notifying difference? Tou difference 
Subftance and Mitt er antecedently 
to the formal difference by Pcne- 


trability & Impenetrability, Indivi- 
fibility^Divifibility.^f i.Idefpair 
knowing m this life, how far Spi- 
ritual 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, indi- 
viduate ; and fornix fe multipli- 
cand 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 Mat- 
ter ? But ifbejhould, that would 
be' no deft ru5t ion 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 uni- 
ted or divided ; and their locality 
A 4 and 


and getoetr ability 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 no- 
tice of the notion c/Subfiancc Spi- 
ritual 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 Vir- 
tus vitalis fcrmaiis una trina. 

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

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

4. I hold to the diflinclion oj Na- 
tures, or Subflanccs Paflive and 


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

6. Ttt I doubt fiot but all Created 
Sprits are Com ew bat 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 ha- 
ving 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 

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 ope- 
rating 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 Jub- 
ilance 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 exprejfions of the thoughts 
which you de fired concerning the 
dejcnpttcn of a S^rit. fjf God 
make us truly holy, we /ball quick- 
ly know more to our fatisjaffiion. 
1 reft 

Your ob! 

<ged Servant", 

AW 17. 



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 ma- 
terial ? 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- 





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

Reverend Sir, 

§ i.' # l 'Hat my haffy Letter JfjctiU 
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 

[1 3 

$ 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 call Holenmerians /WNuIlibifts 
fatisfieth me not, unlefs many terms 
ufed in the controversies, were far- 
ther 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 fay- 
ing of [ Tota in toto, & tota inqua- 
libet parte ] ordinarily tell us; 
i. That they ufe the word Tota re- 
latively, 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 par- 
tes, 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, 

4 and 

'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 Mat- 
ter or other. ] 

Sir, Thilofophers freedom is if a al- 
ly taken eafilycr than 23 Hvines ; 1 
will therefore pre fume that cur mu- 
tual 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 under f 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 under fanding : nothing is 
goodfor thatvjjuch it 'was not made 

for : 

15 1 
for :Our under ft andings as our Eye 3 
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 
fi range 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. 

Thispremifed I fay, undoubtedly 
it is utterly untevealed, either as to 
any certainty or probability, that all 
Spirits are Souls, and actuate Mat- 
ter. 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 insepa- 
rable, it is aftrange compofition that 
God cannot dijfolve. And if it -per if 
upon the dtftolut ion, 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 anima- 
ted without compofition, the Matter 
andForm being but concept us inade- 


qitati, of an tmcompounded beingi 

however that Matter as fuch bedi- 

vifiblejnto atonies, every atome ftill 

being uncom founded living Matter. 

Toufttfpofe all Spirit to be in Matter* 

but by way of compofition as diftinEi 

fabftances, I go the middle way^and 

fefppofe that fub fiance ( fimple) is 

A&ive or Faflive : that the three 

Taffive Element s, 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- 
fi par 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- 

Jomet/m* without a body : And bow 
can you tdlhow long.Tj not what bo m 
dy is it that you can imagine fo ready 
to receive it without any inlerpofiti- 
on ? I have not been without tempta- 
tions to over inquifitive thoughts a- 
bout thefe matters: And I never had 
fo much ado to overcome any fuch 
tempt at ion, as that to the opinion of 
Av-r r hoes, thit as extinguished Can- 
dles go all into one illumi- 
nated air, fo ft par ate d Souls go 
all into one common Anima 
Mundi, and lofe their individuation i 
and that Materia rcceptiva indivi- 
dual:. And then indeed your notion 
Would be probable; for the Anima 
roundimundum Temper aninm, and 
fi my (eparated Soul jhould be pill 
imbodyed in the world, cind fhould 
h we its part in the worlds anima- 
tion ; But both Scripture and Appa- 
ritions 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 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 de- 
parture 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 
it is fo. 

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 : Thai particular organic al 
bodies are made ready to receive 
themjuft at death , is hard to be be- 
lieved: 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 bet- 
ter know hereafter. Tour opinion 
much favour eth 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 


$ 5. J could wtjhyou had '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 mean- 
ing is mere iubtile and refined] and 
never tell the Pleader wfyat ri is be- 
fore 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 edi- 
fying 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 ra- 
ther have done other \zi\e. 



