COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND
ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE
LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
OwC PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY
•
{%
IMMORTALITY
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*
By RICHARD BAXTER.
LQ N DO N:
Printed for B. Simons, at the Three Golden
Cie\s at the Wifi End of St fattls. 1682.
The PREFACE.
$• I. ^ ■ A H E Author of the Letter
M which 1 anfiver, being wholly
M unknown to me, and making
me no return of his 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-
-UGNANT, PERSECUTING Chnfr
inters of thofe that ferioufy practice the b.ip-
pf^dtfow p when they arc PERJURED and :
Per*
r
Perfidious Violate? s cf it themfeh es 9 as to the
prevalent bent of heart and life.
Thefe Hypocrite nominal Ceremony Chrifii-
ans, become the great -hinder ante of the cure of
infidelity in the ivorld.lt isnhc SPIRITby its \Vh
pernatural Works, which is the great Witnefs
ofChrift,and the 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
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.
be-
believe thisfericvfly^andnot efieem^and chcofeand
feek it, before sill the jhadcws andvaniticto thti
world. It is not Chirfiians,butfalfe hypocrites,
whofe lives reprefcntChrifiianity^blaffhimoufly
as no better than Heathemfm or Mahomet ani^m;
It is but for wcrldly Inter -ef.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
drunkcnneJs,jenfuality,ccvetoufnejs,un^cdlinefs,
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-
setal
fates , as they are to us? But God hath gpzen us d
fnore clear and fatisfaciory way of the Solution
of fuch Doubts.
$. 3.I muft further give notice to the Reader.,
That it was the publifoing of Dr.H.MoreV an-
fiver to a Letter of mine, which occafioned the
jwblijiiing of this. When I was put en the one, I
thought it not unprofitable to premife the other ,
as being of much greater life. It feemed good to
the worthy Dr.to defire my thoughts of his De~
fcription of a Spirit, which he laid down in the
fir ft Edition of Mr. Glanvile 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*.
THE
NATURE
AND
IMMORTALITY
OF THE
SOUL
PROVED.
In Anfwer to one who
profeffed perplexing Doiibt-
fulnefs,
By RICHARD BAXTER.
LONDON:
Printed for B. Simons, at the Thru
Qvlden Cocks, at the Weft End
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-
mgrhem.
C4 1
I thought at firft to fatisfie my felf iri
the certainty of the things I did believe,
to confirm and eftablifhmy Faith by thde
Studies, that 1 might be able to render a
Reafon of the hope that is iri me: but in-
ftead of building up, Ianvfhaken.; and in-
ftead of a clearer evidence, I am inviron-
ed with uncertainties. i
Unhappy that I am ! I had better have
taken all upon Truft, could I (b have fa-
tisfied my Reafon, than thus to have 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-
blifhment.
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
at.
Firft, therefore, I do really believe, and
am very well fatisfied, That there is a God,
or a firir Caufe that hath created all things,
and given to every thing its Eeing. For I
am not acquainted with any independent
Bring. 1 know not any thing that is able
tp flibfift without the Contribution of its
A j " Fei*. !
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
con-
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?
bution.
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
[3]
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
tlie
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
But Man confifts of a Body Soul and Spi-
rit :
Therefore Body , Soul and Spirit are
made of the duft , &c and are mate-
rial.
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-
ther
[ "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
only
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
down.
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,
ma-
[ 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-
pofed
[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-
merly
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-
dividuation,
tut,
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-
tfutfc*
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-
ment?
, , 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
pre-
[ 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
cath.
I have now done (tho I hardly know
how ), left I too far trouble ycu ; and only
beg your perufal of thefe lines, and two or
three in anfwer of them by this Bearer ,
who fhall at your appointment wait on
you for the fame. Let me farther beg thefe
two things of you : firft, That you w
confider you have not to do with a Sophi-
ftick Wrangler , or with one that would
v/illinglyerr, but with one that defiresto
know
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 ]
SIR,
$. 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
you.
I have
£25-1
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 ?
$. 3. But you would know a Definiti:r>
of 'the Soul. But do you know nothing but
by Definitions ? Are all men that cannot de-
fine, therefore void of all knowledg ? You
jknow not at all what feeing is , or what
light is, or what feeling, fmelling, tafiing,
hearing is, what found or odor is, w!i£t fweet
or bitter, nor 4N\\zt. thin king, or knowing, or
willing, or loving is, if you know it not be-
fore defining tell you, and better than bare
defining can ever tell you. Every vital fa-
culty
C v3
cuhy hath a felf perception in • its a&ing •
which is an eminent fenfe ? Intuition alfo of
ontwaret fenfible Objeffs, or immediate per-
ception of them, as fenfata.& imaginata, i$
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
you.
C *» 1
you fee, thae you doubt, that yon wrote xP
me, or that you are any thing.
II. If you act thefe, it is cermin that
you have the fewer of. fo afting. For 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
nothing.
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
greater.
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-
ing.
§. 9. You fay, Nene tell us what it isl
How many Score Volumes have told it us ?
I have now briefly told you what it is. You
i?y, [To fay it is that by which I reafon, is
not fatisfa&ory. I look for a Definition].
But on Condition you look not to fee or feel
it, as you do Trees or Stones, you- may be
fatisfied. I have given you a Definition.
The Genus is Subfrantia puriffima ; the Diffe-
rentia is Virtus Vitalis^ ABtva^ Intellefti-va,
Voliiiva (trintim a Imago Creatofis). What's
here wanting to a Definition ?
ihavt
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
$. 10. You ask, i. Is it a real Being 4 ?
Anfw. I told you, Nothing can do no-
thing.
a. Is it really different from the Body ?
