{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39960/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39960","id":"gutenberg_39960","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39960","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Christianity","Ethics","Religion and medicine"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, KD Weeks and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note\n\nFootnotes and section headers were both printed in the margins as\nsidenotes.\n\nFor this text version, numbered marginal footnotes have been moved to\nthe end of their paragraphs. The headers have been moved to appear on a\nseparate line at the beginning of each section. Redundant sidenotes\nmerely indicating Part and Section numbers have been removed. Those\nmarginal notes which serve as paragraph descriptions, at or near the\nhead of a paragraph, precede that paragraph. Those which serve to\nannotate specific points are inserted parenthetically as [SN: notes].\n\nThe Annotator's note which precedes Religio Medici uses marginal notes\nas references to the relevant sections and pages in the printed text.\n\nOn occasion, the Latin passages employ a scribal abbreviation 'q;' for\n'qus', which has been retained.\n\nDescriptive notes have been inserted at the beginning of the sentence to\nwhich they refer, like this: [Sidenote: Use of Italics] Italics are used\nfreely, and have been rendered using _underscore_ characters.\n\nPlease consult the more detailed notes at the end of this text.\n\n\n\n\n                         THE ENGLISH LIBRARY\n\n                            THE WORKS OF\n                         SIR THOMAS BROWNE\n\n                              VOLUME I\n\n                          [Illustration]\n\n                            THE WORKS OF\n                         SIR THOMAS BROWNE\n\n                             Edited by\n                           CHARLES SAYLE\n\n                             VOLUME I\n\n                              LONDON\n                          GRANT RICHARDS\n\n                               1904\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE\n\n\nThis edition is an endeavour to arrive at a more satisfactory text of\nthe work of Sir Thomas Browne, and to reproduce the principal part of\nit, as faithfully as seems advisable, in the form in which it was\npresented to the public at the time of his death. For this purpose, in\nthe first volume, the text of the _Religio Medici_ follows more\nparticularly the issue of 1682. The _Pseudodoxia Epidemica_ here given\nis based upon the sixth edition of ten years earlier, with careful\nrevision. In every case in which a spelling or punctuation was dubious,\na comparison was made of nearly all the issues printed during the\nlifetime of the writer, and their merits weighed. By this means it is\nhoped that the true flavour of the period has been preserved.\n\nThe Annotations upon the _Religio Medici_, which were always reprinted\nwith the text during the seventeenth century, are here restored. They\nwill appeal to a certain class of readers which has a right to be\nconsidered. It is to be regretted that every quotation given in these\npages has not been verified. Several have been corrected; but to have\nworked through them all, in these busy days, would have been a labour\nof some years, which it is not possible to devote to the purpose. It has\nbeen thought best to leave these passages therefore, in the main, as\nthey stand.[1]\n\nThe portrait of Sir Thomas Browne here prefixed is reproduced from the\nengraving published in 1672 with the edition of the _Religio Medici_ and\n_Pseudodoxia Epidemica_.\n\n                                                                  C.S.\n\n_August, 1903._\n\n  [1] The quotation, now corrected, from Montaigne, on p. xxii, is a\n      typical example of the pitfall into which one is liable to stumble.\n      The passage there cited is in chapter xl. of the French author's\n      later arrangement: a clear indication of the edition of the _Essais_\n      used by the author of the Annotations. What is one to make of the\n      readings in Lucretius on p. xxv? No light is thrown upon these\n      difficulties by the edition of Browne's works published in 1686.\n      Wilkin did not reprint the Annotations, except in selection.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n                                                                 PAGE\n\nPREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR,                                       v\n\nANNOTATIONS UPON 'RELIGIO MEDICI,'                                 ix\n\nA LETTER SENT UPON THE INFORMATION OF ANIMADVERSIONS,               1\n\nTO THE READER.                                                      3\n\nRELIGIO MEDICI,                                                     7\n\nPSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA,                                            113\n\nTO THE READER,                                                    115\n\n  THE FIRST BOOK:\n\n    1. Of the Causes of Common Errors,                            121\n    2. A further Illustration of the same,                        127\n    3. Of the second cause of Popular Errors; the\n       erroneous disposition of the People,                       132\n    4. Of the nearer and more Immediate Causes\n       of Popular Errors,                                         140\n    5. Of Credulity and Supinity,                                 147\n    6. Of Adherence unto Antiquity,                               152\n    7. Of Authority,                                                                                                           161\n    8. A brief enumeration of Authors,                            168\n    9. Of the Same,                                               178\n   10. Of the last and common Promoter of false\n       Opinions, the endeavours of Satan,                         182\n   11. A further Illustration,                                    193\n\n  THE SECOND BOOK:\n\n    1. Of Crystal,                                                202\n    2. Concerning the Loadstone,                                  216\n    3. Concerning the Loadstone,                                  233\n    4. Of Bodies Electrical,                                      254\n    5. Compendiously of sundry other common\n       Tenents, concerning Mineral and Terreous\n       Bodies,                                                    262\n    6. Of sundry Tenets concerning Vegetables or\n       Plants,                                                    285\n    7. Of some Insects, and the Properties of\n       several Plants,                                            299\n\n  THE THIRD BOOK, CHAPTERS I.-X.:\n\n    1. Of the Elephant,                                           308\n    2. Of the Horse,                                              314\n    3. Of the Dove,                                               317\n    4. Of the Bever,                                              321\n    5. Of the Badger,                                             326\n    6. Of the Bear,                                               328\n    7. Of the Basilisk,                                           331\n    8. Of the Wolf,                                               338\n    9. Of the Deer,                                               340\n   10. Of the King-fisher,                                        348\n\n\n\n                            ANNOTATIONS UPON\n                             RELIGIO MEDICI\n\n\n                   _Nec satis est vulgasse fidem._--\n                   Pet. Arbit. fragment.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANNOTATOR TO THE READER\n\n\nA. Gellius (noct. Attic. l. 20. cap. _ult._) _notes some Books that had\nstrange Titles_; Pliny (Prefat. Nat. Hist.) _speaking of some such,\ncould not pass them over without a jeer: So strange (saith he) are the\nTitles of some Books_, Ut multos ad vadimonium deferendum compellant.\n_And_ Seneca _saith, some such there are_, Qui patri obstetricem\nparturienti filiae accersenti moram injicere possint. _Of the same fate\nthis present Tract_ Religio Medici _hath partaken: Exception by some\nhath been taken to it in respect of its Inscription, which say they,\nseems to imply that_ Physicians _have a Religion by themselves, which is\nmore than Theologie doth warrant: but it is their Inference, and not the\nTitle that is to blame; for no more is meant by that, or endeavoured to\nbe prov'd in the_ Book _then that (contrary to the opinion of the\nunlearned_) Physitians _have Religion as well as other men_.\n\n_For the Work it self, the present Age hath produced none that has had\nbetter Reception amongst the learned; it has been received and fostered\nby almost all, there having been but one that I knew of_ (_to verifie_\nthat Books have their Fate from the Capacity of the Reader) _that has\nhad the face to appear against it; that is_ Mr. Alexander[2] Rosse; _but\nhe is dead, and it is uncomely to skirmish with his shadow. It shall be\nsufficient to remember to the_ Reader, _that the noble and most learned_\nKnight, _Sir_ Kenelm Digby, _has delivered his opinion of it in another\nsort, who though in some things he differ from the_ Authors _sense, yet\nhath he most candidly and ingeniously allow'd it to be a_ very learned\nand excellent Piece; _and I think no Scholar will say there can be an\napprobation more authentique. Since the time he Published his\nObservations upon it, one_ Mr. Jo. Merryweather, _a_ Master _of_ Arts\n_of the_ University _of_ Cambridge, _hath deem'd it worthy to be put\ninto the universal Language, which about the year_ 1644 _he performed;\nand that hath carried the Authors name not only into the_ Low-Countries\n_and_ France (_in both which places the Book in_ Latin _hath since been\nprinted_) _but into_ Italy _and_ Germany; _and in_ Germany _it hath\nsince fallen into the hands of a Gentleman of that Nation[3] (of his\nname he hath given us no more than_ L.N.M.E.N.) _who hath written\nlearned_ Annotations _upon it in_ Latin, which were _Printed together\nwith the Book at_ Strasbourg 1652. _And for the general good opinion\nthe World had entertained both of the_ Work and Author, _this Stranger\ntells you_[4]: Inter alios Auctores incidi in libruni cui Titulus\n_Religio Medici_, jam ante mihi innotuerat lectionem istius libri multos\npraeclaros viros delectasse, imo occupasse. Non ignorabam librum in\n_Anglia_, _Gallia_, _Italia_, _Belgio_, _Germania_, cupidissime legi;\ncoustabat mihi eum non solum in _Anglia ac Batavia_, sed et _Purisiis_\ncum praefatione, in qua Auctor magnis laudibus fertur, esse typis\nmandatum. Compertum mihi erat multos magnos atq; eruditos viros sensere\nAuctorem (quantum ex hoc scripto perspici potest) sanctitate vitae ac\npietare elucere, etc. _But for the worth of the_ Book _it is so well\nknown to every_ English-man _that is fit to read it, that this\nattestation of a_ Forrainer _may seem superfluous_.\n\n  [2] In his _Medicus Medicatus_.\n\n  [3] That he was a _German_ appears by his notes _page_ 35, where he\n      useth these words, _Dulcissima nostra Germania_, etc.\n\n  [4] In Praefat. Annotat.\n\n_The_ German, _to do him right, hath in his_ Annotations _given a fair\nspecimen of his learning, shewing his skill in the Languages, as well\nantient as modern; as also his acquaintance with all manner of Authors,\nboth sacred and profane, out of which he has ammas'd a world of\nQuotations: but yet, not to mention that he hath not observed some\nErrors of the Press, and one or two main ones of the Latin Translation,\nwhereby the Author is much injured; it cannot be denyed but he hath\npass'd over many hard places untoucht, that might deserve a Note; that\nhe hath made_ Annotations _on some, where no need was; in the\nexplication of others hath gone besides the true sense._\n\n_And were he free from all these, yet one great Fault there is he may be\njustly charg'd with, that is, that he cannot_ manum de Tabula _even in\nmatters the most obvious: which is an affectation ill-becoming a_\nScholar; _witness the most learned Annotator_, Claud. Minos. Divion. in\npraefat. commentar. Alciat. Emblemat. praefix. Praestat (_saith he_)\nbrevius omnia persequi, et leviter attingere quae nemini esse ignota\nsuspicari possint, quam quasi {~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, perq; locos communes identidem\nexpatiari.\n\n_I go not about by finding fault with his, obliquely to commend my own;\nI am as far from that, as 'tis possible others will be: All I seek, by\nthis Preface, next to acquainting the_ Reader _with the various\nentertainment of the Book, is, that he would be advertized that these\nNotes were collected ten[5] years since, long before the_ German's _were\nwritten; so that I am no Plagiary (as who peruseth his Notes and mine,\nwill easily perceive): And in the second place, that I made this Recueil\nmeerly for mine own entertainment, and not with any intention to evulge\nit; Truth is my witness, the publication proceeds meerly from the\nimportunity of the Book-seller (my special friend) who being acquainted\nwith what I had done, and about to set out another Edition of the Book,\nwould not be denied these notes to attex to it; 'tis he (not I) that\ndivulgeth it, and whatever the success be, he alone is concern'd in it;\nI only say for my self what my Annotations bear in the Frontispiece_--\n\n                 _Nec satis est vulgasse fidem----_\n\n_That is, that it was not enough to all persons (though pretenders to\nLearning) that our_ Physitian _had publish'd his Creed, because it\nwanted an exposition. I say further, that the_ German's _is not full_;\n_and that_ (----Quicquid sum Ego quamvis infra Lucilli censum\ningeniumq;----) _my explications do in many things illustrate the Text\nof my Author_.\n\n_24 Martii,\n  1654._\n\n  [5] Excepting two or three particulars in which reference is made to\n      some Books that came over since that time.\n\n\n\n\n               ANNOTATIONS UPON RELIGIO MEDICI\n\n                 The Epistle to the _READER_\n\n\n_Certainly that man were greedy of life, who should desire to live when\nall the World were at an end_;] This Mr. _Merryweather_ hath rendred\nthus; _Cupidum esse vitae oportet, qui universo jam expirante mundo\nvivere cuperet_; and well enough: but it is not amiss to remember, that\nwe have this saying in _Seneca_ the _Tragoedian_, who gives it us\nthus, _Vitae est avidus quisquis non vult mundo secum pereunte mori_.\n\n_There are many things delivered Rhetorically_.] The Author herein\nimitates the ingenuity of St. _Austin_, who in his _Retract._ corrects\nhimself for having delivered some things more like a young Rhetorician\nthan a sound Divine; but though St. _Aug._ doth deservedly acknowledge\nit a fault in himself, in that he voluntarily published such things, yet\ncannot it be so in this Author, in that he intended no publication of\nit, as he professeth in this Epistle, and in that other to Sir _Kenelm\nDigby_.\n\n\nTHE FIRST PART\n\n_Sect. 1. Pag. 1._\n\n_The general scandal of my Profession_.] Physitians (of the number\nwhereof it appears by several passages in this Book the Author is one)\ndo commonly hear ill in this behalf. It is a common speech (but only\namongst the unlearn'd sort) _Ubi tres Medici, duo Athei_. The reasons\nwhy those of that Profession (I declare my self that I am none, but\n_Causarum Actor Mediocris_, to use _Horace_ his Phrase) may be thought\nto deserve that censure, the Author rendreth _Sect_. 19.\n\n_The natural course of my studies._] The vulgar lay not the imputation\nof Atheism only upon Physitians, but upon Philosophers in general, who\nfor that they give themselves to understand the operations of _Nature_,\nthey calumniate them, as though they rested in the second causes without\nany respect to the first. Hereupon it was, that in the tenth Age Pope\n_Silvester_ the second pass'd for a Magician, because he understood\nGeometry and natural Philosophy. _Baron. Annal._ 990. And _Apuleius_\nlong before him laboured of the same suspicion, upon no better ground;\nhe was accus'd, and made a learned Apology for himself, and in that hath\nlaid down what the ground is of such accusations, in these words: _Haec\nferme communi quodam errore imperitorum Philosophis objectantur, ut\npartem eorum qui corporum causas meras et simplices rimantur,\nirreligiosos putant, eosque aiunt Deos abnuere, ut Anaxagoram, et\nLucippum, et Democritum, et Epicurum, coeterosq; rerum naturae\nPatronos._ Apul. in Apolog. And it is possible that those that look upon\nthe second Causes scattered, may rest in them and go no further, as my\nLord _Bacon_ in one of his _Essayes_ observeth; but our Author tells us\nthere is a true Philosophy, from which no man becomes an Atheist,\n_Sect._ 46.\n\n_The indifferency of my behaviour and Discourse in matters of\nReligion._] Bigots are so oversway'd by a preposterous Zeal, that they\nhate all moderation in discourse of Religion; they are the men\nforsooth--_qui solos credant habendos esse Deos quos ipsi colunt_.\n_Erasmus_ upon this accompt makes a great complaint to Sir _Tho. More_\nin an Epistle of his, touching one _Dorpius_ a Divine of _Lovain_, who\nbecause, upon occasion of discourse betwixt them, _Erasmus_ would not\npromise him to write against _Luther_, told _Erasmus_ that he was a\n_Lutheran_, and afterwards published him for such; and yet as _Erasmus_\nwas reputed no very good Catholick, so for certain he was no Protestant.\n\n_Not that I meerly owe this Title to the Font_] as most do, taking up\ntheir Religion according to the way of their Ancestors; this is to be\nblamed among all persons: It was practised as well amongst Heathens as\nChristians.\n\n_Per caput hoc juro per quod Pater ante solebat_, saith _Ascanius_ in\n_Virgil_: and _Apuleius_ notes it for an absurdity. _Utrum Philosopho,\nputas turpe scire ista, an neseire? negligere, an curare? nosse quanta\nsit etiam in istis providentiae ratio, an de diis immortalibus Matri et\nPatri cedere_? saith he in _Apolog._ and so doth _Minutius_. _Unusquisq;\nvestrum non cogitat prius se debere deum nosse quam colere, dum\ninconsulte gestiuntur parentibus obedire, dum fieri malunt alieni\nerroris accessio, quam sibi credere_. Minut. _in_ Octav.\n\n_But having in my ripers examined_, etc.] according to the Apostolical\nPrecept, _Omnia probate, quod bonum est tenete_.\n\n_Sect. 2. Pag. 8._\n\n_There being a Geography of Religion_] _i.e._ of Christian Religion,\nwhich you may see described in Mr. _Brerewood's_ Enquiries: he means not\nof the Protestant Religion; for though there be a difference in\nDiscipline, yet the _Anglican_, _Scotic_, _Belgic_, _Gallican_, and\n_Helvetic_ Churches differ not in any essential matter of the Doctrine,\nas by the _Harmony of Confessions_ appears. 5. Epist. _Theod. Bezae\nEdmundo Grindallo Ep. Londinens_.\n\n_Wherein I dislike nothing but the Name_] that is _Lutheran_,\n_Calvinist_, _Zuinglian_, etc.\n\n_Now the accidental occasion wherein_, etc.] This is graphically\ndescribed by _Thuanus_ in his History: but because his words are too\nlarge for this purpose, I shall give it you somewhat more briefly,\naccording to the relation of the Author of the History of the Council of\n_Trent_. The occasion was the necessity of Pope _Leo_ the Tenth, who by\nhis profusion had so exhausted the Treasure of the _Church_, that he was\nconstrained to have recourse to the publishing of Indulgencies to raise\nmonies: some of which he had destined to his own Treasury, and other\npart to his Allyes, and particularly to his Sister he gave all the money\nthat should be raised in _Saxony_; and she, that she might make the best\nprofit of the donation, commits it to one _Aremboldus_, a Bishop to\nappoint Treasurers for these Indulgences. Now the custome was, that\nwhensoever these Indulgences were sent into _Saxony_, they were to be\ndivulged by the Fryars _Eremites_ (of which Order _Luther_ then was),\nbut _Aremboldus_ his Agents thinking with themselves, that the Fryars\n_Eremites_ were so well acquainted with the trade, that if the business\nshould be left to them, they should neither be able to give so good an\naccount of their Negotiation, nor yet get so much themselves by it as\nthey might do in case the business were committed to another Order; they\nthereupon recommend it to (and the business is undertaken by) the\n_Dominican_ Fryars, who performed it so ill, that the scandal arising\nboth from thence, and from the ill lives of those that set them on work,\nstirred up _Luther_ to write against the abuses of these Indulgences;\nwhich was all he did at first; but then, not long after, being provoked\nby some Sermons and small Discourses that had been published against\nwhat he had written, he rips up the _business_ from the beginning, and\npublishes xcv _Theses_ against it at _Wittenberg_. Against these _Tekel_\na _Dominican_ writes; then _Luther_ adds an explication to his. _Eckius_\nand _Prierius_ Dominicans, thereupon take the controversie against him:\nand now _Luther_ begins to be hot; and because his adversaries could not\nfound the matter of Indulgences upon other Foundations then the _Popes_\npower and infallibility, that begets a disputation betwixt them\nconcerning the Popes power, which _Luther_ insists upon as inferiour to\nthat of a _general Council_; and so by degrees he came on to oppose the\nPopish Doctrine of _Remission of sins_, _Penances_, and _Purgatory_; and\nby reason of Cardinal _Cajetans_ imprudent management of the conference\nhe had with him, it came to pass that he rejected the whole body of\nPopish doctrine. So that by this we may see what was the accidental\noccasion wherein, the slender means whereby, and the abject condition of\nthe person by whom, the work of Reformation of Religion was set on\nfoot.\n\n_Sect. 3. Pag. 8._\n\n_Yet I have not so shaken hands with those, desperate Resolutions,\n(Resolvers it should be, without doubt) who had rather venture at large\ntheir decayed Bottom, than bring her in to be new trimm'd in the Dock;\nwho had rather promiscuously retain all, than abridge any; and\nobstinately be what they are, than what they have been; as to stand in a\ndiameter and at swords point with them: we have reformed from them, not\nagainst them_, etc.] These words by Mr. _Merryweather_ are thus rendred,\n_sc_. _Nec tamen in vecordem illum pertinacium hominum gregem memet\nadjungo, qui lubefactatum navigium malunt fortunae committere quam in\nnavale de integro resarciendum deducere, qui malunt omnia promiscue\nretinere quam quicquam inde diminuere, et pertinaciter esse qui sunt\nquam qui olim fuerunt, ita ut iisdem ex diametro repugnent: ab illis,\nnon contra illos, reformationem instituimus_, etc. And the Latine\nAnnotator sits down very well satisfied with it, and hath bestowed some\nnotes upon it; but under the favour both of him and the Translator, this\nTranslation is so far different from the sense of the Author, that it\nhath no sense in it; or if there be any construction of sense in it, it\nis quite besides the Author's meaning; which will appear if we consider\nthe context: by that we shall find that the Author in giving an account\nof his Religion, tells us first, that he is a Christian, and farther,\nthat he is of the reform'd Religion; but yet he saith, in this place, he\nis not so rigid a Protestant, nor at defiance with Papists so far, but\nthat in many things he can comply with them, (the particulars he\nafterwards mentions in this Section) for, saith he, we have reform'd\nfrom them, not against them, that is, as the _Archbishop_ of\n_Canterbury_ against the _Jesuit_ discourseth well. We have made no new\nReligion nor Schism from the old; but in calling for the old, and\ndesiring that which was novel and crept in might be rejected, and the\nChurch of _Rome_ refusing it, we have reform'd from those upstart novel\nDoctrines, but against none of the old: and other sense the place cannot\nbear; therefore how the _Latine Annotator_ can apply it as though in\nthis place the Author intended to note the _Anabaptists_, I see not,\nunless it were in respect of the expression _Vecordem pertinacium\nhominum gregem_, which truly is a description well befitting them,\nthough not intended to them in this place: howsoever, I see not any\nground from hence to conclude the Author to be any whit inclining to the\n_Bulk_ of Popery (but have great reason from many passages in this Book\nto believe the contrary,) as he that prefix'd a Preface to the Parisian\nEdition of this Book hath unwarrantably done.\n\nBut for the mistake of the Translator, it is very obvious from whence\nthat arose. I doubt not but it was from mistake of the sense of the\nEnglish Phrase _Shaken hands_, which he hath rendered by these words,\n_Memet adjungo_, wherein he hath too much play'd the Scholar, and show'd\nhimself to be more skilful in forraign and antient customs, then in the\nvernacular practise and usage of the language of his own Country; for\nalthough amongst the Latines protension of the Hand were a Symbole and\nsign of Peace and Concord (as _Alex. ab Alexandro_; _Manum vero\nprotendere, pacem peti significabunt_ (saith he) _Gen. Dier. lib. 4.\ncap. ult._ which also is confirmed by _Cicero pro Dejotaro_; and _Caesar.\nl. 2. de Bellico Gallico_) and was used in their first meetings, as\nappears by the Phrase, _Jungere hospitio Dextras_; and by that of\n_Virgil_,\n\n           _Oremus pacem, et Dextras tendamus inermes_,\n\nAnd many like passages that occur in the Poets, to which I believe the\nTranslator had respect; yet in modern practise, especially with us in\n_England_, that ceremony is used as much in our _Adieu's_ as in the\n_first Congress_; and so the Author meant in this place, by saying he\nhad not _shaken hands_; that is, that he had not so deserted, or bid\nfarewel to the _Romanists_, as to stand at swords point with them: and\nthen he gives his reasons at those words, _For omitting those\nimproperations_, etc. So that instead of _memet adjungo_, the Translator\nshould have used some word or Phrase of a clean contrary signification;\nand instead of _ex diametro repugnent_, it should be _repugnem_.\n\n_Sect. 5. Pag. 11._\n\n_Henry_ the Eighth, who, though he rejected the Pope, refused not the\nfaith of _Rome_.] So much _Buchanan_ in his own life written by himself\ntestifieth, who speaking of his coming into _England_ about the latter\nend of that King's time, saith, _Sed ibi tum omnia adeo erant incerta,\nut eodem die, ac eodem igne_ (very strange!) _utriusque factionis\nhomines cremarentur, Henrico 8, jam seniore suae magnis securitati quam\nReligionis puritati intento_. And for the confirmation of this assertion\nof the Author, _vide Stat. 31. H. 8, cap. 14_.\n\n_And was conceived the state of_ Venice _would have attempted in our\ndayes._] This expectation was in the time of Pope _Paul_ the Fifth, who\nby excommunicating that Republique, gave occasion to the Senate to\nbanish all such of the Clergy as would not by reason of the Popes\ncommand administer the Sacraments; and upon that account the _Jesuits_\nwere cast out, and never since receiv'd into that State.\n\n_Sect. 6. Pag. 12._\n\n_Or be angry with his judgement for not agreeing with me in that, from\nwhich perhaps within a few days I should dissent my self._] I cannot\nthink but in this expression the Author had respect to that of that\nexcellent French Writer _Monsieur Mountaign_ (in whom I often trace\nhim). _Combien diversement jugeons nous de choses? Combien de fois\nchangeons nous nos fantasies? Ce que je tien aujourdhuy, ce que je croy,\nje le tien et le croy de toute ma Creance, mais ne m'est il pas advenu\nnon une fois mais cent, mais mille et tous les jours d'avoir embrasse\nquelque autre chose?_ Mountaign lib. 2. _Des Essais._ Chap. 12.\n\n_Every man is not a proper Champion for truth_, etc.] A good cause is\nnever betray'd more than when it is prosecuted with much eagerness, and\nbut little sufficiency; and therefore _Zuinglius_, though he were of\n_Carolostadius_ his opinion in the point of the Sacrament of the\n_Eucharist_ against _Luther_, yet he blamed him for undertaking the\ndefence of that cause against _Luther_, not judging him able enough for\nthe encounter: _Non satis habet humerorum_, saith he of _Carolostad_,\nalluding to that of _Horace_, _Sumite materiam vestris qui scribitis\naequam Viribus, et versate diu quid ferre recusent Quid valeant\nhumeri_.----So _Minutius Faelix; Plerumq; pro disserentium viribus, et\neloquentiae potestate, etiam perspicuae veritatis conditio mutetur_.\nMinut. in Octav. And _Lactantius_ saith, this truth is verified in\n_Minutius_ himself: for _Him_, _Tertullian_ and _Cyprian_, he spares not\nto blame (all of them) as if they had not with dexterity enough defended\nthe Christian cause against the _Ethniques_. _Lactant. de justitia_,\ncap. 1. I could wish that those that succeeded him had not as much cause\nof complaint against him: surely he is noted to have many errors _contra\nfidem_.\n\n_Pag. 13._\n\n_In Philosophy----there is no man more Paradoxical then my self, but in\nDivinity I love to keep the Road_, etc.] Appositely to the mind of the\nAuthor, saith the Publisher of Mr. _Pembel's_ Book _de origine\nformarum_, _Certe_ (saith he) _in locis Theologicis ne quid detrimenti\ncapiat vel Pax. vel Veritas Christi----a novarum opinionum pruritu\nprorsus abstinendum puto, usq; adeo ut ad certam regulam etiam loqui\ndebeamus, quod pie et prudenter monet Augustinus_ (_de Civ. Dei._ 1. 10,\ncap. 23.) [_ne verborum licentia impia vi gignat opinionem_,] _at in\npulvere Scholastico ubi in nullius verba, juramus, et in utramvis partem\nsine dispendio vel pacis, vel salutis ire liceat, major conceditur cum\nsentiendi tum loquendi libertas_, etc. Capel. _in Ep. Dedicat._\n_Pembel_, _de origin form. praefix_.\n\n_Heresies perish not with their Authors, but like the River_ Arethusa,\n_though they lose their Currents in one place, they rise again in\nanother._] Who would not think that this expression were taken from Mr.\n_Mountaigne_, _l. 2, des Ess. cap. 12_. Where he hath these words,\n_Nature enserre dans les termes de son progress ordinaire comme toutes\nautres choses aussi les creances les judgements et opinions des hommes\nelles ont leur revolutions_; and that _Mountaigne_ took his from\n_Tully_. _Non enim hominum interitu sententiae quoque occidunt_, _Tull._\n_de nat. deorum l. 1_, etc. Of the River _Arethusa_ thus _Seneca_.\n_Videbis celebratissimum carminibus fontem Arethusam limpidissimi ac\nperludicissimi ad imum stagni gelidissimas aquas profundentem, sive\nillas primum nascentes invenit, sive flumen integrum subter tot maria,\net a confusione pejoris undae servatum reddidit_. Senec. _de consolat. ad\nMartiam_.\n\n_Sect. 7. Pag. 14._\n\n_Now the first of mine was that of the_ Arabians.] For this Heresie, the\nAuthor here sheweth what it was; they are called _Arabians_ from the\nplace where it was fostered; and because the _Heresiarch_ was not known,\n_Euseb._ St. _Aug._ and _Nicephorus_ do all write of it: the reason of\nthis Heresie was so specious, that it drew Pope _John 22_. to be of the\nsame perswasion. Where then was his infallibility? Why, _Bellarmine_\ntells you he was nevertheless infallible for that: for, saith he, he\nmaintained this opinion when he might do it without peril of Heresie,\nfor that no definition of the Church whereby 'twas made Heresie, had\npreceded when he held that opinion. _Bellar. l. 4_, de _Pontif. Roman.\ncap. 4._ Now this definition was first made ('tis true) by Pope\n_Benedict_ in the 14 Age: but then I would ask another question, that\nis, If 'till that time there were nothing defined in the Church touching\nthe beatitude of Saints, what certainty was there touching the sanctity\nof any man? and upon what ground were those canonizations of Saints had,\nthat were before the 14 Age?\n\n_The second was that of_ Origen.] Besides St. _Augustine_, _Epiphanius_,\nand also S. _Hierom_, do relate that _Origen_ held, that not only the\nsouls of men, but the _Devils_ themselves should be discharged from\ntorture after a certain time: but _Genebrard_ endeavours to clear him of\nthis. _Vid. Coquaeum, in 21. lib. Aug. de. Civ. Dei. cap. 17._\n\n_These opinions though condemned by lawful Councils, were not Heresie in\nme_, etc.] For to make an Heretique, there must be not only _Error in\nintellectu_ but _pertinacia in voluntate_. So St. _Aug. Qui sententiam\nsuam quamvis falsam atque perversam nulla pertinaci animositate\ndefendunt, quaerunt autem cauta solicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati\ncum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter Haereticos deputundi_. Aug. _cont.\nManich. 24, qu. 3._\n\n_Sect. 9. Pag. 16._\n\n_The deepest mysteries ours contains have not only been illustrated, but\nmaintained by Syllogism and the Rule of Reason_,] and since this Book\nwas written, by Mr. _White_ in his _Institutiones Sacrae_.\n\n_And when they have seen the Red Sea, doubt not of the Miracle._] Those\nthat have seen it, have been better informed then Sir _Henry Blount_\nwas, for he tells us that he desired to view the passage of _Moses_ into\nthe Red Sea (not being above three days journey off) but the _Jews_ told\nhim the precise place was not known within less than the space of a days\njourney along the shore; wherefore (saith he) I left that as too\nuncertain for any Observation. _In his Voyage into the Levant._\n\n_Sect. 10. Pag. 18._\n\nI had as lieve you tell me that _Anima est Angelus hominis, est corpus\nDei_, as _Entelechia; Lux est umbra Dei_, as _actus perspicui._] Great\nvariety of opinion there hath been amongst the Ancient Philosophers\ntouching the definition of the Soul. _Thales_, his was, that it is a\n_Nature without Repose_. _Asclepiades_, that it is _an Exercitation of\nSense_. _Hesiod_, that it is _a thing composed of Earth and Water_;\n_Parmenides_ holds, _of Earth and Fire_; _Galen_ that it is _Heat_;\n_Hippocrates_, that it is _a spirit diffused through the body_. Some\nothers have held it to be _Light_; _Plato_ saith, 'tis _a Substance\nmoving itself_; after cometh _Aristotle_ (whom the Author here\nreproveth) and goeth a degree farther, and saith it is _Entelechia_,\nthat is, that which naturally makes the body to move. But this\ndefinition is as rigid as any of the other; for this tells us not what\nthe _essence_, _origine_ or _nature_ of the _soul_ is, but only marks an\n_effect_ of it, and therefore signifieth no more than if he had said (as\nthe Author's Phrase is) that it is _Angelus hominis_, or an\n_Intelligence_ that moveth man, as he supposed those other to do the\nHeavens.\n\nNow to come to the definition of Light, in which the Author is also\nunsatisfied with the School of _Aristotle_, he saith, It satisfieth him\nno more to tell him that _Lux est actus perspicui_, than if you should\ntell him that it is _umbra Dei_. The ground of this definition given by\nthe _Peripateticks_, is taken from a passage in _Aristot. de anima l. 2,\ncap. 7_, where _Aristotle_ saith, That the colour of the thing seen,\ndoth move that which is _perspicuum actu_ (i.e. _illustratam naturam quae\nsit in aere aliove corpore trunsparente_) and that that, in regard of\nits continuation to the eye, moveth the eye, and by its help the\ninternal _sensorium_; and that so vision is perform'd. Now as it is true\nthat the Sectators of _Aristotle_ are to blame, by fastening upon him by\noccasion of this passage, that he meant that those things that made this\nimpress upon the Organs are meer accidents, and have nothing of\nsubstance; which is more than ever he meant, and cannot be maintained\nwithout violence to Reason, and his own Principles; so for _Aristotle_\nhimself, no man is beholding to him for any Science acquir'd by this\ndefinition: for what is any man the near for his telling him that Colour\n(admitting it to be a body, as indeed it is, and in that place he doth\nnot deny) doth move _actu perspicuum_, when as the perspicuity is in\nrelation to the _eye_; and he doth not say how it comes to be\nperspicuous, which is the thing enquired after, but gives it that\ndonation before the eye hath perform'd its office; so that if he had\nsaid it had been _umbra Dei_, it would have been as intelligible, as\nwhat he hath said. He that would be satisfied how Vision is perform'd,\nlet him see Mr. _Hobbs_ in _Tract. de nat. human_, cap. 2.