XXVI.

MADAM,

Concerning those parts and chapters of your Authors Works, which treat of Physick; before I begin to examine them, I beg leave of you in this present, to make some reflections first upon his Opinions concerning the Nature of Health and Diseases: As for Health, he is pleased to say,[1] That it consists not in a just Temperature of the body, but in a sound and intire Life; for otherwise, a Temperature of body is as yet in a dead Carcass newly kill'd, where notwithstanding there is now death, but not life, not health: Also he says,[2] That no disease is in a dead carcass. To which I answer, That, in my opinion, Life is in a dead Carcass, as well as in a living Animal, although not such a Life as that Creature had before it became a Carcass, and the Temperature of that Creature is altered with the alteration of its particular life; for the temperature of that particular life, which was before in the Animal, doth not remain in the Carcass, in such a manner as it was when it had the life of such or such an Animal; nevertheless, a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature of life, as is proper, and belonging to its own figure: for there are as many different lives, as there be different creatures, and each creature has its particular life and soul, as partaking of sensitive and rational Matter. And if a dead Carcass hath life, and such a temperature of motions as belong to its own life, then there is no question, but these motions may move sometimes irregularly in a dead Carcass as well, as in any other Creature; and since health and diseases are nothing else but the regularity or irregularity of sensitive corporeal Motions, a dead Carcass having Irregular motions, may be said as well to have diseases, as a living body, as they name it, although it is no proper or usual term for other Creatures, but onely for Animals. However, if there were no such thing as a disease (or term it what you will, I will call it Irregularity of sensitive motions) in a dead Carcass, How comes it that the infection of a disease proceeds often from dead Carcasses into living Animals? For, certainly, it is not meerly the odour or stink of a dead body, for then all stinking Carcasses would produce an Infection; wherefore this Infection must necessarily be inherent in the Carcass, and proceed from the Irregularity of its motions. Next I'le ask you, Whether a Consumption be a disease, or not? If it be, then a dead Carcass might be said to have a disease, as well as a living body; and the Ægyptians knew a soveraign remedy against this disease, which would keep a dead Carcass intire and undissolved many ages; but as I said above, a dead Carcass is not that which it was being a living Animal, wherefore their effects cannot be the same, having not the same causes. Next, your Author is pleased to call, with Hippocrates, Nature the onely Physicianess of Diseases. I affirm it; and say moreover, that as she is the onely Physicianess, so she is also the onely Destroyeress and Murtheress of all particular Creatures, and their particular lives; for she dissolves and transforms as well as she frames and creates; and acts according to her pleasure, either for the increase or decrease, augmentation or destruction, sickness or health, life or death of Particular Creatures. But concerning Diseases, your Authors opinion is, That a Disease is as Natural as Health. I answer; 'tis true, Diseases are natural; but if we could find out the art of healing, as well as the art of killing and destroying; and the art of uniting and composing, as well as the art of separating and dividing, it would be very beneficial to man; but this may easier be wished for, then obtained; for Nature being a corporeal substance, has infinite parts, as well as an infinite body; and Art, which is onely the playing action of Nature, and a particular Creature, can easier divide and separate parts, then unite and make parts; for Art cannot match, unite, and joyn parts so as Nature doth; for Nature is not onely dividable and composeable, being a corporeal substance, but she is also full of curiosity and variety, being partly self-moving: and there is great difference between forced actions, and natural actions; for the one sort is regular, the other irregular. But you may say, Irregularities are as natural as Regularities. I grant it; but Nature leaves the irregular part most commonly to her daughter or creature Art, that is, she makes irregularities for varieties sake, but she her self orders the regular part, that is, she is more careful of her regular actions; and thus Nature taking delight in variety suffers irregularities; for otherwise, if there were onely regularities, there could not be so much variety. Again your Author says,[3] That a disease doth not consist but in living bodies. I answer, there is not any body that has not life; for if life is general, then all figures or parts have life; but though all bodies have life, yet all bodies have not diseases; for diseases are but accidental to bodies, and are nothing else but irregular motions in particular Creatures, which may be not onely in Animals, but generally in all Creatures; for there may be Irregularities in all sorts of Creatures, which may cause untimely dissolutions; but yet all dissolutions are not made by irregular motions, for many creatures dissolve regularly, but onely those which are untimely. In the same place your Author mentions, That a Disease consists immediately in Life it self, but not in the dregs and filthinesses, which are erroneous forreigners and strangers to the life. I grant, that a Disease is made by the motions of Life, but not such a life as your Author describes, which doth go out like the snuff of a Candle, or as one of Lucian's Poetical Lights; but by the life of Nature, which cannot go out without the destruction of Infinite Nature: and as the Motions of Nature's life make diseases or irregularities, so they make that which man names dregs and filths; which dregs, filths, sickness, and death, are nothing but changes of corporeal motions, different from those motions or actions that are proper to the health, perfection and consistence of such or such a figure or creature. But, to conclude, there is no such thing as corruption, sickness, or death, properly in Nature, for they are made by natural actions, and are onely varieties in Nature, but not obstructions or destructions of Nature, or annihilations of particular Creatures; and so is that we name Superfluities, which bear onely a relation to a particular Creature, which hath more Motion and Matter then is proper for the nature of its figure. And thus much of this subject for the present, from,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and humble Servant.