Anfw. A Sub fiance which hath in it felf an
Ejjmtial Principle of Life, Intelkclion, and
Volition y and that which hath not, are re-
ally different. Try whether you can make
a Body feel, or underftand without a Soul
a. Thofe that are feperable, are really dif- !
. ferent.
o. You ask, Is it able to be without it?
Anfw. What fhould hinder it ? The Body
made not the Soul: A viler Subftance giveth
not being to a nobler. 2. Nothing at all
can be without continued Divine fuftentati-
dn But we fee, Juxta naturam, God an-
nihilateth no Subftance : Changes are but
by compofition, and feparatiojf, and acti-
on, but not by annihilation. An Atome of
Earth or Water , is not annihilated ; and
why Ihould we fufpeft, that a Spiritual
Subftance is? Yea, the contrary is- frilly
evident, tho God is able to annihilate all
things. .$.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
them.
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*
fick.
There
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
think.
$. 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-
ment).
And whereas you fay, [ God made man of
the duft of the ground -, but the body only is not
•man, ergo. ■ Anf. You, ufe. your felf too
Unkindly, to leave out half the words, Gen.
2.. 7! And the Lord God formed man of the
duft of the ground, and breathed into his no-
flrils the breatJi'of lij% and wa?t became a 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*
tors.
#, if. Pagfe 4. you fay j Ton know all
((natter is eternal.
C% . Bat
l;s6 7 -
But you know no fuch 'thing. If it be,
Eternal^ it hath ewe Divine perfection :« and
if ib, it muft have the reft, and fo Ihould be
God. But what's your proof?
• You again (believe the Souls concentratitn
iff its bct{j\ . Anf, Words ihfignificant. It's
Idem or Aliud. If Idem^ then dull: isEflen-
tially "Vital -and Intellectual. Deny not
fpiritual forms, if every clod or ft'one have
them. If Aliud, how prove you it to be
there, rather than elfetvhere-? 'And if yoii
considered well, you would not believe
tjjcntial % fubsia?nial life and ' mind< to lye ■
dead and ur. active , (6. long # as the duft
is for
6. 1 6. You come to the hardeft Objedli^
\jlhe Sends defective aBing in infants^ id£ots,
the Jick, 6cc .aftd fay, \Jt would rather not
act ^ if 'it were as represented. •]
Anf i. ft cannot be " denied, but . tlue
Operations of the Soul here, are much of
them upon the organized body j and tho
.net crganicaU as if they adted.^' an Organ^
yet organicaU asa&ing. on an Organ ; which
is the material Spirits primarily. And fo
there go various Caufes to fome Effetts ,
sailed Acts.
jl And
C 37 1
a. And the Soul doth nothing indepeiv
Gently,. . hut as dependent on God, in 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,
&c.
And as it is not made to *do all its acts
freely Zt\d rationally^ fo neither at all times*
as in Apoplexies*, Infancy, Sleep, <?c lc
is effential to the Soul, to have the aBiye
fewer or virtue of Intellection and Free-willy -
but not always to life it. As it is effcntial to
the fubftance of fire, tho latent in a flint, to
have the power ofmoticn^ light and heat.
And its confiderable,.thatasa traveller
in his joifrney , thinking and talkingoqly of
other* tilings , retaindth ftill afecret act of in-
te*d r.g his end -, (elfe he would not go on)
when he perceiveth and obferveth it not at
all. He that playeth on the Lure or Harpfi- *
fal, ceafeth when his Inftrument is out of
C 3 . tune ?
C?8]
tune , bepaufe heafteth by 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
i
$. 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
maybefo.
$.18. To your Explications p. 4. I fay.
1. None doubts , but all the world is the
work of one "prime operating Caufe \ \\ horn
I hope you fee in-them, is of perfeft power,
wifdom aud goodnefs, the chief ejfaen:
rigentznd final caufe of all.
£ S9'l
i. I doubt nor, but the' created univerfe
is all one thing or frame ; and no one atome
or .part totally fepacated from, and 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
faid.
$. xo. When you tell us of [One life m
all y differenced only by diverfity of Organs 1 ^
you mean Gcd, or & common created Soul If
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
as
C 4i 3
as rational as Men. And if it be an Animi
creata communis that you mean either you
think it is a* univ'erfal Soul to the uni<verfal
world, or only to this Eftrth or Vortex. If
to all the World, you feign it to have Gods
Prerogative. If to part of the world , if
each Vortex, 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
your
C42]
^our hody , and ijpr your fclf™ for any of
. your Crimes : For yen did not make }'Oiir
own body, if you were nothing.
Is the common light and ienfe of Nature
no Evidence? Doth not all j:he world 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
hun
C 43 1
hurt your felf when you hurt a Male-
fa&or* Why are you not anfwerablefof
the Crimes of every Thief, if all be
one
$. '22. You.vairtfy Ifken 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-
bits.
Anf 1 . I had a Parrot that fpoke fo very
plainly, that no Man could difcern but he
could have fpoke as well as a Man, if he
had but had the Intellect of a Man ; and
•quickly would learn new words, but (hewed
riounderftanding of them.
• ^. Many men born deaf and dumb, are
of a ftrong underftanding ( enquire of a
Brother of Sir Richard Dyetfc, a Son of Mr*
"Peter Whalley. of Northampton, a Son in Law
of thie Lord 1Vharton% &c.
g. The Faculty and the Habit are Two
things. The Faculty is the Ejfential form
of the Subftance. The Habit, or Act , is
bat an Accident* The Faculty is nothing
'but
- [45 1 •
hit the aShve Tower. And the Power go'etfo
before the AB. Doth actings without Power
to aft, canfe the Power i What need you
the Power, if you can aft without it ? And
what's a Contradiftion, if this be not , to
fay, I do that which! cannot do, or lean
Ho that which I have no power to do ? Ybii *
are not a man whhoitJ die Faculty , but
you are Without the Aft • or.elfe you are
no man in ypur fleep. The act then is but
the Faculties aft ; and Habits' are nothing
but the Faculties promptitude to aft. And
this indeed is caufed fometime by very
frrong aBs, arid fometime, and ufually, by
frequent 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
aft..