**» *&+ *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 

1. Be Nomine : There is no fuch agree- 
ment among Philofophers of the nams 
Matter a3 ycu fuppofe. I refer you for 
brevity, but to a very fmal] Book ofa ve- 
ry Learned Author (advanced by the Pre- 
face 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 


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 diverfi- 
fied 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 Ma- 
terials 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 ad- 
ded, and operate unitedly on the paifive, 
there the A&ive is the Form of the Com- 
pound, 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 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 Virt us for mails, 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 uni- 
voeally fo called : And how you could put 
|>oth thefeyour felfiRto one definition^ 


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 Signifi- 
cation. And fa rely you will grant that 
thefe two, Penetrable and hidijcerpibie can 
be no otherwife a Form to Spirits^ than 
Impenetrable and D if cerpibk 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 diffe- 
rence 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 there- 
fore 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 varioufly 3 and yet that they have 
no dimenfions which the Divine Intellect 
or Power kielf can meafure$ and whe- 
ther 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 no- 
thing 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 no- 
tice 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 Mo- 
dification of their Subftance which is con- 
trary 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 grea- 
ter than the world, and then there are as 
many Infinites as Atoms. That three 
Atoms united pannot be divided juft in 


the middle, et tamper Divinam Vctentiam, 
is becaufeitimplietb a contradiction,^/*,, 
that an Atom is divifible 5 f 6 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 li- 
mitation? 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 An- 
gels in Heaven, and all Created Souls 
may be in one Body by Penetration ? If 
fo, Are they one Soul there, or innume- 
rable 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 

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 Gene- 

But if you take Penetrability pajfivelj i 
'then you mean that Spirits may be pene- 
trated 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 this 3 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 mat- 
ter by contexture, and various modes, of 
which Impenetrability and Divifibility 
are parts ; 3. The paflive Form reflat- 
ing 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 At- 
tributes 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 Pu- 
rity, of which we can have no diftin£ 
Idea for want of Senfttion, but a Gene- 
ral Conception onty 5 and that this Purity 
(whatever it be) is not the Form of Spi- 
rits, but the Subfiantit Difpoftio, is that 
1 which I fay : And you fay that Penetrabi- 
lity 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; 



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 

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 Mo- 
tive 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 on- 
ly Senftive and Intellectual Natures : But 
it is Life and Spirit j if by that name you 
mean only an Effential Formal Motive 

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

■ 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 Ig- 
noramus 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 defi- 
nition 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. Gra- 
vitation) 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 poor Ig- 
fiorantsapercly make,, that what the ex- 
cellent Purity or modal Confidence of 
Spiritual Subitaoce is as compared to Ma- 
terial (ar Corporeal) becaufe we never 
faw or felt It as we do Corporeal 5 we 
do nor formally know, and therefore on- 
ly 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 on- 
ly tell men what k is not [jiot material'] 
and not what it is. 3 Bin you name no 
Formal Differ o-ce but Life : When you 
add [[the Faculty of Mot iohl it is a de- 
fective 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 im- 
material (o as to make Indifcerpibtlitj an 
immediate Attribute,and expound it, It is 
indtjcerpible into real Physical parts : (Co is 
an Acom.) Bat zsPhyfical figmfieth corpo- 
real, 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 tilt y and crajfitttde,~] Could atiy 
of us have (aid more whom you contra- 1 
did? Is SubtUty and Crajfitude the diffe- 
rence 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 Mat- 
ter doth on Spirits (^Created. ) But it's 
difference enough that God giveth them 
an Effential Formal Virtue felf-movinjj 
G 21 receptive 

receptive of his moving Influx , when 
Paffives move only as moved by fclf- 
movers: funlefs the aggregative Moti- 
on muft be excepted , of which after- 


§ 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^ Penetra- 
bility and IndifcerpibilitJ. 