XXVII.

MADAM,

In my last, I remember, I told you of your Authors opinion concerning the seat of Diseases, viz. that Diseases are properly in living bodies, and consist in the life it self; but when I consider his definition of Life, and of a Disease, I cannot conceive how they should consist together; for he describes[1] a Disease to be a real, material and substantial being, truly subsisting in a body; but life to be a meer nothing, and yet the immediate mansion of a disease, the inward subject, yea, and workman of the same; and that with the life all diseases depart into nothing. Surely, Madam, it exceedeth my understanding; for, first, I cannot conceive how life, which is a meer Nothing, can be a lodging to something? Next, how Nothing can depart and die? and thirdly how Something can become Nothing? I think your Author might call a dead Carcass as well No-thing, as Life; and since he names Diseases the Thieves of Life, they must needs be but poor Thieves, because they steal No-thing. But your Author compares Life to Light, and calls it an Extinguishable Light, like the light of a Candle; which if so, then the old saying is verified, That life goes out like the snuff of a Candle. But I wonder, Madam, that grave and wise men will seriously make use of a similising old Proverb, or of a Poetical Fancy, in matter of natural Philosophy; for I have observed, that Homer, Lucian, Ovid, Virgil, Horace, &c. have been very serviceable to great Philosophers, who have taken the ground of their Fictions, and transferred them into Natural Philosophy, as Immaterial substances, Non-beings, and many the like; but they can neither do any good nor hurt to Nature, but onely spoil Philosophical Knowledg; and as Nature is ignorant of Immaterials and Non-beings, so Art is ignorant of Nature; for Mathematical Rules, Measures, and Demonstrations, cannot rule, measure nor demonstrate Nature, no more, then Chymical Divisions, Dissolutions and Extractions (or rather distractions, nay, I may say destructions) can divide, dissolve, extract, compose, and unite, as Nature doth; Wherefore their Instruments, Figures, Furnaces, Limbecks, and Engines, cannot instruct them of the truth of Natures Principles; but the best and readiest way to find out Nature, or rather some truth of Nature, is sense and reason, which are Parts of Natures active substance, and therefore the truest informers of Nature; but the Ignorance of Nature has caused Ignorance amongst Philosophers, and the Ignorance of Philosophers hath caused numerous Opinions, and numerous Opinions have caused various Discourses and Disputes; which Discourses and Disputes, are not Sense and Reason, but proceed from Irregular Motions; and Truth is not found in Irregularities. But to return to Life: it seems your Author hath taken his opinion from Lucian's Kingdom of Lights, the Lights being the Inhabitants thereof; and when any was adjudged to die, his Light was put out, which was his punishment: And thus this Heathenish Fiction is become a Christian Verity; when as yet your Author rayls much at those, that insist upon the Opinions and Doctrine of Pagan Philosophers. Wherefore I will leave this Poetical Fancy of Life, and turn to Death, and see what opinion your Author hath of that. First, concerning the cause or original of Death; Neither God, says he,[2] nor the Evil Spirit, is the Creator of Death, but Man onely, who made Death for himself; Neither did Nature make death, but Man made death natural. Which if it be so, then Death being, to my opinion, a natural Creature, as well as Life, Sickness, and Health; Man, certainly, had great Power, as to be the Creator of a natural Creature. But, I would fain know the reason, why your Author is so unwilling to make God the Author of