Credible Hiftory affureth us,. That Dc-
vils^ or feparate Souls, have afted Carcafc
fes, and difcourfed in them, and (eemed to
commit Forrficationm them, and left them
dead behind them ; and they were known
to be the lame that were lately executed,
or
C ^ 1
or <fead,and were re-buried. Here the dead
Organ was- capable, when a Spirit did but
ufeV
You too much co'nfouftd Intellection and
'Ratiocination'. The prime adts "of" 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-
ledg.
$. %$-.. 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
[47]
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
mens.
$.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.
Art
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
them,.
C 49 ^
them immortal^ than prove man unreafonable^
or of a mortal Soul. Your whole fpeech
makes more to advance bruit s^ than to deny.
the reafon of man.
4.29. You fay, You know no better way
to attain a right kmwledgof our [elves -, than
by beholding our felves in AdSm, and 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
earth,
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
Soul).
3. Adam, rlo doubt, could not know ex-
ternal fenfible ObjeftSjtill they were brought
within the reach of his fenfe : no more can
we.
4. Adam knew the Creatures as foon as
he (aw them j and gave them Names fuit-
ablej This is more than we could ib foon
do.
5. Adam had a Law given him; and
therefore knew that God was his Ruler.
He knew that God was to be obeyed ; he
knew what was his Law : elfe it had been
no fin to break it. He knew that he ought
to love, and believe, and truft God, and
cleave to him : elfe it bad been no fin to for-
fake him, and to believe the Tempter, and
to love the forbidden Fruit better than God.
He knew that Death was the threatned 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- •
ful.
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
we
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
Queftions.
i. Do you really believe, that there is a
God ? that is , an eternal infinite felf beings
who hath all that power, knowledge and
goodnefs of will, in tranfcendent Eminen-
cy, which any Creature hath formally, and
is the efficient Governor of allelfe that is. If
not, all the world condemneth you: for it
is not an uncaufed Being, and can have 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-
rit,
?. 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-
tive.
4. Hath he not imprinted his Perfeftions
in fbme meafnre, in his Works? Do they
not {hew his glory ? Judg of his Greatnefs
bv the Sun, Stars, and Heavens ; and of
his Wifdom, by the wonderful Order, 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-
feft?
5. Do you think, that fajfi<ve matter doth
as much manifeft Gods Perfection, and ho-
nour the Efficient , as vital and Intellectu-
al
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
it?
6. And do you not difhonour, or bla£
pheme the prime Caufe, by fuch difho-
nouring of his Work, as to fay , he never
made any thing more noble than Atomes,
and Compofitions of them.
7. Is there not in the Creatine a 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
proof?
£. 31. But if you hold, That we have
now difiincf Sprits, which are individual
D 4 Sub z
C^3
'Subfiances, why fliould you fear the lofs of
our individuation, any more than our 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
ell?
.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
But
a*
C 53 1
*. But if you take Souls to be partible
and unibki then you muft fuppofe every
part to have ftill its own exiftence in the
whole. And do you think, that this doth
not more advance Souls than abate them ?
Yea, yon feem to Deifie them', while you
make them all to return into God, as drops
into the Sea. And if you feign God to be
-partible, is it not more honour and joy to
be a fart of God , who is joy it t'dr\ than
to be a created Soul} If a thoufand 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
what
C 6i 3
vhat the Soul of an Infant is, but by Man*
lood and its Adts.
£. 34. You here pag. 7. divert from the
)oint of the Immortality or Nature of the
>oul> to that of the RefurreBion of the Body :
)f which I will now fay but this ^ Chnft
ofe, and hath promised us a RefurreBion ,
tnd nothing is difficult to God. aW*<w oft
ignifieth our living another life after this.
Hie Body hath more parts than Earth and
Vater. The Spirits as we call them, which
ire the igneous parts, lodged in the pureft
lereal in the blood, &c arc that body in and
>y which 'the Soul doth operate on the reft.
4ow much of thefe material Spirits the
>oul may retain with it after Death, we
enow not ; and if it have fuch a body, it
lath partly the Jame ; and God can make
.vhat Addition he pleafe, which ftiall not
:ontradicl identity : Paul faith of Corn,
3od giveth it a body aspleafeth him, in fbme
refped the fame, &c. in fbme not the fame
that was fown. We do not hold, That all
the flefti that ever a man had, (hall berai-
fed as that mans. If one man that was
[at, grow lean in his ficknefs, we do not
fay, that all the fleih that ficknefs wafted >
(hall rife : It (hall rife a^irhual body. God
knovvcththat which j<w and I know not. [
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
you
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-
fcrical
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
fraud.
1. The certain effeff of natural necejjary
Caufes hath natural necejjary evidence of
Truth.
But when all knowing men of contrary
Dijbojitions and Interefis. acknowledg a thing
true , this is the effetl of nataral necejjary
Caufes.
Ergo it hath natural necejjary evidence of
Truth.
1. It is impofible there foould be an EffeEl
without a (ufficient Caitfe.
But that a thing Jlwuld be falfe which all
hnowing men of contrary Difpoftions and In-
tereft s acknowledg to be true, would be an
Effect without a Qaufe • for there is no Caufe'
in
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
proof.
£. 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
re-
-
C 69 3
rtvelatHn of Jefus Chri;}, who hath brought
life and immortality to light in the Go/pel*
where the ftate, the doom, the rewards and
punifhment of fouls is afferted.
And without dark and long Ambages,
or Roman juggles, we prove the troth of
this Gofpel, briefly and infallibly thus :
I. The Hiftbry of Chrift's Life, 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
fulfilled.
