A LETTER OF MERIC CASAUBON D.D. etc. TO Peter du Moulin D.D. and prebendary of the same Church: Concerning Natural experimental Philosophy, and some books lately set out about it.  
ALMA MATER CANTABRIGIA  HINC LUCEM ET POCULA SACRA 
CAMBRIDGE, Printed for WILLIAM MORDEN Bookseller. 1669.   

Honoured Brother,  
YOu have not forgotten, I dare say, (it is not so long since) where and when you were pleased to bestow a Visit upon me, two young University men being then with me; and you came with a book in your hand, and delivered it to me with a smiling countenance, which, as soon as I had opened the book, I did interpret, having already contested with you more than once about the same matter, as though by it you hoped to stop my mouth for ever. I cannot say you did intent it so really: but so I did interpret it then; but it did fall out much otherwise. For after I had opened it, by the very Title of it, I was much confirmed in my former opinion, and professed it so to you, which occasioned much discourse between us until I was weary, and (as my condition is now) somewhat spent. Ever since that, what I now write, hath been in my mind, and I have had thoughts to impart it to you long before, though still somewhat hath diverted me. The matter in agitation between us (I need not tell you, I know) was: whether this way of Philosophy, of late years much cried up in London and elsewhere; was, as set out by some, more likely to prove advantageous, or prejudicial, if not destructive, to good learning: by which I mean, (not excluding natural Philosophy) what in former ages of the world, and by many to this day (by you also I make no question) hath been and is accounted true, solid, useful learning: which hath been cherished and countenanced by Kings and Princes and Public States, in their generations, in all places of Europe hitherto; and hath gotten credit and admiration to the Owners and Professors of it during their lives, and after their death, immortal fame.  
But before I enter upon the business, I must make my way by removing of a block, which I meet with artificially laid by some, to fright us in our progress, and hinder the freedom of our enquiry. It is this: Whether it be not a breach, if not of Allegiance, yet of that respect and reverence we owe to the Royal Founder, to except against any thing that is done, or written by any, who profess themselves of the Royal Society? I should not make such a question, but that I find just occasion, as I conceive. I do not well understand the full extent of that speech, used by some, to diminish the Royal Society. Diminutio, in the Civil Law, you know, is a very comprehensive word, and reacheth to many things. Were it but a breach of good manners, and civility; or, as they speak, want of modesty and breeding, I would be loath to be guilty of it. But God forbidden, that such reasoning should pass for current, in good earnest. That his Majesty would so far encourage any kind of learning, as not only to be the FOUNDER, but style Himself the PATRON also of such a Society, is an act well becoming the magnanimity of a great King, and to be entertained with humblest acknowledgements by all that pretend to learning. But to interest that Sacred name, in every thing, or any thing that is done, or written by any, that have the honour to be of that Society, though commended to us under the title of good and profitable learning, I think is not justifiable: neither is the whole Society, as I conceive, concerned (except it be owned by express authority of the whole body) in what is done by any one or more members of the Society: it being very possible, that many, who even in those things that concern learning and knowledge in general, are of different judgements and opinions, may yet agree in somewhat sufficient to justify their title to this Royal Foundation.  
Give me leave to insist a little (for it is a tender point) upon the danger, or unreasonableness of such remote inferences. Daily public Prayers, you know, were at first instituted by Primitive Christians, as the most immediate service of Almighty God: grounding, not only upon the practice of the Church, under the Law; but also upon the words of St Paul: I exhort therefore etc. for kings, and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: and that the peace and welfare of kingdoms, the honour and safety of Kings and Princes, did very much depend on the due and daily performance of that Service, was so general a belief in those days of exemplary piety, that we read of heathen Princes and Emperors, who, though not Christians otherwise, yet have had so much faith and Christianity, as to commend their safety to the Church upon that account. This, if you please, you may find out of good records of antiquity sufficiently proved and attested, in a little Treatise Of the use of Daily Public Prayers; written by me somewhat hastily, to help a learned Bishop against a pack of bold and confident Adversaries: sent by me to the late Reverend and learned Archbishop of Armagh; and by him, at the request of that learned Bishop, shortly after sent to the Press. In England, beside the authority of such Precedents, and of St Paul's Exhortation, or institution: that such a Service is established by the Authority of Kings (who also may in some respect, because of those many Cathedrals of their foundation, where it is most duly and solemnly performed, be styled Founders of it in this kingdom:) and Parliaments, who knoweth not? Now, (to pass by the consequence of the Royal Authority, and what the wilful contempt of it may amount to) I ask: The honour, safety and prosperity of Kings, according to the belief of those Primitive Christians, whom all true Christians, profess to honour and reverence, being so much concerned in those Prayers; would it be charitable hence to infer, that none love the King truly, and study his safety, but those that love and frequent them, when not otherwise lawfully let or hindered? That some hate and forbear them upon that account, (factious men otherwise, and fanatics, or openly schismatical) I make no question: but to make a general conclusion of it, when we know that the same effect may proceed sometimes from very different causes, would argue, I think, great want of judgement and discretion, and as great, if not greater, of charity. With much more reason I conclude, that a man may write against the opinions of some of the Royal Society; yea and censure them as they may deserve, without any reflection at all upon the Royal Founder, or Royal Society in general.  