Death, and Sickness, as well as of Damnation? Doth it imply any Impiety or Irreligiousness? Doth not God punish, as well as reward? and is not death a punishment for our sin? You may say, Death came from sin, but sin did not come from God. Then some might ask from whence came sin? You will say, From the Transgression of the Command of God, as the eating of the Forbidden Fruit. But from whence came this Transgression? It might be answer'd, From the Perswasion of the Serpent. From whence came this Perswasion? From his ill and malitious nature to oppose God, and ruine the race of Mankind. From whence came this ill Nature? From his Fall. Whence came his Fall? From his Pride and Ambition to be equal with God. From whence came this Pride? From his Free-will. From whence came his Free-will? From God. Thus, Madam, if we should be too inquisitive into the actions of God, we should commit Blasphemy, and make God Cruel, as to be the Cause of Sin, and consequently of Damnation. But although God is not the Author of Sin, yet we may not stick to say, that he is the Author of the Punishment of Sin, as an Act of his Divine Justice; which Punishment, is Sickness, and Death; nay, I see no reason, why not of Damnation too, as it is a due punishment for the sins of the wicked; for though Man effectively works his own punishment, yet Gods Justice inflicts it: Like as a just Judg may be call'd the cause of a Thief being hang'd. But these questions are too curious; and some men will be as presumptuous as the Devil, to enquire into Gods secret actions, although they be sure that they cannot be known by any Creature. Wherefore let us banish such vain thoughts, and onely admire, adore, love, and praise God, and implore his Mercy, to give us grace to shun the punishments for our sins by the righteousness of our actions, and not endeavour to know his secret designs. Next, I dissent from your Author,[3] That Death and all dead things do want roots whereby they may produce: For death, and dead things, in my opinion, are the most active producers, at least they produce more numerously and variously then those we name living things; for example, a dead Horse will produce more several Animals, besides other Creatures, then a living Horse can do; but what Archeus and Ideas a dead Carcass hath, I can tell no more, then what Blas or Gas it hath; onely this I say, that it has animate Matter, which is the onely Archeus or Master-workman, that produces all things, creates all things, dissolves all things, and transforms all things in Nature; but not out of Nothing, or into Nothing, as to create new Creatures which were not before in Nature, or to annihilate Creatures, and to reduce them to nothing; but it creates and transforms out of, and in the same Matter which has been from all Eternity. Lastly, your Author is pleased to say, That he doth not behold a disease as an abstracted Quality; and that Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, as they are Qualities in the abstract, are not diseases. I am of his mind, that a disease is a real and corporeal being, and do not understand what he and others mean by abstracted qualities; for Nature knows of no abstraction of qualities from substances, and I doubt Man can do no more then Nature doth: Besides, those abstractions are needless, and to no purpose; for no Immaterial quality will do any hurt, if it be no substance; wherefore Apoplexy, Leprosie, Dropsie, and Madness, are Corporeal beings, as well as the rest of Diseases, and not abstracted Qualities; and I am sure, Persons that are affected with those diseases will tell the same. Wherefore leaving needless abstractions to fancies abstracted from right sense and reason, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXVIII.