Anf. i. It is but the difp* fit io Sub $an- 
ti& at moft, and not a proper Conceptus 
formalis. z. You leave out other mo- 
difications 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 Percep- 
tion, and we have no affurance that apla- 
ftfcl^ Spirit hath Percept ion , .but as fuch 


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 Percep- 
tion but fenfitive or Intellectual? Such in- 
deed 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 Nutri- 
ment 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 un- 
der 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- ail tve 
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 Im- 
material 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 


L>7 3 

fiicccurs which Philofophji a fords to Religi- 
on, &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 omit t Immaterial. _ 
Anf % See Ifly Append, to Reaf, ofChrift. 
ReL whether I omit it: But is a bare Ne- 
gative 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 po- 
sitives. But canyouexcufe your felffrom 
what you call a Mifchief, when you inti- 
mate 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 confi- 
dent that no Matter in the world was 
without the una-trina Virtus^ viz. Per- 
cept 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 mater ia, or yet qua me- 
re moiificata hath no Life : But that it is 


C*9 3 

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 re- 
cite the words of Micrdim Ethncphron $ 
li. i.e. 1 3. 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 feint ilia ; 
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<zq- y olobo- 
c Jt & rotunda divinis animata menvibus 

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

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

* que $um Peripatetics Arijhides qui earn 



\ 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 re- 
al Bsinf^ but a meer Relation, or Jjhfali* 
tj> I think you and I (hall fcarce ditler in 

§ 4, Bat you magnifie our difference^ 
faying \Jn this you and I fundamentally dif- 
fer, in that you omit t but I include, Pene- 
trability 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 Im- 
material. 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 Concept tt$ formalis, 

4 And 

And hath a Sprr it 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 Con- 
fidence or mode of the Subftance, 2. And 
that to confift in divers accidents conjunct, 
3, And thofe uncertain in part, or unin- 
telligible, 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 attribu- 
ted ^whatever Ailivity^S)mpatby^Synenerry y 
^Appetite and perception' is found in the 

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


make Subtilty? And is Subtil ty the diffe- 
rence ? fure, if you make any fenfe of 
this, ic muft favour the conceit of Mate- 
riality more than my term Pnrijfima. 

But do yeu verily believe that Penetra- 
bility or Subtilty is a fufficient 5 *efficient,or 
Formal Caufe of Vitality , Perception^ Ap- 
petite fandfo of Intellect ion and Volition? 
I hope you do not : It is the Effential 
Virtus F or malts (including Pot en tiam 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 pe- 
netrable 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 


§ 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 



\Certainty or Importance, as you do, and 
|am paft doubt that they do bttt defective- 
ly 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 Igno- 
rance ; 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 Effent to- 
ting 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,} 


'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 Mat- 
ter, and I do but fay I aril ignorant whe- 
ther 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 can- 
not chufe? I cannot but much difference 
the motm aggregative, fuch as Gravita- 
tion 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 obi igeth 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- mo- 
ver : 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 thereto Jntt 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 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 ambi- 
guous word (and you have not yet en- 
abled 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 accord- 

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. 


§ i.T Confeft my Ignorance of the 

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


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 Imma- 
terial 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 prin- 
ciple 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 prin- 
ciple' in the Matter ,as Dr. Ghffon thought, 
as a Conceptm inadaquttus of its EfTence, 
fcr atlea'ft an infeparable Quality or Acci- 
dent. 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 Uni- 

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 confi- 
dent 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 Na- 
ture 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 

1 4° J 

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 

§ 4. That there is AVcivitj in fixed 
Thoughts 2 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. 


[4* 3 

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


§ 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 fab fi are 
accidentibus is but a relative notion j (and 
it's.commonly faid that God hath no Ac- 
cidents, 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 grant- 
ed by you, that Subftantia and Vita (or 
Virtus AH iv a) 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 Concep- 
ts of Virtus Acliva (or Vitalis) alone ? 
Or whether the meaning be, that as it is 
Jies the Virtus AQiva is its total Concep- 
ts, 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 

to be properly (aid of God $ and I can eafi- 
ly grant that God is utterly above all for- 
mal knowledge of ours $ yet that Crea- 
ted 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 Ex- V 
iftence of the ABus Em it at iv us ,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 Concep- 
ts of Fundamental Reality, is but that 
fame which Schibler, and abundance o- 
thers call Materia Metaphyfica, as diffe- 
rent from Materia Phyfca^nd which Dr, • 
ral and moft proper fcnfe of 'Materia to con- 
tain^ 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 Im- 
materiality^ 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 

fully fatisfiedof an Incomprehenfible Pa- 
rity 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 ac- 
cident 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 