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-
ble.
III. All the Miracles, and Refurrefiicn,
and Afcenxion of Chrift, the Gift of his Spii
rit, and extraordinary Miracles of the Ape*
files, and firft Churches.
IV. The fanBifying work of the Spirit by
this Gofpel, on all Believers in all Ages cf
the World, by which they have the Witnefs
in themfelves. A full conftant unimitable
Teftimony.
$. 40. And now how highly fbever you
ihink of Bruits, think not too bafely of
Men, for whom Cbrifi became a Savin* :
And •
And yet think not fo highly of Men, Bruits
and Stones, as to think that they are God;
And think not that your true diligence hath
confounded yon, . but either your negligence,
or feducers, or the unhappy ftifling of 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
Ihall
. C 72 3
(hall have n~> caufe to complain, that God*
whofe goodnefs is equal to his greatnefsj
hath dealt hardly with mankind. Inftead
of trailing fallible man , truft Chri(i^ who
hath fully proved his truftinefs ;and his Spirit
will advance you to higher things than bruits
are capable of. God be merciful to us dark
unthankful Turners.
Jl4ar. 14. Ri. Baxter.
1681.
E R RATA.
& K K A 1 Jt.
TN the Second Part, p. 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
anv.
OF THE
NATURE
O F
SP
I
ESPECIALLY
MANS SOUL.
In a placid Collation with the Learned
Br Henry Adore,
In a Reply to his Anfvvar to a private
Letter, Printed in his fecond Edition
of Mr. GUnvihs Saddncsifmis Trs-
umphatus.
v . _
By Richard Baxter,
LO 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
Cambridge.
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
conceptus.
The other inadequate conceptus is
Formal ; and I think you andl are
agreed that this is Virtus tlna-trina,
as described by me, viz,. Virtus Vi-
talis, vitalitcr adtiva, perceptivo,
appeticiva, as "Dr. GSifTon fpeaks :
(of which I make three (pedes as
definbed.) And 1 am my 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-
trabili-
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
Fundamentals.
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
words.
4. I hold to the diflinclion oj Na-
tures, or Subflanccs Paflive and
5-1
5. I difnnguijh Spiritual Sub-
fiances as [tick by the Parity of
the Subftance, be fides the Formal
Difference.
6. Ttt I doubt fiot but all Created
Sprits are 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
Materia!.
7. Though I run not into the
excefs of Ludov. Le Grand de
Igne (nor ^/Te!cfius or Patricius }
I would Ignis were better ft tidied:
But this Room will not Jerve me
to fay what I think of it. But
in fo*ie$\ He that knoweth that
Ignis is a SubHance, whofe Form
it the Pctentia Aftiva movendi,
illu-
illuminandi, calefaciendi, thefe as
received in a grofs Paflive Body,
being but their Accidents oft, but
the Igneous Jubilance /// act ope-
rating on. them, and ccnceiveth of
Spirits, but as Ignis eminenter,
that is, of a purer fubflance than
Ignis is, which we bell conceive of
(next the Formal Virtue) by its
similitude, I think knows as much
as I can reach of the Subftance
of Created Spirits. AndtheGreek
Fathers thc\t called Spirits Fire,
and difinguifjed Ignem per for-
tnas into ]melle:9:ive,Senfitive, and
Vegetative or Vifible Fire, (as it
is m Aere Ignite,) allowing an
Incomprchenfible Purity of Jub-
ilance in the higher above th,>
lower Q as in Pajfives Air hath
above Water, ^r.) I think di$ {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
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.
1681.
Rich.
Baxter.
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-
iition.
OF
OFT HE
NATURE
SPIRITS:
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
Triumphatm*
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
[?]
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-
cjua-
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-
[3]
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
[9]
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
[,o]
$ 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.
Ad.
Hit]
**» *&+ *4» «*» *fr* «&♦ «&» «4» «&* ♦ «*» *&>
Ad SEC t: I.
§ i.^TpHat my Notions are likethofeof
J Judge Hale, i* no wonder 5 we
were no Itrangers to each others thoughts
about thefe matters ; and though he and
you have had fome peaceable Velitations,
I take it for no dilhonour to be of his
mind.
1. Be Nomine : There is no fuch 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
[**3
fuppofe you know, that not only Tertul-
iian,but many other of the Fathers (many
of whom you may find cited by Fattens
Reg. whom Mammert-M anfwereth ) fo
iifed both Matter and Corpus alfo.
§ 2. The word [Formj is as ambiguous;
You and I afe not the only perfons that
uie it not in the fame fenfe. Matter in its
firit Conceptns called fV/w#/,hath no Form;
that is, is conceived of abftra&ed from
all Form. Matter in its next Comepttu is
conceived of as diverfified by accidents,
as quantity, figure,^*;. And fo the 3 pafTive
Elements, Earth,Air & Water, are 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
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*
[Ml
as a kind of Compounded form I wonder.
Yea, your two words themfdves fignify
roc the fame thing : Penetrable and In-
difcerpible are not words of one 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
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
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
[i8]
Subftance is fo great, that I am notable
to fay 3 that God who hath given Souls
anantitattm dtferetam, and made them
enumerable, is not able to make one of
two, or many, and to turn that one into
two, or many again : I am not fure that
it is a contradiction; cfpecially if it be
true that Sennertns, snd many more fay
of the multiplication of Forms by Gene-
ration.
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;
tyiii#
[26]
which is quite of another conception.
And fo we differ of the third Concerns ,
viz.. the Form alfo 5 which I affirm of all
fimple active natures to be the Virtus
jittiva : And it they are Vital 3 the Virtus
Vitalis.