MADAM,

I am very much troubled to see your Authors Works fill'd with so many spiteful reproaches and bitter taunts against the Schools of Physicians, condemning both their Theory and Practice; nay, that not onely the Modern Schools of Physicians, but also the two ancient and famous Physicians, Galen, and Paracelsus, must sufficiently suffer by him; especially Galen; for there is hardly a Chapter in all his Works, which has not some accusations of blind errors, sloth, and sluggishness, Ignorance, Covetousness, Cruelty, and the like: Which I am very sorry for; not onely for the sake of your Author himself, who herein doth betray both his rashness, and weakness, in not bridling his passions, and his too great presumption, reliance and confidence in his own abilities, and extraordinary Gifts; but also for the sake of the Fame and Repute of our Modern Physicians; for without making now any difference betwixt the Galenists and Paracelsians, and examining which are the best, (for I think them both excellent in their kinds, especially when joyned together) I will onely say this in general, that the Art of Physick has never flourish'd better then now, neither has any age had more skilful, learned, and experienced Physicians, then this present; because they have not onely the knowledg and practise of those in ages Past, but also their own experience joyned with it, which cannot but add perfection to their Art; and I, for my part, am so much for the old way of Practice, that if I should be sick, I would desire rather such Physicians which follow the same way, then those, that by their new Inventions, perchance, cure one, and kill a hundred. But your Author[1] will have a Physician to be like a Handycrafts man, who being call'd to a work, promises that work, and stands to his promise; and therefore, It is a shame, says he, in a Physician, being call'd to a sick man in the beginning of the disease, and when his strength is yet remaining, to suffer the same man to die. This, in my opinion, is a very unreasonable comparison, to liken a Handicrafts man to a Physician, and the art of Curing to the art of Building, or any the like, without regard of so many great differences that are between them, which I am loth to rehearse, for brevities sake, and are apparant enough to every one that will consider them: but this I may say, that it is not always for want of skill and industry in a Physician, that the cure is not effected, but it lies either in the Incureableness of the disease, or any other external accidents that do hinder the success: Not but that the best Physicians may err in a disease, or mistake the Patients inward distemper by his outward temper, or the interior temper by his outward distemper, or any other ways; for they may easily err through the variation of the disease, which may vary so suddenly and oft, as it is impossible to apply so fast, and so many Medicines, as the alteration requires, without certain death; for the body is not able, oftentimes, to dispose and digest several Medicines so fast, as the disease may vary, and therefore what was good in this temper, may, perhaps, be bad in the variation; insomuch, that one medicine may in a minute prove a Cordial, and Poyson. Nay, it may be that some Physicians do err through their own ignorance and mistake, must we therefore condemn all the skill, and accuse all the Schools of Negligence, Cruelty, and Ignorance? God forbid: for it would be a great Injustice. Let us rather praise them for the good they do, and not rashly condemn them for the evil they could not help: For we may as well condemn those holy and industrious Divines, that cannot reform wicked and perverse Sinners, as Physicians, because they cannot restore every Patient to his former health, the Profession of a Physician being very difficult; for they can have but outward signs of inward distempers. Besides, all men are not dissected after they are dead, to inform Physicians of the true cause of their death; nay, if they were, perchance they would not give always a true information to the Physician, as is evident by many examples; but oftentimes the blame is laid upon the Physician, when as the fault is either in Nature, or any other cause, which Art could not mend. And if your Author had had such an extraordinary Gift from God as to know more then all the rest of Physicians, why did he not accordingly, and as the Scripture speaks of Faith, shew his skill by his Works and Cures? certainly, could he have restored those that were born blind, lame, deaf and dumb, or cured the spotted Plague, or Apoplexy after the third fit, or the Consumption of Vital parts, or a Fever in the Arteries, or dissolved a Stone too big to go through the passage, and many the like; he would not onely have been cried up for a rare Physician, but for a miracle of the World, and worshipped as a Saint: But if he could not effect more then the Schools can do, why doth he inveigh so bitterly against them? Wherefore I cannot commend him in so doing; but as I respect the Art of Physick, as a singular Gift from God to Mankind, so I respect and esteem also learned and skilful Physicians, for their various Knowledg, industrious Studies, careful Practice, and great Experiences, and think every one is bound to do the like, they being the onely supporters and restorers of humane life and health: For though I must confess, with your Author, that God is the onely giver of Good, yet God is not pleased to work Miracles ordinarily, but has ordained means for the restoring of health, which the Art of Physick doth apply; and therefore those Persons that are sick, do wisely to send for a Physician; for Art, although it is but a particular Creature, and the handmaid of Nature, yet she doth Nature oftentimes very good service; and so do Physicians often prolong their Patients lives. The like do Chirurgeons; for if those Persons that have been wounded, had been left to be cured onely by the Magnetick Medicine, I believe, numbers that are alive would have been dead, and numbers would die that are alive; insomuch, as none would escape, but by miracle, especially if dangerously hurt. Concerning the Coveteousness of Physicians, although sickness is chargeable, yet I think it is not Charitable to say or to think, that Physitians regard more their Profit, then their Patients health; for we might as well condemn Divines for taking their Tithes and Stipends, as Physicians for taking their Fees: but the holy Writ tells us, that a Labourer is Worthy of his hire or reward; and, for my part, I think those commit a great sin, which repine at giving Rewards in any kind; for those that deserve well by their endeavours, ought to have their rewards; and such Meritorious Persons, I wish with all my Soul, may prosper and thrive. Nevertheless, as for those persons, which for want of means are not able to reward their Physicians, I think Physicians will not deal so unconscionably, as to neglect their health and lives for want of their Fees, but expect the reward from God, and be recompenced the better by those that have Wealth enough to spare. And this good opinion I have of them. So leaving them, I rest,