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 Ob- 
jects of Senfe, and alfo of our own Intel- 
lectual A&s. But how? There is fcientia 
ad&quata and inad&quata : I am paft doubt 
that nihil ftitur fcientid ad&qttHtd^ ('but on- 
ly 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 dif- 
ference 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 


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. 1 2, 
Omnisfubftantia ex eo quod Ens fir, Mate* 
riam quandam vel Amplitudinem in fe in- 
cludat* You 


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 Mat- 
ter that hath Amplitude i Quantity , and the 
three dimenfions 5 And yet write a Book 
againft one as aflerting Spirits to be mat- 
ter, who never aflerted it , unlefs the 
word Matter fignifie but Subftance: For 
I afcribe no more to it than your Ampli- 
tude, 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 


C4 8 3 

the Confiftent Difpofitio SubfiarifU. 

And you once hit on that true notion of 
the Conditio materia as a neceflary Con- 
sent us Enti* prater ipfam materiam & for- 
mam l MetaphyCc. 2. p. 10. \Vernm Ens. 
dicitttr refpettu forma, Legit imaf, Conditi- 
ons materia : Neq\ enim Galea ex tenni 
Papyro fabric at a & concinnata vera, galea 
eft, fed pot ius ludicrum illius imit amentum. 
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 ope- 
ration 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 qsuli bet parte. 



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 Spi- 
rit 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* 

di SECT. IX, 

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



can do, and 3. Between the Father of Spi- 
rits and created Spirits : And fo I fay, 1, 
That if you had fpoken of the meer Vir- 
tu* Vitalis of a Spirit, I think it is a con- 
tradiction to fay that it is Difcerpible or 
impenetrable 5 But feeing you afcribe Am- 
plitude, 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 ano- 
ther there, 2. And if fo, though man can- 
not Separate or divide them, if it be no 
contradi&ion God can. Various Elements 
vary in divifibility : Earth is molt divifi- 
ble: 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 ten- 
dency 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 


L) 1 J 

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 natu- 
ral 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$ ca- 
pable 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 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 con- 
trasted 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 nu- 
merous, individuate \ and Formse it muf- 
tiplicant : Generation is the worl^of Spirits^ 
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 confede- 
ration. And it. You hence infer Ampli- 

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 Gene- 
ration 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, IV hy 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 extended amplequantitative 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 inde- 
pendent 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 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 si irj% 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 Emana- 
tion from the Father of Spirits,giveth out 
all that Spiritual Subftantialitv which be- 
cometh new Souls ; but thit God hath or- 
dained 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 


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 Mot Ut 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 


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 I Jhall 
find it nothings but a certain motion of a 
Medium, whofe panicles are fo or Jo. qua- 
lified, 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 analogi- 
cal 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 Moti- 
on: 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 mo- 
tion] and an (unnamed) Medium, and par- 
ticles 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 ma- 
ny flay, and think it fo, as much as Intel- 
lection 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? 


a game at fuch toyifh words : hi Mot m 
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 mo- 
tion 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 ip fa forma t ef- 
forts) and all the vifible aftions in this 
lower World are performed, what can 
that mans Philofophy be worth ? I there- 
fore 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 Gene- 
ration. 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 Experi- 
ence of apparitions^) I know not which 
would get the better. 


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 Ra- 
tionale 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 



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 mo- 
dalities 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, and SMcb part fct (per poicntiam ft- 



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 fom- 
what 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 know- 
ledge of Attributes elfe do us. Attributes 
in not ione 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 

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. 