In the next place, what made me judge of the Book, as I did, at the first opening of it, by some words in the Title-page, though probably I might tell you then, yet I will now further explain myself. I observed there, Practical useful learning, appropriated to the way now in use, by experiments: and those that go any other way, and follow other studies, which have been formerly in request, styled, men of the Notional way. By Practical useful learning, Chemistry and the Mathematics, as the Author doth explain himself, are also comprehended; whatsoever is besides, so far as I can understand by the book, is proscribed, as useless, notional and unprofitable. I had observed it before in another book, written by a learned man, a great admirer and abetter of Experimental Philosophy, who speaks of the Ancients, and ancient learning with a show of much more respect and moderation: but in effect, to the same purpose, to cry down all other studies and learning, ordinarily comprehended under the title of humane learning, to be but umbratick things, verbal things, of little or no use, since this new light of true real Knowledge especially. Now, what other arguments need they, either to advance the credit of their way, and of that way they commend to us; or to cry down any other way that hath hitherto been in request; then to make the world believe, that it is of no use? You know what judgement was passed against the figtree, that bore no fruit: And that earth or ground, which instead of herbs meet for the use of men, beareth nothing but thorns and briers, (disputing and wrangling, in their phrase) is pronounced by St Paul, accursed, and worthy to be burned. But, I ask; what is it that these account useful, and useless? For if nothing must be accounted useful, (as some seem to determine) but what doth afford some use for the necessities, or conveniencies of this present life; I do not know but that a Brewer, or a Baker, a skilful Horseleech, or a Smith, or the like, may contest in point of true worth or desert with many, who for their learning, as then thought, have been reputed generally, the great Lights and Ornaments of their age: though such, as never meddled in their writings with experimental philosophy. They that believe that man doth consist of two chief parts, the body and a soul, whereof the soul the more noble and more considerable part, as even Heathens most of them have determined it: natural reason will oblige them to believe, that a greater share of care and provision doth belong to that which is immortal, from the right ordering of which all true happiness, present or future, doth depend; then to that which is mortal, and naturally brutish, and of little continuance. Those men therefore, who have applied themselves by their writings to promote virtue and godliness, in their kind, (that is, so far as God was known to them) were generally thought to have deserved of mankind, as well (if not better) as the most renowned inventours, or promoters of useful Arts or Trades. Had Aristotle never written any thing but his Ethics, (that incomparable piece) he deserved the thanks of all ages; and I make no question but in all ages, even since Christianity, many thousands have reaped the fruit of that incomparable work, which alone is sufficient where it meets with right palates to speak its worth; but compared with others, that have written of that argument since, and have not trodden in his paths, becomes more illustrious. I might say the same of those Aurea Carmina, which are attributed to Pythagoras, and which Galen (that excellent both Philosopher and Physician) had in such esteem, that he did not only commend them to others, as a sovereign antidote against the diseases of the mind, but himself doth profess of himself, that he was wont first to read, but afterwards to repeat them once or twice every day, for the benefit he reaped by them. So of Cebes his Table: of Cicero's Offices: and (not to name others) of Epictetus his Enchiridion, though much later than some of the rest, yet not inferior unto any. And here, by the way; both by him and some others that have written upon him, we may find this very point excellently well handled; Whether those men who make it their work to reclaim men from that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or close adherence of the mind to the body and senses (which most men are naturally prone to) to the care and culture of their souls, aught in reason to be accounted unprofitable to the Commonwealth; or rather, of all Professions, the most useful and necessary. I wish some of our Mechanics, who are so highly conceited of their way, laying aside prejudice and preengagement (if they can) would take the pains to read those admirable discourses: it may be they would find, that the sway of the times, more than any weight of right reason, hath led them hitherto, into this opinion.  
But alas! poor Aristotle; your Author will not allow of above three books of his to be worth the reading; and his Ethics is none of them. And elsewhere he doth question, whether those works, generally ascribedto Aristotle, were, or are his indeed? whereby we may guests, though he have written against him, he saith, how well he was read in Aristotle. Else, the style of Aristotle, so constant to itself every where, and in a manner unimitable; but much more the matter so solid and rational every where almost, would easily have convinced him. But certainly the light account he makes of him all along, reproaching his adversary so often, for his love to and esteem of Aristotle, would make a man admire what account he made of himself. I think he had done well, before he had taken such a task upon himself, to have made it appear (the easier task of the two, as I conceive) that all men that have been famous in former ages, for their judgement, wit and learning, were no such thing really as they appeared unto the world, but mere Idols and Phantasms, not true rational men, such as this latter age hath produced; and their judgement therefore not at all to be regarded. Then indeed we might with more patience, and equanimity hear what he hath to say against Aristotle, for sound and solid reason, and for all manner of knowledge attainable by mere man without divine revelation, the wonder of all ages hitherto. But not to insist on former ages, I will name but one man of very fresh memory; What, do you think that Julius Caesar Scaliger, for learning and judgement, may be put in the balance to be weighed with your Author? Vir propter excellentem omnium disciplinarum eruditionem admirandus: So Pererius, that learned and judicious Jesuit of him: and so, so many others, that a man out of all kind of writers might easily swell a book into a great volume of testimonies concerning that admirable man. He had read Aristotle to the purpose, it seems, again and again, by the use that he makes of him upon every occasion: but seldom names him without some intimation of highest admiration and veneration, that can without Idolatry be deferred unto man. And what think you of mere Naturalists, such as Laurentius, Fabricius ab Aquapendente, Casserius Placentinus, (I name them because I have them by me at this time) and the like? Will their testimony be considerable? Fabricius, I remember, though he descent from Aristotle, sometimes freely enough, yet so devout an admirer of Aristotle was he, that somewhere he doth profess some kind of scrupulousness to acknowledge that Aristotle was ignorant of any thing, in point of nature. Casserius saith little less. Laurentius tells us, what opinion the world (Philosophi omnes) hath always had of Aristotle, styling him, verum naturae interpretem, ejusdem Genium & Lumen, etc. which himself doth also subscribe to: yet in the same place, he doth not only complain of his studied obscurity, but also, as his judgement and the judgement of divers others, doth give us this account, that in his writings concerning nature in general, he was much more happy (beyond what hath ever been performed by any other:) then in them, concerning particular natures, whether of men or beasts: which is a great commendation, the one proceeding from the strength of his brain and rational abilities; the other from some defect of sense or better information: which no man that believes him to have been a man, and no more, can wonder at, or revile him for. Yet, I believe (and therefore take notice of it) that from this might proceed that pretty conceit of some men, which passeth very current (I find it in your book twice or thrice) against Aristotle and his Philosophy, among many; as if his way had been, first, in the retitedness and secrecy forsooth of his contemplative brain, without the trouble and consideration of particular objects, to frame to himself general Theories, as certain principles, or fundamentals; and then to determine of the true nature of particular objects by those Theories. A pretty fancy I cannot deny; and I doubt he that was the first author of this, may have many more of the same nature, if well looked into. But I wonder that any, who can pretend ever to have looked into Aristotle, can entertain such fancies for real truth. For besides those books of his, which treat of the nature of particular things, altogether grounded upon matter of sense and experience; by all his writings it doth clearly appear, how much he did ascribe to experimental knowledge: which to recommend to us the more effectually; both in his Ethics more than once, and in his Metaphysics, and elsewhere too (if I be not much mistaken) he doth, as to matter of action, or success, prefer experience without art or knowledge, before art and knowledge, without experience; though indeed otherwise he doth make art of itself, (that is, general rules and maxims grounded at first upon reiterated experience) and absolutely, which doth look into the causes, and can give satisfactory reasons of events, more commendable, then illiterate or irrational, though successful experience. Not likely therefore that Aristotle would frame to himself (which had been the project of a mad man; and to believe it of him little better:) general Theories, not grounded at all, upon particular observations: but that he might be mistaken, or defective in particular observations, (which as long as there be inquisitive men in the world, may still be increased and rectified) is very possible: and thereupon his Theories, by men of judgement and ingenuity, amended or perfected. As on the other side, particular observations until they be reduced to art or theories, that is, to general rules or maxims (which is the highest operation of the rational faculty) are not much useful; which made the great oracle of Medicine to say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and mere Empirics have always been accounted dangerous men.  