\n\n_For God hath not caused it to rain upon the Earth._] St. _Aug. de\nGenes. ad literam_, cap. 5, 6, salves that expression from any\ninconvenience; but the Author in _Pseudodox. Epidemic._ l. 7, cap. 1,\nshews that we have no reason to be confident that this Fruit was an\n_Apple_.\n\n_I believe that the_ Serpent (_if we shall literally understand it_)\n_from his proper form and figure made his motion on his belly before the\ncurse_.] Yet the Author himself sheweth in _Pseudodox. Epidemic._ lib.\n7, cap. 1, that the form or kind of the _Serpent_ is not agreed on: yet\n_Comestor_ affirm'd it was a _Dragon_, _Eugubinus_ a _Basilisk_,\n_Delrio_ a _Viper_, and others a common _Snake_: but of what kind soever\nit was, he sheweth in the same Volume, _lib. 5, c. 4_, that there was no\ninconvenience, that the temptation should be perform'd in this proper\nshape.\n\n_I find the tryal of Pucelage and the Virginity of Women which God\nordained the_ Jews, _is very fallible._] _Locus extat, Deut. c. 22_, the\nsame is affirm'd by _Laurentius_ in his _Anatom._\n\n_Whole Nations have escaped the curse of Child-birth, which God seems to\npronounce upon the whole sex._] This is attested by M. _Mountaigne_.\n_Les doleurs de l'enfantiment par les medicins, et par Dieu mesme\nestimees grandes, et que nous passons avec tant de Ceremonies, il y a\ndes nations entieres qui ne'n fuit nul conte. l. 1, des Ess. c. 14_.\n\n_Sect 11. Pag. 19._\n\n_Who can speak of_ Eternity _without a Soloecism, or think thereof\nwithout an Extasie?_ Time _we may comprehend_, etc.] Touching the\ndifference betwixt _Eternity_ and _Time_, there have been great disputes\namongst Philosophers; some affirming it to be no more than _duration\nperpetual consisting of parts_; and others (to which opinion, it appears\nby what follows in this Section, the Author adheres) affirmed (to use\nthe Authors Phrase) that it hath no distinction of Tenses, but is\naccording to _Boetius_ (_lib. 5, consol. pros. 6_), his definition,\n_interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio_. For me, _non\nnostrum est tantas componere lites_. I shall only observe what each of\nthem hath to say against the other. Say those of the first opinion\nagainst those that follow _Boetius_ his definition, That definition was\ntaken by _Boetius_ out of _Plato's Timaeus_, and is otherwise applyed,\nthough not by _Boetius_, yet by those that follow him, than ever _Plato_\nintended it; for he did not take it in the Abstract, but in the\nConcrete, for an _eternal thing_, _a Divine substance_, by which he\nmeant _God_, or his _Anima mundi_: and this he did, to the intent to\nestablish this truth, That no mutation can befal the Divine Majesty, as\nit doth to things subject to generation and corruption; and that _Plato_\nthere intended not to define or describe any _species_ of duration: and\nthey say that it is impossible to understand any such _species_ of\nduration that is (according to the Authors expression) but one\n_permanent point_.\n\nNow that which those that follow _Boetius_ urge against the other\ndefinition is, they say, it doth not at all difference _Eternity_ from\nthe nature of _Time_; for they say if it be composed of many _Nunc's_,\nor many instants, by the addition of one more it is still encreased; and\nby that means _Infinity_ or _Eternity_ is not included, nor ought more\nthan _Time_. For this, see Mr. _White_, _de dial. mundo, Dial. 3. Nod.\n4_.\n\n_Indeed he only is_, etc.] This the Author infers from the words of God\nto _Moses_, _I am that I am_; and this to distinguish him from all\nothers, who (he saith) have and shall be: but those that are learned in\nthe _Hebrew_, do affirm that the words in that place (_Exod. 3_) do not\nsignifie, _Ego sum qui sum, et qui est_, etc. but _Ero qui ero, et qui\nerit_, etc. _vid Gassend. in animad. Epicur. Physiolog._\n\n_Sect. 12. Pag. 20._\n\n_I wonder how_ Aristotle _could conceive the World Eternal, or how he\ncould make two Eternities_:] (that is, that God, and the World both were\neternal.) I wonder more at either the ignorance or incogitancy of the\n_Conimbricenses_, who in their Comment upon the eighth book of\n_Aristotle's Physicks_, treating of the matter of Creation, when they\nhad first said that it was possible to know it, and that actually it was\nknown (for _Aristotle_ knew it) yet for all this they afterwards affirm,\nThat considering onely the light of Nature, there is nothing can be\nbrought to demonstrate Creation: and yet farther, when they had defined\nCreation to be the production of a thing _ex nihilo_, and had proved\nthat the World was so created in time, and refused the arguments of the\nPhilosophers to the contrary, they added this, That the World might be\ncreated _ab aeterno_: for having propos'd this question [_Num aliquid a\nDeo ex AEternitate procreari potuit?_] they defend the affirmative, and\nassert that not onely incorporeal substances, as Angels; or permanent,\nas the celestial Bodies; or corruptible as Men, etc. might be produced\nand made _ab aeterno_, and be conserved by an infinite time, _ex utraq_;\n_parte_; and that this is neither repugnant to God the Creator, the\nthings created, nor to the nature of Creation: for proof whereof, they\nbring instances of the _Sun_ which if it had been eternal, had\nilluminated eternally, (and the virtue of God is not less than the\nvirtue of the Sun.) Another instance they bring of the _divine Word_,\nwhich was produced _ab aeterno_: in which discourse, and in the instances\nbrought to maintain it, it is hard to say whether the madness or impiety\nbe greater; and certainly if Christians thus argue, we have the more\nreason to pardon the poor heathen _Aristotle_.\n\n_There is in us not three, but a Trinity of Souls._] The\n_Peripatetiques_ held that men had three distinct Souls; whom the\nHeretiques, the _Anomaei_, and the _Jacobites_, followed. There arose a\ngreat dispute about this matter in _Oxford_, in the year 1276, and it\nwas then determined against _Aristotle_, _Daneus Christ. Eth._ l. 1. c.\n4. and _Suarez_ in his Treatise _de causa formali, Quest. An dentur\nplures formae in uno composito_, affirmeth there was a Synod that did\n_anathematize_ all that held with _Aristotle_ in this point.\n\n_Sect. 14. Pag. 23._\n\n_There is but one first, and four second causes in all things._] In that\nhe saith there is but one first cause, he speaketh in opposition to the\n_Manichees_, who held there were _Duo principia_; one from whom came all\ngood, and the other from whom came all evil: the reason of _Protagoras_\ndid it seems impose upon their understandings; he was wont to say, _Si\nDeus non est, unde igitur bona? Si autem est, unde mala?_ In that he\nsaith there are but four second Causes, he opposeth _Plato_, who to the\nfour causes, _material_, _efficient_, _formal_, and _final_, adds for a\nfifth _exemplar_ or _Idaea_, sc. _Id ad quod respiciens artifex, id quod\ndestinabat efficit_; according to whose mind _Boetius_ speaks, _lib. 3.\nmet. 9. de cons. Philosoph_.\n\n          _O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas,\n          Terrarum Coeliq; sator qui tempus ab aevo\n          Ire jubes, stabilisq; manens das cuncta moveri:\n          Quem non externae pepulerunt fingere causae\n          Materiae fluitantis opus, verum insita summi\n          Forma boni livore carens: tu cuncta superno\n          Ducis ab exemplo, pulchrum pulcherrimus ipse\n          Mundum mente gerens, similique in imagine formans,\n          Perfectasq; jubens perfectum absolvere partes._\n\nAnd St. _Augustine l. 83. quest. 46_. where (amongst other) he hath\nthese words, _Restat ergo ut omnia Ratione sint condita, nec eadem\nratione homo qua equus; hoc enim absurdum est existimare: singula autem\npropriis sunt creata rationibus_. But these _ideae Plato's_ Scholar\n_Aristotle_ would not allow to make or constitute a different sort of\ncause from the _formal_ or _efficient_, to which purpose he disputes,\n_l. 7. Metaphysic._ but he and his Sectators, and the _Ramists_ also,\nagree (as the Author) that there are but the four remembred Causes: so\nthat the Author, in affirming there are but four, hath no Adversary but\nthe _Platonists_; but yet in asserting there are four (as his words\nimply) there are that oppose him, and the _Schools_ of _Aristot._ and\n_Ramus_. I shall bring for instance Mr. _Nat Carpenter_, who in his\n_Philosophia Libera_ affirmeth, there is no such cause as that which\nthey call the _Final cause_: he argueth thus; Every cause hath an\ninfluence upon its effect: but so has not the End, therefore it is not a\nCause. The _major_ proposition (he saith) is evident, because the\ninfluence of a cause upon its effect, is either the causality it self,\nor something that is necessarily conjoyned to it: and the _minor_ as\nplain, for either the End hath an influence upon the effect immediately,\nor mediately, by stirring up the Efficient to operate; not immediately,\nbecause so it should enter either the _constitution_ or _production_, or\n_conservation_ of the things; but the constitution it cannot enter,\nbecause the constitution is only of _matter_ and _form_; nor the\nProduction, for so it should concur to the production, either as it is\n_simply the end_, or as _an exciter of the Efficient_; but not simply as\nthe end, because the end _as end_ doth not go before, but followeth the\nthing produced, and therefore doth not concur to its production: if they\nsay it doth so far concur, as it is desired of the agent or efficient\ncause, it should not so have an immediate influence upon the effect, but\nshould onely first move the efficient. Lastly, saith he, it doth not\nenter the conservation of a thing, because a thing is often conserved,\nwhen it is frustrate of its due end, as when it's converted to a new use\nand end. Divers other Arguments he hath to prove there is no such cause\nas the final cause. _Nat. Carpenter Philosoph. liber Decad. 3.\nExercitat. 5_. But for all this, the Author and he differ not in\nsubstance: for 'tis not the Author's intention to assert that the end is\nin nature praeexistent to the effect, but only that whatsoever God has\nmade, he hath made to some end or other; which he doth to oppose the\nSectators of _Epicurus_, who maintain the contrary, as is to be seen by\nthis of _Lucretius_ which follows.\n\n          _Illud in his rebus vitium vehementer et istum,\n          Effugere errorem vitareque premeditabor\n          Lumina ne facias oculorum clara creata\n          Prospicere ut possimus; et, ut proferre viai\n          Proceros passus, ideo fastigia posse\n          Surarum ac feminum pedibus fundata plicari:\n          Brachia tum porro validis ex apta lacertis\n          Esse, manusq; datas utraq; ex parte ministras,\n          Vt facere ad vitam possimus, quae foret usus:\n          Caetera de genere hoc, inter quaecunq; precantur\n          Omnia perversa praepostera sunt ratione:\n          Nil ideo quoniam natum'st in corpore, ut uti\n          Possemus; sed quod natum'st, id procreat usum,\n          Nec fuit ante videre oculorum lumina nata,\n          Nec dictis orare prius, quam lingua creata'st,\n          Sed potius longe linguae praecessit origo\n          Sermonem; multoq: creatae sunt prius aures\n          Quam sonus est auditus, et omnia deniq; membra\n          Ante fuere, ut opinor, eorum quam foret usus:\n          Haud igitur potuere utendi crescere causa._\n\n                                    Lucret. lib. 4. [822-841.]\n\n_Sect. 15. Pag. 24._\n\n_There are no Grotesques in nature_, etc.] So _Monsr. Montaign_, _Il\nn'ya rien d'inutil en nature, non pas l'inutilite mesmes, Rien ne s'est\ningere en cet Univers qui n'y tienne place opportun._ Ess. l. 3. c. 1.\n\n_Who admires not_ Regio-montanus _his Fly beyond his Eagle?_] Of these\n_Du Bartas_.\n\n                  _Que diray je de l'aigle,\n          D'ont un doct Aleman honore nostre siecle\n          Aigle qui deslogeant de la maistresse main,\n          Aila loin au devant d'un Empereur Germain;\n          Et l'ayant recontre suddain d'une aisle accorte,\n          Se tournant le suit au seuil de la porte\n          Du fort Norembergois, que lis piliers dorez,\n          Les tapissez chemins, les arcs elabourez,\n          Les fourdroyans Canons, in la jeusnesse isnelle,\n          In le chena Senat, n'honnoroit tant come elle.\n          Vn jour, que cetominer plus des esbats, que de mets,\n          En prive fasteyoit ses seignieurs plus amees,\n          Vne mousche de fer, dans sa main recelee,\n          Prit sans ayde d'autroy, sa gallard evolee:\n          Fit une entiere Ronde, et puis d'un cerveau las\n          Come ayant jugement, se purcha sur son bras_.\n\nThus Englished by _Silvester_.\n\n          _Why should not I that wooden Eagle mention?\n          (A learned_ German's _late admir'd invention)\n          Which mounting from his Fist that framed her,\n          Flew far to meet an_ Almain _Emperour:\n          And having met him, with her nimble Train,\n          And weary Wings turning about again,\n          Followed him close unto the Castle Gate\n          Of _Noremberg_; whom all the shews of state,\n          Streets hang'd with Arras, arches curious built,\n          Loud thundring Canons, Columns richly guilt,\n          Grey-headed Senate, and youth's gallantise,\n          Grac'd not so much as onely this device.\n          Once as this Artist more with mirth than meat,\n          Feasted some friends that he esteemed great;\n          From under's hand an Iron Fly flew out,\n          Which having flown a perfect round about,\n          With weary wings, return'd unto her Master,\n          And (as judicious) on his arm she plac'd her._\n\n_Or wonder not more at the operation of two souls in those little\nbodies, than but one in the Trunk of a Cedar?_] That is, the\n_vegetative_, which according to the common opinion, is supposed to be\nin _Trees_, though the _Epicures_ and _Stoiques_ would not allow any\nSoul in Plants; but _Empedocles_ and _Plato_ allowed them not only a\n_vegetative_ Soul, but affirm'd them to be _Animals_. The _Manichees_\nwent farther, and attributed so much of the rational Soul to them, that\nthey accounted it _Homicide_ to gather either the flowers or fruit, as\nSt. _Aug._ reports.\n\n_We carry with us the wonders we seek without us._] So St. _Aug._ l. 10.\nde civ. c. 3. _Omni miraculo quod fit per hominem majus miraculum est\nhomo._\n\n_Sect. 16. Pag. 25._\n\n_Another of his servant Nature, that publique and universal Manuscript\nthat lies expansed_, etc.] So is the description of _Du Bartas 7. jour\nde la sepm._\n\n          _Oyes ce Docteur muet estudie en ce livre\n          Qui nuict et jour ouvert t'apprendra de bien vivre._\n\n_All things are artificial, for Nature is the Art of God._] So Mr.\n_Hobbes_ in his _Leviathan_ (_in initio_) Nature is the Art whereby God\ngoverns the world.\n\n_Sect. 17. Pag. 27._\n\n_Directing the operations of single and individual Essences_, etc.]\nThings singular or individuals, are in the opinion of Philosophers not\nto be known, but by the way of sense, or by that which knows by its\nEssence, and that is onely God. The Devils have no such knowledge,\nbecause whatsoever knows so, is either the cause or effect of the thing\nknown; whereupon _Averroes_ concluded that God was the cause of all\nthings, because he understands all things by his Essence; and _Albertus\nMagnus_ concluded, That the inferiour intelligence understands the\nsuperiour, because it is an effect of the superiour: but neither of\nthese can be said of the _Devil_; for it appears he is not the effect of\nany of these inferiour things, much less is he the cause, for the power\nof Creation onely belongs to God.\n\n_All cannot be happy at once, because the Glory of one State depends\nupon the ruine of another._] This Theme is ingeniously handled by Mr.\n_Montaigne livr. 1. des Ess._ cap. 22. the title whereof is, _Le\nprofit de l'un est dommage de l'autre_.\n\n_Sect. 18. Pag. 29._\n\n_'Tis the common fate of men of singular gifts of mind, to be destitute\nof those of Fortune._] So _Petron. Arbiter. Amor ingenii neminem\nunquum divitem fecit_, in _Satyric_. And _Apuleius_ in Apolog. _Idem\nmihi etiam_ (saith he) _paupertatem opprobravit acceptum Philosopho\ncrimen et ultro profitendum_; and then a little afterwards, he sheweth\nthat it was the common fate of those that had singular gifts of mind:\n_Eadem enim est paupertas apud Graecos in Aristide justa, in Phocyone\nbenigna, in Epaminonde strenua, in Socrate sapiens, in Homero diserta._\n\n_We need not labour with so many arguments to confute judicial_\nAstrology.] There is nothing in judicial _Astrology_ that may render it\nimpious; but the exception against it is, that it is vain and fallible;\nof which any man will be convinced, that has read _Tully de Divinat._\nand St. _Aug._ book 5. _de Civ. dei_.\n\n_Sect. 19. Pag. 31._\n\n_There is in our soul a kind of Triumvirate----that distracts the peace\nof our Commonwealth, not less than did that other the State of_ Rome.]\nThere were two _Triumvirates_, by which the peace of _Rome_ was\ndistracted; that of _Crassus_, _Caesar_ and _Pompey_, of which _Lucan_,\n_l._ 1.\n\n                  _----Tu causam aliorum----\n          Facta tribus Dominis communis Roma, nec unquam\n          In turbam missi feralia foedera Regni._\n\nAnd that other of _Augustus_, _Antonius_ and _Lepidus_, by whom, saith\n_Florus_, _Respublica convulsa est lacerataque_, which comes somewhat\nnear the Author's words, and therefore I take it that he means this last\nTriumvirate.\n\n_Sect. 19. Pag. 32._\n\n_Would disswade my belief from the miracle of the brazen Serpent._] Vid.\n_Coqueum in_, _l. 10._ _Aug._ _de Civ. Dei_, c. 8.\n\n_And bid me mistrust a miracle in_ Elias, etc.] The History is 18. 1\n_Reg._ It should be _Elijah_. The Author in _15. cap. lib. 7.\nPseudodox._ sheweth it was not perform'd naturally; he was (as he saith)\na perfect miracle.\n\n_To think the combustion of_ Sodom _might be natural_.] Of that opinion\nwas _Strabo_, whereupon he is reprehended by _Genebrard_ in these words:\n_Strabo falsus est----dum eversionem addicit sulphuri et bitumini e\nterra erumpentibus, quae erat assignanda Coelo_, i.e. _Deo irato_.\n_Tacitus_ reports it according to the Bible, _fulminis ictu arsisse_.\n\n_Sect. 20. Pag. 33._\n\n_Those that held Religion was the difference of man from Beasts_, etc.]\n_Lactantius_ was one of those: _Religioni ergo serviendum est, quam qui\nnon suspicit, ipse se prosternit in terram, et vitam pecudum secutus\nhumanitate se abdicat._ Lactant _de fals. Sapientia_, cap. 10.\n\n_The Doctrine of_ Epicurus _that denied the providence of God, was no\nAtheism, but_, etc.] I doubt not but he means that delivered in his\nEpistle to _Menaeceus_, and recorded by _Diogenes Laertius_, lib. 10.\n_Quod beatum aeternumque est, id nec habet ipsum negotii quicquam, nec\nexhibit alteri, itaque neque ira, neque gratia tenetur, quod quae talia\nsunt imbecillia sunt omnia_; which the _Epicurean_ Poet hath delivered\nalmost in the same words.\n\n          _Omnis enim per se divum natura necesse 'st\n          Immortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur,\n          Semota a nostris rebus sejunctaq; longe:\n          Nam privata dolore omni, privata periclis\n          Ipsa suis pollens opibus nihil indiga nostri\n          Nec bene pro meritis capitur, nec tangitur ira._\n\n                                            Lucret. _lib. 2._\n\n_That Villaine and Secretary of Hell, that composed that miscreant piece\nof the three Impostors._] It was _Ochinus_ that composed this piece; but\nthere was no less a man than the Emperour _Frederick_ the Second, that\nwas as lavish of his tongue as the other of his pen; _Cui saepe in ore,\nTres fuisse insignes Impostores, qui genus humanum seduxerunt: Moysem,\nChristum, Mahumetem. Lips. monit. et exempl. Politic._ cap. 4. And a\ngreater than he, Pope _Leo_ the Tenth, was as little favourable to our\nSaviour, when he us'd that speech which is reported of him, _Quantas\nnobis divitias comparavit ista de Christo fabula_.\n\n_Sect. 21. Pag. 34._\n\n_There are in Scripture, stories that do exceed the fables of Poets._]\nSo the Author of _Relig. Laici. Certe mira admodum in_ S. S. _plus quam\nin reliquis omnibus Historiis traduntur_; (and then he concludes with\nthe Author) _sed quae non retundunt intellectum, sed exercent_.\n\n_Yet raise no question who shall rise with that_ Rib _at the\nResurrection_.] The Author _cap. 2 l. 7_. _Pseudodox_. sheweth that it\nappeares in Anatomy, that the Ribs of Man and Woman are equal.\n\n_Whether the world were created in Autumn, Summer, or the Spring_, etc.]\nIn this matter there is a consent between two learned Poets, _Lucretius_\nand _Virgil_, that it begins in _Spring_.\n\n          _At novitas mundi nec frigora dura ciebat,\n          Nec nimios aestus, nec magnis viribus auras._\n                                              Lucretius.\n\nWhich he would have to be understood of _Autumn_, because that resembles\nold age rather than Infancy. He speaks expresly of the Fowls.\n\n          _Principio genus alituum variaeq; volucres\n          Ova relinquebant exclusae tempore verno._\n                                              Lucret.\n\nThen for _Virgil_.\n\n          _Non alios prima nascentis origine mundi\n          Illuxisse dies aliumve habuisse tenorem\n          Crediderim, ver illud erat, ver magnus agebat\n          Orbis, et hibernis parcebant flatibus Euri._\n\n                                             Virgil 2. Georgic.\n\nBut there is a great difference about it betwixt Church-Doctors; some\nagreeing with these Poets and others affirming the time to be in Autumn:\nbut truly, in strict speaking, it was not created in any one, but all of\nthe seasons, as the Author saith here, and hath shewed at large.\n_Pseudodox. Epidemic._ lib. 6. cap. 2.\n\n_Sect. 22. Pag. 35._\n\n_'Tis ridiculous to put off or down the general floud of_ Noah _in that\nparticular inundation of_ Deucalion,] as the Heathens some of them\nsometimes did: _Confuderunt igitur saepe Ethnici particularia illa\ndiluvia, quae longe post secuta sunt, cum illo universali quod praecessit,\nut ex fabulis in Diluvio Deucalionaeo sparsis colligere licet; non tamen\nsemper nec ubique. Author. Observat. in Mytholog. Nat. Com._ Then\namongst those that confound them, he reckons _Ovid_ and _Plutarch_.\n\n_How all the kinds of Creatures, not onely in their own bulks, but with\na competency of food and sustenance, might be preserved in one Ark, and\nwithin the extent of 300 Cubits, to a reason that rightly examines it\nwill appear very feasible._] Yet _Apelles_ the Disciple of _Mercion_,\ntook upon him to deride the History of _Moses_ in this particular,\nalledging that it must needs be a fable, for that it was impossible so\nmany creatures should be contain'd in so small a space. _Origen_ and St.\n_Aug._ to answer this pretended difficulty, alleadge that _Moses_ in\nthis place speakes of Geometrical (and not vulgar) cubits, of which\nevery one was as much as six vulgar ones; and so no difficulty. But\n_Perer. l. 10. com. in Genes, quest. 5. de arca_, rejects this opinion\nof _Origen_, as being both against reason and Scripture.\n\n1. Because that sort of Cubit was never in use amongst any people, and\ntherefore absurd to think _Moses_ should intend it in this place.\n\n2. If _Moses_ should not speak of the same Cubits here, that he mentions\nin others places, there would be great aequivocation in Scripture: now in\nanother place, _i.e._  _Exod. 27._ he saith, God commanded him to make an\nAltar three Cubits high; which if it shall be meant of Geometrical\nCubits it will contain 18 vulgar Cubits; which would not only render it\nuseless, but would be contrary to the command which he saith God gave\nhim, _Exod. 20. Thou shall not go up by steps to my Altar._ For\nwithout steps what man could reach it. It must therefore be meant of\nordinary Cubits; but that being so it was very feasible. I can more\neasily believe than understand it.\n\n_And put the honest Father to the Refuge of a Miracle._] This honest\nfather was St. _Aug._ who delivers his opinion, that it might be\nmiraculously done, _lib. 16. de Civ. Dei, cap. 7._ where having propos'd\nthe question how it might be done, he answers, _Quod si homines eas\ncaptas secum adduxerunt, et eo modo ubi habitabant earum genera\ninstituerunt, venandi studio fieri potuisse incredibile non est, quamvis\njussu Dei sire permissu etiam opera Angelorum negandum non sit potuisse\ntransferri_; but St. _Aug._ saith not that it could not be done without\na miracle.\n\n_And 1500 years to people the World, as full a time_, etc.]\n\n_Pag. 36._\n\n_That_ Methusalem _was the longest liv'd of all the children of_ Adam,\netc.] See both these Points cleared by the Author, in _Pseudodox.\nEpidemic._ the first _lib. 6. cap. 6._ the other _lib. 7. cap. 3._\n\n_That_ Judas _perished by hanging himself, there is no certainty in\nScripture, though in one place it seems to affirm it, and by a doubtful\nword hath given occasion to translate it; yet in another place, in a\nmore punctual description it makes it improbable, and seems to overthrow\nit_.] These two places that seem to contradict one another are _Math.\n27. 5._ and _Acts 1. 8._ The doubtful word he speaks of is in the place\nof _Matthew_; it is {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}, which signifieth suffocation as well as\nhanging, ({~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}, which may signifie literally, after he went\nout he was choak'd) but _Erasmus_ translates it, _abiens laqueo se\nsuspendit_: the words in the _Acts_ are, _When he had thrown down\nhimself headlong, he burst in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out_;\nwhich seems to differ much from the expression of _Matthew_; yet the\nAncient Writers and Fathers of the Church do unanimously agree that he\nwas hanged. Some I shall cite. _Anastas. Sinaita, l. 7. Anagog.\nContempl. Unus latro ingratus cum esset typus Diaboli, et Serpentis,\net Judae, qui se in ligno suffocavit. Gaudentius Brixiens. tract. 13.\nde natal. Dom. Mortem debitam laqueo sibimet intulit praeparato_, etc.\n_Droggotoshen. de sacram. dominic. pass. Jamdiu erat quidem quod\nChristo recesserat, et avaritiae laqueo se suspenderat, sed quod fecerat\nin occulto, palam omnibus innotuit. S. Martialis in Ep. ad Tholosanos.\nNon sustinuit poenitentiam, donec laqueo mortis seipsum consumpsit.\nIgnat. ad Philippens. Diabolus laqueum ei ostendit, et suspendium\ndocuit. Leo Serm. 3. de passion.----Ut quia facinus omnem mensuram\nultionis excesserat, te haberet impietas tua judicem te pateretur sua\npaena Carnificem. Theodoret. lib. 1. haeretic. fabul. Ille protinus\nstrangulatus est, quae fuit merces ejus proditionis. Chrysostom. Hom. 3.\nde proditore. Pependit Coelum Terramque intermedius vago funere\nsuffocatus, et cum flagitio suo tumefacta, viscera crepuerunt, etc.\nBernard. Serm. 8. in Psal. 9. Judas in Aere crepuit medius._\n\n1. There are those that are so particular, that they acquaint us with\nthe manner, as _that it was done with a Cord. Antiochus Laurensis, Spem\nomnem a se cum abjecisset, insiliente in eum inimico (sc. Diabolo)\nfuniculo sibi praefocavit gulam. Oecumen. in Act. Fracto funiculo quo\nerat suffocatus decidit in terram praecipitio._ 2. _That it was done on\na_ Fig-Tree, _Beda. Portam David egredientibus fons occurrit in Austrum\nper vallem directus, ad cujus medietatem ab occasu Judas se suspendisse\nnarratur: Nam et ficus magna ibi et vetustissima stat._\n\n             Juvenc. _lib. 4. Hist. Evangelic_.\n\n          _Exorsusq; suas laqueo sibi sumere paenas,\n          Informem rapuit ficus de vertice mortem._\n\n3. Some acquaint us with the time when it was done, _viz. the next day\nafter he had given the kiss_. So _Chrysostom. Homil. 1. de proditor. et\nMysterio Coen. Dominic. Guttur prophanum quod hodie Christo extendis\nad osculum, crastino es illud extensurus ad laqueum_. But there are two,\nthat is _Euthymius_ and _Oecumenius_, that tell us, _that the hanging\ndid not kill him_, but that either the Rope broke, or that he was cut\ndown, and afterwards cast himself down headlong, as it is related in the\nbefore mentioned place of the _Acts_: _Agnitus a quibusdam depositus est\nne praefocaretur, denique postquam in secreto quodam loco modico vixisset\ntempore praeceps factus sive praecipitatus, inflatus diruptus, ac diffisus\nest medius, et effusa sunt omnia viscera ejus; ut in_ Actis. _Euthym._\ncap. 67. _in Math. Judas suspendio e vita non decessit, sed supervixit,\ndejectus est enim prius quam praefocaretur, idque Apotolorum Acta\nindicant, quod pronus crepuit medius_. Oecumen. in Act. And this may\nserve to reconcile these two seemingly disagreeing Scriptures.\n\n_Pag. 37._\n\n_That our Fathers after the Flood erected the Tower of_ Babel.] For this\nsee what the Author saith in his _Pseudodox. Epidemic_. l. 7, cap. 6.\n\n_And cannot but commend the judgment of_ Ptolemy.] He means of\n_Ptolemaeus Philadelphus_, who founded the Library of _Alexandria_, which\nhe speaks of in the next Section. He was King of _Egypt_; and having\nbuilt and furnish'd that Library with all the choicest Books he could\nget from any part of the world, and having good correspondence with\n_Eleazer_ the high Priest of the _Jews_, by reason that he had released\nthe _Jews_ from Captivity, who were taken by his Predecessor _Ptolemaeus\nLagi_; he did by the advice of _Demetrius Phalereus_ the _Athenian_,\nwhom he had made his Library-Keeper, write to _Eleazer_, desiring him\nthat he would cause the Books of the _Jews_, which contained their Laws,\nto be translated for him into Greek, that he might have them to put into\nhis Library: to which the Priest consents; and for the King's better\nsatisfaction, sends to him Copies of the Books, and with the same 72\nInterpreters skilled both in the Greek and Hebrew Language, to translate\nthem for him into Greek; which afterwards they performed. This is for\ncertain; but whether they translated only the _Pentateuch_, as St.\n_Jerome_ would have it, or together with the Books of the Prophets also,\nas _Leo de Castro_ and _Baronius_ contend, I undertake not to determine:\nbut as to that part of the story, that these Interpreters were put into\nso many several Cells, whilst they were about the work of translation;\nand notwithstanding they were thus severed, that they all translated it\n_totidem verbis_; it is but reason to think with St. _Jerome_\n(notwithstanding the great current of Authority against him) that it is\nno better than a fable.\n\n_The Alcoran of the Turks_ (_I speak without prejudice_) _is an\nill-composed piece, containing in it vain and ridiculous errors in\nPhilosophy_, etc.] It is now in every mans hand, having been lately\ntranslated into English; I shall therefore observe but these few\nparticulars in it, in regard the book it self is so common; and indeed\nthey are not mine own, but _Lipsius_ his observations. He begins, _O\nnugas, O deliria! primum_ (saith he) _commentus est, Deum unum solidumq;\n({~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} Graeci exprimunt) eundemq; incorporeum esse. Christum non\nDeum, sed magnum vatem et prophetam; se tamen majorem, et proxime a Deo\nmissum, praemia qui ipsum audient Paradisum, qui post aliquot annorum\nmillia reserabitur, ibi quatuor flumina lacte, vino, melle, aqua fluere,\nibi palatia et aedificia gemmata atque aurata esse, carnes avium\nsuavissimarum, fructus omne genus quos sparsi jacentesque sub umbra\narborum edent: sed caput faelicitatis, viros foeminasque, majores\nsolito magnis Genitalibus assidua libidine, et ejus usu sine taedio aut\nfatigatione._ These and some others that are in the Alcoran he reckons\nup. _Sed et Physica quoq; miranda_ (saith he) _nam facit Solem et Lunam\nin equis vehi, illum autem in aquam calidam vespere mergi, et bene lotum\nascendere atque oriri, Stellas in aere e catenis aureis pendere: terram\nin bovini cornus cuspide stabilitum, et agitante se bove ac succutiente\nfieri terrae motum; hominem autem ex hirundine aut sanguisuga nasci_,\netc. Just. Lips. _Monit. et exempl. Politic._ cap. 3.\n\n_Sect. 23. Pag. 38._\n\n_I believe besides_ Zoroaster _there were divers others that wrote\nbefore Moses_.] _Zoroaster_ was long before _Moses_, and of great name; he\nwas the father of _Ninus, Justin. lib. 1_. _Si quamlibet modicum\nemolumentum probaveritis; ego ille sim Carinondas vel Damigeron, vel is\nMoses, vel Joannes, vel Apollonius, vel ipse Dardanus, vel quicunq;\nalius_ post Zoroastrem _et Hostanem, inter Magos celebratus est_.\nApuleius _in_ Apol.\n\n_Sect. 24. Pag. 38._\n\n_Others with as many groans deplore the combustion of the Library at_\nAlexandria.] This was that Library before spoken of, set up by\n_Ptolemaeus Philadelphus_; in which 'tis reported by _Ammianus\nMarcellinus_ there were 700,000 volumes; it was burnt by _Jul. Caesar's_\nmeans, whose Navy being environed before _Alexandria_, he had no means\nto keep off the Enemy, but by flinging of fire, which at length caught\nthe Library and consumed it, as _Plutarch_ hath it in _Vita Caesaris_:\nbut notwithstanding we have no reason to believe it was quite consumed,\nbecause _Sueton_. in _Claudius_, tells us, that that Emperour added\nanother to it; and there must be somewhat before, if it were an\naddition; but true it is, too many of the Books perished; to repair\nwhich loss, care was taken by _Domitian_ the Emperour, as the same\n_Sueton._ and _Aurel. Victor._ do relate.\n\n_I would not omit a Copy of_ Enoch's _Pillars, had they many nearer\nAuthors than_ Josephus, _etc._] For this the Story is, that _Enoch_, or\nhis father, _Seth_, having been inform'd by _Adam_, that the world was\nto perish once by water, and a second time by fire, did cause two\nPillars to be erected, the one of Stone against the water, and another\nof Brick against the fire; and that upon those Pillars was engraven all\nsuch Learning as had been delivered to, or invented by mankind; and that\nthence it came that all knowledge and learning was not lost by means of\nthe Floud, by reason that one of the Pillars (though the other perished)\ndid remain after the Floud, and _Josephus_ witnesseth, till his time,\n_lib. 1. Antiq. Judaic_. cap. 3.\n\n_Of those three great inventions of_ Germany, _there are two which are\nnot without their incommodities._] Those two he means are _Printing_ and\n_Gunpowder_, which are commonly taken to be _German_ Inventions; but\nArtillery was in _China_ above 1500 years since, and Printing long\nbefore it was in _Germany_, if we may believe _Juan Concales Mendosa_ in\nhis _Hist._ of _China, lib. 3. cap. 15, 16_. The incommodities of these\ntwo inventions, are, well described by _Sam. Daniel_, lib. 6. of the\nCivil Wars.\n\n          _Fierce_ Nemesis, _mother of fate and change,\n          Sword-bearer of th' eternal providence,\n          Turns her stern look at last into the West,\n          As griev'd to see on Earth such happy rest;_\n\n             _And for_ Pandora _calleth presently_,\n          Pandora Jove's _fair gift that first deceived\n          Poor_ Epimetheus _in his imbecility.\n          That though he had a wondrous boon received,\n          By means whereof curious mortality\n          Was of all former quiet quite bereaved.\n          To whom being come deckt with all qualities,\n          The wrathful goddess breaks out in this wise:_\n\n            _Dost thou not see in what secure estate,\n          Those flourishing fair Western parts remain?