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 
 attra&eth to itfelf that part of Nutri- 
 ment which is congruous to it, anddi- 
 geftcch that fo Attracted : And therefore 
 it hath an anfwerable Perception, which 
 fort is congruous to it, and which not, 
 when it negledfceth one fort, and draweth 
 another. It doth not fee or feel it, nor un- 
 der ft and it # but infenfibly perceiveth it. 
 
 3. You fay, you [do not eafily affent to 
 that conceit of a Trinity in this Conceptus 
 formalis which 1 make to confift in Virtute 
 una-trrna, vitali, perceptiva, appetitiva.J 
 Anf Nor did I eafily aflent to it 5 nor 
 did Dr.GIiJfon after §0 Years of agc.eafily 
 procure men to aflent to it 5 nor Campanella* 
 take fo marvelloufly with others as he 
 did with our Commsntus and fome fuchj 
 And far be it from me to expect you 
 IJiouId eafily affent to it, when I come 
 C 3 not 
 
[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