But having commended Aristotle's Ethics as I have done, against which I know objections are made by more than one; I think myself bound to give you some further account about it. What those objections are, I shall not now inquire, or take upon me particularly to refute: but instead of that, for a general answer to all objections that are made, or can be made, I shall appeal to the Divinity of the tenth and last book of the said Ethics, which as I conceive, with indifferent ingenious men, is very sufficient to make amends for all defects or defaults, if any such be granted. To give you a right estimate of that book, according to my apprehension; I cannot better then in saying, (though I will not say, that Aristotle intended it so,) that it contains, allowing it but some variation of terms, as must of necessity be supposed, a full and perfect Paraphrase, or Comment upon the first Psalm; whether penned by David himself, or by any other, but penned of purpose all men grant, as an Introduction to the rest of the Psalms, treating of man's Summum bonum, or chiefest happienss, wherein it doth consist. To begin with that which is positive, or affirmative: His delight saith the Psalmist, is in the law of God: to fulfil it, as I take it, and to frame his life thereby. See Aristotle from the fifth Chapter of the tenth book, where he gins to discourse concerning beatitude, first he doth by good and solid arguments prove and evince, that it must consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the practice, or exercise of virtue: which in the Gentiles was some kind of fulfilling of the Law, as we are taught by the Apostle. But then the Psalmist doth oppose the seat of the scornful: (so we translate: but the Hebrew word you know, doth comprehend all mockers, jesters, buffoons in general; and more particularly, such who have an art, and make it their practice to turn all sins into jesting and merriment, as appears by Proverbs 14.9. Fools make a mock of sin: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it is the same word. Du Muis, upon the place very well, That no men are more pernicious, and why:) doth oppose, I say, the seat of such, whether mockers, or jesters; to the practice or study of godliness and virtue. So doth Aristotle too, in the said Chapter, very particularly. He calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and saith that such are in great request with great men ordinarily, because of their continual facetiousness and merriment: but that true happiness is to be found, not in such mirth and jollity, (or jocantness,) except it be for a time, by way of necessary relaxation; but in seriousness: and that great men are not always best judges of what is right. The Psalmist saith, that such an one doth meditate in the law of God day and night: Aristotle makes meditation, or contemplation, as he calls it, (the Hebrew word may comprehend both:) a further degree of perfection, whereby men (not forgetting the society of men) approach nearest unto God, and best resemble him. The Psalmist saith, God knoweth the way of the righteous: and that he shall be as a tree planted, etc. and that whatsoever he doth shall prosper. Aristotle saith, that such an one in all probability (what could he say more, without Divine revelation?) is most beloved of God? (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) and that God will do him good, or requite him, and that he is likely thereby to become most happy. Who also doth maintain, that this is the way for a man, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to purchase immortality to himself: there also reproving a speech very rife in those days among worldly men, (what may we think of them, who are so set upon the conveniences of this life that they will scarce allow any thing else to be considerable?) that mortals so born, should not trouble their minds with the thought of things immortal. What think you? doth this deserve the note or censure of heathen notions? why I say so you shall hear by and by. But I have done with Aristotle's Ethics.  
Now to return to the magnificent Plea of useful knowledge; much such a judgement ordinary people made anciently of the most renowned Philosophers, as Anaxagoras, Thales, and others, whom they did acknowledge to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, things in themselves excellent indeed, profound and sublime: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but useless, because they contributed nothing to the uses of this present life: as, Aristotle doth somewhere report. This in ignorant Heathens might be tolerable: but in Christians, great pretenders to knowledge, more to be wondered at. ¶ I lighted some years ago upon a little book entitled The reformed Schoolmaster, etc. but he treats of the reformation of Universities also, whose case he doth make so sad and lamentable, as nothing can be conceived more: but yet doth give us this comfort, that if he may have his will, or desire, they may become a thousand times (we may bate him nine hundred; I think one hundred will serve) more useful. Indeed I never read any man that did not pretend to immediate commission from God, speak more magisterially, and as it were authentically; but withal I must say, I never read any thing more whimsical and chimerical, than his Reformation doth appear unto me. He doth much relish of Comenius his project of making all men wise, and goes upon the same grounds. When I see fair Towns built in the air, and a sure commerce between those who inhabit the earth, and those of the Moon, whoever they are, established: I shall have some hopes that these projects, in case (which God forbidden!) they be believed and trial made, may come to somewhat. Whether your Author had his Plùs ultrà from thence, I know not; but it matters not; for I think no sober man ever denied, but that all kind of learning (with God's blessing) is capable of improvement: but withal it must be acknowledged, that many conceited, whimsical men, as Lullus, Ramus, and the like, have projected ways of improvement, which, if generally received, would have proved very destructive to learning. Amongst other passages of that little book, this is one: Whatsoever in the teaching of tongues doth not tend to make them an help to traditional knowledge by the manifestation of real truths in sciences, is superfluous, and not to be insisted upon, especially towards children: whence followeth that the curious study of Criticisms and observation of styles in Authors, and of strains of wit, which speak nothing of reality in sciences, are to be left to such as delight in Vanities more than in Truths. Truth and Reality and Sciences; brave words are they not to work upon them, who either want will or wit to search into the bottom of things, where in very deed, instead of deeds and realities nothing will be found but words? Such is his conceit, that boys and children must be taught things, before they be taught words or languages. His project was to advance the credit of Januae linguarum: every page almost hath them, and sometimes he speaks of them, as though all useful learning might be reduced to them. For my part, I wonder they were ever received into any good School, except it be to cashier good authors out of them, as needless: whereas I think the best use of languages is the reading of such authors, not for their words only, but for the excellency of the matter, which in several kinds, and to several uses, they do contain: and am very confident that where the reading of such authors is out of fashion, barbarism and grossest ignorance will quickly follow. I speak it of Poets as well as others. I cannot but admire at the conceit of a more considerable man of the same society, (as I conceive) who would erect a new kind of Poetry, grounded upon the Scriptures, and knowledge of Nature and experiments, and some other heads; excluding ancient Mythology (the chief ground and foundation of ancient Poetry) as