\n          As if they had made covenant with fate,\n          To be exempted free from others pain,\n          At one with their desires, friends with debate,\n          In peace with Pride, content with their own gain.\n          Their bounds contain their mindes, their mindes applyed\n          To have their bonds with plenty beautified._\n\n            _Devotion (Mother of Obedience)\n          Bears such a hand on their credulity,\n          That it abates the spirit of eminence,\n          And busies them with humble piety:\n          For see what works, what infinite expence,\n          What Monuments of zeal they edifie,\n          As if they would, so that no stop were found,\n          Fill all with Temples, make all holy ground._\n\n            _But we must cool this all-believing zeal,\n          That hath enjoy'd so fair a turn so long_, etc.\n          _Dislike of this first by degrees shall steal,\n          As upon souls of men perswaded wrong;\n          And that the sacred power which thus hath wrought,\n          Shall give her self the sword to cut her throat._\n\n            _Go therefore thou with all thy stirring train\n          Of swelling Sciences (the gifts of grief)\n          Go loose the links of that soul-binding chain,\n          Enlarge this uninquisitive Belief:\n          Call up mens spirits, that simpleness retain,\n          Enter their hearts, and knowledge make the Thief\n          To open all the Doors to let in Light,\n          That all may all things see but what is right._\n\n            _Opinion arm against opinion (grown)\n          Make new-born contradictions still arise,\n          As if Thebes Founder_ (Cadmus) _tongues had sown\n          Indent of teeth, for greater mutinies:\n          Bring new defended faith against faith known,\n          Weary the soul with contrarieties,\n          Till all Religion become Retrograde,\n          And that fair lye the mask of sin be made:_\n\n            _And better to effect a speedy end,\n          Let there be found two fatal Instruments,\n          The one to publish, th' other to defend [SN: Printing]\n          Impious contention, and proud discontents:\n          Make that instamped characters may send\n          Abroad to thousands, thousand mens intents;\n          And in a moment may dispatch much more,\n          Than could a world of pens perform before;_\n\n            _Whereby all quarrels, titles, secrecies,\n          May unto all be presently made known,\n          Factions prepar'd, parties allur'd to rise,\n          Seditions under fair pretences sown;\n          Whereby the vulgar may become so wise\n          That with a self-presumption overgrown,\n          They may of deepest mysteries debate,\n          Controul their betters, censure acts of State._\n\n            _And then when this dispersed mischief shall\n          Have brought confusion in each mystery,\n          Call'd up contempts of State in general,\n          And ripen'd the humour of impiety,\n          Then take the other engine wherewithal [SN: Guns]\n          They may torment their self-wrought misery;\n          And scourge each other in so strange a wise,\n          As time or tyrants never could devise_, etc.\n\n             See _Bellermontan._ in his _Dissertat. politic.\n                 dissert._ 29. and 30.\n\nFor the other Invention, the Latine Annotator doubts whether the Author\nmeans Church-Organs, or Clocks? I suppose he means Clocks, because I\nfind that Invention reckon'd by a _German_, with the other two, as a\nremarkable one. It is by _Busbequius_, speaking of the Turks, who hath\nthese words: _Testes majores minoresque bombardae, multaque alia quae ex\nnostris excogitata ipsi ad se avertunt; at libros tamen typis\nexcuderent, horologia in publico haberent, nondum adduci potuerunt._\n_Epist. Legat. Turcic._ I suppose if he had known any Invention which\nnext to the other two had been greater than this, he would not have\nnamed this, and this being the next considerable, we have no cause to\ndoubt but the Author meant it.\n\n_To maintain the Trade and Mystery of Typographers._] Of this _Cunaeus_\nin his _Satyre Sardi voenates_. _Qui bis in anno nomen suum ad\nGermanorum nundinas non transmittit, eruditionem suam in ordinem coactam\ncredit, itaq; nunquam tot fungi una pluvia nascuntur, quot nunc libri\nuno die_.\n\n_Sect. 25. Pag. 40._\n\n_The Turk in the bulk that he now stands, is beyond all hope of\nconversion._] That is, in respect of his great strength, against which\nit is not probable the Christians will prevail, as it is observed by\n_Monsieur de Silhon_. _La Race des Ottomans_ (saith he) _quae oste a Dieu\nla Religion qu'il a revelee, et aux hommes la liberte que le droit des\nGens leur laisse a fait tant de progres depuis trois Cens et quelques\nannees qu'il semble qu'elle n'ait plus rien a craindre de dehorse, et\nque son empire ne puisse perir que par la corruption de dedans, et par\nla dissolution des parties qui composent un corps si vaste. Mr. de\nSilhon en son Minist. D'Estat. l. 1. c._\n\n_None can more justly boast of persecutions, and glory in the number and\nvalour of martyrs._] Of the fortitude of the Christians in this\nparticular, _Minutius Felix_, in the person of the Ethnique, hath these\nwords, _Per mira stultitia et incredibili audacia spernunt tormenta\npraesentia, dum incerta metuunt et futura; et dum mori post mortem\ntiment, interim mori non timent._ And afterwards, when he speaks in the\nperson of the Christian, he saith, that Christian women and children\nhave in this surpassed _Scaevola_ and _Regulus_: _Viros_ (saith he) _cum\nMutio vel cum Atilio Regulo comparo: pueri et mulierculae nostrae cruces\net Tormenta, feros et omnes suppliciorum terriculas inspirata patientia\ndoloris illudunt_. Minut. _in_ Octav. _vide Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 1.\nc. 23, 24_.\n\n_If we shall strictly examine the circumstances and requisites which_\nAristotle _requires to true and perfect valour, we shall find the name\nonely in his Master_ Alexander, (_that is, no more than the name) and as\nlittle in that Roman worthy_ Julius Caesar.] _Aristot. 3. Ethic. cap. 6._\namongst other requisites, requires to valour, that it keep a mediocrity\nbetwixt audacity and fear; that we thrust not our selves into danger\nwhen we need not; that we spare not to shew our valour when occasion\nrequires: he requires for its proper object, Death; and to any death, he\nprefers death in War, because thereby a man profits his Country and\nFriends; and that he calls _mors honesta_, an honest or honourable\ndeath: and thereupon he defines a valiant man to be, _Is qui morte\nhonesta proposita, iisq; omnibus quae cum sint repentina mortem adfuerunt\nmetu vacat_. So that by the Author's saying, there was onely the Name in\n_Alexander_, he means only that which is rendred in the two last words,\n_metu vacans_, and not the rest that goes to make up the definition of a\nvaliant man, which is very truly affirmed of _Alexander_, who exposed\nhimself to hazzard many times when there was no cause for it: As you may\nread in _Curtius_, he did, in the siege of _Tyrus_, and many other ways.\n_Cettuy-cy semble rechercher et courir a force les dangiers comme un\nimpetueux torrent, qui choque et attaque sans discretion, et sans chois\ntout ce qu'il rencontre_, saith _Montaign_, speaking of _Alexander, l.\n2. des Ess. cap. 34_. And for _Caesar_, it cannot be denied, but in his\nWars he was many times (though not so generally as _Alexander_) more\nadventrous than reason military could warrant to him; and therefore\n_Lucan_ gives him no better Character than\n\n          _Acer et indomitus quo spes quoq; ira vocasset\n          Ferre manum, etc._\n                                          Lucan. lib. 1.\n\nTo instance in some Particulars: with what an inconsiderable strength\ndid he enterprize the conquest of _Egypt_, and afterwards went to\nattaque the forces of _Scipio_ and _Juba_, which were ten times more\nthan his own? after the Battle of _Pharsalia_, having sent his Army\nbefore into _Asia_, and crossing the _Hellespont_ with one single\nVessel, he there meets _Lucius Cassius_ with ten men of War, he makes up\nto him, summons him to render, and he does it. In the famous and furious\nsiege of _Alexia_, where he had 80,000 men to make defence against him,\nand an Army of one hundred and nine thousand Horse, and two hundred and\nforty thousand foot, all marching towards him, to raise his siege; yet\nfor all that he would not quit the siege, but first fought with those\nwithout, and obtain'd a great Victory over them, and soon afterwards\nbrought the besieged to his mercy.\n\n_Sect. 26. Pag. 41._\n\n_The Council of_ Constance _condemns_ John Husse _for an Heretick, the\nStories of his own Party style him a Martyr_.] _John Husse_ did agree\nwith the Papists against us in the Point of Invocation of Saints,\nPrayers and Sacrifice for the Dead, free Will, Good Works, confession of\nSins, seven Sacraments, etc. _Gordon. Hunt. l. contr. 3. de Sacr. Euch.\ncap. 17_. Yet was he condemned for maintaining certain Articles said by\nthat Council to be heretical and seditious, and was burnt for Heresie.\nNow as I will not say he was an Heretick, so can I not maintain that he\nwas a Martyr, if it be but for this one Article, which in the 15. Sess.\nof that Council was objected against him, which he did acknowledge, but\nwould not recal, _i.e._ _Nullus est Dominus civilis, dum est in peccato\nmortali_. If that Doctrine should be believed, we shall have little\nobedience to Civil Magistrates; and without that, how miserable is\nhumane condition? That which begat compassion towards _Husse_ in those\nof his own Party was, that he had a safe conduct from the Emperour\n_Sigismund_; and therefore it was, say they, a violation of publick\nfaith in the _Council_ and _Emperour_ in putting him to death.\n\n_That wise heathen_ Socrates _that suffered on a fundamental point of\nReligion, the Unity of God_.] That _Socrates_ suffered on this Point,\ndivers Christian Writers do object to the Ethniques, as _Justin Martyr_,\nApol. 2. _Euseb. l. 5. de praeparat. Evangelic. c. 14. Tertul._ in\n_Apolog._ cap. 14. and _Lactant. de justitia_, cap. 15. whose words\nare these: _Plato quidem multa de uno Deo locutus est, a quo ait\nconstitutum esse mundum, sed nihil de Religione; somniaverat enim Deum,\nnon cognoverat. Quod si justitiae defensionem vel ipse vel quilibet alius\nimplere voluisset, imprimis Deorum Religiones evertere debuit, quia\ncontrariae pietati. Quod quidem Socrates quia facere tentavit in carcerem\nconjectus est, ut jam tunc appareret quid esset futurum iis hominibus\nqui justitiam veram defendere Deoque singulari servire coepissent_.\n\n_I have often pitied the miserable Bishop that suffered in the cause\nof_ Antipodes.] The suffering was, that he lost his Bishoprick for\ndenying the _Antipodes_. Vid. _Aventin. in Hist. Boio_. Besides him,\nthere were other Church-men of great note, that denyed _Antipodes_, as\n_Lactantias_, _Augustin_, and _Bede_.\n\n_Sect. 27. Pag. 43._\n\n_I hold that God can do all things: How he should work contradictions, I\ndo not understand, yet dare not therefore deny._] Who would not think\nthe Author had taken this from Mr. _Montaign_, whose words are, _Il m'a\ntousjours semble qu'a un homme Christien, cette sorte de parler est\nplein d'indiscretion et d'irreverence [Dieu ne se peut disdire,] [Dieu\nne peut faire cecy ou cela]. Je ne trouve pas bon d'enfermer ainsi la\npuissance divine sous les loix de nostre parole. Et l'apparence qui s'\noffre a nous en ses propositions, il la faudroit representer plus\nreverement, et plus Religieusement._ Liv. 2. des Ess. c. 12.\n\n_I cannot see why the Angel of God should question_ Esdras _to recal the\ntime past, if it were beyond his own power, or that God should pose\nmortality in that which he was not able to perform himself._] Sir _K.\nDigby_ in his Notes upon this place saith, There is no contradiction in\nthis, because he saith it was but putting all things that had motion\ninto the same state they were in at that moment, unto which time was to\nbe reduced back, and from thence letting it travel on again by the same\nmotions, _etc._ which God could do. But under favour, the contradiction\nremains, if this were done that he mentions; for Time depends not at all\nupon motion, but has a being altogether independent of it, and therefore\nthe same revolution would not bring back the same time, for that was\nefflux'd before; as in the time of _Joshua_, when the Sun stood still,\nwe cannot but conceive, though there were no motion of the Sun, but that\nthere was an efflux of Time, otherwise, how could the Text have it,\n_That there was not any day, before or after, that was so long as that?_\nfor the length of it must be understood in respect of the flux of time.\nThe reasoning of Sir _Kenelme_ is founded upon the opinion of _Aristot_.\nwho will needs have it, that Time cannot be without mutation; he gives\nthis for a reason, because when we have slept, and cannot perceive any\nmutation to have been, we do therefore use to connect the time of our\nsleeping and of our awaking together, and make but one of it: to which\nit may be answered, although some mutation be necessary, that we may\nmark the mix of time, it doth not therefore follow that the mutation is\nnecessary to the flux it self.\n\n_Sect. 28. Pag. 43._\n\n_I excuse not_ Constantine _from a fall off his Horse, or a mischief\nfrom his enemies, upon the wearing those nails_, etc.] _Hac de re\nvideatur P. Diac. hist. miscell._\n\n_Sect. 29. Pag. 44._\n\n_I wonder how the curiosity of wiser heads could pass that great and\nindisputable miracle, the cessation of Oracles._] There are three\nopinions touching the manner how the predictions of these Oracles were\nperform'd: Some say by vapour, some by the intelligences, or\ninfluences, of the Heavens, and others say by the assistance of the\nDevils. Now the indisputable miracle the Author speaks of, is, that they\nceas'd upon the coming of Christ; and it is generally so believed; and\nthe Oracle of _Delphos_ delivered to _Augustus_, mentioned by the Author\nin this Section, is brought to prove it, which is this:\n\n          _Me puer Hebroeus divos Deus ipse gubernans\n          Cedere sede jubet, tristemq; redire sub orcum.\n          Aris ergo dehinc tacitus discedito nostris._\n\nBut yet it is so far from being true that their cessation was\nmiraculous, that the truth is, there never were any predictions given by\nthose Oracles at all.\n\nThat their cessation was not upon the coming of Christ, we have luculent\ntestimony out of _Tully_, in his _2. lib. de Divinat._ which he writ\nmany years before Christ was born; who tells us that they were silent\n(and indeed he never thought they were otherwise) long before that time,\ninsomuch that they were come into contempt: _Cur isto modo jam oracula\nDelphis non eduntur, non modo nostra oetate, sed jamdiu jam ut nihil\npossit esse contemptius_. So that for that of _Delphos_, which was the\nmost famous of them all, we see we have no reason to impute the\ncessation of it to Christ; Why therefore should we do so for any of the\nrest?\n\nFor their predictions, let us consider the three several ways before\nmentioned, whereby they are supposed to operate; and from thence see\nwhether it be probable that any such Oracles ever were.\n\nThe first Opinion is, that it was by exhalation or vapour drawn up from\nthe earth; and gives this for a reason of their being, that they were\nfor a time nourished by those exhalations; and when those ceased, and\nwere exhausted, the Oracles famish'd and died for want of their\naccustom'd sustenance: this is the far-fetcht reason given by _Plutarch_\nfor their defect; but 'twas not devised by him, but long before, as\nappears, in that _Tully_ scoffs at it, _lib. de divinat_. _De vino aut\nsalsamento putes loqui_ (saith he) _quae evanescunt vetustate_. This\nseem'd absurd to others, who do therefore say this was not to be\nattributed to any power of the Earth, but to the power of the Heavens,\nor _Intelligences Coelestial_; to certain aspects whereof, they say,\nthe Statua's of those Oracles were so adapted, that they might divine\nand foretel future events. But yet to others, this way seemeth as absurd\nas the others; for, say they, admitting that there were an efficacy in\nthe Heavens, more than in the Earth; yet how can it be that men should\ncome by the skill to fit the Statua's to the Aspects or influences of\nthe Heavens? or if at any time they had such skill, why should not the\nsame continue the rather, because men are more skilled in the motions\nof the Heavens, of later than in the former time? Again, they do not see\nhow it should be that the cause should be of less excellency than the\neffect; for if a man (say they) can by his industry make such Oracles,\nwhy can he not produce the same effect in another man? for if you affirm\nthat the Heavens influence is requisite, they will tell you that\nInfluence may happen as well to a man, as to a Statue of wood or stone.\nTherefore the third sort being unsatisfied, which either of the former\nways conclude, that this was perform'd by the Devil; but for that it\nwill appear as contrary to Reason and Philosophy, as either of the\nformer; for Philosophy teacheth that things singular, or individual, are\nto be known only by sense, or by such an Intellect, as doth know by its\nEssence; and Theology teacheth that God only knoweth the heart, and that\nthe Devil doth not know by sense, nor by essence; and since 'tis\nadmitted by all, that most of the answers that were pretended to be\ngiven by those Oracles, were _de rebus singularibus_, or _individuis_;\nit is evident that these predictions were not perform'd by Devils. How\nthen? why those predictions which the ignorant Heathen took to come from\nHeaven, and some Christians (not less ignorant) from the Devil, was\nnothing but the jugling and impostures of the Priests, who from within\nthe Statua's gave the answers; which Princes connived at, that they\nmight upon occasion serve their turns upon the ignorance of the people;\nand the learned men, for fear of their Princes, durst not speak against\nit. _Lucian_ hath noted it, and so a more Authentick Author, _Minut.\nFelix._, in _Octav. Authoritatem quasi praesentis numinis consequuntur\ndum inspirantur interim vatibus_. But in process of time, the people\ngrew less credulous of their Priests, and so the Oracles became to be\nsilent: _Cum jam_ (saith he) _Apollo versus facere desisset, cujus tunc\ncautum illud et ambiguum deficit oraculum: Cum et politiores homines et\nminus creduli esse caeperunt_. Sir _H. Blount_ in his _Levantine_ voyage,\nsaith he saw the Statua of _Memnon_ so famous of old; he saith it was\nhollow at top, and that he was told by the _Egyptians_ and Jews there\nwith him, that they had seen some enter there, and come out at the\nPyramid, two Bows shoot off; then (saith he) I soon believ'd the Oracle,\nand believe all the rest to have been such; which indeed, is much easier\nto imagine than that it was perform'd by any of the three wayes before\nmentioned. St. _Aug._ hath composed a Book, where he handleth this point\nat large, and concludeth that the Devils can no more foretel things\ncome, than they are able to discern the thoughts that are within us.\n_Aug. lib. de Scientia Daemon._\n\n_Till I laughed my self out of it with a piece of_ Justin, _where he\ndelivers that the Children of_ Israel _for being scabbed were banished\nout of_ Egypt.] These words of _Justin_ are, _Sed cum scabiem AEgyptii\net pruriginem paterentur, responso moniti, eum (se. Moysen) cum aegris,\nne pestis ad plures serperet, terminis AEgypti pellunt. l. 36._ But he is\nnot singular in this, for _Tacitus_ tells us, _Hist. lib. 5. Plurimi\nauthores consentiunt orta per AEgyptum tabe quoe corpora foeduret,\nRegem (Ochirum)_ (he means _Pharaoh_) _adito Hammonis oraculo remedium\npetentem purgare. Regnum et id genus hominum----alias in terras avertere\njussum._ Et paulo inferius, _Quod ipsos scabies quondam turpaverat_.\n\n_Sect. 30. Pag. 45._\n\n_I have ever believed, and do now know that there are Witches._] What\nsort of Witches they were that the Author knew to be such. I cannot\ntell; for those which he mentions in the next Section, which proceed\nupon the principles of Nature, none have denyed that such there are;\nagainst such it was, that the _Lex Julia de veneficiis_ was made, that\nis, those, _Qui noxio poculo aut impuris medicuminibus aliquem fuerint\ninsectati. At. ab Alex. Gen. Dier._ l. 5. c. 1. But for the opinion that\nthere are Witches which co-operate with the Devil, there are Divines of\ngreat note, and far from any suspition of being irreligious, that do\noppose it. Certainly there is no ground to maintain their being from the\nstory of Oracles, as may be seen from what hath been said on the\nprecedent Section.\n\n_Nor have the power to be so much as Witches._] _Pliny_ saith, so it\nfared with _Nero_, who was so hot in pursuit of the Magick Arts, that he\ndid dedicate himself wholly to it, and yet could never satisfie himself\nin that kind, though he got all the cunning men he could from the East,\nfor that purpose. _Plin._ l. 3. _Nat. Hist._ c. 1.\n\n_Pag. 46._\n\n_By conjunction with the Devil._] Though, as the Author saith, it be\nwithout a possibility of Generation, yet there are great men that hold,\nthat such carnality is performed; as _August, in Levit. Aquin. l. 2. de\nqu. 73. art. ad 2._ and _Justin Martyr, Apol. 1._\n\n_Sect. 33. Pag. 48._\n\n_It is no new opinion of the Church of_ Rome, _but an old one of_\nPythagoras _and_ Plato.] This appears by _Apuleius_ a Platonist, in his\nBook _de Deo Socratis_, and elsewhere. See _Mede's Apostasie of the\nlatter times_, where out of this and other Authors, you shall see\ncollected all the learning _de Geniis_.\n\n_Pag. 50._\n\n_I cannot with those in that great Father securely interpret the work of\nthe first day_, Fiat lux, _to the creation of Angels_.] This great\nFather is S. _Chrysost. Homil. in Genes_. But yet 'tis his opinion, as\nalso of _Athanasius_ and _Theodoret_, that there is express mention of\nthe creation of Angels, so that they need not rest upon this place,\nwhich they admit to be somewhat obscure. The place which they take to be\nexpress, is that of the 130 _Psalm_, where _David_ begins to speak of\nthe Majesty of God, in this manner: _Confessionem sive majestatem et\ndecorem induisti, amictus lumine sicut vestimento_: Next he speaks of\nthe Heavens, saying, _Thou hast stretched them out over us like a\nTent._ Then he speaks of the Angels, _Qui facis Angelos tuos spiritus_.\nNow if it shall be objected, that this expression is onely of the time\npresent, and without relation to the Creation: Answer is given by\nDivines, that the _Hebrews_ have but three Tenses in their Verbs, the\nPreterperfect, Present, and Future Tense; and have not the use of the\nPreterimperfect, and Preterpluperfect, as the _Greeks_ and _Latines_\nhave; whence it ariseth, that the Present Tense with the _Hebrews_, may,\nas the sentence will bear it, be translated by the Preterimperfect, as\nalso by the Preterperfect and Preterpluperfect Tense; and this (they\nsay) is practised in this very passage, where the Phrase, as it is in\nHebrew, may be rendered as well _qui faciebas_, as _qui facis Angelos_,\netc. Vid. _Hieronym. in Ep. ad Titum, et Thom. Aqu. 1. p. qu. 61. art.\n3_. The Latine Annotator saith, the Father meant by the Author, is St.\n_Aug._ and quotes him, _l. II. de Civ. Dei_ cap. 9. which place I have\nperused, and find the expression there used by St. _Aug._ is but\nhypothetical; for these are his words: _Cum enim dixit Fiat lux, et\nfacta est lux, si recte in fine luce creatio intelligitur Angelorum_,\netc. Where you see 'tis but with a _Si_, and therefore I conceive the\nAuthor intends not him, but _Chrysostom_.\n\n_Where it subsists alone, 'tis a Spiritual Substance, and may be an\nAngel._] _Epicurus_ was of this opinion, and St. _Aug. in Euchirid. ad\nLaurentium_.\n\n_Sect. 35. Pag. 52._\n\nMoses _decided that Question, and all is salved with the new term of\nCreation._] That is it which _Aristotle_ could not understand; he had\nlearned that _ex nihilo nihil fit_, and therefore when he found those\nthat disputed that the World had a beginning, did maintain that it was\ngenerated, and he could not understand any generation, but out of matter\nprae-existent _in infinitum_, therefore he took their opinion to be\nabsurd, and upon that ground principally, concluded the World to be\neternal: whereas, if he had understood that there may be such a thing as\nCreation, he had not done it, for that solves his _processus in\ninfinitum_. Take from _Plato_, that the World had a beginning, and from\n_Aristot._ that it was not generated, and you have the (true) Christian\nopinion.\n\n_Sect. 36. Pag. 54._\n\n_In our study of Anatomy, there is a mass of mysterious Philosophy, and\nsuch as reduced the very Heathens to Divinity._] So it did _Galen_, who\nconsidering the order, use, and disposition of the parts of the body,\nbrake forth into these words: _Compono hic profecto Canticam in\ncreatoris nostri laudem, quod ultra res suas ornare voluit melius quam\nulla arte possent_. Galen, 3. _de usu partium_.\n\n_Sect. 37. Pag. 55._\n\n_I cannot believe the wisdom of_ Pythagoras _did ever positively, and in\na literal sense, affirm his_ Metempsychosis.] In this the opinion of\n_Grotius_ is contrary to the Author, who saith this opinion was begotten\nby occasion of the opinion of other Philosophers, who in their\ndiscourses of the life that is to be after this, brought such\narguments, _Quae non magis de homine quam de bestiis procedunt_. And\ntherefore, saith he, _mirandum non est, si transitum animarum de\nhominibus in bestias, de bestiis in homines alii commenti sunt_. _Lib.\n2. de ver. Relig. Christ. (vide etiam Annotat. ejusd.)._ But yet there\nis a shrewd objection against the opinion of _Pythagoras_, if he did\nmean it literally, which is cast in by the Sectators of _Democritus_ and\n_Epicurus_, which _Lucretius_ remembers in these Verses:\n\n          _Praeterea si immortalis natura animai\n          Constat, et in corpus nascentibus insinuatur,\n          Cur super anteactam aetatem meminisse nequimus?\n          Nec vestigia gestarum rerum ulla tenemus?\n          Namsi tantopere 'st animi mutata potestas,\n          Omnis ut actarum excideret retinentia rerum,\n          Non ut opinor ea ab laeto jam longiter errat._\n\n                                                [Lib. 3.]\n\nThis Argument, 'tis true, is _pro falso contra falsum_, but yet holds\n_ad hominem_ so far, that it is not likely (as the Author saith) but\n_Pythagoras_ would observe an absurdity in the consequence of his\nMetempsychosis; and therefore did not mean it literally, but desired\nonly to express the Soul to be immortal, which he, and the other\nPhilosophers that were of that opinion, who had not heard of Creation,\ncould not conceive, unless it must be taken for truth, that the soul\nwere before the body; so saith _Lactantius_ of them. _Non putaverunt\naliter fieri posse ut supersint animae post corpora, nisi videntur fuisse\nante corpora. De fals. Sap._ c. 18.\n\n_Sect. 41. Pag. 59._\n\n_I do not envy the temper of Crows or Daws._] As _Theophrastus_ did, who\ndying, accused Nature for giving them, to whom it could not be of any\nconcernment, so large a life; and to man, whom it much concern'd, so\nshort a one. _Cic. Tusc. quaest. l. 3._ How long Daws live, see in _Not.\nad Sect. 41_.\n\n_Sect. 42. Pag. 61._\n\n_Not upon _Cicero's_ ground, because I have liv'd them well._] I suppose\nhe alludes to an expression in an Epistle of _Cicero_, written in his\nExile, to his wife and children, where he hath these words to his wife:\n_Quod reliquum est, te sustenta mea Terentia ut potes, honestissime\nviximus, floruimus. Non vitium nostrum sed virtus nos afflixit, peccatum\nest nullum nisi quod non una animum cum ornamentis amisimus_, l. 24, Ep.\n4.\n\n_And stand in need of _Eson's_ bath before threescore._] _Eson_ was the\nFather of _Jason_, and, at his request, was by _Medea_, by the means of\nthis Bath, restored to his youth. Ingredients that went into it, and the\ndescription of _Medea's_ performance, _Ovid_ gives you, _l. 7. Metam._\n\n          _Interea calido positum medicamen aheno_\n          _Fervet et exultat, spumisq; tumentibus albet._\n          _Illic AEmonia radices valle resectas,\n          Seminaq; et flores, et succos incoquit atros\n          Adjicet extremo lapides Oriente petitos,\n          Et quas Oceani refluum mare lavit arenas:\n          Addidit exceptas lunae de nocte pruinas,\n          Et Strigis infames ipsis cum carnibus alas,\n          Inq; virum soliti vultus mutare ferinos\n          Ambigui prosecta lupi, nec defuit illi\n          Squamea Cinyphei tenuis membrana Chelidri,\n          Vivacisq; jecur cervi; quibus insuper addit\n          Ora caputq; novem cornicis secula passae.\n          His et mille aliis, postquam sine nomine rebus\n          Propositum instruxit mortali barbara munus\n          Arenti ramo jampridem mitis olivae\n          Omnia confudit, summisq; immiscuit ima.\n          Ecce vetus calido versatus stipes aheno\n          Fit viridis primo, nec longo tempore frondes\n          Induit, et subito gravidis oneratur olivis.\n          At quacunq; cavo spumas ejecit aheno\n          Ignis, et in terram guttae cecidere calentes,\n          Vernat humus, floresq; et mollia pabula surgunt.\n          Quae simulac vidit, stricto Medea recludit\n          Ense senis jugulum, veteremq; extare cruorem\n          Passa replet succis, quos postquam combibit AEson,\n          Aut ore acceptas, aut vulnere, barba comoeq;\n          Cunitie posita, nigrum rapuere colorem.\n          Pulsa fugit macies: abeunt pallorq; situsque:\n          Adjectoq; cavae supplentur corpore rugae;\n          Membraq; luxuriant. AEson miratur, et olim\n          Ante quater denos hunc se reminiscitur annos,\n          Dissimilemq; animum subiit, aetate relicta._\n                                              [262-293.]\n\n_Sect. 44. Pag. 62._\n\n_Extol the Suicide of_ Cato.] As doth _Seneca_ in several places; but\n_Lactantius_ saith, he cast away his life, to get the reputation of a\n_Platonick_ Philosopher, and not for fear of _Caesar_; and 'tis very\nprobable, he was in no great fear of death, when he slept so securely\nthe night before his death, as the story reports of him.\n\n_Pag. 63._\n\n_Emori nolo, sed me esse mortuum, nihil curo._ _Were I of_ Caesar's\n_Religion_.] I doubt not, but here is a fault of the Press, and that\ninstead of _Caesar_ it should be _Cicero_. I meet not with any such\nsaying imputed to _Caesar_, nor any thing like it, but that he preferr'd\na sudden death (in which he had his option) to any other; but I meet\nwith such a saying in _Cicero_ quoted out of _Epicharmus_ [_Emori nolo,\nsed me esse mortuum nihili aestimo._] Where _Cicero_ sustaineth the part\nof the _Epicure_ that there is no hurt in being dead, since there\nremaineth nothing after it. _Cic. 1. Thusc. qu. non procul ab initio_.\n\n_Sect. 45. Pag. 64._\n\nOr whence _Lucan_ learn'd to say, _Communis mundo superest rogus_, etc.]\nWhy, _Lucan_ was a Stoique, and 'twas an opinion among them almost\ngenerally, that the world should perish by fire; therefore without doubt\nfrom them he learned it. _Caelum quoque cum omnibus quae in caelo\ncontinentur, ita ut coepisset desinere, fontium dulci aqua marisve\nnutriri, in vim ignis abiturum. Stoicis constans opinio est, quod\nconsumpto humore mundus hic omnis ignescat._ _Minutius in Octav._ But\n_Minutius_ should have excepted _Boetius_, _Possidonius_, _Diogenes\nBabylonius_, and _Zeno Sidonius_, who were _Stoiques_, and yet did not\nthink the world should be destroyed by fire, nor yet by any other means.\n\n_Sect. 46. Pag. 65._\n\n_How shall we interpret _Elias 6000_ years_, etc.?] _Lactant._ is very\npositive that the world should last but 6000 years; but his reason for\nit is somewhat strange; thus it is, _Quoniam sex diebus cuncta Dei opera\nperfecta sunt, per secula sex_, i.e. _annorum sex millia manere in hoc\nstatu mundum necesse est_. _De Divino praemio_, cap. 14.\n\n_Sect. 47. Pag. 67._\n\n_Ipsa sui pretium virtus sibi, is but a cold principle._] It is a\nStoical principle. _Quaeris enim aliquid supra summum, interrogas quid\npetam extra virtutem ipsam. Nihil enim habet melius. Pretium sui est._\nSenec. _de vit. beat._ c. 19.\n\n_That honest artifice of_ Seneca.] What that article was, is to be seen\nin _Senec. l. 1. ep. 11_. _Aliquis vir bonus nobis eligendus est, et\nsemper ante oculos babendus, ut sic tanquam illo spectante vivamus, et\nomnia tanquam illo vidente faciamus._ Et paulo post; _Elige itaq;\nCatonem; si hic videtur tibi nimis rigidus, elige remissioris animi\nvirum Laelium_, etc. which though, as the Author saith, it be an honest\nArtifice, yet cannot I but commend the party, and prefer the direction\nof him (whoever he were) who in the Margin of my _Seneca_, over against\nthose words, wrote these: _Quin Deo potius qui semper omnibus omnia\nagentibus non tanquam sed reipsa adest, et videt; ac etiam ut Testis,\nvindex et punitor est male agentis_.\n\n_I have tried, if I could reach that great Resolution of his (that is of\n_Seneca_) to be honest without a thought of Heaven or Hell._]\n_Seneca_[6] brags he could do this, in these words: _Si scirem deos\npeccata ignoscituros, et homines ignoraturos, adhuc propter vilitatem\npeccati peccare erubescerem. Credat Judaeus Appela: non ego_.----\n\n\n  [6] _Tho. Aquin. in com. in Boet. de Consolat. prope finem._\n\n\n_And Atheists have been the onely Philosopher._] That is, if nothing\nremain after this life. St. _Aug._ was of this opinion. _Disputabam----\nEpicurum accepturum fuisse palmam in animo meo, nisi ego credidissem\npost mortem restare animae vitam_, etc. Aug. _l. 6. conf. cap. 16_.\n\n_Sect. 48. Pag. 68._\n\n_God by a powerful voice shall command them back into their proper\nshapes._] So _Minutius_. _Caeterum quis tam stultus est aut brutus, ut\naudeat repugnare hominem a Deo ut primum potuit fingi, ita posse denuo\nreformari, nihil esse post obitum, et ante ortum nihil fuisse; sicut de\nnihilo nasci licuit, ita de nihilo licere reparari. Porro difficilius\nest id quod sit incipere, quod quam id quod fuerit iterare. Tu perire\nDeo credis, si quid nostris oculis hebetibus subtrahitur. Corpus omne\nsive arescit in pulverem sive in humorem solvitur, vel in cinerem\ncomprimitur vel in nidorem tenuatur, subducitur nobis, sed Deo\nelementorum custodi inseruntur. In Octav._  _Vide_ Grot. _de veritate\nRelig. Christian. ubi (lib. 2.) solvit objectionem, quod dissoluta\ncorpora resititui nequeunt._\n\n_Sect. 50. Pag. 71._\n\n_Or conceive a flame that can either prey upon, or purifie the substance\nof a soul._] Upon this ground _Psellus lib 1. de Energia Daemonum_, c. 7\nholds, That Angels have bodies, (though he grants them to be as pure, or\nmore pure than Air is) otherwise he could not apprehend how they should\nbe tormented in Hell; and it may be upon this ground it was, that the\nAuthor fell into the error of the _Arabians_, mentioned by him, _Sect.\n7_.\n\n_Sect. 51. Pag. 73._\n\n_There are as many Hells as _Anaxagoras_ conceited worlds._] I assure my\nself that this is false printed, and that instead of _Anaxagoras_ it\nshould be _Anaxarchus_; for _Anaxagoras_ is reckon'd amongst those\nPhilosophers that maintain'd a Unity of the world, but _Anaxarchus_\n(according to the opinion of _Epicurus_) held there were infinite\nWorlds. That is he that caus'd _Alexander_ to weep by telling him that\nthere were infinite worlds, whereby _Alexander_ it seems was brought out\nof opinion of his Geography, who before that time thought there remained\nnothing, or not much beyond his Conquests.