Of the name Vita, there is a Contro-
verfie^ which muft be diftinguifhed from
that de re, If it be true that Dr. Gliffon
faith, that every Atom of matter hath in
it a Motive Principle without Compofi-
tion, then the Motive Virtue is the form
of all Matter, as well as of Spirit. If all
be to be called Living or Spirit, which
hath a Virtus Motiva for its Effential
Form, then Ignis ( or <zs£ther ) is Vital
and Spirit $ for it hath an Effential 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
principle.
I have oft profefled that I am ignorant
whether Ignis and Vegetative Spirit be
all one (xo which I molt incline) or whe-
ther*
■ 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-
03]
§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
CM]
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-
ward.)
Ad SECT. II.
§ i. ^TpHree Faults, of which one is a
JL Mifchief\ . you find with my
Ccnceptus formalis. i. That it leaveth
out what is contained in the Conceptus
formalis of a Spirit in General^ 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
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
attrað 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
[26]
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
fa-
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
[28]
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
UYIC0,-
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 $um Peripatetics Arijhides qui earn
quints
[303
\ quint a effentia conftare 9 & ctvihoyy itf
c mufor$ ciu^m in animabus ineffc dicit : /»-
€ ternoftrates qnoqueScaliger vocat animam
€ Natxram ccelcftcm & quintan* ejfenttam
* alia quidcni a quit nor Element is naiura
c pr<editjm } fed non fine onim materia : £4-
e dern Opinio arridet Roberto de Flutiibus >
&c. And what many Fathers fay I have
eJfevvhere fhewe'd.
And yet on condition you will not
make the name Subftancs to ilgnifie no re-
al Bsinf^ but a meer Relation, or Jjhfali*
tj> I think you and I (hall fcarce ditler in
ftnfe.
§ 4, Bat you magnifie our difference^
faying \Jn this you and I fundamentally 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
[3i]
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
World.
slnf. There is Omnefs in Matter ( \n\
Atoms at lea ft) and doth Penetrability
make
[3*-]
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
mifchief,
Ad SECT. ILL <Sr IV.
§ i.\TOut Third Sedtion I am not con-
\ cerned in ; I tell you kill I deny
not your Penetrability and Indifcerpibility,
though I lay not the ftrete on them as to
G<rt?
C33]
\Certainty or Importance, as you do, and
|am paft doubt that they do bttt 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,}
ml
'An[. But, worthy Sir, the foul play is
yours,that feem to tell your Reader that
I do fo, which I never do: That is fcanc
fair play. I faid not that Spirits are 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 ,
incl
>
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
C16J
as wel/J] To this you fay [Materiality is
a Notion wore ftriEt, dijtintt and fteady.~]
Anfi The contrary is commonly known,
and before and elfewhere proved 5 when
Materia, is not only a very hard 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-
ingly.
You fay, Pajftvity belongs to things
Immaterial. Anf I. Pajftvity as exclufive
of Attivity, or as predominant, doth not.
2. No Paflivity belongeth to that which
is not Matter in the forefaid large fenfc
of Matter % of which more anon.
Ad SECT. V, VI
§ i.T Confeft my Ignorance of the
X. C*t*fe of the defcenfa gr avium - 9
whether it be from a Principle made by
God efiential to the matter that deftend-
erii
C37 3
eth, or from an intrinfkk compounding
Adive nature, or only from an extriniick
Mover. You here bid me not defpair,
for it is demonfirable that the defcenfus
gravium ts net from any principle fpringing
from their own Matter, but from an 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
[39]
verfal Caufe is ever one, but excfudeth
not fubordinare Moving Caufes. My old
Friend Mr. Sam. Got (on Mofis Fhilof.)
fuppofeth each Element to have its fpe-
cial Spirit : I am not Co well skilled in
fuch things, as to come to that certainty
which others pretend to: I think to an
equal common Motion an UniverfalCaufe
may fuffice $ but when Motions differ, I
know no^ the different Caufes fo well as
fome think they do. How you anfwered
Judge Halt of the Rundle in the Water, I
know not : But you that think Fire in the
Sun to be no Spirit but Matter, I am 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
Ignorance.
§ 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.
For
[4* 3
For they are common to divers Accidents
in your account, viz* Light, Heat, Cold 3
&c. are all thefe.*.
Ad SECT. VII, VIII
§ i.\7"OU come to the main thing
X which I importuned you to blefs
the world with your explication of , viz.
The true difference of Sub fiance and Matter.
And you (ay, It's obvious to any obferving
Eje. They differ as Genus and Species.
Anf. I would I had an obferving Eye. If
hy Matter you mean fenfible Matter, ftich
as Man can fee, feel, or rneafure, &c % the
difference indeed is obvious : My doubt
is here -, feeing you confefs that 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
C43l
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, •
C^^r^rp^&manyothers^takethegene-
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
[44]
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
4
[4*3
of Letter?, Names, Sentences 5 but by
them ut per figna we know the things
themfelves , but fcientia abftraftiva non
intmtiva. But this is true knowledge of
the Eflence fignified. If by the Attributes
you mean any Accidents fignified by thofe
Names, thofe are noteflential Attributes.
But if you mean the Effence fignified you
fay and unfay. I am paft doubt that we
know the Effences of the immediate 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
(enfe^,
[4*]
ftnfe^nd never applieth it to fpiritual Sub-
ftance. All this de nomine is to little pur-
pole, bat I will recite fome words of
your own: Ench. Metaph. c.2. p.8,9,io.
EJfentia qua nihil aliud eft qnam materia
& forma (imul fumpta—Duo principia ilia
Entis interna & incomplexa quatenm ens eft %
ejfe Materiam & formam Logicam---Et w
nin$cu]ufq\ rei quatenm ens eft EJfentia con-
fifth ex Amplitudine & Differentia qua am*
plitudinem ab amplitudine difcriminat % Nam
quod res qualibet aliquatenus Ampla fit > ex
eo patet, turn quod id 'voci materia valde
confonumfit qua tanquam principium Entis
quatenm Ens eft conftderatur 5 turn etiam
quod nullam aliam ideam menti noftr& ea
afferre pot eft prater banc amplitudinem\
Nee r ever a quicquam ab animis noftris con-
cipi omni amplitudine deftitutum — p. 1 o.