useless and fictitious. What, would he have all ancient Poets, Greek and Latin, turned out of doors? Can such a thing enter into the heart of men, that pretend to the improvement of learning? This indeed Julian the Apostate, did maliciously plot and enact against the Christians of his time, forbidding them the use of public Schools, and reading of ancient Poets: which by the Fathers of the Church was looked upon as none of the least persecutions. And indeed, if ancient Poets, with their Mythology be turned out of doors; all ancient authors must likewise, which, without a competent knowledge of ancient Poets and their Mythology (no more can ancient Fathers, Greek especially, in very many places) cannot be understood: Of Homer particularly, as elsewhere in a peculiar Dissertation of this subject, I have had occasion more fully to declare, my opinion is, that by reason of his antiquity, and that conformity in many rites, speeches and some choice sentences, which may be observed in him with the Scriptures of the old Testament, (observed by some learned Commentators, as Ribera and some others in their frequent quotations out of Homer; which also made learned Capellus of Sedan, so confidently to profess his opinion, or suspicion at least, that the Scriptures of the old Testament, were known to him) he doth not only very much conduce to the right understanding of many obscure places in Scripture, but also may be some confirmation to the antiquity, and by consequent, in some degree to the truth of the same. And should I say, that St Paul was no stranger to Homer, (as I am sure, he was well read in Demosthenes) or Homer no stranger to him; I hope it would be no disparagement to St Paul, or matter of scandal to any judicious, sober man, no more than the citing of those Greek Poets (Epimenides, Menander and Aratus) their words, is or hath been: much inferior, the best of them, to Homer in many respects. And for Virgil (the best of Poets after Homer) that God was pleased to make use of his incomparable wit, (whereof himself was the Author, or Donor) to celebrate the coming of his Son our Saviour, into the world; hath been the opinion of some ancient and later Christians; men of excellent judgement. But again, a great part of the ancient Mythology, though with much Sophistication generally, being derived from the Scriptures, as learned men anciently, and the most learned of this latter age have thought, and thereupon taken great pains, some of them to trace it to its first original, supposing that the Scriptures among the learned and judicious, would receive no small confirmation by their labours herein; how can it now be dismissed, or cashiered, without some wrong to the Scriptures; which never more (in this visible sad increase of Atheism every where) wanted all kind of confirmation!  
But much more did I wonder at another passage of the same Author, in a more considerable subject than Poetry is. It is where he treats of the Schoolmen; favourably enough I must confess, as when he saith, If they would be content with any thing less than an Empire in learning, we would grant them very much. I think they are much to blame, if no less will content them: and they as much who uphold them upon that score. All the rest that follows this is very moderate and reasonable. But the conclusion, And yet I should not doubt, (if it were not somewhat improper to the present discourse) to prove, that even in Divinity itself, they are not so necessary, as they are reputed to be; and that all, or most of our religious controversies, may be as well decided by plain reason, and by considerations which may be fetched from the religion of mankind, the nature of government and humane society, and Scripture itself, as by the multitude of Authorities and subtleties of Disputes, which have been heretofore in use:] this I do not understand. According to ordinary construction, the sense is obvious enough; but a sense so amazing, that it is not credible. It is well known that before the late troubles, a Nobleman of this Realm wrote a book entitled De Veritate: the end and drift whereof was, out of the Religions of mankind to extract a Religion that should need no Christ. And though they that licenced it did not apprehend it so, it seems; (I did at first sight) yet himself afterwards during the troubles in his Epistola ad Sacerdotes, printed with the rest of his works, did pretty well unmask himself and openly showed what opinion he had of Christianity. Since him it is well known, that some body hath taken some pains to attemperate Christianity to the laws of every Country, and commands of Supreme Powers: and this he doth ground, or endeavour to ground, (not as the other, who did scorn them) upon divers passages of Scripture. What can this import, in ordinary construction, but a new Religion? Especially when it is said, that the controversies of it may be decided by plain reason, as well as by the multitude of Authorities, and subtleties of Disputes, which have been heretofore in use. For the controversies of Christianity every body knows begun in the Apostles time, (as doth appear by their writings, a great part of which is spent on that argument) and being prosecuted and increased in succeeding ages (according to old Simeons' prophecy concerning Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Luke 2.34. the effect of which prophecy, as also of St Paul's, Oportet haereses esse, will continue to the world's end) by an host of Heretics and Schismatics, who have been happily repressed and repelled by those blessed Fathers, and authority of general Councils and Provincial, which every age afforded, whose excellent works by a singular providence of God, are yet for the most part, extant: who can expect, or imagine, that any other course can be available to the maintenance of true Christianity? And certainly, when and where men (whether through force, or want of good learning) shall be made uncapable to uphold their faith with sound reasoning and disputing (which they call wrangling) what will be the issue, or who will get by it, any man may guests. Hoc Ithacus velit, & magno mercentur Atridae: I shall say no more. I profess sincerely, that I can make no other sense of the words: I say therefore, I do not understand them. Yet I must acknowledge, that the same Author doth elsewhere speak of Christian Religion, and the chief mysteries of it, very reverently and zealously; much abhorring, or professing to abhor all innovations in it, or that it should suffer in any thing by Experimental Philosophy; yet even there, he doth not only fetch the first establishment of it, (which to me sounds but oddly, to say no more) from Experiments, calling miracles Divine Experiments: but also doth commend unto us, men of honesty, trade and business: (such as deal in Experiments, he doth mean certainly) as the best upholders, or testifiers of it; rather than men of craft and speculation: alleging to that end the example of the Apostles: who indeed, most of them, by their profession at first, (and such chosen then of purpose by a singular providence) were no better than illiterate tradesmen and labourers: but (which he doth not tell us) were not only long taught by Christ their Master; but also immediately and miraculously inspired (besides the power of miracles given them) by God, before they began to preach the Gospel unto men: none of which things, I think, belong to the modern professors of Experimental philosophy. By men of craft and speculation, by the drift and tenor of his discourse he can intent no other than ancient Fathers, and Schoolmen and late learned Writers of Controversies. Now such an assertion, I conceive not only prejudicial, but very destructive to true Religion and Christianity. These things how to be reconciled, I profess I know not. To speak therefore as moderately as I can; I said, and say again, I do not understand him. If you do, I shall be beholding to you to help me.  