\n\n_Sect. 54. Pag. 75._\n\n_It is hard to place those souls in Hell._] _Lactantius_ is alike\ncharitably disposed towards those. _Non sum equidem tam iniquus ut eos\nputem divinare debuisse, ut veritatem per seipsos invenirent (quod fieri\nego non posse confiteor) sed hoc ab eis exigo, quod ratione ipse\npraestare potuerunt._ Lactant. _de orig. error._ c. 3. which is the very\nsame with Sir _K. Digbie's_ expression in his Observations on this\nplace. I make no doubt at all (saith he) but if any follow'd in the\nwhole tenour of their lives, the dictamens of right reason, but that\ntheir journey was secure to Heaven.\n\n_Sect. 55. Pag. 77._\n\nAristotle _transgress'd the rule of his own Ethicks._] And so they did\nall, as _Lactantius_ hath observed at large. _Aristot._ is said to have\nbeen guilty of great vanity in his Clothes, of Incontinency, of\nUnfaithfulness to his Master _Alexander_, etc. But 'tis no wonder in\nhim, if our great _Seneca_ be also guilty, whom truely notwithstanding\nSt. _Jerome_ would have him inserted in the Catalogue of Saints, yet I\nthink he as little deserv'd it, as many of the Heathens who did not say\nso well as he did, for I do not think any of them liv'd worse: to trace\nhim a little. In the time of the Emperour _Claudius_ we find he was\nbanish'd for suspition of incontinency with _Julia_ the daughter of\n_Germanicus_. If it be said that this proceeded meerly from the spight\nof _Messalina_, (and that _Lipsius_ did not complement with him in that\nkind _Apostrophe, Non expetit in te haec culpa, O Romani nominis et\nSapientiae magne. Sol. Not. in Tacit._) why then did she not cause him\nto be put to death, as well as she did the other, who was her Husbands\nNiece? This for certain, whatever his life were, he had _paginam\nlascivam_, as may appear by what he hath written, _de Speculorum usu, l.\n1. Nat. Qu. cap. 16_. Which (admitting it may in a Poet, yet) how it\nshould be excus'd in a Philosopher I know not. To look upon him in his\nexile, we find that then he wrote his Epistle _De Consolat._ to\n_Polybius_, _Claudius_ his creature (as honest a man as _Pallas_ or\n_Narcissus_) and therein he extols him and the Emperour to the Skies; in\nwhich he did grosly prevaricate, and lost much of his reputation, by\nseeking a discharge of his exile by so sordid a means. Upon _Claudius_\nhis marriage with _Agrippina_, he was recall'd from Banishment by her\nmeans, and made _Praetor_, then he forgets the Emperour, having no need\nof him, labours all he can to depress him and the hopeful _Brittanicus_,\nand procured his Pupil _Nero_ to be adopted and design'd Successor, and\nthe Emperours own Son to be disinherited; and against the Emperour whom\nhe so much praised when he had need of him, after his death he writes a\nscurrilous Libel. In _Nero's_ Court, how ungratefully doth he behave\nhimself towards _Agrippina_! who although she were a wicked woman, yet\nshe deserv'd well of him, and of her Son too, who yet never was at rest\ntill he had taken away her life, and upon suspition cast in against her\nby this man. Afterwards not to mention that he made great haste to grow\nrich, which should not be the business of a Philosopher, towards _Nero_\nhimself, how well did it become his Philosophy to play the Traitor\nagainst him, and to become a complice in the conspiracy of _Piso_? And\nthen as good a Tragedian as he was, me thinks he doth in _extremo actu\ndeficere_, when he must needs perswade _Paulina_, that excellent Lady\nhis wife, to die with him: what should move him to desire it? it could\nin his opinion be no advantage to her, for he believ'd nothing of the\nimmortality of the soul; I am not satisfied with the reason of\n_Tacitus_, _Ne sibi unice dilectam ad injurius relinqueret_, because he\ndiscredits it himself, in almost the next words, where he saith, _Nero_\nbore her no ill will at all, (and would not suffer her to die) it must\nsurely be then, because he thought he had not liv'd long enough (being\nnot above 114 years old, so much he was) and had not the fortitude to\ndie, unless he might receive some confirmation in it by her example. Now\nlet any man judge what a precious Legacy it is that he bequeaths by his\nnuncupative will to his friends in _Tacitus_. _Conversus ad amicos_\n(saith he) _quando meritis eorum referre gratiam prohiberetur, quod unum\njam tamen et pulcherrimum habebat, imaginem vitae suae relinquere\ntestatur_. It cannot be denyed of him, that he hath said very well; but\nyet it must as well be affirmed, that his Practice hath run counter to\nhis Theory, to use the Author's phrase.\n\n_The_ Scepticks _that affirmed they knew nothing_.] The ancient\nPhilosophers are divided into three sorts, _Dogmatici_, _Academici_,\n_Sceptici_; the first were those that delivered their opinions\npositively; the second left a liberty of disputing _pro et contra_; the\nthird declared that there was no knowledge of any thing, no not of this\nvery proposition, that there is no knowledge, according to that,\n\n          _----Nihil sciri siquis putat, id quoq; nescit\n          An sciri possit, quod se nil scire fatetur._\n\n_The Duke of_ Venice _that weds himself to the Sea by a Ring of Gold_,\netc.] The Duke and Senate yearly on _Ascension-day_ use to go in their\nbest attire to the Haven of _Lido_, and there by throwing a Ring into\nthe water, do take the Sea as their spouse. _Vid. Hist. Ital._ by _Will\nThomas Cambrobrit_. _Busbequius_ reports that there is a custom amongst\nthe Turks, which they took from the Greek Priests, not much unlike unto\nthis. _Cum Graecorum sacerdotibus mos sit certo veris tempore aquas\nconsecrando mare clausum veluti reserare, ante quod tempus non facile se\ncommittunt fluctibus; ab ea Ceremonia nec Turcae absunt._ Busb. _Ep. 3.\nlegat. Tursic._\n\n_But the Philosopher that threw his money into the Sea, to avoid\navarice_, etc.] This was _Apollonius Thyaneus_, who threw a great\nquantity of Gold into the Sea with these words, _Pessundo divitias, ne\npessundarem ab illis_. _Polycrates_ the Tyrant of _Samos_ cast the best\nJewel he had into the Sea, that thereby he might learn to compose\nhimself against the vicissitude of Fortune.\n\n_There go so many circumstances to piece up one good action._] To make\nan action to be good, all the causes that concur must be good; but one\nbad amongst many good ones, is enough to make it vitious, according to\nthe rule, _Bonum ex causa integra, malum ex partiali_.\n\n_Sect. 56. Pag. 78._\n\n_The vulgarity of those judgements that wrap the Church of God in_\nStrabo's _Cloak, and restrain it unto_ Europe.] 'Tis _Strabonis tunica_\nin the translation, but _Chalmydi_ would do better, which is the proper\nexpression of the word that _Strabo_ useth: it is not _Europe_, but the\nknown part of the world that _Strabo_ resembleth to a Cloak, and that is\nit the Author here alludeth to; but we have no reason to think that the\nresemblance of _Strabo_ is very proper, _Vid._ Sir _Hen. Savil. in not.\nad Tac. in vita Agricolae_.\n\n_Sect. 57. Pag. 79._\n\n_Those who upon a rigid Application of the Law, sentence_ Solomon _unto\ndamnation_, etc.] St. _Aug._ upon _Psal._ 126. and in many other places,\nholds that _Solomon_ is damned. Of the same opinion is _Lyra_, in 2\n_Reg._ c. 7. and _Bellarm. 1 Tom. lib. 1. Controv._ c. 5.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND PART\n\n\n_Sect. 1. Pag. 83._\n\n_I wonder not at the_ French _for their Frogs, Snails and Toad-stools_.]\nToad-stools are not peculiar to the _French_; they were a great delicacy\namong the _Romans_, as appears every where in _Martial_. It was\nconceived the Emperor _Claudius_ received his death by Poyson, which he\ntook in Mushroom. _Suet._ and _Tac._\n\n_Sect. 2. Pag. 87._\n\n_How among so many millions of faces, there should be none alike._] It\nis reported there have been some so much alike, that they could not be\ndistinguished; as King _Antiochus_, and one _Antemon_, a Plebeian of\n_Syria_, were so much alike, that _Laodice_, the Kings widow, by\npretending this man was the King, dissembled the death of the King so\nlong, till according to her own mind, a Successor was chosen. _Cn.\nPompeius_, and one _Vibius_ the Orator; _C. Plancus_, and _Rubrius_ the\nStage-player; _Cassius Severus_ the Orator, and one _Mirmello_; _M.\nMessala Censorius_, and one _Menogenes_, were so much alike, that unless\nit were by their habit, they could not be distinguished: but this you\nmust take upon the Faith of _Pliny_ (_lib. 7. c. 12._) and _Solinus_,\n(_cap. 6._) who as this Author tells elsewhere, are Authors not very\ninfallible.\n\n_Sect. 3. Pag. 89._\n\n_What a_ {~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} _and hot skirmish is betwixt_ S. _and_ T. _in\nLucian_.] In his _Dialog. judicium vocalium_, where there is a large\nOration made to the Vowels, being Judges, by _Sigma_ against _Tau_,\ncomplaining that _Tau_ has bereaved him of many words, which should\nbegin with _Sigma_.\n\n_Their Tongues are sharper than_ Actius _his razor_.] _Actius Navius_\nwas chief Augur, who (as the story saith) admonishing _Tarqu. Priscus_\nthat he should not undertake any action of moment, without first\nconsulting the Augur, the King (shewing that he had little faith in his\nskill) demanded of him, whether by the rules of his skill, what he had\nconceived in his mind might be done: to whom when _Actius_ had answered\nit might be done, he bid him take a Whetstone which he had in his hand,\nand cut it in two with a Razor; which accordingly the Augur did. _Livy._\nAnd therefore we must conceive it was very sharp. Here the Adage was\ncross'd, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, i.e. _novacula in cotem. Vid. Erasm.\nChiliad_.\n\n_Pag. 90._\n\n_It is not meer Zeal to Learning, or devotion to the Muses, that wiser\nPrinces Patronize the Arts_, etc. _but a desire to have their names\neterniz'd by the memory of their Writings_.] There is a great Scholar,\nwho took the boldness to tell a Prince so much. _Est enim bonorum\nprincipum cum viris eruditis tacita quaedam naturalisque Societas, ut\nalteri ab alteris illustrentur, ac dum sibi mutuo suffragantur, et\ngloria principibus, et doctis authoritas concilietur_. Politian. _Ep.\nLudovic. Sfort. quae extat, lib. 11. Ep. ep. 1_. And to this Opinion\nastipulates a Country man of our own, whose words are these: _Ignotus\nesset Lucilius, nisi eum Epistolae Senecae illustrarent. Laudibus Caesareis\nplus Virgilius et Varus Lucanusq; adjecerunt, quam immensum illud\naerarium quo urbem et orbem spoliavit. Nemo prudentiam Ithaci aut Pelidae\nvires agnosceret, nisi eas Homerus divino publicasset ingenio: unde\nnihil mihi videtur consultius viro ad gloriam properanti fidelium favore\nscriptorum._ Joan. Sarisb. _Polycrat. l 8. c. 14_. And that Princes are\nas much beholding to the Poets Pens as their own Swords, _Horace_ tells\n_Censorinus_ with great confidence. _Od. 8. l. 4. Non incisa notis_,\netc.\n\n_Sect. 4. Pag. 90._\n\n_St._ Paul _that calls the_ Cretians _Lyars, doth it but indirectly, and\nupon quotation of one of their own Poets_.] That is, _Epimenides_; the\nplace is _Tit. 1. v. 12._ where _Paul_ useth this verse, taken out of\n_Epimenides_.\n\n          {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}.\n\n_It is as bloody a thought in one way, as_ Nero's _was in another_. _For\nby a word we wound a thousand._] I suppose he alludes to that passage in\n_Sueton._ in the life of _Nero_, where he relates that a certain person\nupon a time, spoke in his hearing these words,\n\n          {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}.\n\n_i.e._ When I am dead let Earth be mingled with Fire. Whereupon the\nEmperour uttered these words, {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}, _i.e._ _Yea whilst I live_:\nthere by one word, he express'd a cruel thought, which I think is the\nthing he meant; this is more cruel than the wish of _Caligula_, that the\npeople of _Rome_ had but one Neck, that he might destroy them all at a\nblow.\n\n_Sect. 6. Pag. 95._\n\n_I cannot believe the story of the_ Italian, etc.] It is reported that a\ncertain _Italian_ having met with one that had highly provoked him, put\na Ponyard to his breast, and unless he would blaspheme God, told him he\nwould kill him, which the other doing to save his life, the _Italian_\npresently kill'd him, to the intent he might be damned, having no time\nof Repentance.\n\n_Sect. 7. Pag. 97._\n\n_I have no sins that want a Name._] The Author in _cap. ult. lib. ult.\nPseudodox._ speaking of the Act of carnality exercised by the _Egyptian_\nPollinctors with the dead carcasses, saith we want a name for this,\nwherein neither _Petronius_ nor _Martial_ can relieve us; therefore I\nconceive the Author here means a venereal sin.\n\n_This was the Temper of that Leacher that carnal'd with a Statua._] The\nLatine Annotator upon this hath these words: _Romae refertur de Hispano\nquodam_. But certainly the Author means the Statue of _Venus Gnidia_\nmade by _Praxiteles_, of which a certain young man became so enamoured,\nthat _Pliny_ relates, _Ferunt amore captum cum delituisset nocta\nsimulachro cohaesisse, ejusq; cupiditas esse indicem masculum_. _Lucian_\nalso has the story in his _Dialog_. [_Amores._]\n\n_And the constitution of_ Nero _in his Spintrian recreations._] The\nAuthor doth not mean the last _Nero_, but _Tiberius_ the Emperour, whose\nname was _Nero_ too; of whom _Sueton. Secessu vero Capreensi etiam\nsellariam excogitavit sedem arcanarum libidinum, in quam undique\nconquisti puellarum et exoletorum greges monstrosiq; concubitus\nrepertores, quos spintrias apellabat, triplici serie connexi invicem\nincestarent se coram ipso, ut adspectu deficientes libidines excitaret._\nSuet. _in Tib. 43_.\n\n_Sect. 8. Pag. 98._\n\n_I have seen a Grammarian toure and plume himself over a single line in_\nHorace, _and shew more pride_, etc.] _Movent mihi stomachum Grammatistae\nquidam, qui cum duas tenuerint vocabularum origenes ita se ostentant,\nita venditant, ita circumferunt jactabundi, ut prae ipsis pro nihilo\nhabendos Philosophos arbitrentur._ Picus Mirand. _in Ep. ad Hermol.\nBarb. quae extat lib. nono Epist. Politian_.\n\n          _Garsio quisq; duas postquam scit jungere partes,\n          Sic stat, sic loquitur, velut omnes noverit artes._\n\n_Pag. 99._\n\n_I cannot think that_ Homer _pin'd away upon the Riddle of the\nFishermen._] The History out of _Plutarch_ is thus: Sailing from\n_Thebes_ to the Island _Ion_, being landed and set down upon the shore,\nthere happen'd certain Fishermen to pass by him, and he asking them what\nthey had taken, they made him this Enigmatical answer, That what they\nhad taken, they had left behind them; and what they had not taken, they\nhad with them: meaning, that because they could take no Fish, they went\nto loose themselves; and that all which they had taken, they had killed,\nand left behind them, and all which they had not taken, they had with\nthem in their clothes: and that _Homer_ being struck with a deep sadness\nbecause he could not interpret this, pin'd away, and at last dyed.\n_Pliny_ alludes to this Riddle, in his _Ep._ to his Friend _Fuscus_,\nwhere giving an account of spending his time in the Country, he tells\nhim, _Venor aliquando, sed non sine pugilluribus, ut quamvis nihil\nceperim, non nihil referam._ Plin. _Ep. lib. 9, Ep. 36_.\n\n_Or that_ Aristot.----_did ever drown himself upon the flux or reflux\nof_ Euripus.] _Laertius_ reports that _Aristotle_ dyed of a disease at\n63 years of age. For this and the last, see the Author in _Pseudodox_.\n\nAristotle _doth but instruct us as_ Plato _did him, to confute\nhimself_.] In the matter of _Idea's_, Eternity of the world, _etc._\n\n_Sec. 9. Pag. 100._\n\n_I could be content that we might procreate like trees without\nconjunction, or that there were any way to perpetuate the world without\nthis trivial and vulgar way of Coition: It is the foolishest act a wise\nman commits in all his life._] There was a Physitian long before the\nAuthor, that was of the same opinion, _Hippocrates_; for which _vide A.\nGel. l. 19. Noct. Attic. c. 2_. And so of late time was _Paracelsus_,\nwho did undertake to prescribe a way for the generation of a man without\ncoition. _Vide Campanel. de sensu rerum, in Append. ad _cap. 19._ l. 4._\n_Monsieur Montaignes_ words on this subject, are worth the reading;\nthese they are: _Je trouve apres tout, que l'amour n'est autre chose que\nla fame de cette jouyssance, et considerant maintes fois la ridicule\ntitillation de ce plaiser par on il nous tient, les absurdes movements\nescervelez et estourdis dequoy il agite Zenon et Cratippus, ceste rage\nindiscrete, ce visage inflamme de fureur et de cruaute au plus doux\neffect de l'amour, et puis cette morgue grare severe et extatique en une\naction si folle, et que la supreme volupte aye du trainsy et du\nplaintiff commer la douleur, je croye qu'on se joue de nous, et que c'est\npar industrie que nature nous a laisse la plus trouble de nos actions\nles plus communes pour nous esgaller par la et apparier les fols et les\nsayes, et nous et les bestes. Le plus contemplatif et prudent homme\nquand je l'imagin en cette assiette je le tien pour un affronteur, de\nfaire le prudent et le contemplatif: et sont les pieds du paon qui\nabbatent son orgueil. Nous mangeons bien et beuvons comme les bestes,\nmais ce ne sont pas actions, qui empeschent les operations de nostre\name, en celles-la nous gardons nostre advantage sur elles: cettecy met\ntout autre pensee sous le joug, abrutist et abesiit par son imperieuse\nauthorite toute la Theology et Philosophy, qui est en Platon et si il ne\ns'en plaint pas. Par tout ailleurs vous pouvez garder quelque decence;\ntoutes autres operations souffrent des Regles d'honestete: cettecy ne se\npeut sculement imaginer que vitieuse ou ridicule; trouvez y pour voir un\nproceder sage et discret. Alexander disoit qu'il se cognossoit\nprincipalement mortel par cette action et par le dormir: le sommeil\nsuffoque et supprime les facultez de nostre ame, la besoigne les absorbe\net dissipe de mesme. Certes c'est une marque non seulement de nostre\ncorruption originelle, mais aussi de nostre vanite et disformite. D'un\ncoste nature nous y pousse ayant attache a ce desire la plan noble,\nutile et plaisante de toutes ses operations, et la nous laisse d'autre\npart accuser et fuyr comme insolent et dishoneste, en rougir et\nrecommander l'abstinence_, etc. Montaign _liv. 3. chapit. 5_.\n\n_Sect. 10. Pag. 103._\n\n_And may be inverted on the worst._] That is, that there are none so\nabandoned to vice, but they have some sprinklings of vertue. There are\nscarce any so vitious, but commend virtue in those that are endued with\nit, and do some things laudable themselves, as _Plin._ saith in\n_Panegyric_. _Machiavel_ upon _Livy, lib. 1. cap. 27_. sets down the\nensuing relation as a notable confirmation of this truth. _Julius\nPontifex ejus nominis secundus, anno salutis 1505. Bononiam exercitus\nduxit, ut Bentivolorum familiam, quae ejus urbis imperium centum jam\nannos tenuerat, loco moveret. Eudemque in expeditione etiam Johannem\nPagolum, Bagloneum tyrannum Perusinum sua sede expellere decreverat, ut\ncaeteros item, qui urbes Ecclesiae per vim tenerent. Ejus rei causa cum ad\nPerusinam urbem accessisset, et notum jam omnibus esset quid in animo\nhaberet: tamen impatiens morae, noluit exercitus expectare, sed inermis\nquasi urbem ingressus est, in quant Johannes Pagolus defendendi sui\ncausa, non exiguas copias contraxerat. Is autem eodem furore, quo res\nsuas administrare solebat, una cum milite, cui custodiam sui corporis\ndemandarat, sese in pontificis potestatem dedidit; a quo abductus est\nrelictusque alius, qui Ecclesiae nomine urbem gubernaret. Hac ipsu in re\nmagnopere admirati sunt viri sapientes, qui Pontificem comitabantur, cum\nPontificis ipsius temeritatem, cum abjectum vilemq; Johannis Pagoli\nanimum: nec causam intelligebant, ob quam permotus idem Pagolus, hostem\nsuum inermem (quod illi cum perpetua nominis sui memoria facere licebat)\nnon subito oppresserit, et tam pretiosa spolia diripuerit; cum Pontifex\nurbem ingressus fuisset, Cardinalibus tantum suis stipatus, qui\npretiosissimas quasq; suarum rerum secum habebant. Neque enim credebatur\nPagolus a tanto facinore vel sua bonitate, vel animi conscientia\nabstinuisse: quod in hominem sceleratum, qui et propria sorore utebatur,\net consobrinos nepotesque dominandi causa e medio sustulerat hujusmodi\npii affectus cadere non viderentur. Cum igitur hac de re variae essent\nsapientum virorum sententiae; concluserunt tandem id ei accidisse, quod\nita comparatum sit_, ut homines neque plane pravi esse queant, neque\nperfecte boni. _Pravi perfecte esse nequeant, propterea quod, ubi tale\nquoddam scelus est, in quo aliquid magnifici ac generosi insit, id\npatrare non andeant. Nam cum Pagolus neq; incestam prius horraisset,\nneque patricidio abstinnisset: tamen cnm oblata esset occasio, pravi\nquidem sed memorabilis, atque aeternae memoriae facinoris patrandi, id\nattentare non ausus fuit, cum id sine infamia prestare licuisset, quod\nrei magnitudo omnia priora scelera obtegere potuisset, et a periculo\nconservare. Quibus accedit, quod illi gratulati fuissent etiam quam\nplurimi, si primus ausus esset Pontificibus monstrare rationem\ndominandi; totiusque humanae vitae usum ab illis nimis parei pendi._\n\n_Poysons contain within themselves their own Antidote._] The Poyson of a\nScorpion is not Poyson to it self, nor the Poyson of a Toad is not\nPoyson to it self; so that the sucking out of Poyson from persons\ninfected by Psylls, (who are continually nourished with venomous\naliment) without any prejudice to themselves, is the less to be wondred\nat.\n\n_The man without a Navil yet lives in me._] The Latine Annotator hath\nexplicated this by _Homo non perfectus_, by which it seems he did not\ncomprehend the Author's meaning; for the Author means _Adam_, and by a\nMetonymie original sin; for the Navil being onely of use to attract the\naliment _in utero materno_, and _Adam_ having no mother, he had no use\nof a Navil, and therefore it is not to be conceived he had any; and upon\nthat ground the Author calls him the man without a Navil.\n\n_Sect. 11. Pag. 106._\n\n_Our grosser memories have then so little hold of our abstracted\nunderstandings, that they forget the story, and can onely relate to our\nawaked senses a confused and broken tale of that that hath pass'd._] For\nthe most part it is so. In regard of the Author's expression of\nforgetting the story, though otherwise it be not very pertinent to this\nplace, I shall set down a relation given by an English Gentleman, of two\ndreams that he had, wherein he did not forget the story, but (what is\nmore strange) found his dreams verified. This it is.\n\nWhilst I lived at _Prague_, and one night had sit up very late drinking\nat a feast, early in the morning the Sun beams glancing on my face, as I\nlay in my bed, I dreamed that a shadow passing by told me that my Father\nwas dead; at which awaking all in a sweat, and affected with this dream,\nI rose and wrote the day and hour, and all circumstances thereof in a\nPaper-book, which book with many other things I put into a Barrel, and\nsent it from _Prague_ to _Stode_, thence to be conveyed into _England_.\nAnd now being at _Nurenburgh_, a Merchant of a noble Family well\nacquainted with me and my friends, arrived there, who told me my Father\ndyed some two months ago. I list not to write any lyes, but that which I\nwrite, is as true as strange. When I returned into _England_ some four\nyears after, I would not open the Barrel I sent from _Prague_, nor look\ninto the Paper-book in which I had written this dream, till I had called\nmy Sisters and some friends to be witnesses, where my self and they were\nastonished to see my written dream answer the very day of my Father's\ndeath.\n\nI may lawfully swear that which my Kinsman hath heard witnessed by my\nbrother _Henry_ whilst he lived, that in my youth at _Cambridge_, I had\nthe like dream of my Mother's death, where my brother _Henry_ living\nwith me, early in the morning I dreamed that my Mother passed by with a\nsad countenance, and told me that she could not come to my Commencement:\nI being within five months to proceed Master of Arts, and she having\npromised at that time to come to _Cambridge_. And when I related this\ndream to my brother, both of us awaking together in a sweat, he\nprotested to me that he had dreamed the very same; and when we had not\nthe least knowledge of our Mother's sickness, neither in our youthful\naffections were any whit affected with the strangeness of this dream,\nyet the next Carrier brought us word of our Mother's death. Mr. _Fiennes\nMorison_ in his Itinerary. I am not over-credulous of such relations,\nbut methinks the circumstance of publishing it at such a time, when\nthere were those living that might have disprov'd it, if it had been\nfalse, is a great argument of the truth of it.\n\n_Sect. 12. Pag. 107._\n\n_I wonder the fancy of _Lucan_ and _Seneca_ did not discover it._] For\nthey had both power from _Nero_ to chuse their deaths.\n\n_Sect. 13. Pag. 108._\n\n_To conceive our selves Urinals is not so ridiculous._] _Reperti sunt\nGaleno et Avicenna testibus qui se vasa fictilia crederent, et ideirco\nhominum attactum ne confringerentur solicite fugerent._ Pontan. _in\nAttic. bellar._ (_Hist. 22._) Which proceeds from extremity of\nMelancholy.\n\n_Pag. 109._\n\nAristot. _is too severe, that will not allow us to be truely liberal\nwithout wealth._] _Aristot. l. 1. Ethic. c. 8._\n\n_Sect. 15. Pag. 112._\n\n_Thy will be done though in mine own undoing._] This should be the wish\nof every man, and is of the most wise and knowing, _Le Christien plus\nhumble et plus sage et mieux recognoissant que c'est que de luy se\nrapporte a son createur de choisir et ordonner ce qu'il luy faut. Il ne\nle supplie dautre chose que sa volunte soit faite._ Montaign.\n\n\n\n\n  _A Letter sent upon the information of_ Animadversions _to come forth,\n    upon the imperfect and surreptitious copy of_ Religio Medici,\n    _whilst this true one was going to Press_.\n\n\nHonoured Sir, Give your Servant, who hath ever honour'd you, leave to\ntake notice of a Book at present in the Press, intituled (as I am\ninformed) _Animadversions_ upon a Treatise lately printed under the name\nof _Religio Medici_; hereof, I am advertised, you have descended to be\nthe Author. Worthy Sir, permit your Servant to affirm there is contain'd\ntherein nothing that can deserve the Reason of your Contradictions, much\nless the Candor of your _Animadversions_: and to certifie the truth\nthereof, That Book (whereof I do acknowledge myself the Author) was\npenn'd many years past, and (what cannot escape your apprehension) with\nno intention for the Press, or the least desire to oblige the Faith of\nany man to its assertions. But what hath more especially emboldened my\nPen unto you at present, is, That the same Piece, contrived in my\nprivate study, and as an Exercise unto my self, rather than Exercitation\nfor any other, having past from my hand under a broken and imperfect\nCopy, by frequent transcription it still run forward into corruption,\nand after the addition of some things, omission of others, &\ntransposition of many, without my assent or privacy, the liberty of\nthese times committed it unto the Press; whence it issued so disguised,\nthe Author without distinction could not acknowledge it. Having thus\nmiscarried, within a few weeks I shall, God willing, deliver unto the\nPress the true and intended Original (whereof in the mean time your\nworthy Self may command a view); otherwise when ever that Copy shall be\nextant, it will most clearly appear how far the Text hath been mistaken,\nand all Observations, Glosses, or Exercitations thereon, will in a great\npart impugn the Printer or Transcriber, rather than the Author. If after\nthat, you shall esteem it worth your vacant hours to discourse thereon,\nyou shall but take that liberty which I assume my self, that is, freely\nto abound in your sense, as I have done in my own. However you shall\ndetermine, you shall sufficiently honour me in the Vouchsafe of your\nRefute, and I oblige the whole World in the occasion of your Pen.\n\n                              _Your Servant._\n                                            T. B.\n\nNorwich, _March 3, 1642_.\n\n\n\n\nTO THE READER\n\n\n_Certainly that man were greedy of Life, who should desire to live when\nall the world were at an end; and he must needs be very impatient, who\nwould repine at death in the society of all things that suffer under it.\nHad not almost every man suffered by the Press or were not the tyranny\nthereof become universal, I had not wanted reason for complaint: but in\ntimes wherein I have lived to behold the highest perversion of that\nexcellent invention, the name of his Majesty defamed, the Honour of\nParliament depraved, the Writings of both depravedly, anticipatively,\ncounterfeitly imprinted; complaints may seem ridiculous in private\npersons; and men of my condition may be as incapable of affronts, as\nhopeless of their reparations. And truely had not the duty I owe unto\nthe importunity of friends, and the allegiance I must ever acknowledge\nunto truth, prevailed with me; the inactivity of my disposition might\nhave made these sufferings continual, and time that brings other things\nto light, should have satisfied me in the remedy of its oblivion. But\nbecause things evidently false are not onely printed, but many things of\ntruth most falsely set forth, in this latter I could not but think my\nself engaged. For though we have no power to redress the former, yet in\nthe other, reparation being within our selves, I have at present\nrepresented unto the world a full and intended Copy of that Piece,\nwhich was most imperfectly and surreptitiously published before._\n\n_This, I confess, about seven years past, with some others of affinity\nthereto, for my private exercise and satisfaction, I had at leisurable\nhours composed; which being communicated unto one, it became common unto\nmany, and was by Transcription successively corrupted, untill it arrived\nin a most depraved Copy at the Press. He that shall peruse that Work,\nand shall take notice of sundry particularities and personal expressions\ntherein, will easily discern the intention was not publick: and being a\nprivate Exercise directed to my self, what is delivered therein, was\nrather a memorial unto me, than an Example or Rule unto any other: and\ntherefore if there be any singularity therein correspondent unto the\nprivate conceptions of any man, it doth not advantage them: or if\ndissentaneous thereunto, it no way overthrows them. It was penned in\nsuch a place, and with such disadvantage, that (I protest) from the\nfirst setting of pen unto paper, I had not the assistance of any good\nBook, whereby to promote my invention, or relieve my memory; and\ntherefore there might be many real lapses therein, which others might\ntake notice of, and more than I suspected my self. It was set down many\nyears past, and was the sense of my conception at that time, not an\nimmutable Law unto my advancing judgement at all times; and therefore\nthere might be many things therein plausible unto my passed\napprehension, which are not agreeable until my present self. There are\nmany things delivered Rhetorically, many expressions therein meerly\nTropical, and as they best illustrate my intention; and therefore also\nthere are many things to be taken in a soft and flexible sense, and not\nto be called unto the rigid test of Reason. Lastly, all that is\ncontained therein is in submission unto maturer discernments; and, as I\nhave declared, shall no further father them than the best and learned\njudgments shall authorize them: under favour of which considerations I\nhave made its secrecy publick, and committed the truth thereof to every\nIngenuous Reader._\n\n                                                       _THO. BROWNE._\n\n\n\n\nRELIGIO MEDICI\n\n\nSECT. 1\n\nFor my Religion, though there be several Circumstances that might\nperswade the World I have none at all, as the general scandal of my\nProfession, the natural course of my Studies, the indifferency of my\nBehaviour and Discourse in matters of Religion, neither violently\nDefending one, nor with that common ardour and contention Opposing\nanother; yet, in despight hereof, I dare, without usurpation, assume the\nhonourable Stile of a Christian. Not that I meerly owe this Title to the\nFont, my Education, or Clime wherein I was born, as being bred up either\nto confirm those Principles my parents instilled into my Understanding,\nor by a general consent proceed in the Religion of my Country: But\nhaving in my riper years and confirmed Judgment, seen and examined all,\nI find my self obliged by the Principles of Grace, and the Law of mine\nown Reason, to embrace no other name but this: Neither doth herein my\nzeal so far make me forget the general Charity I owe unto Humanity, as\nrather to hate than pity _Turks_, _Infidels_, and (what is worse)\n_Jews_; rather contenting my self to enjoy that happy Stile, than\nmaligning those who refuse so glorious a Title.\n\n\nSECT. 2\n\nBut because the Name of a Christian is become too general to express our\nFaith, there being a Geography of Religion as well as Lands, and every\nClime distinguished not only by their Laws and Limits, but circumscribed\nby their Doctrines and Rules of Faith; to be particular, I am of that\n_Reformed_ new-cast Religion, wherein I dislike nothing but the Name; of\nthe same belief our Saviour taught, the Apostles disseminated, the\nFathers authorized, and the Martyrs confirmed, but by the sinister ends\nof Princes, the ambition and avarice of Prelates, and the fatal\ncorruption of times, so decayed, impaired, and fallen from its native\nBeauty, that it required the careful and charitable hands of these times\nto restore it to its primitive Integrity. Now the accidental occasion\nwhereupon, the slender means whereby the low and abject condition of the\nPerson by whom so good a work was set on foot, which in our Adversaries\nbeget contempt and scorn, fills me with wonder, and is the very same\nObjection the insolent Pagans first cast at Christ and his Disciples.\n\n\nSECT. 3\n\nYet have I not so shaken hands with those desperate Resolutions, who had\nrather venture at large their decayed bottom, than bring her in to be\nnew trimm'd in the Dock; who had rather promiscuously retain all, than\nabridge any, and obstinately be what they are, than what they have been,\nas to stand in Diameter and Swords point with them: We have reformed\nfrom them, not against them; for omitting those Improperations and Terms\nof Scurrility betwixt us, which only difference our Affections, and not\nour Cause, there is between us one common Name and Appellation, one\nFaith and necessary body of Principles common to us both; and therefore\nI am not scrupulous to converse and live with them, to enter their\nChurches in defect of ours, and either pray with them, or for them. I\ncould never perceive any rational Consequence from those many Texts\nwhich prohibit the Children of _Israel_ to pollute themselves with the\nTemples of the Heathens; we being all Christians, and not divided by\nsuch detested impieties as might prophane our Prayers, or the place\nwherein we make them; or that a resolved Conscience may not adore her\nCreator any where, especially in places devoted to his Service; where,\nif their Devotions offend him, mine may please him; if theirs prophane\nit, mine may hallow it. Holy-water and Crucifix (dangerous to the common\npeople) deceive not my judgment, nor abuse my devotion at all: I am, I\nconfess, naturally inclined to that which misguided Zeal terms\nSuperstition: my common conversation I do acknowledge austere, my\nbehaviour full of rigour, sometimes not without morosity; yet at my\nDevotion I love to use the civility of my knee, my hat, and hand, with\nall those outward and sensible motions which may express or promote my\ninvisible Devotion. I should violate my own arm rather than a Church;\nnor willingly deface the name of Saint or Martyr. At the sight of a\nCross or Crucifix I can dispense with my hat, but scarce with the\nthought or memory of my Saviour: I cannot laugh at, but rather pity, the\nfruitless journeys of Pilgrims, or contemn the miserable condition of\nFryars; for though misplaced in Circumstances there is something in it\nof Devotion. I could never hear the _Ave-Mary_ Bell[7] without an\nelevation, or think it a sufficient warrant, because they erred in one\ncircumstance, for me to err in all, that is, in silence and dumb\ncontempt; whilst therefore they directed their Devotions to Her, I\noffered mine to God, and rectifie the Errors of their Prayers by rightly\nordering mine own: At a solemn Procession I have wept abundantly, while\nmy consorts blind with opposition and prejudice, have fallen into an\nexcess of scorn and laughter: There are questionless both in _Greek_,\n_Roman_, and _African_ Churches, Solemnities and Ceremonies, whereof the\nwiser Zeals do make a Christian use, and stand condemned by us, not as\nevil in themselves, but as allurements and baits of superstition to\nthose vulgar heads that look asquint on the face of Truth, and those\nunstable Judgments that cannot resist in the narrow point and centre of\nVirtue without a reel or stagger to the Circumference.