Ex quibm omnibus tandem proftmt ptacla-
rum hoc confe&arium quod omne Ens qua-
tenus Ens */?-- Quantum, Quale— Ens di-
citut refpettu forma^ legitimaq; conditions
materia,— Jgjtodomne Ens fit $)jantum } ex
illiw Materia intelligitur Then you
blame them qui imaginantur quadam En-
tia omni Materia carentia, etiam hac Lc-
gica, otpniqi ad materiam relatione. — p. 1 2,
Omnisfubftantia ex eo quod Ens fir, Mate*
riam quandam vel Amplitudinem in fe in-
cludat* You
C47]
You fee here how much more now
you write againft your felf than me : I
never (aid that Spirits are material, nor
that every Subftance hath fbme matter,
as you do.
§ 2. But this is but Materia Logica.
Anf. And thofe that I excufe do but call it
Materia metaphyjica : And what's the
meaning of Materia Logical If Logick or
Grammar ufe fecond Notions, Names, and
Signs, if they be not rebus apt at a they are
falfe. What is it now but the aptitude of
the Name that we fpeak of?
Yea, you that make Spat turn to be God,
calling it Locus internus, really diftinU from
Bodies^ yet fay that you prove by Apo-
dettical Argument s^tt \t\%tribm dimenfi~
cnibm pr&ditum : And no doubt God is a
Spirit, fo that you your felf make a Spi^
rit, even the Father of Spirits, to be 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
the
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
L49J
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*
marttm.
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
.._.-..'
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
hath
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
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-
tude
LSI J
rude and Dimenfion of Spirits. Jlnfat* I
meddle not for you, not* againft you :
What's this tome ?
§2. Vou ask what arfc the Forrxd
cjts<z fs mnltipUcant ? Avf. Senfnive and
Rational as well as Vegetative Spirits :
You fay, That muft be Creation^ or Self
divijion. An[>. No $ it is but Generation.
And in Append, to the Reaf of Chriftian
Religion, I have partly fliewed that 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
CJ5]
Earth is as dependant on other pafts of
she Univerfe 5 and all on God. We dreani
af no total reparation -of any Creature
roru the reft, much lefs Spirit?,
But all the Illuminated 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
£M3
the feminal recipient Matter, but are
themftlves partly receptive, and then
active in the communication : It will be i
defedive funilitude if I fay, as a Burning-
%te($ by a receptive contra&ion of theSui
Beams, is inftrumental in kindling com-
buftible matter: Rather as one Candli
kindleth a thoufand, and yet the fubftanc*
of the Lucid and Calid Being, js communi
cated from the Ignite Air by the means o
that one Candle. (For that it is only Mo
pus a 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
no
IU7J
or need I tell you whicfi of the lighted
Randies was that which lighted it } nor
vrhy lighting more confumed not thefirftj
ior why it kindled a Wax-Candle , and
Tallow- Candle, &c. I knew not till now
hat you thought Souls differed in fcex 3
:>ecaufe the Perfons do. But I will not
kive againft your Conceit, The Soul of
Male and Female I better undcrftatfd 3
than a Male and Female Soul,
§ 4, But you tell me; / mujl confidcv
the Nature of* Light throughly , and 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
[58]
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?
Z$9l
a game at fuch toyifh words : hi Mot m
caufeth Senfation^ and IntcllcEtion, which
yet by meer motion would never have
been caufed, without the conjunct A<fts
of the Senfitive and Intellective Faculties
as fuch J fo is it of Light. Really when I
read how far you have efcaped the delu-
fions of Cartefianifm, I am forry that you
yet ftick in fo grofs a part of it as this \$$
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
[6o]
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.
Ad SECT. XII, XLU.
THe 12. Section being all meer fi&i-
on needs no further Anfwer.
§ u Itfeemsyoucall that the [excited
Spirit of Nature^] lighting every Candle
which other men call Fire : And fo you
will number Fire with Spirits.
§2. Your 13. Seftion is ftrangr. r.
You fay Penetrability and indr/ilibilicy
are not accidents at all, no more than 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
ftar^oe
[6i]
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-
peri-
[6x]
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
[63]
ficata cegnofcenda e(t : And this is know.
ing the Eflence roo, butfcientia abflrafti-
vd: And all is fcientiavalde imperfeBa.
§ j. You fay, that Neither the faculty
nor Operation of Reafoning is the EJfence^
and confequently not rationale.
Anf Things of fo great Moment fhould
not not be obtruded on the World with
a bare ipfe' dico. The Acft of Intelle&ion
or Reafoning is but tbeEflfence in hoc mo-
do: but theF acuity is theEffentialForm of
the Soul. When you have confuted the
Scotifts, and my peculiar Difpnt. inMeth.
TheoL where I think I fully djfprov<e
what you fay, I may hear you further.
Ad SECT. XIV, XV, XVI
§ TT^ re y ou w 9 u 'd firft know, How
i 11 / know that f^Vitalitas forma-
lis belongs net to Matter^ unlefs I have an
Antecedent notion of Spirit diftin£t from
Matter. Anf. i. I confent not to Dr.
GliJfon T who thought aft Matter had a 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-
rit,
. ' 2, Di\
C*4 3
2. Dr. Henry Moore in his Metapb.
would ask me, how I know that a Helmet
may not be made of Paper 5 and he and
I would agree that Paper is not materia
difpofitaflni yet we would not call it Galea
formam.