§ 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 Vi- 
tal 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 Spi- 
. ' 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 

§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 ei- 
ther 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 Negative Immat er i- 
4/notifieth not the form, you fay that//»- 
material implieth Pofitivenefs, An[. There- 
fore 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-. 

td denial of the [elf-moving Pcfrer &/ 
Matter , that j on had thought only Spi- 
rits have a fe if 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, 



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 ub fiance in lefs com- 
pafsAnd thetePhrafes found liker to Cor- 
poreity 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 un- 
divided 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 ma- 
teria^ merhinks you fhould be as uncer- 
tain 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 whe- 
ther Fire be a middle aftive Nature be- 
tween the Spiritual and the raeer paffive, ' 
by which Spirits work on Bodies. I think 
I fhall quickly know all this better thjin 
you do. 


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

§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 Mo- 
tion, Light, and Heat, had been better 
handjed as vne, (as it is) it had been 
founder, § ?. I 


§3.1 need hot your hydn?ftatical ex- 
periment 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 bot- 
tom 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 in- 
to 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 moti- 
on 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 


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 for- 
med [ 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 

cipicnt objefts.As to your oft mentioned 
Confutation of Judge Hale, having not 
read it, I am no Judge of your perfor- 

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 on- 
ly 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 im- 
material?"] 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 , 


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

Anf Do you not take Cartefiiu mate- 
ria fubtilis, \f not global i 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 illumi- 
nated 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 while you 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 whe- 
ther 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 

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 ve- 
hicle ? 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 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 com- 
mon 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 Sym- 
bol 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 ?m to- 
tem ? 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 


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 cool- 
ed. Anf Alas! Wha; dry Philofophy is 
this of Fire 7 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 dot b 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 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 Metaphori- 
cal, but all formal, I (hall magnine them 
more than I do. 

§ 6. You fay we muftfearch out the ad- 
equate 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 Spi- 
rits.? Even who before twice told us that 
we" know not the intimate effence of 
things, but the Attributes? Indeed I per- 
ceive 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 

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, & quan- 
tity. And if fo, though they be indifcer- 
pible, they have continued parts intelli- 
gible $ 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 am- 
plitude or extended Subftance. ^nd A- 
tomes are in fome Elements a clofelv con- 
tinued 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 Wri- 
ters maintain^ that it is mortal naturd , 
but immortal ex dono\ which is unfitly 


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 an- 
nihilated ; 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 Angu- 
lar 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 

tell us into how little parts only it may 
be contracted : And if you put any limits 
I will fuppofe that one Spirit hath con- 
tracted 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 Spi- 
rits 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 a fpirando, or theAiror Wind: 
Martinm nameth no fewer than Fifteen 
fenfesofit^ and Wifdomitfelf faid, i Cor. 
I C, 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 meta- 
physeal Amplitude, which though fo large 
bimfetfyinnot divide^ and fever into part /, 
be would thereby puzzle his own Omnipotent 

cy, at this rate hefhall be allowed to create 
nothing, no not (o much as matter, nor bim- 
f elf 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 Contradi- 
ction 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 Spi- 
rits, or but one ? It's a thing fo high as 
required fomefhew of proof, to intimate 



that God cannot be God, if he be Al- 
mighty, and cannot conquer his own Om- 

§ 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, if afpiri- 
tual ample Sub fiance be divifible by his Om- 
nipotence that made it: Tea, then he is not 
God. Negatur Confequentia. 


§ 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 know- 
ledge of Spirits! The fame things need 
pot be fo very oft repeated in anfWer to 

you ; 

you : but briefly I fay 5 if by Immaterial 

you mean not [without fub ft 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 nega- 
tive [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 con- 
ditio 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* 
cult j of motion :] which is truly the form 3 
and is one thing, and not compounded of 
notions fadifFerenr,as Confftence and Vir- 


ttie or Popper. ] ii. You fay Life intrin* 
fe c ally ijf ties 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 no- 
thing were the world. But all our concep- 
tions here iriuft have their allowances, 
and we muft confefs their weaknete. 