\n\n  [7] _A Church Bell that tolls every day at six and twelve of the clock;\n      at the hearing whereof, everyone in what place soever, either of\n      House or Street, betakes himself to his prayer, which is commonly\n      directed to the Virgin._\n\n\nSECT. 4\n\n\nAs there were many Reformers, so likewise many Reformations; every\nCountry proceeding in a particular way and method, according as their\nnational Interest, together with their Constitution and Clime, inclined\nthem; some angrily, and with extremity; others calmly, and with\nmediocrity; not rending, but easily dividing the community, and leaving\nan honest possibility of a reconciliation; which though peaceable\nSpirits do desire, and may conceive that revolution of time and the\nmercies of God may effect, yet that judgment that shall continue the\npresent antipathies between the two extreams, their contrarieties in\ncondition, affection, and opinion, may with the same hopes expect an\nunion in the Poles of Heaven.\n\n\nSECT. 5\n\nBut to difference my self nearer, and draw into a lesser Circle, There\nis no Church, whose every part so squares unto my Conscience; whose\nArticles, Constitutions, and Customs, seem so consonant unto reason, and\nas it were framed to my particular Devotion, as this whereof I hold my\nBelief, the Church of _England_, to whose Faith I am a sworn Subject;\nand therefore in a double Obligation subscribe unto her Articles, and\nendeavour to observe her Constitutions; whatsoever is beyond, as points\nindifferent, I observe according to the rules of my private reason, or\nthe humour and fashion of my Devotion; neither believing this, because\n_Luther_ affirmed it, or disproving that, because _Calvin_ hath\ndisavouched it. I condemn not all things in the Council of _Trent_, nor\napprove all in the Synod of _Dort_. In brief, where the Scripture is\nsilent, the Church is my Text; where that speaks, 'tis but my Comment:\nwhere there is a joynt silence of both, I borrow not the rules of my\nReligion from _Rome_ or _Geneva_, but the dictates of my own reason. It\nis an unjust scandal of our adversaries, and a gross errour in our\nselves, to compute the Nativity of our Religion from _Henry_ the Eighth,\nwho, though he rejected the Pope, refus'd not the faith of _Rome_, and\neffected no more than what his own Predecessors desired and assayed in\nAges past, and was conceived the State of _Venice_ would have attempted\nin our days. It is as uncharitable a point in us to fall upon those\npopular scurrilities and opprobrious scoffs of the Bishop of _Rome_, to\nwhom as a temporal Prince, we owe the duty of good language: I confess\nthere is cause of passion between us; by his sentence I stand\nexcommunicated, Heretick is the best language he affords me; yet can no\near witness I ever returned him the name of Antichrist, Man of Sin, or\nWhore of _Babylon_. It is the method of Charity to suffer without\nreaction: Those usual Satyrs and invectives of the Pulpit may perchance\nproduce a good effect on the vulgar, whose ears are opener to Rhetorick\nthan Logick; yet do they in no wise confirm the faith of wiser\nBelievers, who know that a good cause needs not to be pardon'd by\npassion, but can sustain it self upon a temperate dispute.\n\n\nSECT. 6\n\nI could never divide my self from any man upon the difference of an\nopinion, or be angry with his judgment for not agreeing with me in that\nfrom which perhaps within a few days I should dissent my self. I have no\nGenius to disputes in Religion, and have often thought it wisdom to\ndecline them, especially upon a disadvantage, or when the cause of truth\nmight suffer in the weakness of my patronage: Where we desire to be\ninformed, 'tis good to contest with men above our selves; but to confirm\nand establish our opinions, 'tis best to argue with judgments below our\nown, that the frequent spoils and Victories over their reasons may\nsettle in ourselves an esteem and confirmed Opinion of our own. Every\nman is not a proper Champion for Truth, nor fit to take up the Gauntlet\nin the cause of Verity: Many, from the ignorance of these Maximes, and\nan inconsiderate Zeal unto Truth, have too rashly charged the Troops of\nError, and remain as Trophies unto the enemies of Truth: A man may be in\nas just possession of Truth as of a City, and yet be forced to\nsurrender; 'tis therefore far better to enjoy her with peace, than to\nhazzard her on a battle: if therefore there rise any doubts in my way, I\ndo forget them, or at least defer them till my better setled judgement\nand more manly reason be able to resolve them; for I perceive every\nman's own reason is his best _OEdipus_, and will upon a reasonable\ntruce, find a way to loose those bonds wherewith the subtleties of error\nhave enchained our more flexible and tender judgements. In Philosophy,\nwhere Truth seems double-fac'd, there is no man more Paradoxical than my\nself: but in Divinity I love to keep the Road; and, though not in an\nimplicite, yet an humble faith, follow the great wheel of the Church, by\nwhich I move, not reserving any proper Poles or motion from the Epicycle\nof my own brain; by this means I leave no gap for Heresie, Schismes, or\nErrors, of which at present I hope I shall not injure Truth to say I\nhave no taint or tincture: I must confess my greener studies have been\npolluted with two or three, not any begotten in the latter Centuries,\nbut old and obsolete, such as could never have been revived, but by such\nextravagant and irregular heads as mine: for indeed Heresies perish not\nwith their Authors, but, like the river _Arethusa_, though they lose\ntheir currents in one place, they rise up again in another: One General\nCouncil is not able to extirpate one single Heresie; it may be cancell'd\nfor the present; but revolution of time, and the like aspects from\nHeaven, will restore it, when it will flourish till it be condemned\nagain. For as though there were a _Metempsuchosis_, and the soul of one\nman passed into another; Opinions do find, after certain Revolutions,\nmen and minds like those that first begat them. To see ourselves again,\nwe need not look for Plato's year:[8] every man is not only himself;\nthere hath been many _Diogenes_, and as many _Timons_, though but few of\nthat name; men are liv'd over again, the world is now as it was in Ages\npast; there was none then, but there hath been some one since that\nParallels him, and is, as it were, his revived self.\n\n  [8] _A revolution of certain thousand years, when all things should\n      return unto their former estate, and he be teaching again in his\n      School as when he delivered this Opinion._\n\n\nSECT. 7\n\nNow the first of mine was that of the _Arabians_, That the Souls of men\nperished with their Bodies, but should yet be raised again at the last\nday: not that I did absolutely conceive a mortality of the Soul; but if\nthat were, which Faith, not Philosophy hath yet throughly disproved, and\nthat both entred the grave together, yet I held the same conceit thereof\nthat we all do of the body, that it should rise again. Surely it is but\nthe merits of our unworthy Natures, if we sleep in darkness until the\nlast Alarm. A serious reflex upon my own unworthiness did make me\nbackward from challenging this prerogative of my Soul; so that I might\nenjoy my Saviour at the last, I could with patience be nothing almost\nunto Eternity. The second was that of _Origen_, That God would not\npersist in his vengeance for ever, but after a definite time of his\nwrath, he would release the damned Souls from torture: which error I\nfell into upon a serious contemplation of the great Attribute of God,\nhis Mercy; and did a little cherish it in my self, because I found\ntherein no malice, and a ready weight to sway me from the other extream\nof despair, whereunto Melancholy and Contemplative Natures are too\neasily disposed. A third there is which I did never positively maintain\nor practise, but have often wished it had been consonant to Truth, and\nnot offensive to my Religion, and that is the Prayer for the dead;\nwhereunto I was inclin'd from some charitable inducements, whereby I\ncould scarce contain my Prayers for a friend at the ringing of a Bell,\nor behold his Corps without an Orison for his Soul: 'Twas a good way,\nmethought, to be remembred by posterity, and far more noble than an\nHistory. These opinions I never maintained with pertinacy, or\nendeavoured to inveagle any mans belief unto mine, nor so much as ever\nrevealed or disputed them with my dearest friends; by which means I\nneither propagated them in others, nor confirmed them in my self; but\nsuffering them to flame upon their own substance, without addition of\nnew fuel, they went out insensibly of themselves: therefore these\nOpinions, though condemned by lawful Councels, were not Heresies in me,\nbut bare Errors, and single Lapses of my understanding, without a joynt\ndepravity of my will: Those have not onely depraved understandings, but\ndiseased affections, which cannot enjoy a singularity without an\nHeresie, or be the Author of an Opinion without they be of a Sect also;\nthis was the villany of the first Schism of _Lucifer_, who was not\ncontent to err alone, but drew into his Faction many Legions; and upon\nthis experience he tempted only _Eve_, as well understanding the\nCommunicable nature of Sin, and that to deceive but one, was tacitely\nand upon consequence to delude them both.\n\n\nSECT. 8\n\nThat Heresies should arise, we have the Prophesie of Christ; but that\nold ones should be abolished, we hold no prediction. That there must be\nHeresies, is true, not only in our Church, but also in any other: even\nin doctrines heretical, there will be super-heresies; and Arians not\nonly divided from their Church, but also among themselves: for heads\nthat are disposed unto Schism and complexionally propense to innovation,\nare naturally disposed for a community; nor will be ever confined unto\nthe order or oeconomy of one body; and therefore when they separate\nfrom others, they knit but loosely among themselves, nor contented with\na general breach or dichotomy with their Church, do subdivide and mince\nthemselves almost into Atoms. 'Tis true, that men of singular parts and\nhumours have not been free from singular opinions and conceits in all\nAges; retaining something, not only beside the opinion of his own Church\nor any other, but also any particular Author; which notwithstanding a\nsober Judgment may do without offence or heresie; for there is yet,\nafter all the Decrees of Councils and the niceties of Schools, many\nthings untouch'd, unimagin'd, wherein the liberty of an honest reason\nmay play and expatiate with security, and far without the circle of an\nHeresie.\n\n\nSECT. 9\n\nAs for those wingy Mysteries in Divinity, and airy subtleties in\nReligion, which have unhing'd the brains of better heads, they never\nstretched the _Pia Mater_ of mine. Methinks there be not impossibilities\nenough in Religion for an active faith; the deepest Mysteries ours\ncontains have not only been illustrated, but maintained, by Syllogism\nand the rule of Reason. I love to lose my self in a mystery, to pursue\nmy Reason to an _O altitudo!_ 'Tis my solitary recreation to pose my\napprehension with those involved AEnigma's and riddles of the Trinity,\nwith Incarnation, and Resurrection. I can answer all the Objections of\nSatan and my rebellious reason with that odd resolution I learned of\n_Tertullian, Certum est quia impossibile est_. I desire to exercise my\nfaith in the difficultest point; for to credit ordinary and visible\nobjects is not faith, but perswasion. Some believe the better for\nseeing Christ's Sepulchre; and when they have seen the Red Sea, doubt\nnot of the Miracle. Now contrarily, I bless my self and am thankful that\nI lived not in the days of Miracles, that I never saw Christ nor His\nDisciples; I would not have been one of those _Israelites_ that pass'd\nthe Red Sea, nor one of Christ's patients on whom he wrought his\nwonders; then had my faith been thrust upon me, nor should I enjoy that\ngreater blessing pronounced to all that believe and saw not. 'Tis an\neasie and necessary belief, to credit what our eye and sense hath\nexamined: I believe he was dead, and buried, and rose again; and desire\nto see him in his glory, rather than to contemplate him in his Cenotaphe\nor Sepulchre. Nor is this much to believe; as we have reason, we owe\nthis faith unto History: they only had the advantage of a bold and noble\nFaith, who lived before his coming, who upon obscure prophesies and\nmystical Types could raise a belief, and expect apparent\nimpossibilities.\n\n\nSECT. 10\n\n'Tis true, there is an edge in all firm belief, and with an easie\nMetaphor we may say, the Sword of Faith; but in these obscurities I\nrather use it in the adjunct the Apostle gives it, a Buckler; under\nwhich I conceive a wary combatant may lye invulnerable. Since I was of\nunderstanding to know we knew nothing, my reason hath been more pliable\nto the will of Faith; I am now content to understand a mystery without a\nrigid definition, in an easie and Platonick description. That[9]\nallegorical description of _Hermes_, pleaseth me beyond all the\nMetaphysical definitions of Divines; where I cannot satisfie my reason,\nI love to humour my fancy: I had as live you tell me that _anima est\nangelus hominis, est Corpus Dei_, as _Entelechia; Lux est umbra Dei_, as\n_actus perspicui_; where there is an obscurity too deep for our Reason,\n'tis good to sit down with a description, periphrasis, or adumbration;\nfor by acquainting our Reason how unable it is to display the visible\nand obvious effects of nature, it becomes more humble and submissive\nunto the subtleties of Faith; and thus I teach my haggard and\nunreclaimed reason to stoop unto the lure of Faith. I believe there was\nalready a tree whose fruit our unhappy Parents tasted, though, in the\nsame Chapter when God forbids it, 'tis positively said, the plants of\nthe field were not yet grown, for God had not caus'd it to rain upon the\nearth. I believe that the Serpent (if we shall literally understand it)\nfrom his proper form and figure, made his motion on his belly before the\ncurse. I find the tryal of the Pucellage and virginity of Women, which\nGod ordained the _Jews_, is very fallible. Experience and History\ninforms me, that not onely many particular Women, but likewise whole\nNations have escaped the curse of Childbirth, which God seems to\npronounce upon the whole Sex; yet do I believe that all this is true,\nwhich indeed my Reason would perswade me to be false; and this I think\nis no vulgar part of Faith, to believe a thing not only above, but\ncontrary to Reason, and against the Arguments of our proper Senses.\n\n  [9] _Sphaera cujus centrum ubique, circumferentia nullibi._\n\n\nSECT. 11\n\nIn my solitary and retired imagination (_Neque enim cum porticus, aut me\nlectulus accepit, desum mihi_) I remember I am not alone, and therefore\nforget not to contemplate him and his Attributes who is ever with me,\nespecially those two mighty ones, his Wisdom and Eternity; with the one\nI recreate, with the other I confound my understanding: for who can\nspeak of Eternity without a soloecism, or think thereof without an\nExtasie? Time we may comprehend; 'tis but five days elder then our\nselves, and hath the same Horoscope with the World; but to retire so far\nback as to apprehend a beginning, to give such an infinite start\nforwards as to conceive an end in an essence that we affirm hath neither\nthe one nor the other, it puts my Reason to _St. Paul's_ Sanctuary: my\nPhilosophy dares not say the Angels can do it; God hath not made a\nCreature that can comprehend him; 'tis a privilege of His own nature. _I\nam that I am_, was his own definition unto _Moses_; and 'twas a short\none, to confound mortality, that durst question God, or ask him what he\nwas; indeed he onely is; all others have and shall be; but in Eternity\nthere is no distinction of Tenses; and therefore that terrible term\n_Predestination_, which hath troubled so many weak heads to conceive,\nand the wisest to explain, is in respect to God no prescious\ndetermination of our Estates to come, but a definitive blast of his Will\nalready fulfilled, and at the instant that he first decreed it; for to\nhis Eternity which is indivisible and all together, the last Trump is\nalready sounded, the reprobates in the flame, and the blessed in\n_Abraham's_ bosome. _St. Peter_ speaks modestly, when he saith, a\nthousand years to God are but as one day: for to speak like a\nPhilosopher, those continued instances of time which flow into a\nthousand years, make not to Him one moment; what to us is to come, to\nhis Eternity is present, his whole duration being but one permanent\npoint, without Succession, Parts, Flux, or Division.\n\n\nSECT. 12\n\nThere is no Attribute that adds more difficulty to the mystery of the\nTrinity, where, though in a relative way of Father and Son, we must deny\na priority. I wonder how _Aristotle_ could conceive the World eternal,\nor how he could make good two Eternities: his similitude of a Triangle,\ncomprehended in a square, doth somewhat illustrate the Trinity of our\nSouls, and that the Triple Unity of God; for there is in us not three,\nbut a Trinity of Souls, because there is in us, if not three distinct\nSouls, yet differing faculties, that can and do subsist apart in\ndifferent Subjects, and yet in us are thus united as to make but one\nSoul and substance: if one Soul were so perfect as to inform three\ndistinct Bodies, that were a pretty Trinity: conceive, the distinct\nnumber of three, not divided nor separated by the Intellect, but\nactually comprehended in its Unity, and that is a perfect Trinity. I\nhave often admired the mystical way of _Pythagoras_, and the secret\nMagick of numbers. Beware of Philosophy, is a precept not to be received\nin too large a sense; for in this Mass of Nature there is a set of\nthings that carry in their Front, though not in Capital Letters, yet in\nStenography and short Characters, something of Divinity, which to wiser\nReasons serve as Luminaries in the Abyss of Knowledge, and to judicious\nbeliefs as Scales and Roundles to mount the Pinacles and highest pieces\nof Divinity. The severe Schools shall never laugh me out of the\nPhilosophy of _Hermes_, that this visible World is but a Picture of the\ninvisible, wherein as in a Pourtraict, things are not truely, but in\nequivocal shapes, and as they counterfeit some more real substance in\nthat invisible Fabrick.\n\n\nSECT. 13\n\nThat other Attribute wherewith I recreate my devotion, is his Wisdom, in\nwhich I am happy; and for the contemplation of this only, do not repent\nme that I was bred in the way of Study: The advantage I have of the\nvulgar, with the content and happiness I conceive therein, is an ample\nrecompence for all my endeavours, in what part of knowledge soever.\nWisdom is his most beauteous Attribute, no man can attain unto it, yet\n_Solomon_ pleased God when he desired it. He is wise, because he knows\nall things; and he knoweth all things, because he made them all: but his\ngreatest knowledge is in comprehending that he made not, that is,\nhimself. And this is also the greatest knowledge in man. For this do I\nhonour my own profession, and embrace the Counsel even of the Devil\nhimself: had he read such a Lecture in Paradise as he did at\n_Delphos_,[10] we had better known our selves; nor had we stood in fear\nto know him. I know he is wise in all, wonderful in what we conceive,\nbut far more in what we comprehend not; for we behold him but asquint,\nupon reflex or shadow; our understanding is dimmer than _Moses_ Eye; we\nare ignorant of the back-parts or lower side of his Divinity; therefore\nto prie into the maze of his Counsels is not only folly in man, but\npresumption even in Angels; like us, they are his Servants, not his\nSenators; he holds no Counsel, but that mystical one of the Trinity,\nwherein though there be three Persons, there is but one mind that\ndecrees without Contradiction: nor needs he any; his actions are not\nbegot with deliberation, his Wisdom naturally knows what's best; his\nintellect stands ready fraught with the superlative and purest _Idea's_\nof goodness; consultation and election, which are two motions in us,\nmake but one in him; his actions springing from his power at the first\ntouch of his will. These are Contemplations Metaphysical: my humble\nspeculations have another Method, and are content to trace and discover\nthose expressions he hath left in his Creatures, and the obvious effects\nof Nature; there is no danger to profound these mysteries, no _sanctum\nsanctorum_ in Philosophy: the World was made to be inhabited by Beasts,\nbut studied and contemplated by Man: 'tis the Debt of our Reason we owe\nunto God, and the homage we pay for not being Beasts; without this, the\nWorld is still as though it had not been, or as it was before the sixth\nday, when as yet there was not a Creature that could conceive, or say\nthere was a World. The wisdom of God receives small honour from those\nvulgar Heads that rudely stare about, and with a gross rusticity admire\nhis works; those highly magnifie him, whose judicious inquiry into His\nActs, and deliberate research into His Creatures, return the duty of a\ndevout and learned admiration. Therefore,\n\n          Search while thou wilt, and let thy reason go,\n          To ransome truth, even to th' Abyss below;\n          Rally the scattered Causes; and that line\n          Which Nature twists, be able to untwine\n          It is thy Makers will, for unto none,\n          But unto reason can he e'er be known.\n          The Devils do know Thee, but those damn'd Meteors\n          Build not thy Glory, but confound thy Creatures.\n          Teach my indeavours so thy works to read,\n          That learning them in thee, I may proceed.\n          Give thou my reason that instructive flight,\n          Whose weary wings may on thy hands still light.\n          Teach me to soar aloft, yet ever so,\n          When neer the Sun, to stoop again below.\n          Thus shall my humble Feathers safely hover,\n          And, though near Earth, more than the Heavens discover\n          And then at last, when homeward I shall drive,\n          Rich with the Spoils of nature to my hive,\n          There will I sit like that industrious Flie,\n          Buzzing thy praises, which shall never die,\n          Till death abrupts them, and succeeding Glory\n          Bid me go on in a more lasting story.\n\nAnd this is almost all wherein an humble Creature may endeavour to\nrequite and some way to retribute unto his Creator: for if not he that\nsaith, _Lord, Lord_, but _he that doth the will of his Father, shall be\nsaved_; certainly our wills must be our performances, and our intents\nmake out our Actions; otherwise our pious labours shall find anxiety in\nour Graves, and our best endeavours not hope, but fear a resurrection.\n\n  [10] {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, Nosce teipsum.\n\n\nSECT. 14\n\nThere is but one first cause, and four second causes of all things; some\nare without efficient, as God; others without matter, as Angels; some\nwithout form, as the first matter: but every Essence created or\nuncreated, hath its final cause, and some positive end both of its\nEssence and Operation; this is the cause I grope after in the works of\nNature; on this hangs the providence of God: to raise so beauteous a\nstructure as the World and the Creatures thereof, was but his Art; but\ntheir sundry and divided operations, with their predestinated ends, are\nfrom the Treasure of his wisdom. In the causes, nature, and affections\nof the Eclipses of the Sun and Moon, there is most excellent\nspeculation; but to profound farther, and to contemplate a reason why\nhis providence hath so disposed and ordered their motions in that vast\ncircle as to conjoyn and obscure each other, is a sweeter piece of\nReason, and a diviner point of Philosophy; therefore sometimes, and in\nsome things, there appears to me as much Divinity in _Galen_ his books\n_De Usu Partium_, as in _Suarez_ Metaphysicks: Had _Aristotle_ been as\ncurious in the enquiry of this cause as he was of the other, he had not\nleft behind him an imperfect piece of Philosophy, but an absolute tract\nof Divinity.\n\n\nSECT. 15\n\n_Natura nihil aget frustra_, is the only indisputed Axiome in\nPhilosophy; there are no _Grotesques_ in nature; not any thing framed to\nfill up empty Cantons, and unnecessary spaces: in the most imperfect\nCreatures, and such as were not preserved in the Ark, but having their\nSeeds and Principles in the womb of Nature, are every where, where the\npower of the Sun is; in these is the Wisdom of his hand discovered. Out\nof this rank _Solomon_ chose the object of his admiration; indeed what\nreason may not go to School to the wisdom of Bees, Ants, and Spiders?\nwhat wise hand teacheth them to do what reason cannot teach us? ruder\nheads stand amazed at those prodigious pieces of Nature, Whales,\nElephants, Dromidaries and Camels; these, I confess, are the Colossus\nand Majestick pieces of her hand: but in these narrow Engines there is\nmore curious Mathematicks; and the civility of these little Citizens,\nmore neatly sets forth the Wisdom of their Maker. Who admires not\n_Regio-Montanus_ his Fly beyond his Eagle, or wonders not more at the\noperation of two Souls in those little Bodies, than but one in the Trunk\nof a Cedar? I could never content my contemplation with those general\npieces of wonder, the Flux and Reflux of the Sea, the increase of\n_Nile_, the conversion of the Needle to the North; and have studied to\nmatch and parallel those in the more obvious and neglected pieces of\nNature, which without further trouble I can do in the Cosmography of my\nself; we carry with us the wonders we seek without us: There is all\n_Africa_ and her prodigies in us; we are that bold and adventurous piece\nof nature, which he that studies wisely learns in a _compendium_ what\nothers labour at in a divided piece and endless volume.\n\n\nSECT. 16\n\nThus there are two Books from which I collect my Divinity; besides that\nwritten one of God, another of his servant Nature, that universal and\npublick Manuscript, that lies expans'd unto the Eyes of all, those that\nnever saw him in the one, have discovered him in the other: this was the\nScripture and Theology of the Heathens: the natural motion of the Sun\nmade them more admire him, than its supernatural station did the\nChildren of _Israel_; the ordinary effects of nature wrought more\nadmiration in them than in the other all his Miracles; surely the\nHeathens knew better how to joyn and read these mystical Letters than we\nChristians, who cast a more careless Eye on these common Hieroglyphicks,\nand disdain to suck Divinity from the flowers of Nature. Nor do I so\nforget God as to adore the name of Nature; which I define not with the\nSchools, to be the principle of motion and rest, but that streight and\nregular line, that settled and constant course the Wisdom of God hath\nordained the actions of His creatures, according to their several kinds.\nTo make a revolution every day, is the Nature of the Sun, because of\nthat necessary course which God hath ordained it, from which it cannot\nswerve but by a faculty from that voice which first did give it motion.\nNow this course of Nature God seldome alters or perverts, but like an\nexcellent Artist hath so contrived his work, that with the self same\ninstrument, without a new creation, he may effect his obscurest designs.\nThus he sweetneth the Water with a Word, preserveth the Creatures in the\nArk, which the blast of his mouth might have as easily created; for God\nis like a skilful Geometrician, who when more easily and with one stroak\nof his Compass he might describe or divide a right line, had yet rather\ndo this in a circle or longer way; according to the constituted and\nfore-laid principles of his Art: yet this rule of his he doth sometimes\npervert, to acquaint the World with his Prerogative, lest the arrogancy\nof our reason should question his power, and conclude he could not; and\nthus I call the effects of Nature the works of God, whose hand and\ninstrument she only is; and therefore to ascribe his actions unto her,\nis to devolve the honour of the principal agent upon the instrument;\nwhich if with reason we may do, then let our hammers rise up and boast\nthey have built our houses, and our pens receive the honour of our\nwritings. I hold there is a general beauty in the works of God, and\ntherefore no deformity in any kind or species of creature whatsoever: I\ncannot tell by what Logick we call a _Toad_, a _Bear_, or an _Elephant_\nugly, they being created in those outward shapes and figures which best\nexpress the actions of their inward forms. And having past that general\nVisitation of God, who saw that all that he had made was good, that is,\nconformable to his Will, which abhors deformity, and is the rule of\norder and beauty; there is no deformity but in Monstrosity; wherein,\nnotwithstanding, there is a kind of Beauty. Nature so ingeniously\ncontriving the irregular parts, as they become sometimes more remarkable\nthan the principal Fabrick. To speak yet more narrowly, there was never\nany thing ugly or mis-shapen, but the Chaos; wherein, notwithstanding,\nto speak strictly, there was no deformity, because no form; nor was it\nyet impregnant by the voice of God; now Nature was not at variance with\nArt, nor Art with Nature, they being both servants of his providence:\nArt is the perfection of Nature: were the World now as it was the sixth\nday, there were yet a Chaos: Nature hath made one World, and Art\nanother. In brief, all things are artificial; for Nature is the Art of\nGod.\n\n\nSECT. 17\n\nThis is the ordinary and open way of his providence, which Art and\nIndustry have in a good part discovered, whose effects we may foretel\nwithout an Oracle: to foreshew these, is not Prophesie, but\nPrognostication. There is another way, full of Meanders and Labyrinths,\nwhereof the Devil and Spirits have no exact Ephemerides, and that is a\nmore particular and obscure method of his providence, directing the\noperations of individuals and single Essences: this we call Fortune,\nthat serpentine and crooked line, whereby he draws those actions his\nwisdom intends, in a more unknown and secret way: This cryptick and\ninvolved method of his providence have I ever admired, nor can I relate\nthe History of my life, the occurrences of my days, the escapes of\ndangers, and hits of chance, with a _Bezo las Manos_ to Fortune, or a\nbare Gramercy to my good Stars: _Abraham_ might have thought the _Ram_\nin the thicket came thither by accident; humane reason would have said,\nthat meer chance conveyed _Moses_ in the Ark to the sight of _Pharoh's_\ndaughter: what a Labyrinth is there in the story of _Joseph_, able to\nconvert a Stoick? Surely there are in every man's Life certain rubs,\ndoublings, and wrenches, which pass a while under the effects of chance,\nbut at the last well examined, prove the meer hand of God. 'Twas not\ndumb chance, that to discover the Fougade or Powder-plot, contrived a\nmiscarriage in the Letter. I like the victory of 88. the better for that\none occurrence, which our enemies imputed to our dishonour and the\npartiality of Fortune, to wit, the tempests and contrariety of Winds.\nKing _Philip_ did not detract from the Nation, when he said, he sent his\nArmado to fight with men, and not to combate with the Winds. Where there\nis a manifest disproportion between the powers and forces of two several\nagents, upon a Maxime of reason we may promise the Victory to the\nSuperiour; but when unexpected accidents slip in, and unthought of\noccurences intervene, these must proceed from a power that owes no\nobedience to those Axioms; where, as in the writing upon the wall, we\nmay behold the hand, but see not the spring that moves it. The success\nof that petty province of _Holland_ (of which the Grand _Seignour_\nproudly said, if they should trouble him as they did the _Spaniard_, he\nwould send his men with shovels and pick-axes, and throw it into the\nSea,) I cannot altogether ascribe to the ingenuity and industry of the\npeople, but the mercy of God, that hath disposed them to such a thriving\nGenius; and to the will of his Providence, that disposeth her favour to\neach Country in their pre-ordinate season. All cannot be happy at once;\nfor, because the glory of one State depends upon the ruine of another,\nthere is a revolution and vicissitude of their greatness, and must obey\nthe swing of that wheel, not moved by Intelligences, but by the hand of\nGod, whereby all Estates arise to their _Zenith_ and Vertical points\naccording to their predestinated periods. For the lives, not only of\nmen, but of Commonwealths, and the whole World, run not upon an Helix\nthat still enlargeth; but on a Circle, where arriving to their Meridian,\nthey decline in obscurity, and fall under the Horizon again.\n\n\nSECT. 18\n\nThese must not therefore he named the effects of Fortune, but in a\nrelative way, and as we term the works of Nature: it was the ignorance\nof mans reason that begat this very name, and by a careless term\nmiscalled the Providence of God: for there is no liberty for causes to\noperate in a loose and stragling way; nor any effect whatsoever, but\nhath its warrant from some universal or superiour Cause. 'Tis not a\nridiculous devotion to say a prayer before a game at Tables; for even in\n_sortilegies_ and matters of greatest uncertainty, there is a setled and\npreordered course of effects. It is we that are blind, not Fortune:\nbecause our Eye is too dim to discover the mystery of her effects, we\nfoolishly paint her blind, and hoodwink the Providence of the Almighty.\nI cannot justifie that contemptible Proverb, _That fools only are\nFortunate_; or that insolent Paradox, _That a wise man is out of the\nreach of Fortune_; much less those opprobrious epithets of Poets,\n_Whore_, _Bawd_, and _Strumpet_. 