§2. Your denial of Subftantiality to be
ex traduce , I anfwered before; telling
you 'that 1 think it is both ex tmanatione
creative & ex traduce 9 but not by 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-.
C.60
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,
dimen-
[66]
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.
Ad SECT. XVII, XyiU,XLX.
. § i-/^F your Do&rine of Atomes I
Vj' fpake before : I have no mind
to examine the weight of your Reafons
publickly.
§2.1 thought you that fo extol the
Atomifts Doctrine, would have deigned
to read at leaft fome of the Leaders of
the various Sects: And my undervaluing
them is no excufe to you : for as you
knew not my judgment/ Co I fuppofe you
do not much efteem it. That wJiich I
blame them for, is, that Lud. le Grand
over-magnifieth Fire y TeUfwszwd Cam-
pattella over-magnifie Heat, Patricks o-
ver-magnifierh Light, *& Carte fins doth
Motion : But if the one Principle of Mo-
tion, Light, and Heat, had been better
handjed as vne, (as it is) it had been
founder, § ?. I
[68]
§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
UW1
JtisIcT. XX. XXL
S i. T^HE feven Propofnions which
-L you find in my words I own,
fave that the fourth fhould be thus 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$: proper name
that cometh not* forma.
§. %. Ad feft. 21. But you ask [Woe-
ther by Attive power I mean a power al-
xvaies exerting it [elf into ait^fo that this fire
isalwaies moving^enlightning^and hot fotm2«
liter, elfe why Jhould it be called Ignis? ]
Anfi Anfwer your fe!f,when you (peak
of a power ofSenfation, and Intellc&ion
and Volition in a Saul, do you mean a
power alwaies exerting itfclf into fenfa-
tion, Intelleftion and Volition, elfc why is
it called a Soul. ] Anf %. I mean a power
which hath alwaies an inclination to Ad;
& hath its own fecret imminent a<ft 3 &al-
vvaiesafts ad extra, when it hath fit re*
F cipicnt
[7o]
cipicnt objefts.As to your oft mentioned
Confutation of Judge Hale, having not
read it, I am no Judge of your perfor-
mance.
You Queftion what is this new igneous
fubftance never heard of before ] while in
afl Ages it hath been To famous a contro-
verfy$ 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 ,
than
L7*J
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
pleafe.
Ad Seci. 22. 23, 24, 25, 26,27.
§ *• VT Oil puzzle me more and more :
JL Before you faid, Fire is nothing
bat motion q{ [nlphureous particles^ and
only in Candles, Fire-fticks,hot Irons, &c.
And yet now T The vehicles of singe Is are
Igneous or athereal. ] Is 2n Angel only in
a Candle or hot Iron, &c. h motion, yea
motion of fulphureous particles their 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
[73]
you think, what ever is the Recipient
moved Matter, that the invifible Mover
is not prefent and contiguous* It is that
immediate mover which I call Fire, and
am fully fatisfied doth it not by Motion
only, but the exerting of its triple Virtue.
§ 3. You confefs, Sed. 24. the 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
C743
But you are offended that I fay thofe
fSreeli Fathers fpake tolerably and inform-
ingly 9 and you fay, It was mifchievoujly,
inducing wen to believe the SohI mortal.For
Light may be blown out, and hot Iron 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
£75]
Conception of God^ but only Analogical :
Only that of Ens is difputed between
the Thomifts and Scotifts , whether it
be Univocal de Deo & Creaturis. And
here Analogical is but Metaphorical : And
yet ic is not nothing to fee as in aGIafs &
enigmatically. And when I can perceive
that your two hard words do not only fig-
nifie more than negatively and modally 5
or qualitatively, but alfogive us an Idea
of a Spirit which hath nothing 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
[?6]
The common noce of Matter is, that it
hath partes extra partes : and I think you
thus make Spirits materia!. You make
them parts of the compound Animal : and
you deny them to be toti in toto; and you
give them !ocalitv,& amplitude, & 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
[77]
fpoken but well meant: that is, God
hath made their Natures fuch as have no
tendency in themfelves to a Diffolution or
Deftruftion, but not luch as he cannot
difiblve or deftroy ; Yea I doubt not but
I without a continued Divine Suftentation,
all the World would in a moment be 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
[78]
tell us into how little parts only it may
be contracted : And if you put any limits
I will fuppofe that one Spirit hath 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
[79]
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
[8*3
that God cannot be God, if he be Al-
mighty, and cannot conquer his own Om-
nipotency.
§ 3. Your words like an intended Rea-
fon are [For that cannot be God, from whom
all other things are not produced & created.]
Anf 1. Relatively (as a God to m) vC*
true 5 though quoad exifientiam EJfcntU
he was God before the Creation. 2. But
did you take this for any flie w of a proof?
The fenfe implied is this, [All things a*e
not produced and created by God, if afpiri-
tual ample Sub fiance be divifible by his Om-
nipotence that made it: Tea, then he is not
God. Negatur Confequentia.
M SECT.XXIXXXXXXXL
§ i . \7^0ll fay your definition is more in-
X forming than defining a Spirit by
Fire, viz. £ a Spirit is an immaterial fub~
fiance indued with Life, and the faculty of
Motion ] and virtually containing in it
Penetrability, and Indifcerpibility] Anfi.
Your definition is common 5 good and true,
allowing for its little imperfe^ions, and
the common imperfection of mans know-
ledge of Spirits! The fame things need
pot be fo very oft repeated in anfWer to
you ;
[SO
you : but briefly I fay 5 if by Immaterial
you mean not [without 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-
tue
[8i]
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-
ons.
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
cor-
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-
[*5]
Nature in general, for where there is no
form and no [pedes there is no proper de-
finition.And all Spirit being actually Men-
tal, Serfiive oxVegetative^ every thing
having but one univocal/orai, I name no
form but of each fpeeies, but as in 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-
tiva-fcnfitiva.