But I have not yet done with our School-Reformer. Whence followeth, saith he, that the curious study of Criticisms and observation of styles in Authors, etc. And where have we a Commentator almost, either upon the Scripture (besides those lately collected and set out in many volumes, under the name of Critics) or upon any good Author, Greek or Latin, that is not put to his criticisms sometimes, and observation of styles? which in very deed (observation of styles) is as considerable a study for the preservation and vindication of all kind of truth, whether sacred, (all truth is, more or less) or civil, wherein whole kingdoms and Commonweals are much concerned sometimes, as any study can be. And what think you of Longinus, whose treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or de sublimi dicendi genere, (not many years ago set out by a very learned and worthy man, Dr Langbaine, Provost of Qucens College in Oxford) hath been so much commended and admired by learned men; when he saith: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so diametrically opposite? God bless the Universities, and University-Libraries, from such Reformers!  
I now return to your Book; where I meet with an Objection against old learning and Aristotle particularly, which is made by more than one, but by your Author (as he doth not want words to set out his matter to the best advantage) pressed very vigorously: which is in his own words, that it hath kept him from surveying the works of God, that magnify and discover their Author, from which only the true Philosophy is obtained. Good God can any body that hath but looked into Aristotle, though never so perfunctorily (except it be by the help of some glass that represents things quite contrary) say so? But he goes on: And the zeal I have for Almighty God his glory discovered in his creatures hath inspired me with some smartness and severity against heathen notions, which have so unhappily diverted learned men from the study of God's great book, universal nature; and consequently rob him of that honour, and those acclamations that are due to him for those admirable results of his wisdom and goodness. This Author (I said before) doth not want words: he can express himself smartly enough upon very light occasions: which in a good cause is no small commendation: but otherwise I should have been very suspicious, if not confident, he had borrowed this goodly language from some profane Chemist, such as our Robert Fludd was, with whom such professions of zeal for the glory of God are very frequent and ordinary: and to that end to set out his glory in its greatest justre, doth propose unto us the consideration of the Philosopher's stone, applying all or most mysteries of the Scripture to it, as that wherein only, or chief, the Goodness, Power and Wisdom of God is to be seen and admired: so that in very truth, his zeal was more for the Philosopher's stone, than God; or, the Philosopher's stone, a God of his own making, for which he was so zealous. But this I cannot aver upon mine own credit. For though his books, when I was very young & curious enough to pry into every thing that promised somewhat more than ordinary, did offer themselves to me in Booksellers shops; yet I profess I could never dispense so much with my reason or conscience, as to read long, where I found nothing but what I judged in a high degree both impertinent and blasphemous. I must therefore discharge myself upon learned Gassendus, who together with Mersennus, will I think make good what I have said of him to the full. But indeed it is the common language of all extravagant Chemists: they all, as many as I have seen that are such, insist upon the same thing. Neither is it their plea, or language only; but of all men generally, who professing Christianity would raise admiration, by broaching unheard of mysteries. There be men in the world we know, who maintain with much show of zeal and holiness, that the stars of heaven are so many significant Characters and Hieroglyphics, there placed by God of purpose the better to manifest his Wisdom to the beholders, and from the right reading & understanding whereof greatest mysteries depend. Neither want they some places of Scripture, which they miserably abuse to countenance the business. Gafarell is a great abetter of this heavenly mystery. The Glory of God, and the Wisdom of God here also must be the pretence: which to oppose (in very truth, the result and product of sick brains hunting after Novelties) how can it be less than heathenish profaneness and impiety. Yes, if you will believe them. But granting, as I do, and all men will, that well consider of it, that praesentem Deum quaelibet herba: that there is nothing in nature, in sight so inconsiderable, but may give an intelligent man matter and occasion to admire and magnify the Power and Wisdom of God. Is the consideration of all those, (mentioned in this book) or like curiosities, the Great Book of God, from which men must learn the great Power and Wisdom of the Creator? It is ordinary enough indeed (observed by many) among men to wonder at nothing, though never so wonderful and admirable, but what is unusual, far fetched, and seldom seen. Many who never took notice of either Sun or Moon, and the benefits of either; the vicissitudes of the year; the flux and reflux of the Sea and the like, to admire them, or God in them, because daily and ordinary: will yet gaze with wonder at a Meteor, the shooting of a Star, as they call it, or an ignis fatuus, and the like. But they are not thought the wisest of men, that are of that temper. David, I hope, understood wherein the Glory of God consisted, and for what God himself would be magnified by men principally, as well as another. We do not find by any of those admirable Psalms that are written of that subject, that any other works of God are specified, but those that are very visible to all men, sufficient also to make God visible to them, who have so much grace (which wicked Epicurus had not) to believe that they were not made to eat and drink, and to enjoy the pleasures of this life; but to observe the works of God, and to glorify him therefore. And besides those admirable Works of the Creation, which many now (too many) taught by Epicurus and his mates, are apt to despise and vilify, as being the works not of a wise God, but blind atoms: there be other works of God not less to be admired: and those be the Works of his Providence and Government of the World; which the same Psalmist in his 107. Psalms, doth very particularly insist upon, and doth advise all men to consider well: they that are wise, saith he, will consider these things; implying also, as I conceive, that the consideration of those things will make a man wise; so that it is very possible, if we believe him, for a man to be both wise and religious; a great admirer of God's works, his Goodness, Wisdom and Power; who never understood, or shall understand any of those things, never known before, as we are told here. After all this, we need less wonder, that your Author (I pray excuse me, that I call him so, not that I think you are bound to maintain whatsoever he saith, but because I had him first from you) should appropriate substantial wisdom to this kind of Experimental Philosophy: though I hope he doth