Madam,

Your constant Friend

and faithful Servant.

XXIX.

MADAM

I am of your Authors mind, That heat is not the cause of digestion; but I dissent from him, when he says, That it is the Ferment of the stomach that doth cause it: For, in my opinion, Digestion is onely made by regular digestive motions, and ill digestion is caused by irregular motions, and when those motions are weak, then there is no digestion at all, but what was received, remains unaltered; but when they are strong and quick, then they make a speedy digestion. You may ask me, what are digestive motions? I answer, They are transchanging, or transforming motions: but since there be many sorts of transchanging motions, digestive motions are those, which transchange food into the nourishment of the body, and dispose properly, fitly and usefully of all the Parts of the food, as well of those which are converted into nourishment, as of those which are cast forth. For give me leave to tell you, Madam, that some parts of natural Matter, do force or cause other parts of Matter to move and work according to their will, without any change or alteration of their parts; as for example, Fire and Metal; for Fire will cause Metal to flow, but it doth not readily alter it from its nature of being Metal; neither doth Fire alter its nature from being Fire. And again, some parts of Matter will cause other parts to work and act to their own will, by forcing these over-powred parts to alter their own natural motions into the motions of the victorious Party, and so transforming them wholly into their own Figure; as for example, Fire will cause Wood to move so as to take its figure, to wit, the figure of Fire, that is, to change its own figurative motions into the motions of Fire: and this latter kind of moving or working is found in digestion; for the regular digestive motions do turn all food received from its own nature or figure, into the nourishment, figure, or nature of the body, as into flesh, blood, bones, and the like. But when several parts of Matter meet or joyn with equal force and power, then their several natural motions are either quite altered, or partly mixt: As for example; some received things not agreeing with the natural constitution of the body, the corporeal motions of the received, and those of the receiver, do dispute or oppose each other: for the motions of the received, not willing to change their nature conformable to the desire of the digestive motions, do resist, and then a War begins, whereby the body suffers most; for it causes either a sickness in the stomack, or a pain in the head, or in the heart, or in the bowels, or the like: Nay, if the received food gets an absolute victory, it dissolves and alters oftentimes the whole body, it self remaining entire and unaltered, as is evident in those that die of surfeits. But most commonly these strifes and quarrels, if violent, do alter and dissolve each others forms or natures. And many times it is not the fault of the Received, but of the Receiver; as for example, when the digestive and transforming motions are either irregular, or weak; for they being too weak, or too few, the meat or food received is digested onely by halves; and being irregular, it causes that which we call corruption. But it may be observed, that the Received food is either agreeable, or disagreeable, to the Receiver; if agreeable, then there is a united consent of Parts, to act regularly and perfectly in digestion; if disagreeable, then the Received acts to the Ruine, that is, to the alteration or dissolution of the Nature of the Receiver; but if it be neutral, that is, neither perfectly agreeable, nor perfectly disagreeable, but between both, then the receiver, or rather the digestive Motions of the receiver, use a double strength to alter and transform the received. But you may ask me, Madam, what the reason is, that many things received, after they are dissolved into small parts, those parts will keep their former colour and savour? I answer; The cause is, that either the retentive Motions in the Parts of the received, are too strong for the digestive and alterative Motions of the receiver, or perchance, this colour and savour is so proper to them, as not to be transchanged: but you must observe, that those digestive, alterative and transchanging motions, do not act or move all after one and the same manner; for some do dissolve the natural figure of the received, some disperse its dissolved parts into the parts of the body, some place the dispersed parts fitly and properly for the use, benefit, and consistence of the body; for there is so much variety in this one act of digestion, as no man is able to conceive; and if there be such variety in one Particular natural action, what variety will there not be in all Nature? Wherefore, it is not, as I mentioned in the beginning, either Ferment, or Heat, or any other thing, that causes digestion; for if all the constitution and nature of our body was grounded or did depend upon Ferment, then Brewers and Bakers, and those that deal with Ferments, would be the best Physicians. But I would fain know the cause which makes Ferment? You may say, saltness, and sowreness. But then I ask, From whence comes saltness and sowreness? You may say, From the Ferment. But then I shall be as wise as before. The best way, perhaps, may be to say, with your Author, that Ferment is a Primitive Cause, and a beginning or Principle of other things, and it self proceeds from nothing. But then it is beyond my imagination, how that can be a Principle of material things, which it self is nothing; that is, neither a substance, nor an accident. Good Lord! what a stir do men make about nothing! I am amazed to see their strange Fancies and Conceptions vented for the Truest Reasons: Wherefore I will return to my simple opinion; and as I cannot conceive any thing that is beyond Matter, or a Body; so I believe, according to my reason, that there is not any part in Nature, be it never so subtil or small, but is a self-moving substance, or endued with self-motion; and according to the regularity and irregularity of these motions, all natural effects are produced, either perfect, or imperfect; timely births, or untimely and monstrous births; death, health, and diseases, good and ill dispositions, natural and extravagant Appetites and Passions, (I say natural, that is, according to the nature of their figures;) Sympathy and Antipathy, Peace and War, Rational and Phantastical opinions. Nevertheless, all these motions, whether regular or irregular, are natural; for regularity and irregularity hath but a respect to particulars, and to our conceptions, because those motions which move not after the ordinary, common or usual way or manner, we call Irregular. But the curiosity and variety in Nature is unconceiveable by any particular Creature; and so leaving it, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXX.