I have told you oft enough why I fay
Purijfoma , including' as much of vour
r Immaterial , Penetrable , Indifcer-
pible] and more, as is really the fob-
ftantia di[po[itioi and if you will call it as
fome do forma dtfpofuiva, I quarrel not:
But I ufe[?utij[wtal i- to avoid many
words, and 2, To avoid pretending to
more diftind conceptions of fpiritual con-
fiftencies than I find any idea of in my
mind.
I ufe but the Comparative degree of
G [P*-
[86]
£ 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
Indi-
[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-
cification.
Who can doubt but God being all in
all thhgs, he is as intimate to us as our
Souls to our bodies, and more : And tho
the Schools commonly fay,that God hath
noAccidents^dirdonmy diffcnt who doubt,
not he hath the accidents of Relations.,
and dare not fay that all the world Is not
Dei Accidens^ while in him we live, and
move, and have our being : for I will not,
and I do not think that it is Fars DjI, as
if he were but Anima mundi^ and yet I
I will not fay that the world hath no entity
or fubftance$ nor yet that the entity of
God and the world, is more than the 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
[88]
keth it to be perfection to fuppofe wc
fee and know no being but God • yet we
muft know nothing quite feparate from
God, and that hath not fome dependent
union with him. -And yet while all things
are in God, and fo infeparable from him
that nothing but annihilation can totally
feparate them, yet they are multitudes in
themfelves, and wicked Men and Devils
are feparated from the influx of his Grace
and Glory. And the human nature of
Chrift hath fome nearer union with God
than other Creatures have.And fo I doubt
not but every Creature is fo united to the
univerfe, that nothing but annihilation
can totally feparate it irom the reft $ and
yet this is confiftent with individuation.
I remember when I told him, whom you
fo oft mention cf ^ttguftines words de-
Anima, in which he feemeth to favour
the faying that [ All Souls areone % and yet
many^] rather than that [ Ml Souls are one
and not many J or [ many and not one ^ he
feemed much taken with it : all which I
mention to infer that there is a [epAr ■fbili-
ty ( from God and the univer/e ) which is
no way poffible but by annihilation 5 and
in compounds fome feparation of parrs
will change the [pedes 5 and if it were
proveable which uiqmnas holds, that no
two
two Angels are not of d\&m& Specie j t thm
every alteration of the individual might
alter thcSf eciest but yet it wo'd be aSpirir,
And I have long thought that £o much
felfifhnefsas is our fin or imperfeftion,is a
potent caufe of makingall men more 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-
plictk
[>]
plieth a right matter and form duly conjoin-.
ed7\ To which I faid , [Do you mt here
make Spirits material? ] You anfwered,
[I do not make Spirits material in any fcnfe
derogatory to their Nature and Perfections.]
Reply. Nor do thofe that I excufed ;
fo then after all thefe Sections, you make
Spirits confift ofMatter and form/in a fenfe
agreeable to their nature and perfection :
And fo de nomine, you come nearer thofe
that you accufe than I do.
§ 2. But you fay, [That Matter and
Form I there fpeak^ of , is a Matter and
Form that belongs to Ens quatenus Ens
in a mofl general notion prcfcinded from all
l^inds of Being whatever, and therefore 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
C9«]
cular~] be a Cothurnus. To fay that £/;* hath
Matter and Form, is to fay more than Ens,
a mo ft general notion, as you call it.
But xtEnt as the mo ft general notion^havc
Matter and f^ra*, then fo hath Spirits,
and every fubordinate $ for the general is
in them all.
§ 3. But you fay, [/>'* only materia &
forma logica.] To which I anfwered 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
C93]
own Conceptions that maketb not a real
Compofition of two Subftances in the ob-
;e<fb 3 but as the Seotifts call ir, of two
Formalities^ or 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
(hould
Z9il
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.
Ad SECT. XXXlll, XXXIV.
The Conclajion.
§ l.VTOu fay that I wrote not ft curtly, but that
I have fujjiciently conveyed my mini to
you."] knf I would have done fo, had 1 drcamM
of your Printing it. Bat that I did not, appear-
eth by your grand Miftake, as if I had aflerted
that materiality of Spirits which is proper to
Bodies.
§.2. As in all, our difference lieth in a much
fmailer matter than you thought, fo in your
great defign of convincing the blindedSadduces
of this Age, and in the truly pious Conclufion
m your 34. Sect. I not only agree with yoiijbuc
in my own name, and many others, humbly
tender yon unfeigned Thanks.
§ 3. And becaufe I would not feem more di-
ft mx from you than I am, I fhall firit tell you,
that on theft Subjcdh your thoughts and mine
bavphcen fo Long working to the fame ends 3C
much in die lame way, that, i6yy. your Book
againft
[9*3
againft Atheifm and my popular difcourfcs of
the unrcafonablenefs of Infidelity coming out
together, we both ufed many of the fame Hi*
ftories of Apparitions, Witches,^ for 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
lumi*
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
C971
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
[9*3
Let us hear your felf, p. 559. Ttb prevent all
fuch Cavils we /hall omit the Spinojities of the Ex-
tenfion or Indivifibility of a Sold or Spirit, and
conclude briefly thus : That the manifold 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
notice.
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
L99.'J
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
Spirits were at firft made together indivifible
Individuals, both that of 'the leaft Creature
and of the greateft, but changed from Body to
Body, and fo are parts of Animals. This I
iuppofe is your Opinion.
Our chief difference is, that I profefs to be
ignorant of the Confijiency and Incorporation
which you ralk of, and mutt be fo ; Though I
am affiired of the Substantiality and Form ,
which fatisfieth me; for Chrift knoweth all
the reft for me.
FINIS.
uc
TVNews
OpenLibrary