not intent thereby Solomon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our English, found wisdom: intended by Solomon of the true fear and sanctifying knowledge of God, to which the promises of eternal life are annexed: from whence it would follow, that according to him, none can be saved but by this way of Philosophy. But I will be more charitable then to think he could forget himself so much, though some may justly stumble at such superlative expressions, and his Philosophy (with sober men) more likely to lose then to gain by them. For though I deny not (I said it before, and say it again) that the study of Nature to a man that hath grace, and is well grounded in the principles of Faith, may afford somewhat beside the known and most visible works of God, as Sun and stars, etc. (wherein God, as the Scripture and wisest heathens did teach, is most visible) to the glory of God, and acknowledgement of his Power and Wisdom: yet truly I think they do not go a right way, either to improve the Glory of God, or humane wisdom, who do so magnify this study, as though there were no other wisdom in the world to be thought of, or pursued after; that make it the only useful, true, solid learning, to which they would have all Schools and Universities fitted, and to which the Nobility of the land are invited, as to the employment of all employments most worthy their entertainment. I think the reading of Histories, and military exercises (among which hunting is reckoned) which may fit them to do their King and Country service; to maintain the credit of their Ancestors; will much more become them, then attending on furnaces, or raking into the entrails of men, or beasts, to find somewhat, which it may be will never make them much wiser when they know it, nor ever prove of any great use. Other employments which exercise the body, beside that they are more creditable, they preserve health also, and keep the body in a constant readiness for more necessary employments, if occasion be. And though reading of histories doth not exercise the body, yet it may fit them for action; and if they be read with delight, they may contribute much, not only to compose the mind, in greatest disturbances; but also to help, yea cure the body, when nothing else will. So it happened to two great Princes, (Bodinus is my Author at this time, and he is one that may be trusted in matter of history) Alphonsus and Ferdinandus Kings of Spain and Sicily, who when no Physic or Physicians could do them good toward the recovery of their health; did own it, (under God) the one to the reading of Livy; and the other of Quintus Curtius. The same is reported of Laurentius Medici's, (that excellent Prince, both learned himself, and a great promoter of learning) as the same Bodinus doth more particularly give account.  
I could tell you some stories of myself, how studious I have been from my youth, of the knowledge of nature in general: not to commend my proficiency unto you, (I have no reason, which I may partly impute to my sufferings in many kinds) but probably to satisfy you, that I am still a great lover and honourer of it. But when I read what mighty things some men promise themselves and others of their way: what braggings and boastings: what contempt of all other things: it makes me think of the Hebrew proverb, Non volentis, neque currentis, etc. whether here also, not considerable: that is, whether it be probable, that God will give a blessing to such a violent pursuit, that will not keep within its bounds, but (as the matter is proposed unto us by some writers; for I go no farther, nor can) doth aspire to an absolute Sovereignty over all, that in so many ages of the world hath been accounted useful learning and knowledge. A man indeed may plausibly suppose, that if rarest things and most beneficial, (some of them) as the invention of the Compass: of Printing: of Guns and Powder: of a new world, and the like, have been found out by the inquisitiveness, or industry of some private men; what may we not hope of the joint labours of an whole nation, all men being invited and admitted, rich and poor, learned and unlearned? Yet let it be remembered withal, that there is a supreme cause, which hath a secret influence into all the endeavours of men, to promote or to put back; to bless or to blast, as it pleaseth. God knows his own time, and when that time is come, one single man shall do more perchance, than a combination of many thousands, at another time. A man might give a probable reason, now it is done, why God would reserve the discovery of the New world, lately found out, to these times, and why it was a very seasonable, for his glory, and the truth of his promises, discovery then. I have said somewhat of it elsewhere, which I will not trouble you with here. Now, in order to that discovery, and what ensued upon it; the Compass and the invention of gunpowder was not expedient only, but in a manner necessary. The invention of Printing did much promote learning, and learning (good useful learning) that reformation, which God intended in his Church. Every thing hath its proper time, and that time is a secret of God's dispensation, which must be left to God, though man may sometimes not improbably guests, or conjecture. Baptista Porta was a man that had as great helps and encouragements to seek into the secrets of nature, as ever any man since Aristotle had. He began betimes, he was not much above fifteen years of age (as if Providence had designed him for such a work) when he began to appear in Print, as a Naturalist; and his work was so well accepted of in the world that it was (set out in Latin at first, as I conceive) soon translated, himself tells us, into the French, Italian, Spanish and Arabic Tongues. From that time for thirty five years he followed it with assiduous and indefatigable industry. He was a man of some means himself, it seems, and had large contributions from great men, Cardinals and others: he made his house a kind of Academy for all men that had any curiosity that way: and himself traveled divers countries' to confer with others. He neglected not Tradesmen and Artificers; and whither he could not convey his person, he did address himself by letters, with much earnestness and instancy: and he professeth, that it was always his greatest care not to take things upon trust, but to make trial first himself, if possible, of what he doth deliver for truth to others. What might not be expected from such a man? I will not say, he hath done nothing; I should do him and the truth great wrong if I did. He hath certainly many secrets, which were first published and perfected by himself; and I think it were a very good work, if some men studious and well qualified that way would upon trial declare, what they find in him certain and unquestionable, and what otherwise, that so we might know what men may certainly trust to. But what ever he hath done, to make the most of it, will not amount, for the admirableness and usefulness of it, to what hath been invented, or found by some one single man: from whence I conclude, that greatest secrets will not be extorted from God, by a kind of violence and presumption, but that man doing his part in his calling, either as a Mechanic, or Philosopher, God must be left to his own will and pleasure.  