And you might have informed us of all 
that you know, without fathering opini- 
ons 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 per- 
fect 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 definiti- 

i. I take not the word [ Spirit'] to be 
of univocM fignification here, but fo ana- 
logical as to be equivocal. God and Crea- 
tures 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 1 5 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 Spiri- 
ts ; and is oft ufed for Res or Subftantia i 
which is fundamental to modes and quali- 
ties 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 Impene- 
trable 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 fabfi at accident ikus $ or negatively for 
S^todnon eft accidens j fid alicjmd fubftffens 
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 


corporealparts making it receptive ofMo- 
tion, and oft for the union of the moving 
and the moved parts, and ofc for the mo- 
ving 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 Na- 
ture 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 ra- 
ther 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- 

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 com- 
pounds, 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, Percept iva-fenfitiva, Appeti- 

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 

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


£ Vurior and Virtuofor ] to fenfitives, not - 
being fure that there is not a gradual dif- 
ference 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, whe- 
ther 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 ope- 
ration 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, eminent cr+ and the in- 
ferior 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 


[8 7 ] 

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- 

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 en- 
tity^ 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 Per- 
fect ionis 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 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 regard- 
ful 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 contra- 
ction 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 Spi- 
rits 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 alter- 
ing 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- 



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 be- 
longs 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 Mat- 
ter. 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 


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 be- 
fore. That's but to fay, It is notio fecun- 
da, which if it be not fitted ad primam, 
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 nei- 
ther materia ex qua, nor in qua, but circa 
quam, fo Form may be Matte?. 

§ 4, You fay 3 [ Nor is the Form ad- 
joined in a Phyf:ca! Senfe to the Matter, un- 
lefs where the Form and Matter are Sub- 
stances 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 



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 Concept m object ivi : 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 ta- 
ken the Potentia naturals, or Faculties of 
the Soul to be accidents in the Predica- 
ment 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 C impofn ion 
as to Spirits. And I fay that the Mind 


fliould conceive, and the Tongue fpeak of 
things as they are, and not at once deny 
Materiality to Spirits, and call them Lo- 
gically 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. 


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 

§.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 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 Confir- 
mation ; 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 it f elf 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 
fence fpr ends out into afecondary Subflince, r 


luminous fyys are conceived to/boot out from alu* 
cid point. 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 infep arable 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 fep arable 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 re- 
moved 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 Indivifibi lity 
that imagination create net new troubles to her 
felf, I mean not fuch an Indivifibility as is fan- 
cied 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 fep ar ate any 
one ${ay of this Orb, and keep* it apart by it felf 
dh joined from the Center. 

Now a little to invert the Property of this lumi~ 
nous Orb, when we would apply it to a Soul or Spi- 
rit : 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 



is thereby alfo necejfarily affecled, and theje e£te- 
r tour 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 Sym- 
bolical 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 be- 
lieve you will recal. 

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

f TAo77«JWa I define thus : A Power jn a Spirit 
of offering fo near to a corporeal Emanation from 
the Center of \jfe, that it will ft petj et~l ly fill the 
Receptivity of Matter into which it has penetra- 
ted, that it is very difficult or impojfible for any 
other Spirit topoffefs the fame, and of hereby be- 
coming 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 Spi- 
rit 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 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 Contra- 
dictions 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 ope- 
rations 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 f peculation of whofe 
bare Efjencs, though i; may wellpu^le us, yet 
thofe properties that iCe find incompetible to a Bo- 
dy, do fufficiently inform us of the different Na- 
ture thereof: for it is plain {he is a Subflance in- 
dued with the power of Cogitation, that is, of per- 
ceiving and thinking of Objects, as alfo of pene* 
trativg and fpontancoufly moving of a Body ; 
which properties are as immedi ite to her as impe- 
netrability and fepar ability 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 

And if voluntary Motion be proper to a Spi- 
rit, I think meer Fire (Solar or Ethereal) is 
no Spirit 5 ^wtiizW felf moving Power be pro- 
per 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 Opi- 
nions 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 noti fie 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 fun- 
damental as truly as materia is inmeer Bodies, 
and an incomprehenfible purity of Subftance 
(or that it is Immaterial, not having partes ex- 
tra 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 inform- 
ed by that Vitality, and fo Mattter and Vita- 
lity are the inadequate C onceptus of every Sub- 
ftance, and that nor by Compcfiuon, but as 
of one fimple thing. And this is Dr. Glijfons 
and fome others. 

I V. 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 Com- 
pound of two Subftances, (laving that God is in- 
finite, beyond all Matter.) And that all fuch 


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.