'Tis, I confess, the common fate of men\nof singular gifts of mind to be destitute of those of Fortune, which\ndoth not any way deject the Spirit of wiser judgements, who throughly\nunderstand the justice of this proceeding; and being inrich'd with\nhigher donatives, cast a more careless eye on these vulgar parts of\nfelicity. It is a most unjust ambition to desire to engross the mercies\nof the Almighty, not to be content with the goods of mind, without a\npossession of those of body or Fortune: and it is an error worse than\nheresie, to adore these complemental and circumstantial pieces of\nfelicity, and undervalue those perfections and essential points of\nhappiness wherein we resemble our Maker. To wiser desires it is\nsatisfaction enough to deserve, though not to enjoy the favours of\nFortune; let Providence provide for Fools: 'tis not partiality, but\nequity in God, who deals with us but as our natural Parents; those that\nare able of Body and Mind, he leaves to their deserts; to those of\nweaker merits he imparts a larger portion, and pieces out the defect of\none, by the access of the other. Thus have we no just quarrel with\nNature, for leaving us naked; or to envy the Horns, Hoofs, Skins, and\nFurs of other Creatures, being provided with Reason, that can supply\nthem all. We need not labour with so many Arguments to confute Judicial\nAstrology; for if there be a truth therein, it doth not injure Divinity:\nif to be born under _Mercury_ disposeth us to be witty, under _Jupiter_\nto be wealthy; I do not owe a Knee unto those, but unto that merciful\nHand that hath ordered my indifferent and uncertain nativity unto such\nbenevolous Aspects. Those that hold that all things are governed by\nFortune, had not erred, had they not persisted there: The _Romans_ that\nerected a temple to Fortune, acknowledged therein, though in a blinder\nway, somewhat of Divinity; for in a wise supputation all things begin\nand end in the Almighty. There is a nearer way to Heaven than _Homer's_\nChain; an easy Logick may conjoin heaven and Earth, in one Argument, and\nwith less than a _Sorites_ resolve all things into God. For though we\nchristen effects by their most sensible and nearest Causes, yet is God\nthe true and infallible Cause of all, whose concourse though it be\ngeneral, yet doth it subdivide it self into the particular Actions of\nevery thing, and is that Spirit, by which each singular Essence not only\nsubsists, but performs its operation.\n\n\nSECT. 19\n\nThe bad construction, and perverse comment on these pair of second\nCauses, or visible hands of God, have perverted the Devotion of many\nunto Atheism; who, forgetting the honest Advisoes of Faith, have\nlistened unto the conspiracy of Passion and Reason. I have therefore\nalways endeavoured to compose those Feuds and angry Dissensions between\nAffection, Faith and Reason: For there is in our Soul a kind of\nTriumvirate, or triple Government of three Competitors, which distracts\nthe Peace of this our Common-wealth, not less than did that other the\nState of _Rome_.\n\nAs Reason is a Rebel unto Faith, so Passion unto Reason: As the\nPropositions of Faith seem absurd unto Reason, so the Theorems of Reason\nunto Passion, and both unto Reason; yet a moderate and peaceable\ndiscretion may so state and order the matter, that they may be all\nKings, and yet make but one Monarchy, every one exercising his\nSoveraignty and Prerogative in a due time and place, according to the\nrestraint and limit of circumstance. There is, as in Philosophy, so in\nDivinity, sturdy doubts and boisterous Objections, wherewith the\nunhappiness of our knowledge too nearly acquainteth us. More of these no\nman hath known than my self, which I confess I conquered, not in a\nmartial posture, but on my Knees. For our endeavours are not only to\ncombat with doubts, but always to dispute with the Devil: the villany of\nthat Spirit takes a hint of Infidelity from our Studies, and by\ndemonstrating a naturality in one way, makes us mistrust a miracle in\nanother. Thus having perused the _Archidoxes_ and read the secret\nSympathies of things, he would disswade my belief from the miracle of\nthe Brazen Serpent, make me conceit that Image worked by Sympathy, and\nwas but an _AEgyptian_ trick to cure their Diseases without a miracle.\nAgain, having seen some experiments of _Bitumen_, and having read far\nmore of _Naphtha_, he whispered to my curiosity the fire of the Altar\nmight be natural; and bid me mistrust a miracle in _Elias_, when he\nentrenched the Altar round with Water: for that inflamable substance\nyields not easily unto Water, but flames in the Arms of its Antagonist.\nAnd thus would he inveagle my belief to think the combustion of _Sodom_\nmight be natural, and that there was an Asphaltick and Bituminous nature\nin that Lake before the Fire of _Gomorrah_. I know that _Manna_ is now\nplentifully gathered in _Calabria_; and _Josephus_ tells me, in his days\nit was as plentiful in _Arabia_; the Devil therefore made the _quaere_,\nWhere was then the miracle in the days of _Moses_: the _Israelite_ saw\nbut that in his time, the Natives of those Countries behold in ours.\nThus the Devil played at Chess with me, and yielding a Pawn, thought to\ngain a Queen of me, taking advantage of my honest endeavours; and whilst\nI laboured to raise the structure of my Reason, he strived to undermine\nthe edifice of my Faith.\n\n\nSECT. 20\n\nNeither had these or any other ever such advantage of me, as to incline\nme to any point of Infidelity or desperate positions of Atheism; for I\nhave been these many years of opinion there was never any. Those that\nheld was the difference of Man from Beasts, have spoken probably, and\nproceed upon a principle as inductive as the other. That doctrine of\n_Epicurus_, that denied the Providence of God, was no Atheism, but a\nmagnificent and high strained conceit of his Majesty, which he deemed\ntoo sublime to mind the trivial Actions of those inferiour Creatures.\nThat fatal Necessity of the Stoicks, is nothing but the immutable Law of\nhis will. Those that heretofore denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost,\nhave been condemned, but as Hereticks; and those that now deny our\nSaviour (though more than Hereticks) are not so much as Atheists: for\nthough they deny two persons in the Trinity, they hold as we do, there\nis but one God.\n\nThat Villain and Secretary of Hell, that composed that miscreant piece\nof the Three Impostors, though divided from all Religions, and was\nneither Jew, Turk, nor Christian, was not a positive Atheist. I confess\nevery country hath its _Machiavel_, every Age its _Lucian_, whereof\ncommon Heads must not hear, nor more advanced Judgments too rashly\nventure on: It is the Rhetorick of Satan, and may pervert a loose or\nprejudicate belief.\n\n\nSECT. 21\n\nI confess I have perused them all, and can discover nothing that may\nstartle a discreet belief; yet are there heads carried off with the Wind\nand breath of such motives. I remember a Doctor in Physick of _Italy_,\nwho could not perfectly believe the immortality of the Soul, because\n_Galen_ seemed to make a doubt thereof. With another I was familiarly\nacquainted in _France_, a Divine, and a man of singular parts, that on\nthe same point was so plunged and gravelled with [11]three lines of\n_Seneca_, that all our Antidotes, drawn from both Scripture and\nPhilosophy, could not expel the poyson of his errour. There are a set of\nHeads, that can credit the relations of Mariners, yet question the\nTestimonies of St. _Paul_; and peremptorily maintain the traditions of\n_AElian_ or _Pliny_, yet in Histories of Scripture raise Queries and\nObjections, believing no more than they can parallel in humane Authors.\nI confess there are in Scripture Stories that do exceed the Fables of\nPoets, and to a captious Reader sound like _Garagantua_ or _Bevis_:\nSearch all the Legends of times past, and the fabulous conceits of these\npresent, and 'twill be hard to find one that deserves to carry the\nBuckler unto _Sampson_; yet is all this of an easie possibility, if we\nconceive a divine concourse, or an influence but from the little Finger\nof the Almighty. It is impossible that either in the discourse of man,\nor in the infallible Voice of God, to the weakness of our apprehensions,\nthere should not appear irregularities, contradictions, and antinomies:\nmy self could shew a Catalogue of doubts, never yet imagined nor\nquestioned, as I know, which are not resolved at the first hearing; not\nfantastick Queries or Objections of Air; for I cannot hear of Atoms in\nDivinity. I can read the History of the Pigeon that was sent out of the\nArk, and returned no more, yet not question how she found out her Mate\nthat was left behind: That _Lazarus_ was raised from the dead, yet not\ndemand where in the interim his Soul awaited; or raise a Law-case,\nwhether his Heir might lawfully detain his inheritance bequeathed unto\nhim by his death, and he, though restored to life, have no Plea or Title\nunto his former possessions. Whether _Eve_ was framed out of the left\nside of _Adam_, I dispute not; because I stand not yet assured which is\nthe right side of a man, or whether there be any such distinction in\nNature: that she was edified out of the Rib of _Adam_, I believe, yet\nraise no question who shall arise with that Rib at the Resurrection.\nWhether _Adam_ was an Hermaphrodite, as the Rabbins contend upon the\nLetter of the Text, because it is contrary to reason, there should be an\nHermaphrodite before there was a Woman; or a composition of two Natures\nbefore there was a second composed. Likewise, whether the World was\ncreated in Autumn, Summer, or the Spring, because it was created in them\nall; for whatsoever Sign the Sun possesseth, those four Seasons are\nactually existent: It is the Nature of this Luminary to distinguish the\nseveral Seasons of the year, all which it makes at one time in the whole\nEarth, and successive in any part thereof. There are a bundle of\ncuriosities, not only in Philosophy, but in Divinity, proposed and\ndiscussed by men of most supposed abilities, which indeed are not worthy\nour vacant hours, much less our serious Studies. Pieces only fit to be\nplaced in _Pantagruel's_ Library, or bound up with Tartaretus, _De modo\nCacandi_. [SN: _In Rabbelais._]\n\n  [11] _Post Mortem nihil est, ipsaque Mors nihil. Mors individua est,\n       noxia corpori, nec patiens animae ... Toti morimur, nullaque pars\n       manet nostri._\n\n\nSECT. 22\n\nThese are niceties that become not those that peruse so serious a\nMystery: There are others more generally questioned and called to the\nBar, yet methinks of an easie and possible truth.\n\n'Tis ridiculous to put off, or down the general Flood of _Noah_ in that\nparticular inundation of _Deucalion_: that there was a Deluge once,\nseems not to me so great a Miracle, as that there is not one always. How\nall the kinds of Creatures, not only in their own bulks, but with a\ncompetency of food and sustenance, might be preserved in one Ark, and\nwithin the extent of three hundred Cubits, to a reason that rightly\nexamines it, will appear very feasible. There is another secret not\ncontained in the Scripture, which is more hard to comprehend, and put\nthe honest Father to the refuge of a Miracle: and that is, not only how\nthe distinct pieces of the World, and divided Islands should be first\nplanted by men, but inhabited by Tigers, Panthers, and Bears. How\n_America_ abounded with Beasts of prey, and noxious Animals, yet\ncontained not in it that necessary Creature, a Horse, is very strange.\nBy what passage those, not only Birds, but dangerous and unwelcome\nBeasts, came over: How there be Creatures there (which are not found in\nthis Triple Continent); all which must needs be strange unto us, that\nhold but one Ark, and that the Creatures began their progress from the\nMountains of _Ararat_: They who to salve this would make the Deluge\nparticular, proceed upon a principle that I can no way grant; not only\nupon the negative of holy Scriptures, but of mine own Reason, whereby I\ncan make it probable, that the World was as well peopled in the time of\n_Noah_, as in ours; and fifteen hundred years to people the World, as\nfull a time for them, as four thousand years since have been to us.\nThere are other assertions and common Tenents drawn from Scripture, and\ngenerally believed as Scripture, whereunto notwithstanding, I would\nnever betray the liberty of my Reason. 'Tis a Paradox to me, that\n_Methusalem_ was the longest liv'd of all the Children of _Adam_: and no\nman will be able to prove it; when from the process of the Text, I can\nmanifest it may be otherwise. That _Judas_ perished by hanging himself,\nthere is no certainty in Scripture: though in one place it seems to\naffirm it, and by a doubtful word hath given occasion to translate it;\nyet in another place, in a more punctual description, it makes it\nimprobable, and seems to overthrow it. That our Fathers, after the\nFlood, erected the Tower of _Babel_ to preserve themselves against a\nsecond Deluge, is generally opinioned and believed, yet is there another\nintention of theirs expressed in Scripture: Besides, it is improbable\nfrom the circumstance of the place, that is, a plain in the Land of\n_Shinar_: These are no points of Faith, and therefore may admit a free\ndispute. There are yet others, and those familiarly concluded from the\nText, wherein (under favour) I see no consequence: the Church of _Rome_,\nconfidently proves the opinion of Tutelary Angels, from that Answer when\n_Peter_ knockt at the Door; _'Tis not he, but his Angel_; that is, might\nsome say, his Messenger, or some body from him; for so the Original\nsignifies, and is as likely to be the doubtful Families meaning. This\nexposition I once suggested to a young Divine, that answered upon this\npoint; to which I remember the _Franciscan_ Opponent replyed no more,\nbut That it was a new, and no authentick interpretation.\n\n\nSECT. 23\n\nThese are but the conclusions and fallible discourses of man upon the\nWord of God, for such I do believe the holy Scriptures: yet were it of\nman, I could not chuse but say, it was the singularest and superlative\npiece that hath been extant since the Creation: were I a Pagan, I should\nnot refrain the Lecture of it; and cannot but commend the judgment of\n_Ptolomy_, that thought not his Library compleat without it. The Alcoran\nof the _Turks_ (I speak without prejudice) is an ill composed Piece,\ncontaining in it vain and ridiculous Errors in Philosophy,\nimpossibilities, fictions, and vanities beyond laughter, maintained by\nevident and open Sophisms, the Policy of Ignorance, deposition of\nUniversities, and banishment of Learning, that hath gotten Foot by Arms\nand violence: This without a blow, hath disseminated it self through the\nwhole Earth. It is not unremarkable what _Philo_ first observed, That\nthe Law of _Moses_ continued two thousand years without the least\nalteration; whereas, we see, the Laws of other Common-weals do alter\nwith occasions; and even those, that pretended their Original from some\nDivinity, to have vanished without trace or memory. I believe besides\n_Zoroaster_, there were divers that writ before _Moses_, who,\nnotwithstanding, have suffered the common fate of time. Mens Works have\nan age like themselves; and though they out-live their Authors, yet have\nthey a stint and period to their duration: This only is a work too hard\nfor the teeth of time, and cannot perish but in the general Flames, when\nall things shall confess their Ashes.\n\n\nSECT. 24\n\nI have heard some with deep sighs lament the lost lines of _Cicero_;\nothers with as many groans deplore the combustion of the Library of\n_Alexandria_: for my own part, I think there be too many in the World,\nand could with patience behold the urn and ashes of the _Vatican_, could\nI, with a few others, recover the perished leaves of _Solomon_. I would\nnot omit a Copy of _Enoch's_ Pillars, had they many nearer Authors than\n_Josephus_, or did not relish somewhat of the Fable. Some men have\nwritten more than others have spoken; [12]_Pineda_ quotes more Authors in\none work, than are necessary in a whole World. Of those three great\ninventions in _Germany_, there are two which are not without their\nincommodities, and 'tis disputable whether they exceed not their use\nand commodities. 'Tis not a melancholy _Utinam_ of my own, but the\ndesires of better heads, that there were a general Synod; not to unite\nthe incompatible difference of Religion, but for the benefit of\nlearning, to reduce it as it lay at first, in a few, and solid Authors;\nand to condemn to the fire those swarms & millions of _Rhapsodies_\nbegotten only to distract and abuse the weaker judgements of Scholars,\nand _to maintain the trade and mystery of Typographers_.\n\n  [12] Pineda _in his_ Monarchica Ecclesiastica _quotes one thousand\n       and forty Authors_.\n\n\nSECT. 25\n\nI cannot but wonder with what exception the _Samaritans_ could confine\ntheir belief to the _Pentateuch_, or five Books of _Moses_. I am ashamed\nat the Rabbinical Interpretation of the Jews, upon the Old Testament, as\nmuch as their defection from the New. And truly it is beyond wonder, how\nthat contemptible and degenerate issue of _Jacob_, once so devoted to\nEthnick Superstition, and so easily seduced to the Idolatry of their\nNeighbours, should now in such an obstinate and peremptory belief adhere\nunto their own Doctrine, expect impossibilities, and, in the face and\neye of the Church, persist without the least hope of Conversion. This is\na vice in them, that were a vertue in us; for obstinacy in a bad Cause\nis but constancy in a good. And herein I must accuse those of my own\nReligion; for there is not any of such a fugitive Faith, such an\nunstable belief, as a Christian; none that do so oft transform\nthemselves, not unto several shapes of Christianity and of the same\nSpecies, but unto more unnatural and contrary Forms, of Jew and\nMahometan; that, from the name of Saviour, can condescend to the bare\nterm of Prophet; and from an old belief that he is come, fall to a new\nexpectation of his coming. It is the promise of Christ to make us all\none Flock; but how and when this Union shall be, is as obscure to me as\nthe last day. Of those four Members of Religion we hold a slender\nproportion; there are, I confess, some new additions, yet small to those\nwhich accrew to our Adversaries, and those only drawn from the revolt of\nPagans, men but of negative Impieties, and such as deny Christ, but\nbecause they never heard of him: but the Religion of the Jew is\nexpressly against the Christian, and the Mahometan against both. For the\nTurk, in the bulk he now stands, he is beyond all hope of conversion; if\nhe fall asunder, there may be conceived hopes, but not without strong\nimprobabilities. The Jew is obstinate in all fortunes; the persecution\nof fifteen hundred years hath but confirmed them in their Errour: they\nhave already endured whatsoever may be inflicted, and have suffered, in\na bad cause, even to the condemnation of their enemies. Persecution is a\nbad and indirect way to plant Religion: It hath been the unhappy method\nof angry Devotions, not only to confirm honest Religion, but wicked\nHeresies, and extravagant Opinions. It was the first stone and Basis of\nour Faith; none can more justly boast of Persecutions, and glory in the\nnumber and valour of Martyrs; for, to speak properly, those are true and\nalmost only examples of fortitude: Those that are fetch'd from the\nfield, or drawn from the actions of the Camp, are not oft-times so\ntruely precedents of valour as audacity, and at the best attain but to\nsome bastard piece of fortitude: If we shall strictly examine the\ncircumstances and requisites which _Aristotle_ requires to true and\nperfect valour, we shall find the name only in his Master _Alexander_,\nand as little in that Roman Worthy, _Julius Caesar_; and if any, in that\neasie and active way have done so nobly as to deserve that name, yet in\nthe passive and more terrible piece these have surpassed, and in a more\nheroical way may claim the honour of that Title. 'Tis not in the power\nof every honest Faith to proceed thus far, or pass to Heaven through the\nflames; every one hath it not in that full measure, nor in so audacious\nand resolute a temper, as to endure those terrible tests and trials; who\nnotwithstanding, in a peaceable way do truely adore their Saviour, and\nhave (no doubt) a Faith acceptable in the eyes of God.\n\n\nSECT. 26\n\nNow as all that dye in the War are not termed Souldiers; so neither can\nI properly term all those that suffer in matters of Religion, Martyrs.\nThe Council of _Constance_ condemns _John Huss_ for an Heretick; the\nStories of his own Party stile him a Martyr: He must needs offend the\nDivinity of both, that says he was neither the one nor the other: There\nare many (questionless) canonised on earth, that shall never be Saints\nin Heaven; and have their names in Histories and Martyrologies, who in\nthe eyes of God are not so perfect Martyrs, as was that wise Heathen\n_Socrates_, that suffered on a fundamental point of Religion, the Unity\nof God. I have often pitied the miserable Bishop that suffered in the\ncause of _Antipodes_, yet cannot chuse but accuse him of as much\nmadness, for exposing his living on such a trifle; as those of ignorance\nand folly, that condemned him. I think my conscience will not give me\nthe lye, if I say there are not many extant that in a noble way fear the\nface of death less than myself; yet, from the moral duty I owe to the\nCommandment of God, and the natural respects that I tender unto the\nconservation of my essence and being, I would not perish upon a\nCeremony, Politick points, or indifferency: nor is my belief of that\nuntractible temper, as not to bow at their obstacles, or connive at\nmatters wherein there are not manifest impieties: The leaven therefore\nand ferment of all, not only Civil, but Religious actions, is Wisdom;\nwithout which, to commit our selves to the flames is Homicide, and (I\nfear) but to pass through one fire into another.\n\n\nSECT. 27\n\nThat Miracles are ceased, I can neither prove, nor absolutely deny, much\nless define the time and period of their cessation: that they survived\nChrist, is manifest upon the Record of Scripture: that they out-lived\nthe Apostles also, and were revived at the Conversion of Nations, many\nyears after, we cannot deny, if we shall not question those Writers\nwhose testimonies we do not controvert in points that make for our own\nopinions; therefore that may have some truth in it that is reported by\nthe Jesuites of their Miracles in the _Indies_; I could wish it were\ntrue, or had any other testimony than their own Pens. They may easily\nbelieve those Miracles abroad, who daily conceive a greater at home, the\ntransmutation of those visible elements into the Body and Blood of our\nSaviour: for the conversion of Water into Wine, which he wrought in\n_Cana_, or what the Devil would have had him done in the Wilderness, of\nStones into Bread, compared to this, will scarce deserve the name of a\nMiracle. Though indeed to speak properly, there is not one Miracle\ngreater than another, they being the extraordinary effects of the Hand\nof God, to which all things are of an equal facility; and to create the\nWorld as easie as one single Creature. For this is also a Miracle, not\nonely to produce effects against, or above Nature, but before Nature;\nand to create Nature as great a Miracle as to contradict or transcend\nher. We do too narrowly define the Power of God, restraining it to our\ncapacities. I hold that God can do all things; how he should work\ncontradictions, I do not understand, yet dare not therefore deny. I\ncannot see why the Angel of God should question _Esdras_ to recal the\ntime past, if it were beyond his own power; or that God should pose\nmortality in that, which he was not able to perform himself. I will not\nsay God cannot, but he will not perform many things, which we plainly\naffirm he cannot: this I am sure is the mannerliest proposition,\nwherein, notwithstanding, I hold no Paradox. For strictly his power is\nthe same with his will, and they both with all the rest do make but one\nGod.\n\n\nSECT. 28\n\nTherefore that Miracles have been, I do believe; that they may yet be\nwrought by the living, I do not deny: but have no confidence in those\nwhich are fathered on the dead; and this hath ever made me suspect the\nefficacy of reliques, to examine the bones, question the habits and\nappurtenances of Saints, and even of Christ himself. I cannot conceive\nwhy the Cross that _Helena_ found, and whereon Christ himself dyed,\nshould have power to restore others unto life: I excuse not\n_Constantine_ from a fall off his Horse, or a mischief from his enemies,\nupon the wearing those nails on his bridle, which our Saviour bore upon\nthe Cross in his hands. I compute among _Piae fraudes_, nor many degrees\nbefore consecrated Swords and Roses, that which _Baldwyn_, King of\n_Jerusalem_, return'd the _Genovese_ for their cost and pains in his\nWar, to wit, the ashes of _John_ the Baptist. Those that hold the\nsanctity of their Souls doth leave behind a tincture and sacred faculty\non their bodies, speak naturally of Miracles, and do not salve the\ndoubt. Now one reason I tender so little Devotion unto Reliques, is, I\nthink, the slender and doubtful respect I have always held unto\nAntiquities: for that indeed which I admire, is far before Antiquity,\nthat is, Eternity; and that is, God himself; who, though he be styled\nthe ancient of days, cannot receive the adjunct of Antiquity, who was\nbefore the World, and shall be after it, yet is not older than it; for\nin his years there is no Climacter; his duration is Eternity, and far\nmore venerable than Antiquity.\n\n\nSECT. 29\n\nBut above all things I wonder how the curiosity of wiser heads could\npass that great and indisputable Miracle, the cessation of Oracles; and\nin what swoun their Reasons lay, to content themselves, and sit down\nwith such a far-fetch'd and ridiculous reason as _Plutarch_ alleadgeth\nfor it. The Jews, that can believe the supernatural Solstice of the Sun\nin the days of _Joshua_, have yet the impudence to deny the Eclipse,\nwhich every Pagan confessed, at his death: but for this, it is evident\nbeyond all contradiction,[13] the Devil himself confessed it. Certainly\nit is not a warrantable curiosity, to examine the verity of Scripture by\nthe concordance of humane history, or seek to confirm the Chronicle of\n_Hester_ or _Daniel_ by the authority of _Megasthenes_ or _Herodotus_. I\nconfess, I have had an unhappy curiosity this way, till I laughed my\nself out of it with a piece of _Justine_, where he delivers that the\nChildren of _Israel_ for being scabbed were banished out of _Egypt_. And\ntruely since I have understood the occurrences of the World, and know in\nwhat counterfeit shapes, and deceitful vizards times present represent\non the stage things past; I do believe them little more then things to\ncome. Some have been of my opinion, and endeavoured to write the History\nof their own lives; wherein _Moses_ hath outgone them all, and left not\nonely the story of his life, but as some will have it, of his death\nalso.\n\n  [13] _In his Oracle to_ Augustus.\n\n\nSECT. 30\n\nIt is a riddle to me, how this story of Oracles hath not worm'd out of\nthe World that doubtful conceit of Spirits and Witches; how so many\nlearned heads should so far forget their Metaphysicks, and destroy the\nladder and scale of creatures, as to question the existence of Spirits:\nfor my part, I have ever believed, and do now know, that there are\nWitches: they that doubt of these, do not onely deny them, but spirits;\nand are obliquely and upon consequence a sort not of Infidels, but\nAtheists. Those that to confute their incredulity desire to see\napparitions, shall questionless never behold any, nor have the power to\nbe so much as Witches; the Devil hath them already in a heresie as\ncapital as Witchcraft; and to appear to them, were but to convert them.\nOf all the delusions wherewith he deceives mortality, there is not any\nthat puzleth me more than the Legerdemain of _Changelings_; I do not\ncredit those transformations of reasonable creatures into beasts, or\nthat the Devil hath a power to transpeciate a man into a Horse, who\ntempted Christ (as a trial of his Divinity) to convert but stones into\nbread. I could believe that Spirits use with man the act of carnality,\nand that in both sexes; I conceive they may assume, steal, or contrive a\nbody, wherein there may be action enough to content decrepit lust, or\npassion to satisfie more active veneries; yet in both, without a\npossibility of generation: and therefore that opinion that Antichrist\nshould be born of the Tribe of _Dan_, by conjunction with the Devil, is\nridiculous, and a conceit fitter for a Rabbin than a Christian. I hold\nthat the Devil doth really possess some men, the spirit of Melancholly\nothers, the spirit of Delusion others; that as the Devil is concealed\nand denyed by some, so God and good Angels are pretended by others\nwhereof the late defection of the Maid of _Germany_ hath left a pregnant\nexample.\n\n\nSect. 31\n\nAgain, I believe that all that use sorceries, incantations, and spells,\nare not Witches, or, as we term them, Magicians; I conceive there is a\ntraditional Magick, not learned immediately from the Devil, but at\nsecond hand from his Scholars, who having once the secret betrayed, are\nable, and do emperically practise without his advice, they both\nproceeding upon the principles of Nature; where actives, aptly conjoyned\nto disposed passives, will under any Master produce their effects. Thus\nI think at first a great part of Philosophy was Witchcraft, which being\nafterward derived to one another, proved but Philosophy, and was indeed\nno more but the honest effects of Nature: What invented by us is\nPhilosophy, learned from him is Magick. We do surely owe the discovery\nof many secrets to the discovery of good and bad Angels. I could never\npass that sentence of _Paracelsus_, without an asterisk, or annotation;\n[14]_Ascendens constellatum multa revelat, quaerentibus magnalia naturae_,\ni.e. _opera Dei_. I do think that many mysteries ascribed to our own\ninventions, have been the courteous revelations of Spirits; for those\nnoble essences in Heaven bear a friendly regard unto their fellow\nNatures on Earth; and therefore believe that those many prodigies and\nominous prognosticks, which fore-run the ruines of States, Princes, and\nprivate persons, are the charitable premonitions of good Angels, which\nmore careless enquiries term but the effects of chance and nature.\n\n  [14] _Thereby is meant out good Angel appointed us from our Nativity._\n\n\nSECT. 32\n\nNow, besides these particular and divided Spirits, there may be (for\nought I know) an universal and common Spirit to the whole World. It was\nthe opinion of _Plato_, and it is yet of the _Hermetical_ Philosophers:\nif there be a common nature that unites and tyes the scattered and\ndivided individuals into one species, why may there not be one that\nunites them all? However, I am sure there is a common Spirit that plays\nwithin us, yet makes no part of us; and that is the Spirit of God, the\nfire and scintillation of that noble and mighty Essence, which is the\nlife and radical heat of Spirits, and those essences that know not the\nvertue of the Sun, a fire quite contrary to the fire of Hell: This is\nthat gentle heat that broodeth on the waters, and in six days hatched\nthe World; this is that irradiation that dispels the mists of Hell, the\nclouds of horrour, fear, sorrow, despair; and preserves the region of\nthe mind in serenity: Whatsoever feels not the warm gale and gentle\nventilation of this Spirit, (though I feel his pulse) I dare not say he\nlives; for truely without this, to me there is no heat under the\nTropick; nor any light, though I dwelt in the body of the Sun.\n\n          _As when the labouring Sun hath wrought his track\n          Up to the top of lofty_ Cancers _back,\n          The ycie Ocean cracks, the frozen pole\n          Thaws with the heat of the Celestial coale;\n          So when thy absent beams begin t' impart\n          Again a Solstice on my frozen heart,\n          My winter 's ov'r; my drooping spirits sing,\n          And every part revives into a Spring.\n          But if thy quickening beams a while decline,\n          And with their light bless not this Orb of mine,\n          A chilly frost surpriseth every member,\n          And in the midst of_ June _I feel_ December.\n          _O how this earthly temper doth debase\n          The noble Soul in this her humble place.\n          Whose wingy nature ever doth aspire\n          To reach that place whence first it took its fire.\n          These flames I feel, which in my heart do dwell,\n          Are not thy beams, but take their fire from Hell.\n          O quench them all, and let thy light divine\n          Be as the Sun to this poor Orb of mine;\n          And to thy sacred Spirit convert those fires,\n          Whose earthly fumes choak my devout aspires._\n\n\nSECT. 33\n\nTherefore for Spirits, I am so far from denying their existence, that I\ncould easily believe, that not onely whole Countries, but particular\npersons, have their Tutelary and Guardian Angels: It is not a new\nopinion of the Church of _Rome_, but an old one of _Pythagoras_ and\n_Plato_; there is no heresie in it; and if not manifestly defin'd in\nScripture, yet is it an opinion of a good and wholesome use in the\ncourse and actions of a mans life, and would serve as an _Hypothesis_ to\nsalve many doubts, whereof common Philosophy affordeth no solution. Now\nif you demand my opinion and Metaphysicks of their natures, I confess\nthem very shallow, most of them in a negative way, like that of God; or\nin a comparative, between our selves and fellow-creatures; for there is\nin this Universe a Stair, or manifest Scale of creatures, rising not\ndisorderly, or in confusion, but with a comely method and proportion.\nBetween creatures of meer existence and things of life, there is a large\ndisproportion of nature; between plants and animals or creatures of\nsense, a wider difference; between them and man, a far greater: and if\nthe proportion hold one, between Man and Angels there should be yet a\ngreater. We do not comprehend their natures, who retain the first\ndefinition of _Porphyry_, and distinguish them from our selves by\nimmortality; for before his Fall, 'tis thought, Man also was Immortal;\nyet must we needs affirm that he had a different essence from the\nAngels; having therefore no certain knowledge of their Natures, 'tis no\nbad method of the Schools, whatsoever perfection we find obscurely in\nour selves, in a more compleat and absolute way to ascribe unto them. I\nbelieve they have an extemporary knowledge, and upon the first motion of\ntheir reason do what we cannot without study or deliberation; that they\nknow things by their forms, and define by specifical difference what we\ndescribe by accidents and properties; and therefore probabilities to us\nmay be demonstrations unto them: that they have knowledge not onely of\nthe specifical, but numerical forms of individuals, and understand by\nwhat reserved difference each single _Hypostasis_ (besides the relation\nto its species) becomes its numerical self. That as the Soul hath a\npower to move the body it informs, so there's a faculty to move any,\nthough inform none; ours upon restraint of time, place, and distance;\nbut that invisible hand that conveyed _Habakkuk_ to the Lyons Den, or\n_Philip_ to _Azotus_, infringeth this rule, and hath a secret\nconveyance, wherewith mortality is not acquainted: if they have that\nintuitive knowledge, whereby as in reflexion they behold the thoughts of\none another, I cannot peremptorily deny but they know a great part of\nours. They that to refute the Invocation of Saints, have denied that\nthey have any knowledge of our affairs below, have proceeded too far,\nand must pardon my opinion, till I can thoroughly answer that piece of\nScripture, _At the conversion of a sinner the Angels in Heaven rejoyce._\nI cannot with those in that great Father securely interpret the work of\nthe first day, _Fiat lux_, to the creation of Angels, though I confess\nthere is not any creature that hath so neer a glympse of their nature,\nas light in the Sun and Elements. We stile it a bare accident, but where\nit subsists alone, 'tis a spiritual Substance, and may be an Angel: in\nbrief, conceive light invisible, and that is a Spirit.