And whereas a long Inventory is given by your Author, of things lately discovered, that were not known to the Ancients; I think it would have been the part of an impartial man, to have told us at the same time, that we have lost some things also known to the Ancients, and what they are, which happily might deserve as much respect; so much at least as not to be passed in silence. Many such things (besides what is collected by Pancirollus, in a Treatise of that Argument) have been observed by more than one, Physicians and others, all which I cannot call to mind suddenly. One thing may be cutting for the stone in the kidneys, which in Hypocrates time was practised (I have read it in more than one) with good success; but now, and ever since Galens time (for which some blame him) lost and forgotten. To this, divers other things are added by learned Physicians, as that which they call dissectio in Empyematibus: exustio in jecoris humoribus: cranii perforatio in aqua cerebri: sectio supra oculum in suffusionibus: extractio aquae intercutis: which last, though some venture upon in these days also, yet it is observed that few or none escape;, for want of the right way. To these I make no question but many more might be added, and I am sure I have met with more in their books, which I do not at this time remember. Whether Galen had any knowledge of the venae lacteae, and the like, I know not; but I am confident he had that knowledge of all the muscles, sinews, arteries, fibers and the like, and their proper use in every part of the body, (as doth appear by those admirable books he hath written of that subject) as I think few Physicians have at this day: of which knowledge what use he made may appear by one story, which I remember to have read in him. A young boy belonging to a great man in Rome, had received some hurt in his body, by a fall out of a Coach, or Chariot, such as they had in those days. The boy was very dear to his Master, who spared no cost to have him perfectly cured. Many Physicians and Surgeons were employed: but for all they could do, two fingers of one of his hands continued as it were dead. Galen happened to come to Rome about that time, and was invited by the great man to see the boy; he did, and being well informed of all particulars of his fall, he presently took away all that he found applied to the sick fingers, and applied somewhat to one of the bones of his back, whereupon the fingers immediately, or soon after recovered their former use & strength. Yet I know Vesalius made it his business to contradict Galen as much as he could: but other later Anatomists have defended him; and Vesalius, though generally acknowledged an excellent Anatomist, hath found some who have taken as much pains to contradict him. It is my opinion, that there is scarce any art, or faculty, wherein we do not come short of the Ancients. Indeed their industry, much provoked by the greatness of rewards, was greater generally; that cannot be denied. Painting, Carving the Statuaria, are in a manner lost, in comparison of what they had attained to. So is the Art of Coining of money, as used in the best times of the Roman Empire: best Writers and Artificers of these days acknowledge it. So is Music. Ludovicus Vives (besides Pancirollus before named) was of that opinion, I am sure: and there is so much to be said, that it is so; that I do not see how it can be doubted, or denied by any man. The secret of those eternal Lamps, as we may call them, found in divers ancient graves, though so much, by more than one, hath been written of them, continueth a secret to this day: and I doubt whether modern Chemistry, so much admired by some men, afford any thing that deserves more admiration. Doth any body pretend in these days to understand the Mathematics, as Archimedes did? What would not men, Kings and Princes give for one of his inventions? But I have said more of him very lately.  
Hitherto nothing hath been said to impair the credit or usefulness of Natural or Experimental Philosophy: but that we would not allow it to usurp upon all other learning, as not considerable in comparison. Now I crave leave to tell you, that it is (as all good things, more or less) very apt to be abused and to degenerate into Atheism. Men that are much fixed upon matter and secundary causes and sensual objects, if great care be not taken, may in time, (there be many examples) and by degrees forget that there be such things in the world as Spirits, substances really existing and of great power, though not visible, or palpable by their nature; forget I say, and consequently discredit supernatural operations: and at last, that there is a God, and that their souls are immortal. This is a great precipice; and the contempt of all other learning an ill presage. I cannot tell what should make the Metaphysics, that noble science, so despicable unto them: them I mean, who have declared themselves and their opinion of it. Indeed, they have nothing to do with the senses, and may be called Notional: but real though, and the more abstracted from the senses, therefore the more divine. What a coil hath been kept with Cartesius' Ego cogito: to prove the immortality of the soul thereby? How much more effectually may it be proved by the capacity men have of Metaphysical contemplations, or the consideration of Ens quatenus Ens, so abstracted from all that is sensual and material? For my part, I profess, (next the mysteries of our faith) I never have been more sensible of the immortality of humane souls, then when I had the happiness to be conversant with that noble Science. To me truly it is no good sign, that this secondary kind of Theology, or Divinity, (and so called by many you know) is so out of request. But Natural Philosophy I grant, is more taking and bewitching generally: there is a plain reason for it: and though cried up for the only useful knowledge, yet if well considered, it may be found sometimes, to have much more of pleasure and curiosity in it then use and profit; even in that sense (for what is truly useful and profitable, or most useful and profitable, is another question) which they intent.  