MADAM,

Your Author says,[1] it is an ancient Truth, That whatsoever things, meats being digested and cast out by vomit, are of a sowre taste and smell, yea, although they were seasoned with much sugar. But I do not assent to this opinion; for I think that some Vomits have no more taste then pure Water hath. Neither am I of his mind, That Digestion is hastened by sharpness or tartness: For do but try it by one simple experiment; take any kind of flesh-meat, boyl or stew it with Vinegar, or sowre wine, or with much salt; and you will find, that it doth require a longer time, or rather more motions to dissolve, then if you boyl it in fair water, without such ingredients as are sowre, sharp, or salt; also if you do but observe, you will find the dregs more sandy, stony and hard, being drest with much salt, and sharp wine, or vinegar, then when they are not mixt with such contracting and fixing Ingredients. Wherefore, if the Ferment of the stomack hath such a restringent and contracting quality, certainly digestions will be but slow and unprofitable; but Nature requires expulsion as much as attraction, and dilation as much as contraction, and digestion is a kind of dilation. Wherefore, in my judgment; contracting tartness and sharpness doth rather hinder digestion then further it. Next I perceive, your Author inclines to the opinion, That Choler is not made by meat:[2] But I would ask him, whether any humor be made of meat, or whether blood, flesh, &c. are made and nourished by meat? If they be not, then my answer is, That we eat to no purpose; but if they be, then Choler is made so too. But if he says, That some are made, and some not; then I would ask, what that humor is made of, that is not made by meat or food received into the body? But we find that humors, blood, flesh, &c. will be sometimes more, sometimes less, according either to feeding, or to digestion, which digestion is a contribution of food to every several part of the body for its nourishment; and when there is a decay of those parts, then it is caused either by fasting, or by irregular digestion, or by extraordinary evacuation, or by distempered matter, &c. all which, causes sickness, paleness, leanness, weakness, and the like. Again: your Author is against the opinion of the Schools, That the Gall is a receptacle of superfluous humors and dregs: for he says, it has rather the constitution of a necessary and vital bowel, and is the balsom of the liver and blood. Truly, it may be so, for any thing I know, or it may be not; for your Author could but guess, not assuredly know, unless he had been in a man as big as the Whale in whose belly Jonas was three days, and had observed the interior parts and motions of every part for three years time, and yet he might perchance have been as ignorant at the coming forth, as if he never had been there; for Natures actions are not onely curious, but very various; and not onely various, but very obscure; in so much, as the most ingenious Artists cannot trace her ways, or imitate her actions; for Art being but a Creature, can do or know no more then a Creature; and although she is an ingenious Creature, which can and hath found out some things profitable and useful for the life of others, yet she is but a handmaid to Nature, and not her Mistress; which your Author, in my opinion, too rashly affirms, when he says,[3] That the Art of Chymistry is not onely the Chambermaid and emulating Ape, but now and then the Mistress of Nature: For Art is an effect of Nature, and to prefer the effect before the cause, is absurd. But concerning Chymistry, I have spoken in another place; I'le return to my former Discourse: and I wonder much why your Author is so opposite to the Schools, concerning the doctrine of the Gall's being a receptacle for superfluities and dregs; for I think there is not any Creature that has not places or receptacles for superfluous matter, such as we call dregs; for even the purest and hardest Mineral, as Gold, has its dross, although in a less proportion then some other Creatures; nay, I am perswaded, that even Light, which your Author doth so much worship, may have some superfluous matter, which may be named dregs; and since Nature has made parts in all Creatures to receive and discharge superfluous matter, (which receiving and discharging is nothing else but a joyning and dividing of parts to and from parts,) why may not the Gall be as well for that use as any other part? But I pray mistake me not, when I say superfluous matter or dregs; for I understand by it, that which is not useful to the nourishment or consistence of such or such a Creature; but to