\n\n\nSECT. 34\n\nThese are certainly the Magisterial and master-pieces of the Creator,\nthe Flower, or (as we may say) the best part of nothing, actually\nexisting, what we are but in hopes and probability; we are onely that\namphibious piece between a corporal and spiritual Essence, that middle\nform that links those two together, and makes good the Method of God and\nNature, that jumps not from extreams, but unites the incompatible\ndistances by some middle and participating natures: that we are the\nbreath and similitude of God, it is indisputable, and upon record of\nholy Scripture; but to call ourselves a Microcosm, or little World, I\nthought it only a pleasant trope of Rhetorick, till my neer judgement\nand second thoughts told me there was a real truth therein: for first we\nare a rude mass, and in the rank of creatures, which onely are, and\nhave a dull kind of being, not yet privileged with life, or preferred to\nsense or reason; next we live the life of Plants, the life of Animals,\nthe life of Men, and at last the life of Spirits, running on in one\nmysterious nature those five kinds of existences, which comprehend the\ncreatures not onely of the World, but of the Universe; thus is man that\ngreat and true _Amphibium_, whose nature is disposed to live not onely\nlike other creatures in divers elements, but in divided and\ndistinguished worlds: for though there be but one to sense, there are\ntwo to reason, the one visible, the other invisible, whereof _Moses_\nseems to have left description, and of the other so obscurely, that some\nparts thereof are yet in controversie. And truely for the first chapters\nof _Genesis_, I must confess a great deal of obscurity; though Divines\nhave to the power of humane reason endeavoured to make all go in a\nliteral meaning, yet those allegorical interpretations are also\nprobable, and perhaps the mystical method of _Moses_ bred up in the\nHieroglyphical Schools of the Egyptians.\n\n\nSECT. 35\n\nNow for that immaterial world, methinks we need not wander so far as\nbeyond the first moveable; for even in this material Fabrick the spirits\nwalk as freely exempt from the affection of time, place, and motion, as\nbeyond the extreamest circumference: do but extract from the corpulency\nof bodies, or resolve things beyond their first matter, and you discover\nthe habitation of Angels, which if I call the ubiquitary and omnipresent\nessence of God, I hope I shall not offend Divinity: for before the\nCreation of the World God was really all things. For the Angels he\ncreated no new World, or determinate mansion, and therefore they are\neverywhere where is his Essence, and do live at a distance even in\nhimself. That God made all things for man, is in some sense true, yet\nnot so far as to subordinate the Creation of those purer Creatures unto\nours, though as ministring Spirits they do, and are willing to fulfil\nthe will of God in these lower and sublunary affairs of man: God made\nall things for himself, and it is impossible he should make them for any\nother end than his own Glory; it is all he can receive, and all that is\nwithout himself: for honour being an external adjunct, and in the\nhonourer rather than in the person honoured, it was necessary to make a\nCreature, from whom he might receive this homage; and that is in the\nother world Angels, in this, Man; which when we neglect, we forget the\nvery end of our Creation, and may justly provoke God, not onely to\nrepent that he hath made the World, but that he hath sworn he would not\ndestroy it. That there is but one World, is a conclusion of Faith.\n_Aristotle_ with all his Philosophy hath not been able to prove it, and\nas weakly that the world was eternal; that dispute much troubled the Pen\nof the Philosophers, but _Moses_ decided that question, and all is\nsalved with the new term of a Creation, that is, a production of\nsomething out of nothing; and what is that? Whatsoever is opposite to\nsomething; or more exactly, that which is truely contrary unto God; for\nhe onely is, all others have an existence with dependency, and are\nsomething but by a distinction; and herein is Divinity conformant unto\nPhilosophy, and generation not onely founded on contrarieties, but also\ncreation; God being all things, is contrary unto nothing, out of which\nwere made all things, and so nothing became something, and _Omneity_\ninformed _Nullity_ into an Essence.\n\n\nSECT. 36\n\nThe whole Creation is a Mystery, and particularly that of Man; at the\nblast of his mouth were the rest of the Creatures made, and at his bare\nword they started out of nothing: but in the frame of Man (as the Text\ndescribes it) he played the sensible operator, and seemed not so much to\ncreate, as make him; when he had separated the materials of other\ncreatures, there consequently resulted a form and soul; but having\nraised the walls of man, he has driven to a second and harder creation\nof a substance like himself, an incorruptible and immortal Soul. For\nthese two affections we have the Philosophy and opinion of the Heathens,\nthe flat affirmative of _Plato_, and not a negative from _Aristotle_:\nthere is another scruple cast in by Divinity (concerning its production)\nmuch disputed in the _Germane_ auditories, and with that indifferency\nand equality of arguments, as leave the controversie undetermined. I am\nnot of _Paracelsus_ mind, that boldly delivers a receipt to make a man\nwithout conjunction; yet cannot but wonder at the multitude of heads\nthat do deny traduction, having no other argument to confirm their\nbelief, then that Rhetorical sentence, and _Antimetathesis_ of\n_Augustine_, _Creando infunditur, infundendo creatur_: either opinion\nwill consist well enough with Religion; yet I should rather incline to\nthis, did not one objection haunt me, not wrung from speculations and\nsubtilties, but from common sense and observation; not pickt from the\nleaves of any Author, but bred amongst the weeds and tares of mine own\nbrain: And this is a conclusion from the equivocal and monstrous\nproductions in the copulation of Man with Beast: for if the Soul of man\nbe not transmitted, and transfused in the seed of the Parents, why are\nnot those productions meerly beasts, but have also an impression and\ntincture of reason in as high a measure, as it can evidence it self in\nthose improper Organs? Nor truely can I peremptorily deny, that the Soul\nin this her sublunary estate, is wholly, and in all acceptions\ninorganical, but that for the performance of her ordinary actions, there\nis required not onely a symmetry and proper disposition of Organs, but a\nCrasis and temper correspondent to its operations. Yet is not this mass\nof flesh and visible structure the instrument and proper corps of the\nSoul, but rather of Sense, and that the hand of Reason. In our study of\nAnatomy there is a mass of mysterious Philosophy, and such as reduced\nthe very Heathens to Divinity: yet amongst all those rare discourses,\nand curious pieces I find in the Fabrick of man, I do not so much\ncontent my self, as in that I find not, there is no Organ or Instrument\nfor the rational soul: for in the brain, which we term the seat of\nreason, there is not any thing of moment more than I can discover in the\ncrany of a beast: and this is a sensible and no inconsiderable argument\nof the inorganity of the Soul, at least in that sense we usually so\nconceive it. Thus we are men, and we know not how; there is something in\nus that can be without us, and will be after us, though it is strange\nthat it hath no history, what it was before us, nor cannot tell how it\nentred in us.\n\n\nSECT. 37\n\nNow for these walls of flesh, wherein the Soul doth seem to be immured,\nbefore the Resurrection, it is nothing but an elemental composition, and\na Fabrick that must fall to ashes. _All flesh is grass_, is not onely\nmetaphorically, but litterally, true; for all those creatures we\nbehold, are but the herbs of the field, digested into flesh in them, or\nmore remotely carnified in our selves. Nay further, we are what we all\nabhor, _Anthropophagi_ and Cannibals, devourers not onely of men, but of\nour selves; and that not in an allegory, but a positive truth: for all\nthis mass of flesh which we behold, came in at our mouths; this frame we\nlook upon, hath been upon our trenchers; in brief, we have devour'd our\nselves. I cannot believe the wisdom of _Pythagoras_ did ever positively,\nand in a literal sense, affirm his _Metempsychosis_, or impossible\ntransmigration of the Souls of men into beasts: of all Metamorphoses, or\ntransmigrations, I believe only one, that is of _Lots_ wife; for that of\n_Nebuchodonosor_ proceeded not so far; in all others I conceive there is\nno further verity than is contained in their implicite sense and\nmorality. I believe that the whole frame of a beast doth perish, and is\nleft in the same state after death as before it was materialled unto\nlife; that the souls of men know neither contrary nor corruption; that\nthey subsist beyond the body, and outlive death by the priviledge of\ntheir proper natures, and without a Miracle; that the Souls of the\nfaithful, as they leave Earth, take possession of Heaven: that those\napparitions and ghosts of departed persons are not the wandring souls of\nmen, but the unquiet walks of Devils, prompting and suggesting us unto\nmischief, blood, and villany; instilling and stealing into our hearts\nthat the blessed spirits are not at rest in their graves, but wander\nsollicitous of the affairs of the World; but that those phantasms appear\noften, and do frequent Coemeteries, Charnel-houses, and Churches, it\nis because those are the dormitories of the dead, where the Devil like\nan insolent Champion beholds with pride the spoils and Trophies of his\nVictory over _Adam_.\n\n\nSECT. 38\n\nThis is that dismal conquest we all deplore, that makes us so often cry\n_(O) Adam, quid fecisti_? I thank God I have not those strait ligaments,\nor narrow obligations to the World, as to dote on life, or be convulst\nand tremble at the name of death: Not that I am insensible of the dread\nand horrour thereof, or by raking into the bowels of the deceased,\ncontinual sight of Anatomies, Skeletons, or Cadaverous reliques, like\nVespilloes, or Gravemakers, I am become stupid, or have forgot the\napprehension of Mortality; but that marshalling all the horrours, and\ncontemplating the extremities thereof, I find not any thing therein able\nto daunt the courage of a man, much less a well-resolved Christian: And\ntherefore am not angry at the errour of our first Parents, or unwilling\nto bear a part of this common fate, and like the best of them to dye,\nthat is, to cease to breathe, to take a farewel of the elements, to be a\nkind of nothing for a moment, to be within one instant of a spirit. When\nI take a full view and circle of my self, without this reasonable\nmoderator, and equal piece of Justice, Death, I do conceive my self the\nmiserablest person extant; were there not another life that I hope for,\nall the vanities of this World should not intreat a moment's breath from\nme: could the Devil work my belief to imagine I could never dye, I would\nnot outlive that very thought; I have so abject a conceit of this common\nway of existence, this retaining to the Sun and Elements, I cannot think\nthis is to be a man, or to live according to the dignity of humanity: in\nexspectation of a better, I can with patience embrace this life, yet in\nmy best meditations do often defie death: I honour any man that contemns\nit, nor can I highly love any that is afraid of it: this makes me\nnaturally love a Souldier, and honour those tattered and contemptible\nRegiments, that will dye at the command of a Sergeant. For a Pagan there\nmay be some motives to be in love with life; but for a Christian to be\namazed at death, I see not how he can escape this Dilemma, that he is\ntoo sensible of this life, or hopeless of the life to come.\n\n\nSECT. 39\n\nSome Divines count Adam 30 years old at his creation, because they\nsuppose him created in the perfect age and stature of man. And surely we\nare all out of the computation of our age, and every man is some months\nelder than he bethinks him; for we live, move, have a being, and are\nsubject to the actions of the elements, and the malice of diseases, in\nthat other world, the truest Microcosm, the Womb of our Mother. For\nbesides that general and common existence we are conceived to hold in\nour Chaos, and whilst we sleep within the bosome of our causes, we enjoy\na being and life in three distinct worlds, wherein we receive most\nmanifest graduations: In that obscure World and womb of our mother, our\ntime is short, computed by the Moon; yet longer then the days of many\ncreatures that behold the Sun, our selves being not yet without life,\nsense, and reason; though for the manifestation of its actions, it\nawaits the opportunity of objects, and seems to live there but in its\nroot and soul of vegetation; entring afterwards upon the scene of the\nWorld, we arise up and become another creature, performing the\nreasonable actions of man, and obscurely manifesting that part of\nDivinity in us, but not in complement and perfection, till we have once\nmore cast our secondine, that is, this slough of flesh, and are\ndelivered into the last world, that is, that ineffable place of _Paul_,\nthat proper _ubi_ of spirits. The smattering I have of the Philosophers\nStone (which is something more then the perfect exaltation of Gold) hath\ntaught me a great deal of Divinity, and instructed my belief, how that\nimmortal spirit and incorruptible substance of my Soul may lye obscure,\nand sleep a while within this house of flesh. Those strange and mystical\ntransmigrations that I have observed in Silk-worms, turned my Philosophy\ninto Divinity. There is in these works of nature, which seem to puzzle\nreason, something Divine, and hath more in it then the eye of a common\nspectator doth discover.\n\n\nSECT. 40\n\nI am naturally bashful, nor hath conversation, age or travel, been able\nto effront, or enharden me; yet I have one part of modesty which I have\nseldom discovered in another, that is, (to speak truely) I am not so\nmuch afraid of death, as ashamed thereof; 'tis the very disgrace and\nignominy of our natures, that in a moment can so disfigure us, that our\nnearest friends, Wife, and Children stand afraid and start at us. The\nBirds and Beasts of the field, that before in a natural fear obeyed us,\nforgetting all allegiance, begin to prey upon us. This very conceit hath\nin a tempest disposed and left me willing to be swallowed up in the\nabyss of waters; wherein I had perished unseen, unpityed, without\nwondering eyes, tears of pity, Lectures of mortality, and none had said,\n_Quantum mutatus ab illo!_ Not that I am ashamed of the Anatomy of my\nparts, or can accuse Nature for playing the bungler in any part of me,\nor my own vitious life for contracting any shameful disease upon me,\nwhereby I might not call my self as wholesome a morsel for the worms as\nany.\n\n\nSECT. 41\n\nSome upon the courage of a fruitful issue, wherein, as in the truest\nChronicle, they seem to outlive themselves, can with greater patience\naway with death. This conceit and counterfeit subsisting in our\nprogenies, seems to me a meer fallacy, unworthy the desires of a man,\nthat can but conceive a thought of the next World; who, in a nobler\nambition, should desire to live in his substance in Heaven, rather than\nhis name and shadow in the earth. And therefore at my death I mean to\ntake a total adieu of the world, not caring for a Monument, History, or\nEpitaph, not so much as the memory of my name to be found any where, but\nin the universal Register of God. I am not yet so Cynical, as to approve\nthe [15]Testament of _Diogenes_, nor do I altogether allow that\n_Rodomontodo_ of _Lucan_;\n\n          _----Coelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam._\n\n          _He that unburied lies wants not his Herse,\n          For unto him a Tomb's the Universe._\n\nBut commend in my calmer judgement, those ingenuous intentions that\ndesire to sleep by the urns of their Fathers, and strive to go the\nneatest way unto corruption. I do not envy the temper of Crows and Daws,\nnor the numerous and weary days of our Fathers before the Flood. If\nthere be any truth in Astrology, I may outlive a Jubilee; as yet I have\nnot seen one revolution of Saturn, nor hath my pulse beat thirty years;\nand yet excepting one, have seen the Ashes, & left under ground all the\nKings of _Europe_; have been contemporary to three Emperours, four Grand\nSigniours, and as many Popes: methinks I have outlived my self, and\nbegin to be weary of the Sun; I have shaken hands with delight: in my\nwarm blood and Canicular days, I perceive I do anticipate the vices of\nage; the World to me is but a dream or mock-show, and we all therein but\nPantalones and Anticks, to my severer contemplations.\n\n  [15] _Who willed his friend not to bury him, but hang him up with a\n       staff in his hand to fright away the crows._\n\n\nSECT. 42\n\nIt is not, I confess, an unlawful prayer to desire to surpass the days\nof our Saviour, or wish to outlive that age wherein he thought fittest\nto dye; yet if (as Divinity affirms) there shall be no gray hairs in\nHeaven, but all shall rise in the perfect state of men, we do but\noutlive those perfections in this World, to be recalled unto them by a\ngreater Miracle in the next, and run on here but to be retrograde\nhereafter. Were there any hopes to outlive vice, or a point to be\nsuper-annuated from sin, it were worthy our knees to implore the days of\n_Methuselah_. But age doth not rectifie, but incurvate our natures,\nturning bad dispositions into worser habits, and (like diseases) brings\non incurable vices; for every day as we grow weaker in age, we grow\nstronger in sin; and the number of our days doth make but our sins\ninnumerable. The same vice committed at sixteen, is not the same, though\nit agree in all other circumstances, at forty, but swells and doubles\nfrom the circumstance of our ages, wherein, besides the constant and\ninexcusable habit of transgressing, the maturity of our judgement cuts\noff pretence unto excuse or pardon: every sin the oftner it is\ncommitted, the more it acquireth in the quality of evil; as it succeeds\nin time, so it proceeds in degrees of badness; for as they proceed they\never multiply, and like figures in Arithmetick, the last stands for more\nthan all that went before it. And though I think no man can live well\nonce, but he that could live twice, yet for my own part I would not live\nover my hours past, or begin again the thred of my days: not upon\n_Cicero's_ ground, because I have lived them well, but for fear I should\nlive them worse: I find my growing Judgment daily instruct me how to be\nbetter, but my untamed affections and confirmed vitiosity makes me daily\ndo worse; I find in my confirmed age the same sins I discovered in my\nyouth; I committed many then because I was a Child, and because I commit\nthem still, I am yet an infant. Therefore I perceive a man may be twice\na Child before the days of dotage; and stands in need of _AEsons_ Bath\nbefore threescore.\n\n\nSECT. 43\n\nAnd truely there goes a great deal of providence to produce a mans life\nunto three-score: there is more required than an able temper for those\nyears; though the radical humour contain in it sufficient oyl for\nseventy, yet I perceive in some it gives no light past thirty: men\nassign not all the causes of long life, that write whole Books thereof.\nThey that found themselves on the radical balsome, or vital sulphur of\nthe parts, determine not why _Abel_ lived not so long as _Adam_. There\nis therefore a secret glome or bottome of our days: 'twas his wisdom to\ndetermine them, but his perpetual and waking providence that fulfils and\naccomplisheth them; wherein the spirits, our selves, and all the\ncreatures of God in a secret and disputed way do execute his will. Let\nthem not therefore complain of immaturity that die about thirty; they\nfall but like the whole World, whose solid and well-composed substance\nmust not expect the duration and period of its constitution: when all\nthings are compleated in it, its age is accomplished; and the last and\ngeneral fever may as naturally destroy it before six thousand, as me\nbefore forty; there is therefore some other hand that twines the thread\nof life than that of Nature: we are not onely ignorant in Antipathies\nand occult qualities; our ends are as obscure as our beginnings; the\nline of our days is drawn by night, and the various effects therein by a\npensil that is invisible; wherein though we confess our ignorance, I am\nsure we do not err if we say it is the hand of God.\n\n\nSECT. 44\n\nI am much taken with two verses of _Lucan_, since I have been able not\nonely as we do at School, to construe, but understand.\n\n          _Victurosque Dei celant ut vivere durent.\n          Felix esse mori._\n\n          _We're all deluded, vainly searching ways\n          To make us happy by the length of days;\n          For cunningly to make's protract this breath,\n          The Gods conceal the happiness of Death._\n\nThere be many excellent strains in that Poet, wherewith his Stoical\nGenius hath liberally supplied him; and truely there are singular pieces\nin the Philosophy of _Zeno_, and doctrine of the Stoicks, which I\nperceive, delivered in a Pulpit, pass for current Divinity: yet herein\nare they in extreams, that can allow a man to be his own _Assassine_,\nand so highly extol the end and suicide of _Cato_; this is indeed not to\nfear death, but yet to be afraid of life. It is a brave act of valour to\ncontemn death; but where life is more terrible than death, it is then\nthe truest valour to dare to live; and herein Religion hath taught us a\nnoble example: For all the valiant acts of _Curtius_, _Scevola_, or\n_Codrus_, do not parallel or match that one of _Job_; and sure there is\nno torture to the rack of a disease, nor any Ponyards in death it self\nlike those in the way or prologue to it. _Emori nolo, sed me esse\nmortuum nihil curo_; I would not die, but care not to be dead. Were I of\n_Caesar's_ Religion, I should be of his desires, and wish rather to go\noff at one blow, then to be sawed in pieces by the grating torture of a\ndisease. Men that look no farther than their outsides, think health an\nappurtenance unto life, and quarrel with their constitutions for being\nsick; but I, that have examined the parts of man, and know upon what\ntender filaments that Fabrick hangs, do wonder that we are not always\nso; and considering the thousand doors that lead to death, do thank my\nGod that we can die but once. 'Tis not onely the mischief of diseases,\nand villany of poysons, that make an end of us; we vainly accuse the\nfury of Guns, and the new inventions of death; it is in the power of\nevery hand to destroy us, and we are beholding unto every one we meet,\nhe doth not kill us. There is therefore but one comfort left, that,\nthough it be in the power of the weakest arm to take away life, it is\nnot in the strongest to deprive us of death: God would not exempt\nhimself from that, the misery of immortality in the flesh; he undertook\nnot that was immortal. Certainly there is no happiness within this\ncircle of flesh, nor is it in the Opticks of these eyes to behold\nfelicity; the first day of our Jubilee is Death; the Devil hath\ntherefore failed of his desires; we are happier with death than we\nshould have been without it: there is no misery but in himself, where\nthere is no end of misery; and so indeed in his own sense the Stoick is\nin the right. He forgets that he can dye who complains of misery; we are\nin the power of no calamity while death is in our own.\n\n\nSECT. 45.\n\nNow besides the literal and positive kind of death, there are others\nwhereof Divines make mention, and those I think, not meerly\nMetaphorical, as mortification, dying unto sin and the World; therefore,\nI say, every man hath a double Horoscope, one of his humanity, his\nbirth; another of his Christianity, his baptism, and from this do I\ncompute or calculate my Nativity; not reckoning those _Horae combustae_\nand odd days, or esteeming my self any thing, before I was my Saviours,\nand inrolled in the Register of Christ: Whosoever enjoys not this life,\nI count him but an apparition, though he wear about him the sensible\naffections of flesh. In these moral acceptions, the way to be immortal\nis to dye daily; nor can I think I have the true Theory of death, when I\ncontemplate a skull, or behold a Skeleton with those vulgar imaginations\nit casts upon us; I have therefore enlarged that common _Memento mori_,\ninto a more Christian memorandum, _Memento quatuor Novissima_, those\nfour inevitable points of us all, Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell.\nNeither did the contemplations of the Heathens rest in their graves,\nwithout further thought of Rhadamanth or some judicial proceeding after\ndeath, though in another way, and upon suggestion of their natural\nreasons. I cannot but marvail from what _Sibyl_ or Oracle they stole the\nProphesie of the worlds destruction by fire, or whence _Lucan_ learned\nto say,\n\n          _Communis mundo superest rogus, assibus astra Misturus.\n\n          There yet remains to th' World one common Fire,\n          Wherein our bones with stars shall make one Pyre._\n\nI believe the World grows near its end, yet is neither old nor decayed,\nnor shall ever perish upon the ruines of its own Principles. As the work\nof Creation was above nature, so its adversary annihilation; without\nwhich the World hath not its end, but its mutation. Now what force\nshould be able to consume it thus far, without the breath of God, which\nis the truest consuming flame, my Philosophy cannot inform me. Some\nbelieve there went not a minute to the Worlds creation, nor shall there\ngo to its destruction; those six days, so punctually described, make not\nto them one moment, but rather seem to manifest the method and Idea of\nthe great work of the intellect of God, than the manner how he proceeded\nin its operation. I cannot dream that there should be at the last day\nany such Judicial proceeding, or calling to the Bar, as indeed the\nScripture seems to imply, and the literal Commentators do conceive: for\nunspeakable mysteries in the Scriptures are often delivered in a vulgar\nand illustrative way; and being written unto man, are delivered, not as\nthey truely are, but as they may be understood; wherein notwithstanding\nthe different interpretations according to different capacities may\nstand firm with our devotion, nor be any way prejudicial to each single\nedification.\n\n\nSECT. 46\n\n[Sidenote: _In those days there shall come lyars and false prophets._]\n\nNow to determine the day and year of this inevitable time, is not onely\nconvincible and statute-madness, but also manifest impiety: How shall we\ninterpret _Elias_ 6000 years, or imagine the secret communicated to a\nRabbi, which God hath denyed unto his Angels? It had been an excellent\nQuaere to have posed the Devil of _Delphos_, and must needs have forced\nhim to some strange amphibology; it hath not onely mocked the\npredictions of sundry Astrologers in Ages past, but the prophesies of\nmany melancholy heads in these present, who neither understanding\nreasonably things past or present, pretend a knowledge of things to\ncome; heads ordained onely to manifest the incredible effects of\nmelancholy, and to fulfil old prophecies rather than be the authors of\nnew. In those days there shall come Wars and rumours of Wars, to me\nseems no prophecy, but a constant truth, in all times verified since it\nwas pronounced: There shall be signs in the Moon and Stars; how comes he\nthen like a Thief in the night, when he gives an item of his coming?\nThat common sign drawn from the revelation of Antichrist, is as obscure\nas any: in our common compute he hath been come these many years; but\nfor my own part to speak freely, I am half of opinion that Antichrist is\nthe Philosophers stone in Divinity; for the discovery and invention\nthereof, though there be prescribed rules and probable inductions, yet\nhath hardly any man attained the perfect discovery thereof. That general\nopinion that the World grows neer its end, hath possessed all ages past\nas neerly as ours; I am afraid that the Souls that now depart, cannot\nescape that lingring expostulation of the Saints under the Altar,\n_Quousque, Domine? How long, O Lord?_ and groan in the expectation of\nthat great Jubilee.\n\n\nSECT. 47\n\nThis is the day that must make good that great attribute of God, his\nJustice; that must reconcile those unanswerable doubts that torment the\nwisest understandings, and reduce those seeming inequalities, and\nrespective distributions in this world, to an equality and recompensive\nJustice in the next. This is that one day, that shall include and\ncomprehend all that went before it; wherein, as in the last scene, all\nthe Actors must enter, to compleat and make up the Catastrophe of this\ngreat piece. This is the day whose memory hath onely power to make us\nhonest in the dark, and to be vertuous without a witness. _Ipsa sui\npretium virtus sibi_, that Vertue is her own reward, is but a cold\nprinciple, and not able to maintain our variable resolutions in a\nconstant and setled way of goodness. I have practised that honest\nartifice of _Seneca_, and in my retired and solitary imaginations, to\ndetain me from the foulness of vice, have fancied to my self the\npresence of my dear and worthiest friends, before whom I should lose my\nhead, rather than be vitious: yet herein I found that there was nought\nbut moral honesty, and this was not to be vertuous for his sake who must\nreward us at the last. I have tryed if I could reach that great\nresolution of his, to be honest without a thought of Heaven or Hell; and\nindeed I found, upon a natural inclination, and inbred loyalty unto\nvirtue, that I could serve her without a livery; yet not in that\nresolved and venerable way, but that the frailty of my nature, upon[A]\neasie temptation, might be induced to forget her. The life therefore and\nspirit of all our actions, is the resurrection, and a stable\napprehension that our ashes shall enjoy the fruit of our pious\nendeavours: without this, all Religion is a fallacy, and those impieties\nof _Lucian_, _Euripides_, and _Julian_, are no blasphemies, but subtle\nverities, and Atheists have been the onely Philosophers.\n\n  [A] _Insert_ any, 1672.\n\n\nSECT. 48\n\nHow shall the dead arise, is no question of my Faith; to believe only\npossibilities, is not Faith, but meer Philosophy. Many things are true\nin Divinity, which are neither inducible by reason, nor confirmable by\nsense; and many things in Philosophy confirmable by sense, yet not\ninducible by reason. Thus it is impossible by any solid or demonstrative\nreasons to perswade a man to believe the conversion of the Needle to the\nNorth; though this be possible and true, and easily credible, upon a\nsingle experiment unto the sense. I believe that our estranged and\ndivided ashes shall unite again; that our separated dust after so many\nPilgrimages and transformations into the parts of Minerals, Plants,\nAnimals, Elements, shall at the Voice of God return into their primitive\nshapes, and joyn again to make up their primary and predestinate forms.\nAs at the Creation there was a separation of that confused mass into its\npieces; so at the destruction thereof there shall be a separation into\nits distinct individuals. As at the Creation of the World, all the\ndistinct species that we behold lay involved in one mass, till the\nfruitful Voice of God separated this united multitude into its several\nspecies: so at the last day, when those corrupted reliques shall be\nscattered in the Wilderness of forms, and seem to have forgot their\nproper habits, God by a powerful Voice shall command them back into\ntheir proper shapes, and call them out by their single individuals: Then\nshall appear the fertility of _Adam_, and the magick of that sperm that\nhath dilated into so many millions. I have often beheld as a miracle,\nthat artificial resurrection and revivification of _Mercury_, how being\nmortified into a thousand shapes, it assumes again its own, and returns\ninto its numerical self. Let us speak naturally, and like Philosophers,\nthe forms of alterable bodies in these sensible corruptions perish not;\nnor as we imagine, wholly quit their mansions, but retire and contract\nthemselves into their secret and inaccessible parts, where they may best\nprotect themselves from the action of their Antagonist. A plant or\nvegetable consumed to ashes, by a contemplative and school-Philosopher\nseems utterly destroyed, and the form to have taken his leave for ever:\nBut to a sensible Artist the forms are not perished, but withdrawn into\ntheir incombustible part, where they lie secure from the action of that\ndevouring element. This is made good by experience, which can from the\nAshes of a Plant revive the plant, and from its cinders recal it into\nits stalk and leaves again. What the Art of man can do in these\ninferiour pieces, what blasphemy is it to affirm the finger of God\ncannot do in these more perfect and sensible structures? This is that\nmystical Philosophy, from whence no true Scholar becomes an Atheist, but\nfrom the visible effects of nature grows up a real Divine, and beholds\nnot in a dream, as _Ezekiel_, but in an ocular and visible object the\ntypes of his resurrection.\n\n\nSECT. 49\n\nNow, the necessary Mansions of our restored selves, are those two\ncontrary and incompatible places we call Heaven and Hell; to define\nthem, or strictly to determine what and where these are, surpasseth my\nDivinity. That elegant Apostle which seemed to have a glimpse of Heaven,\nhath left but a negative description thereof; _which neither eye hath\nseen, nor ear hath heard, nor can enter into the heart of man_: he was\ntranslated out of himself to behold it; but being returned into himself,\ncould not express it. St. _John's_ description by Emerals, Chrysolites,\nand precious Stones, is too weak to express the material Heaven we\nbehold. Briefly therefore, where the Soul hath the full measure and\ncomplement of happiness; where the boundless appetite of that spirit\nremains compleatly satisfied, that it can neither desire addition nor\nalteration; that I think is truly Heaven: and this can onely be in the\ninjoynient of that essence, whose infinite goodness is able to terminate\nthe desires of it self, and the unsatiable wishes of ours; wherever God\nwill thus manifest himself, there is Heaven though within the circle of\nthis sensible world. Thus the Soul of man may be in Heaven any where,\neven within the limits of his own proper body; and when it ceaseth to\nlive in the body, it may remain in its own soul, that is, its Creator:\nand thus we may say that St. _Paul_, whether in the body, or out of the\nbody, was yet in Heaven. To place it in the Empyreal, or beyond the\ntenth sphear, is to forget the world's destruction; for when this\nsensible world shall be destroyed, all shall then be here as it is now\nthere, an Empyreal Heaven, a _quasi_ vacuity; when to ask where Heaven\nis, is to demand where the Presence of God is, or where we have the\nglory of that happy vision. _Moses_ that was bred up in all the learning\nof the _Egyptians_, committed a gross absurdity in Philosophy, when with\nthese eyes of flesh he desired to see God, and petitioned his Maker,\nthat is, truth it self, to a contradiction. Those that imagine Heaven\nand Hell neighbours, and conceive a vicinity between those two extreams,\nupon consequence of the Parable, where _Dives_ discoursed with _Lazarus_\nin _Abraham's_ bosome, do too grosly conceive of those glorified\ncreatures, whose eyes shall easily out-see the Sun, and behold without a\nperspective the extreamest distances: for if there shall be in our\nglorified eyes, the faculty of sight and reception of objects, I could\nthink the visible species there to be in as unlimitable a way as now the\nintellectual. I grant that two bodies placed beyond the tenth sphear,\nor in a vacuity, according to _Aristotle_'s Philosophy, could not behold\neach other, because there wants a body or Medium to hand and transport\nthe visible rays of the object unto the sense; but when there shall be a\ngeneral defect of either Medium to convey, or light to prepare and\ndispose that Medium, and yet a perfect vision, we must suspend the rules\nof our Philosophy, and make all good by a more absolute piece of\nopticks.