Yet (Give me leave, I pray, to tell you this pretty story by the way) if we must, or may believe every thing that is written by men addicted to this way, we may find wonderful effects of it, even to moralise men; which indeed is the best use of any worldly thing which can be made. Gassendus in the life of Peyreskius a right worthy man, and great Patron of all kind of learning, hath this story of him: Dicebat verò nihil sibi unquam animi regendi persuasionem aequè fecisse, etc. Give me leave to tell it you in English, though I know you a great Master of the Latin Tongue. Peyreskius, it seems, had shut in a microscope, a louse and a fly together; how they fell out Gassendus doth not tell us; but it seems they were not long together but they began to quarrel and to fight, and Peyreskius was a spectator of the combat: where he observed, that the louse (the more passionate of the two, it seems) was so distracted and vexed, that after reiterated go to and fro, (whether as a coward, to run away; or for the advantage of fresh onsets he doth not tell us) all the blood of his head was sunk into his tail; the effect he saith, of a great passion (he was striving for his life, a very natural passion this) and very prejudicial to the state of the body. By this sight Gassendus tells us Peyreskius profited more to rule his passions in the rest of his life, than he had done by any thing he had heard, or read before. This is the story: which, when I consider the Worth and Nobleness of the man, of whom it is written, I could wish that Gassendus had left out: What? Peyreskius, so learned, so wise a man, to profit more by the sight of such a combat, and the demeanour of the louse in it, in a thing of such consequence to a man's life, than he had done by the reading of so many Philosophers, who have written so excellently of that subject, (and among other things, have not omitted this very particular, the ghastly countenance and deformity of a man in passion, and the diseases and dismal accidents it doth expose him to) or the precepts and persuasions of the Word of God, always divine; but in this Argument, even to humane reason, most excellent and singular? Galen indeed, I remember, hath a story, how by some chance being an eye-witness to the impatience of a man, who because when he knocked at a door was answered, The party was not at home, fell into such a rage and fury, both in words and actions, as no mad man could out do: it made such impression in him that he was the better for it all his life after. This is somewhat like, as the sight of a drunken man may work upon an ingenuous youth, to make him abhor drunkenness for ever. But that the sight of the blood of a louse, passing from the head to the tail, (which perchance is no such extraordinary thing in a louse) should be of such force with so brave a man, as Peyreskius was, above all that he had ever read or observed upon that subject; and that he should as it were in thankfulness to the louse, make an acknowledgement of it to his friends, I have not faith enough to believe Gassendus in this: but rather believe, or suspect that Gassendus made this pretty story, either upon occasion of somewhat that Peyreskius had told him of a louse or a fly, but not to that purpose; or of purpose to gratify some friends, who would be glad to hear what use can be made, even in point of life and manners, of a microscope. But you will say perchance, doth not wise Solomon say, Go to the Ant thou sluggard? etc. Yes, he doth indeed, but to the sluggard: pigro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: words of great weight: as elsewhere I have showed: not to such a man as Peyreskius was; nor as if Aunts by their example could teach men, what their own reason and the good instructions of other men (beside the Scripture) could not: but to make such wretches more sensible of their degenerating into brutishness; when they see such acts of reason performed by those creatures by mere instinct of nature, which neither their own reason, nor the reason (good instruction) of other men can persuade them to. Besides, he sends them to what will not require the labour, or curiosity of much observation, or inquisition; but to that which is very obvious to all men. Add, that Aunts certainly, are more noble creatures than Lice, because they live in common, and have a form of government among themselves, which doth presuppose some kind of reason, or somewhat answerable to reason in men. To this purpose, I remember I have read the description of a City made (I cannot say built) by Aunts; the Author whereof is no less a man then a learned Bishop, as by the elegancy of his style I guess him to have been. Learned Gillius I am sure is not more accurate in the description of Constantinople, than he is (for the bigness of it: for I would not have you think, that it is any thing near so big as Constantinople) in the description of this city of Ants. He hath the dimensions of the longitude and latitude of every street in it, and the particulars of some public places belonging to it, with much accurateness. He writes it in good earnest; and for my part I believe him; though if you do not, I shall not account you an Infidel for it. Yet I do not deny, but some good may come, even in matters of life, by the observation of some actions in brutes: but as good, so evil also, when men not knowing, or forgetting whose image they bore, are more apt (so the greater number) to prostitute their reason to mere nature, then to rectify nature by right reason. We read in Herodotus of a people who thought carnal copulation lawful enough in their Temples, because they observed that beasts that were brought to and kept in Temples for sacrifices, made no conscience of it. So Pontus Houterus of Delft in Holland, grounding especially upon the custom of brute beasts, would infer the lawfulness of incest among men: Non illa (natura) matrem agnoscit, non sororem, etc. which is very horrible. And I could name some body else, who doth not say much less; but for the reputation he hath in the world I will spare his name. And what will you say to him, who out of his study (he saith, not very busy then certainly:) having observed the carriage of a Sparrow (the most lascivious of all creatures, as is observed by some Naturalists) towards its mate, (vicies repetito coitu, & indè ex languore ad terram decidente) began to quarrel with God Almighty (en sortem iniquam, hoc passeribus datum, negatum hominibus!) that he had made him a man and not a Sparrow. It were to be wished that they that are destined to the study of Nature, were such as have attained by their years to ordinary discretion, and are well grounded in Religion: I know not what we may expect of wanton Boys, whom some would have trained up in those studies be times.  
But another danger is: may not a man go too far in this study, and overvalue his progress so far, as to think nothing out of his reach? It was a noble attempt (as to man) of them that built, or would have built the tower of Babel, whose top might reach to Heaven: It is not likely they could be so simple, as to think really they should reach to Heaven by it: they might think they should be somewhat nearer perchance; and however, get a name among men in after ages, that they that built such a tower, were somewhat above men. But confusion was their reward. I have no reason to be against the Art of flying, if discoverable by humane industry; I have reaped the pleasures of it in my dreams more than once; and I thought no pleasure comparable to it, though but in a dream. Yet I doubt it may have somewhat of the Babylonish presumption in the eyes of God; and that such high curiosities are so far from being useful, that they may be dangerous. Alas aut expectare, aut sperare, intemperantis & naturae suae conditionem ignorantis animi est: is Gassendus his judgement upon the matter, which I hope will excuse me. Yet I must confess, I think there is less offence in the conceit of Artificial flying then in the conceit of Urim and Thummim, being an Artificial Chemical preparation, whoever was the Author of it; which I think deserved to be censured as impious: and if such liberty be taken, or allowed, I know not how far it may proceed, or how soon Robert Flood his blasphemies, which Gassendus hath censured and confuted may be received for useful truths or learning.  
But I have done. What I had to except against the book you brought me, I have told you. I must now thank you for it. For in very truth, his Divinity at the end, which is somewhat mystical (I hope I do not understand it) and those two particulars, his contempt of Aristotle, and his censuring all other learning besides Experimental Philosophy, and what tendeth to it as useless, and mere wrangling and disputing, excepted: I have read the rest, wherein he doth give us an exact account of late discoveries, with much pleasure. For though I think many ages may pass before the use of many of those particulars is known; yet Aristotle hath taught me, (and he proves it excellently) that nothing can be in nature so mean, or so vile, but deserves to be taken notice of, and will afford to an ingenious speculative man, matter of pleasure and delight.  
Sr, I know your relations to some of eminent worth and piety in that Honourable Society, whom though we have not the happiness to know otherwise, then by the fame of their writings; yet we honour their worth as much as you do. I hope you do not think any thing I have written can reflect upon any such. No, nor upon any others, farther than in those particulars I have mentioned. You know my condition, and Judge I hope so charitably, that I would not go out of the World, but in perfect love and charity with all men. As long as I live continue unto me, I pray, the comfort of your love, and good opinion, who am,  
Your affectionate Brother, and humble Servant, MERIC CASAUBON.