speak properly, there is neither superfluity of matter nor dregs in Nature. Moreover, your Author mentions a six-fold digestion, and makes every digestion to be performed by inbreathing or inspiration; For in the first digestion, he says, The spleen doth inspire a sowre Ferment into the Meat: In the second, The Gall doth inspire a ferment, or fermental blas into the slender entrails: In the third, The Liver doth inspire a bloody ferment into the veins of the Mensentery, &c. I answer, first, I am confident Nature has more ways then to work onely by Inspirations, not onely in General, but in every Particular. Next, I believe there are not onely six, but many more digestions in an animal Creature; for not onely every sort of food, but every bit that is eaten, may require a several digestion, and every several part of the body works either to expel, or preserve, or for both; so that there are numerous several Motions in every Creature, and many changes of motions in each particular part; but Nature is in them all. And so leaving her, I rest,

Madam,

Your Faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXXI.

MADAM,

Your Author, in opposition to the Schools, endeavouring to prove that there are no humors in an animal body, except blood, proves many humors in himself. But I can see no reason, why Nature should not make several humors, as well as several Elements, Vegetables, Minerals, Animals, and other Creatures; and that in several parts of the body, and many several ways; for to mention but one sort of other Creatures, viz. Vegetables, they are, as we see, not onely produced many several ways, but in many several grounds; either by sowing, setting, or grafting, either in clayie, limy, sandy, chalky, dry, or wet grounds: And why may not several humors be produced as well of other Creatures and parts, as others are produced of them? for all parts of Nature are produced one from another, as being all of one and the same Matter, onely the variation of corporeal motions makes all the difference and variety between them, which variety of motions is impossible to be known by any particular Creature; for Nature can do more then any Creature can conceive. Truly, Madam, I should not be of such a mind, as to oppose the Schools herein so eagerly as your Author doth; but artificial actions make men to have erroneous opinions of the actions of Nature, judging them all according to the rule and measure of Art, when as Art oft deludes men under the cover of truth, and makes them many times believe falshood for truth; for Nature is pleased with variety, and so doth make numerous absurdities, doubts, opinions, disputations, objections, and the like. Moreover, your Author is as much against the radical moisture, as he is against the four humors; saying, that according to this opinion of the Schools, a fat belly, through much grease affording more fuel to the radical moisture, must of necessity live longer. But this, in my opinion, is onely a wilful mistake; for I am confident, that the Schools do not understand radical moisture to be gross, fat radical oyl, but a thin oylie substance. Neither do they believe radical heat to be a burning, fiery and consuming heat, but such a degree of natural heat, as is comfortable, nourishing, refreshing, and proper for the life of the animal Creature: Wherefore radical heat and moisture doth not onely consist in the Grease of the body; for a lean body may have as much, and some of them more Radical moisture, then fat bodies. But your Author instead of this radical moisture, makes a nourishable moisture, onely, as I suppose, out of a mind to contradict the Schools; when as I do not perceive, that the Schools mean by Radical moisture, any other then a nourishable moisture, and therefore this distinction is needless. Lastly, he condemns the Schools, for making an affinity betwixt the bowels and the brain. But he might as will condemn Politicians, for saying there is an affinity betwixt Governors and Subjects, or betwixt command and obedience; but as the actions of Particulars, even from the meanest in a Commonwealth, may chance to make a Publick disturbance, so likewise in the Common-wealth of the body, one single action in a particular part may cause a disturbance of the whole Body, nay, a total ruine and dissolution of the composed; which dissolution is called Death; and yet these causes are neither Light, nor Blas, nor Gas, no more then men are shining Suns, or flaming Torches, or blazing Meteors, or azure Skies. Wherefore leaving your Author to his contradicting humor, I rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and Servant.

XXXII.

MADAM,

I do verily believe, with the Schools, the Purging of the Brain, against your Author;[1] For I know no reason, why all the parts of a man's body should not stand in need of evacuation and Purging, as well as some. 'Tis true, if the substance or nourishment received were all useful, and onely enough for the maintenance, subsistance and continuance of the Creature, and no more, then there would be no need of such sort of evacuation; but I believe the corporeal self-motions in a body, discharge the superfluous matter out of every part of the body, if the motions of the superfluous matter be not too strong, and over-power the motions in the parts of the body; but some parts do produce more superfluities then others, by reason their property is more to dilate, then to contract, and more to attract, then to retain or fix; which parts are the brain, stomack, bowels, bladder, gall, and the like: wherefore, as there is nourishment in all parts of the body, so there are also excrements in all parts, for there is no nourishment without excrement. Next your Author says, That the nourishment of the solid parts is made with the transmutation of the whole venal blood into nourishment, without a separation of the pure from the impure. But I pray give me leave to ask, Madam, whether the solid Parts are not Instruments for the nourishment of the Venal blood? Truly, I cannot conceive, how blood should be nourished, wanting those solid parts, and their particular motions and imployments. Again: his opinion is, That the brain is nourished by a few and slender veins; neither doth a passage or channel appear whereby a moist excrement may derive, or a vapour enter. And by reason of the want of such a passage, in another place[2] he is pleased to affirm, That nothing can fume up from the stomack into the brain, and therefore Wine doth not make drunk with fuming from the stomach into the head, but the Winie spirit is immediately snatched into the arteries out of the stomach without digestion, and so into the head, and there breeds a confusion. First, I am not of the opinion, that all nourishment comes from the veins, or from one particular part of the body, no more do Excrements; neither do I believe that every passage in the body is visible to Anatomists, for Natures works are too curious and intricate for any particular Creature to find them out, which is the cause that Anatomists and Chymists are so oft mistaken in natural causes and effects; for certainly, they sometimes believe great Errors for great Truths. Next, as for Drunkenness, I believe that many, who drink much Wine, are drunk before such time as the Wine spirit can get into the Arteries; but if there be Pores to the Brain, as it is most probable, the spirit of Wine may more easily ascend and enter those Pores, then the Pores of the Arteries, or the Mouth-veins, and so make a circular journey to the Head. But as for Excrements, whereof I spake in the beginning, as they are made several manners or ways, and in several parts of the body, so they are also discharged several ways from several parts, and several ways from each particular part, indeed so many several ways and manners, as would puzzle the wisest man in the world, nay your Authors Interior keeper of the Brain, to find them out. Wherefore, to conclude, he is the best Physician, that can tell how to discharge superfluity, and to retain useful nourishments; or to restore by the application of proper Medicines, decaying parts, or to put in order Irregular motions; and not those that have Irregular opinions of Immaterial causes: To which, I leave them, and rest,

Madam,

Your faithful Friend

and humble Servant.