\n\n\nSECT. 50\n\nI cannot tell how to say that fire is the essence of Hell: I know not\nwhat to make of Purgatory, or conceive a flame that can either prey\nupon, or purifie the substance of a Soul: those flames of sulphur\nmention'd in the Scriptures, I take not to be understood of this present\nHell, but of that to come, where fire shall make up the complement of\nour tortures, and have a body or subject wherein to manifest its\ntyranny. Some who have had the honour to be textuary in Divinity, are of\nopinion it shall be the same specifical fire with ours. This is hard to\nconceive, yet can I make good how even that may prey upon our bodies,\nand yet not consume us: for in this material World there are bodies that\npersist invincible in the powerfullest flames; and though by the action\nof fire they fall into ignition and liquation, yet will they never\nsuffer a destruction. I would gladly know how _Moses_ with an actual\nfire calcin'd, or burnt the Golden Calf into powder: for that mystical\nmetal of Gold, whose solary and celestial nature I admire, exposed unto\nthe violence of fire, grows onely hot, and liquifies, but consumeth not;\nso when the consumable and volatile pieces of our bodies shall be\nrefined into a more impregnable and fixed temper, like Gold, though they\nsuffer from the action of flames, they shall never perish, but lye\nimmortal in the arms of fire. And surely if this frame must suffer onely\nby the action of this element, there will many bodies escape, and not\nonely Heaven, but Earth will not be at an end, but rather a beginning.\nFor at present it is not earth, but a composition of fire, water, earth,\nand air; but at that time, spoiled of these ingredients, it shall appear\nin a substance more like it self, its ashes. Philosophers that opinioned\nthe worlds destruction by fire, did never dream of annihilation, which\nis beyond the power of sublunary causes; for the last[B] action of that\nelement is but vitrification, or a reduction of a body into glass; and\ntherefore some of our Chymicks facetiously affirm, that at the last fire\nall shall be christallized and reverberated into glass, which is the\nutmost action of that element. Nor need we fear this term annihilation,\nor wonder that God will destroy the works of his Creation: for man\nsubsisting, who is, and will then truely appear, a Microcosm, the world\ncannot be said to be destroyed. For the eyes of God, and perhaps also of\nour glorified selves, shall as really behold and contemplate the World\nin its Epitome or contracted essence, as now it doth at large and in its\ndilated substance. In the seed of a Plant to the eyes of God, and to the\nunderstanding of man, there exists, though in an invisible way, the\nperfect leaves, flowers, and fruit thereof: (for things that are in\n_posse_ to the sense, are actually existent to the understanding). Thus\nGod beholds all things, who contemplates as fully his works in their\nEpitome, as in their full volume; and beheld as amply the whole world in\nthat little compendium of the sixth day, as in the scattered and dilated\npieces of those five before.\n\n  [B] Last and proper, 1672.\n\n\nSECT. 51\n\nMen commonly set forth the torments of Hell by fire, and the extremity\nof corporal afflictions, and describe Hell in the same method that\n_Mahomet_ doth Heaven. This indeed makes a noise, and drums in popular\nears; but if this be the terrible piece thereof, it is not worthy to\nstand in diameter with Heaven, whose happiness consists in that part\nthat is best able to comprehend it, that immortal essence, that\ntranslated divinity and colony of God, the Soul. Surely though we place\nHell under Earth, the Devil's walk and purlue is about it: men speak too\npopularly who place it in those flaming mountains, which to grosser\napprehensions represent Hell. The heart of man is the place the Devils\ndwell in; I feel sometimes a Hell within my self; _Lucifer_ keeps his\nCourt in my breast; _Legion_ is revived in me. There are as many Hells,\nas _Anaxagoras_ conceited worlds; there was more than one Hell in\n_Magdalene_, when there were seven Devils; for every Devil is an Hell\nunto himself; he holds enough of torture in his own _ubi_, and needs not\nthe misery of circumference to afflict him. And thus a distracted\nConscience here, is a shadow or introduction unto Hell hereafter. Who\ncan but pity the merciful intention of those hands that do destroy\nthemselves? the Devil, were it in his power, would do the like; which\nbeing impossible, his miseries are endless, and he suffers most in that\nattribute wherein he is impassible, his immortality.\n\n\nSECT. 52\n\nI thank God that with joy I mention it, I was never afraid of Hell, nor\nnever grew pale at the description of that place; I have so fixed my\ncontemplations on Heaven, that I have almost forgot the Idea of Hell,\nand am afraid rather to lose the Joys of the one, than endure the\nmisery of the other: to be deprived of them is a perfect Hell, and needs\nmethinks no addition to compleat our afflictions; that terrible term\nhath never detained me from sin, nor do I owe any good action to the\nname thereof; I fear God, yet am not afraid of him; his mercies make me\nashamed of my sins, before his Judgements afraid thereof: these are the\nforced and secondary method of his wisdom, which he useth but as the\nlast remedy, and upon provocation; a course rather to deter the wicked,\nthan incite the virtuous to his worship. I can hardly think there was\never any scared into Heaven; they go the fairest way to Heaven that\nwould serve God without a Hell; other Mercenaries, that crouch into him\nin fear of Hell, though they term themselves the servants, are indeed\nbut the slaves of the Almighty.\n\n\nSECT. 53\n\nAnd to be true, and speak my soul, when I survey the occurrences of my\nlife, and call into account the Finger of God, I can perceive nothing\nbut an abyss and mass of mercies, either in general to mankind, or in\nparticular to my self: and whether out of the prejudice of my affection,\nor an inverting and partial conceit of his mercies, I know not; but\nthose which others term crosses, afflictions, judgements, misfortunes,\nto me who inquire farther into them then their visible effects, they\nboth appear, and in event have ever proved, the secret and dissembled\nfavours of his affection. It is a singular piece of Wisdom to apprehend\ntruly, and without passion, the Works of God, and so well to distinguish\nhis Justice from his Mercy, as not miscall those noble Attributes: yet\nit is likewise an honest piece of Logick, so to dispute and argue the\nproceedings of God, as to distinguish even his judgments into mercies.\nFor God is merciful unto all, because better to the worst, than the best\ndeserve; and to say he punisheth none in this world, though it be a\nParadox, is no absurdity. To one that hath committed Murther, if the\nJudge should only ordain a Fine, it were a madness to call this a\npunishment, and to repine at the sentence, rather than admire the\nclemency of the Judge. Thus our offences being mortal, and deserving not\nonely Death, but Damnation; if the goodness of God be content to\ntraverse and pass them over with a loss, misfortune, or disease; what\nfrensie were it to term this a punishment, rather than an extremity of\nmercy; and to groan under the rod of his Judgements, rather than admire\nthe Scepter of his Mercies? Therefore to adore, honour, and admire him,\nis a debt of gratitude due from the obligation of our nature, states,\nand conditions; and with these thoughts, he that knows them best, will\nnot deny that I adore him. That I obtain Heaven, and the bliss thereof,\nis accidental, and not the intended work of my devotion; it being a\nfelicity I can neither think to deserve, nor scarce in modesty to\nexpect. For these two ends of us all, either as rewards or punishments,\nare mercifully ordained and disproportionably disposed unto our actions;\nthe one being so far beyond our deserts, the other so infinitely below\nour demerits.\n\n\nSECT. 54\n\nThere is no Salvation to those that believe not in _Christ_, that is,\nsay some, since his Nativity, and as Divinity affirmeth, before also;\nwhich makes me much apprehend the ends of those honest Worthies and\nPhilosophers which dyed before his Incarnation. It is hard to place\nthose Souls in Hell, whose worthy lives do teach us Virtue on Earth:\nmethinks amongst those many subdivisions of Hell, there might have been\none Limbo left for these. What a strange vision will it be to see their\nPoetical fictions converted into Verities, and their imagined and\nfancied Furies into real Devils? how strange to them will sound the\nHistory of _Adam_, when they shall suffer for him they never heard of?\nwhen they who derive their genealogy from the Gods, shall know they are\nthe unhappy issue of sinful man? It is an insolent part of reason, to\ncontrovert the Works of God, or question the Justice of his proceedings.\nCould Humility teach others, as it hath instructed me, to contemplate\nthe infinite and incomprehensible distance betwixt the Creator and the\nCreature; or did we seriously perpend that one simile of St. _Paul_,\n_Shall the Vessel say to the Potter, Why hast thou made me thus?_ it\nwould prevent these arrogant disputes of reason, nor would we argue the\ndefinitive sentence of God, either to Heaven or Hell. Men that live\naccording to the right rule and law of reason, live but in their own\nkind, as beasts do in theirs; who justly obey the prescript of their\nnatures, and therefore cannot reasonably demand a reward of their\nactions, as onely obeying the natural dictates of their reason. It will\ntherefore, and must at last appear, that all salvation is through\n_Christ_; which verity I fear these great examples of virtue must\nconfirm, and make it good, how the perfectest actions of earth have no\ntitle or claim unto Heaven.\n\n\nSECT. 55\n\nNor truely do I think the lives of these or of any other, were ever\ncorrespondent, or in all points conformable unto their doctrines. It is\nevident that _Aristotle_ transgressed the rule of his own Ethicks; the\nStoicks that condemn passion, and command a man to laugh in _Phalaris_\nhis Bull, could not endure without a groan a fit of the Stone or Colick.\nThe _Scepticks_ that affirmed they knew nothing, even in that opinion\nconfute themselves, and thought they knew more than all the World\nbeside. _Diogenes_ I hold to be the most vain-glorious man of his time,\nand more ambitious in refusing all Honours, than _Alexander_ in\nrejecting none. Vice and the Devil put a Fallacy upon our Reasons, and\nprovoking us too hastily to run from it, entangle and profound us deeper\nin it. The Duke of _Venice_, that weds himself unto the Sea by a Ring of\nGold, I will not argue of prodigality, because it is a solemnity of good\nuse and consequence in the State: but the Philosopher that threw his\nmoney into the Sea to avoid Avarice, was a notorious prodigal. There is\nno road or ready way to virtue; it is not an easie point of art to\ndisentangle our selves from this riddle, or web of Sin: To perfect\nvirtue, as to Religion, there is required a _Panoplia_, or compleat\narmour; that whilst we lye at close ward against one Vice, we lye not\nopen to the venny of another. And indeed wiser discretions that have the\nthred of reason to conduct them, offend without pardon; whereas,\nunder-heads may stumble without dishonour. There go so many\ncircumstances to piece up one good action, that it is a lesson to be\ngood, and we are forced to be virtuous by the book. Again, the Practice\nof men holds not an equal pace, yea, and often runs counter to their\nTheory; we naturally know what is good, but naturally pursue what is\nevil: the Rhetorick wherewith I perswade another, cannot perswade my\nself: there is a depraved appetite in us, that will with patience hear\nthe learned instructions of Reason, but yet perform no farther than\nagrees to its own irregular humour. In brief, we all are monsters, that\nis, a composition of Man and Beast; wherein we must endeavour to be as\nthe Poets fancy that wise man _Chiron_, that is, to have the region of\nMan above that of Beast, and Sense to sit but at the feet of Reason.\nLastly, I do desire with God that all, but yet affirm with men, that few\nshall know Salvation; that the bridge is narrow, the passage strait unto\nlife: yet those who do confine the Church of God, either to particular\nNations, Churches or Families, have made it far narrower then our\nSaviour ever meant it.\n\n\nSECT. 56\n\nThe vulgarity of those judgements that wrap the Church of God in\n_Strabo's_ cloak, and restrain it unto _Europe_, seem to me as bad\nGeographers as _Alexander_, who thought he had Conquer'd all the World,\nwhen he had not subdued the half of any part thereof. For we cannot deny\nthe Church of God both in _Asia_ and _Africa_, if we do not forget the\nPeregrinations of the Apostles, the deaths of the Martyrs, the Sessions\nof many, and, even in our reformed judgement, lawful Councils, held in\nthose parts in the minority and nonage of ours. Nor must a few\ndifferences, more remarkable in the eyes of man than perhaps in the\njudgement of God, excommunicate from Heaven one another, much less those\nChristians who are in a manner all Martyrs, maintaining their Faith, in\nthe noble way of persecution, and serving God in the Fire, whereas we\nhonour him in the Sunshine. 'Tis true, we all hold there is a number of\nElect, and many to be saved; yet take our Opinions together, and from\nthe confusion thereof there will be no such thing as salvation, nor\nshall any one be saved. For first, the Church of _Rome_ condemneth us,\nwe likewise them; the Sub-reformists and Sectaries sentence the Doctrine\nof our Church as damnable; the Atomist, or Familist, reprobates all\nthese; and all these, them again. Thus whilst the Mercies of God do\npromise us Heaven, our conceits and opinions exclude us from that place.\nThere must be, therefore, more than one St. _Peter_: particular Churches\nand Sects usurp the gates of Heaven, and turn the key against each\nother: and thus we go to Heaven against each others wills, conceits and\nopinions; and with as much uncharity as ignorance, do err I fear in\npoints not only of our own, but one an others salvation.\n\n\nSECT. 57\n\nI believe many are saved, who to man seem reprobated; and many are\nreprobated, who in the opinion and sentence of man, stand elected: there\nwill appear at the Last day, strange and unexpected examples both of his\nJustice and his Mercy; and therefore to define either, is folly in man,\nand insolency even in the Devils: those acute and subtil spirits in all\ntheir sagacity, can hardly divine who shall be saved; which if they\ncould Prognostick, their labour were at an end; nor need they compass\nthe earth seeking whom they may devour. Those who upon a rigid\napplication of the Law, sentence _Solomon_ unto damnation, condemn not\nonely him, but themselves, and the whole World: for by the Letter and\nwritten Word of God, we are without exception in the state of Death;\nbut there is a prerogative of God, and an arbitrary pleasure above the\nLetter of his own Law, by which alone we can pretend unto Salvation, and\nthrough which _Solomon_ might be as easily saved as those who condemn\nhim.\n\n\nSECT. 58\n\nThe number of those who pretend unto Salvation, and those infinite\nswarms who think to pass through the eye of this Needle, have much\namazed me. That name and compellation of _little Flock_, doth not\ncomfort, but deject my Devotion; especially when I reflect upon mine own\nunworthiness, wherein, according to my humble apprehensions, I am below\nthem all. I believe there shall never be an Anarchy in Heaven, but as\nthere are Hierarchies amongst the Angels, so shall there be degrees of\npriority amongst the Saints. Yet is it (I protest) beyond my ambition to\naspire unto the first ranks; my desires onely are, and I shall be happy\ntherein, to be but the last man, and bring up the Rere in Heaven.\n\n\nSECT. 59\n\nAgain, I am confident and fully perswaded, yet dare not take my oath, of\nmy Salvation: I am as it were sure, and do believe without all doubt,\nthat there is such a City as _Constantinople_; yet for me to take my\nOath thereon were a kind of Perjury, because I hold no infallible\nwarrant from my own sense to confirm me in the certainty thereof: And\ntruly, though many pretend an absolute certainty of their Salvation, yet\nwhen an humble Soul shall contemplate our own unworthiness, she shall\nmeet with many doubts, and suddenly find how little we stand in need of\nthe Precept of St. _Paul_, _Work out your salvation with fear and\ntrembling._ That which is the cause of my Election, I hold to be the\ncause of my Salvation, which was the mercy and beneplacit of God, before\nI was, or the foundation of the World. _Before Abraham was, I am_, is\nthe saying of Christ; yet is it true in some sense, if I say it of\nmyself; for I was not onely before myself, but _Adam_, that is, in the\nIdea of God, and the decree of that Synod held from all Eternity. And in\nthis sense, I say, the World was before the Creation, and at an end\nbefore it had a beginning; and thus was I dead before I was alive:\nthough my grave be _England_, my dying place was Paradise: and _Eve_\nmiscarried of me, before she conceived of Cain.\n\n\nSECT. 60\n\nInsolent zeals that do decry good Works, and rely onely upon Faith, take\nnot away merit: for depending upon the efficacy of their Faith, they\nenforce the condition of God, and in a more sophistical way do seem to\nchallenge Heaven. It was decreed by God, that only those that lapt in\nthe water like Dogs, should have the honour to destroy the _Midianites_;\nyet could none of those justly challenge, or imagine he deserved that\nhonour thereupon. I do not deny, but that true Faith, and such as God\nrequires, is not onely a mark or token, but also a means of our\nSalvation; but where to find this, is as obscure to me, as my last end.\nAnd if our Saviour could object unto his own Disciples and Favourites, a\nFaith, that, to the quantity of a grain of Mustard-seed, is able to\nremove Mountains; surely that which we boast of, is not any thing, or at\nthe most, but a remove from nothing. This is the Tenor of my belief;\nwherein, though there be many things singular, and to the humour of my\nirregular self; yet if they square not with maturer Judgements I\ndisclaim them, and do no further favour them, than the learned and best\njudgements shall authorize them.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SECOND PART\n\n\nSECT. 1\n\nNow for that other Virtue of Charity, without which Faith is a meer\nnotion, and of no existence, I have ever endeavoured to nourish the\nmerciful disposition and humane inclination I borrowed from my Parents,\nand regulate it to the written and prescribed Laws of Charity; and if I\nhold the true Anatomy of my self, I am delineated and naturally framed\nto such a piece of virtue. For I am of a constitution so general, that\nit comforts and sympathizeth with all things; I have no antipathy, or\nrather Idio-syncrasie, in dyet, humour, air, any thing: I wonder not at\nthe _French_ for their dishes of Frogs, Snails, and Toadstools, nor at\nthe Jews for Locusts and Grasshoppers; but being amongst them, make them\nmy common Viands, and I find they agree with my Stomach as well as\ntheirs. I could digest a Sallad gathered in a Churchyard, as well as in\na Garden. I cannot start at the presence of a Serpent, Scorpion, Lizard,\nor Salamander: at the sight of a Toad or Viper, I find in me no desire\nto take up a stone to destroy them. I feel not in my self those common\nAntipathies that I can discover in others: Those National repugnances do\nnot touch me, nor do I behold with prejudice the _French_, _Italian_,\n_Spaniard_, or _Dutch_; but where I find their actions in balance with\nmy Country-men's, I honour, love, and embrace them in the same degree.\nI was born in the eighth Climate, but seem for to be framed and\nconstellated unto all: I am no Plant that will not prosper out of a\nGarden: All places, all airs make unto me one Countrey; I am in\n_England_, every where, and under any Meridian. I have been shipwrackt,\nyet am not enemy with the Sea or Winds; I can study, play, or sleep in a\nTempest. In brief, I am averse from nothing; my Conscience would give me\nthe lye if I should absolutely detest or hate any essence but the Devil;\nor so at least abhor any thing, but that we might come to composition.\nIf there be any among those common objects of hatred I do contemn and\nlaugh at, it is that great enemy of Reason, Virtue and Religion, the\nMultitude; that numerous piece of monstrosity, which taken asunder seem\nmen, and the reasonable creatures of God; but confused together, make\nbut one great beast, and a monstrosity more prodigious than Hydra: it is\nno breach of Charity to call these Fools; it is the style all holy\nWriters have afforded them, set down by _Solomon_ in Canonical\nScripture, and a point of our Faith to believe so. Neither in the name\nof Multitude do I onely include the base and minor sort of people; there\nis a rabble even amongst the Gentry, a sort of Plebeian heads, whose\nfancy moves with the same wheel as these; men in the same Level with\nMechanicks, though their fortunes do somewhat guild their infirmities,\nand their purses compound for their follies. But as in casting account,\nthree or four men together come short in account of one man placed by\nhimself below them: So neither are a troop of these ignorant Doradoes,\nof that true esteem and value, as many a forlorn person, whose condition\ndoth place him below their feet. Let us speak like Politicians, there\nis a Nobility without Heraldry, a natural dignity, whereby one man is\nranked with another; another filed before him, according to the quality\nof his Desert, and preheminence of his good parts: Though the corruption\nof these times, and the byas of present practice wheel another way. Thus\nit was in the first and primitive Commonwealths, and is yet in the\nintegrity and Cradle of well-order'd Polities, till corruption getteth\nground, ruder desires labouring after that which wiser considerations\ncontemn; every one having a liberty to amass and heap up riches, and\nthey a licence or faculty to do or purchase any thing.\n\n\nSECT. 2\n\nThis general and indifferent temper of mine doth more neerly dispose me\nto this noble virtue. It is a happiness to be born and framed unto\nvirtue, and to grow up from the seeds of nature, rather than the\ninoculation and forced grafts of education: yet if we are directed only\nby our particular Natures, and regulate our inclinations by no higher\nrule than that of our reasons, we are but Moralists; Divinity will still\ncall us Heathens. Therefore this great work of charity must have other\nmotives, ends, and impulsions: I give no alms only to satisfie the\nhunger of my Brother, but to fulfil and accomplish the Will and Command\nof my God: I draw not _my_ purse for his sake that demands it, but his\nthat enjoyned it; I relieve no man upon the Rhetorick of his miseries,\nnor to content mine own commiserating disposition: for this is still but\nmoral charity, and an act that oweth more to passion than reason. He\nthat relieves another upon the bare suggestion and bowels of pity, doth\nnot this so much for his sake, as for his own: for by compassion we\nmake others misery our own, and so by relieving them, we relieve our\nselves also. It is as erroneous a conceit to redress other Mens\nmisfortunes upon the common considerations of merciful natures, that it\nmay be one day our own case; for this is a sinister and politick kind of\ncharity, whereby we seem to bespeak the pities of men in the like\noccasions: and truly I have observed that those professed\nEleemosynaries, though in a croud or multitude, do yet direct and place\ntheir petitions on a few and selected persons: there is surely a\nPhysiognomy, which those experienced and Master Mendicants observe;\nwhereby they instantly discover a merciful aspect, and will single out a\nface, wherein they spy the signatures and marks of Mercy: for there are\nmystically in our faces certain Characters which carry in them the motto\nof our Souls, wherein he that can read _A. B. C._ may read our natures.\nI hold moreover that there is a Phytognomy, or Physiognomy, not only of\nMen but of Plants and Vegetables; and in every one of them, some outward\nfigures which hang as signs or bushes of their inward forms. The Finger\nof God hath left an Inscription upon all his works, not graphical, or\ncomposed of Letters, but of their several forms, constitutions, parts,\nand operations; which aptly joyned together do make one word that doth\nexpress their natures. By these Letters God calls the Stars by their\nnames; and by this Alphabet _Adam_ assigned to every creature a name\npeculiar to its nature. Now there are, besides these Characters in our\nFaces, certain mystical figures in our Hands, which I dare not call meer\ndashes, strokes _a la volee_, or at random, because delineated by a\nPencil that never works in vain; and hereof I take more particular\nnotice, because I carry that in mine own hand, which I could never read\nof, nor discover in another. _Aristotle_ I confess, in his acute and\nsingular Book of Physiognomy, hath made no mention of Chiromancy; yet I\nbelieve the _Egyptians_, who were neerer addicted to those abstruse and\nmystical sciences, had a knowledge therein; to which those vagabond and\ncounterfeit _Egyptians_ did after pretend, and perhaps retained a few\ncorrupted principles, which sometimes might verifie their prognosticks.\n\nIt is the common wonder of all men, how among so many millions of faces,\nthere should be none alike: Now contrary, I wonder as much how there\nshould be any. He that shall consider how many thousand several words\nhave been carelesly and without study composed out of 24 Letters;\nwithal, how many hundred lines there are to be drawn in the Fabrick of\none Man; shall easily find that this variety is necessary: And it will\nbe very hard that they shall so concur, as to make one portract like\nanother. Let a Painter carelesly limb out a million of Faces, and you\nshall find them all different; yea let him have his Copy before him, yet\nafter all his art there will remain a sensible distinction; for the\npattern or example of every thing is the perfectest in that kind,\nwhereof we still come short, though we transcend or go beyond it,\nbecause herein it is wide, and agrees not in all points unto the Copy.\nNor doth the similitude of Creatures disparage the variety of Nature,\nnor any way confound the Works of God. For even in things alike there is\ndiversity; and those that do seem to accord, do manifestly disagree. And\nthus is man like God; for in the same things that we resemble him, we\nare utterly different from him. There was never any thing so like\nanother, as in all points to concur; there will ever some reserved\ndifference slip in, to prevent the identity, without which, two several\nthings would not be alike, but the same, which is impossible.\n\n\nSECT. 3\n\nBut to return from Philosophy to Charity: I hold not so narrow a conceit\nof this virtue, as to conceive that to give Alms is onely to be\nCharitable, or think a piece of Liberality can comprehend the Total of\nCharity. Divinity hath wisely divided the act thereof into many\nbranches, and hath taught us in this narrow way, many paths unto\ngoodness: as many ways as we may do good, so many ways we may be\ncharitable: there are infirmities, not onely of Body, but of Soul, and\nFortunes, which do require the merciful hand of our abilities. I cannot\ncontemn a man for ignorance, but behold him with as much pity as I do\n_Lazarus_. It is no greater Charity to cloath his body, than apparel the\nnakedness of his Soul. It is an honourable object to see the reasons of\nother men wear our Liveries, and their borrowed understandings do homage\nto the bounty of ours: It is the cheapest way of beneficence, and like\nthe natural charity of the Sun, illuminates another without obscuring it\nself. To be reserved and caitiff in this part of goodness, is the\nsordidest piece of covetousness, and more contemptible than pecuniary\nAvarice. To this (as calling my self a Scholar) I am obliged by the duty\nof my condition: I make not therefore my head a grave, but a treasure of\nknowledge; I intend no Monopoly, but a community in learning; I study\nnot for my own sake only, but for theirs that study not for themselves.\nI envy no man that knows more than my self, but pity them that know\nless. I instruct no man as an exercise of my knowledge, or with an\nintent rather to nourish and keep it alive in mine own head, then beget\nand propagate it in his; and in the midst of all my endeavours, there is\nbut one thought that dejects me, that my acquired parts must perish with\nmy self, nor can be Legacied among my honoured Friends. I cannot fall\nout, or contemn a man for an errour, or conceive why a difference in\nOpinion should divide an affection: For Controversies, Disputes, and\nArgumentations, both in Philosophy and in Divinity, if they meet with\ndiscreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the Laws of Charity: in\nall disputes, so much as there is of passion, so much there is of\nnothing to the purpose; for then Reason, like a bad Hound, spends upon a\nfalse Scent, and forsakes the question first started. And this is one\nreason why Controversies are never determined; for though they be amply\nproposed, they are scarce at all handled, they do so swell with\nunnecessary Digressions; and the Parenthesis on the party, is often as\nlarge as the main discourse upon the subject. The Foundations of\nReligion are already established, and the Principles of Salvation\nsubscribed unto by all: there remains not many controversies worth a\nPassion, and yet never any disputed without, not only in Divinity, but\ninferiour Arts: What a {~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} and hot skirmish is betwixt S.\nand T. in _Lucian_: How do Grammarians hack and slash for the Genitive\ncase in _Jupiter_? How do they break their own pates to salve that of\n_Priscian! Si foret in terris, rideret Democritus_. Yea, even amongst\nwiser militants, how many wounds have been given, and credits slain, for\nthe poor victory of an opinion, or beggerly conquest of a distinction?\nScholars are men of Peace, they bear no Arms, but their tongues are\nsharper than Actus his razor; their Pens carry farther, and give a\nlowder report than Thunder: I had rather stand the shock of a\nBasilisco, than the fury of a merciless Pen. It is not meer Zeal to\nLearning, or Devotion to the Muses, that wiser Princes Patron the Arts,\nand carry an indulgent aspect unto Scholars; but a desire to have their\nnames eternized by the memory of their writings, and a fear of the\nrevengeful Pen of succeeding ages: for these are the men, that when they\nhave played their parts, and had their _exits_, must step out and give\nthe moral of their Scenes, and deliver unto Posterity an Inventory of\ntheir Virtues and Vices. And surely there goes a great deal of\nConscience to the compiling of an History: there is no reproach to the\nscandal of a Story; it is such an authentick kind of falshood, that with\nauthority belies our good names to all Nations and Posterity.\n\n\nSECT. 4\n\nThere is another offence unto Charity, which no Author hath ever written\nof, and few take notice of; and that's the reproach, not of whole\nprofessions, mysteries and conditions, but of whole Nations; wherein by\nopprobrious Epithets we miscal each other, and by an uncharitable\nLogick, from a disposition in a few, conclude a habit in all.\n\n          _Le mutin Anglois, & le bravache Escossois;\n          Le bougre Italian, & le fol Francois;\n          Le poultron Romain, le larron de Gascongne,\n          L'Espagnol superbe, & l'Aleman yurongne_.\n\nSt. _Paul_, that calls the _Cretians_ lyars, doth it but indirectly, and\nupon quotation of their own Poet. It is as bloody a thought in one way,\nas _Nero's_ was in another. For by a word we wound a thousand, and at\none blow assassine the honour of a Nation. It is as compleat a piece of\nmadness to miscal and rave against the times, or think to recal men to\nreason, by a fit of passion: _Democritus_, that thought to laugh the\ntimes into goodness, seems to me as deeply Hypochondriack, as\n_Heraclitus_ that bewailed them. It moves not my spleen to behold the\nmultitude in their proper humours, that is, in their fits of folly and\nmadness, as well understanding that wisdom is not prophan'd unto the\nWorld, and 'tis the priviledge of a few to be Vertuous. They that\nendeavour to abolish Vice, destroy also Virtue; for contraries, though\nthey destroy one another, are yet in life of one another. Thus Virtue\n(abolish vice) is an Idea; again, the community of sin doth not\ndisparage goodness; for when Vice gains upon the major part, Virtue, in\nwhom it remains, becomes more excellent; and being lost in some,\nmultiplies its goodness in others, which remain untouched, and persist\nintire in the general inundation. I can therefore behold Vice without a\nSatyr, content only with an admonition, or instructive reprehension, for\nNoble Natures, and such as are capable of goodness, are railed into\nvice, that might as easily be admonished into virtue; and we should be\nall so far the Orators of goodness, as to protract her from the power of\nVice, and maintain the cause of injured truth. No man can justly censure\nor condemn another, because indeed no man truly knows another. This I\nperceive in my self; for I am in the dark to all the world, and my\nnearest friends behold me but in a cloud: those that know me but\nsuperficially, think less of me than I do of my self; those of my neer\nacquaintance think more; God, who truly knows me, knows that I am\nnothing; for he only beholds me and all the world; who looks not on us\nthrough a derived ray, or a trajection of a sensible species, but\nbeholds the substance without the helps of accidents, and the forms of\nthings, as we their operations. Further, no man can judge another,\nbecause no man knows himself; for we censure others but as they disagree\nfrom that humour which we fancy laudible in our selves, and commend\nothers but for that wherein they seem to quadrate and consent with us.\nSo that in conclusion, all is but that we all condemn, Self-love. 'Tis\nthe general complaint of these times, and perhaps of those past, that\ncharity grows cold; which I perceive most verified in those which most\ndo manifest the fires and flames of zeal; for it is a virtue that best\nagrees with coldest natures, and such as are complexioned for humility.\nBut how shall we expect Charity towards others, when we are uncharitable\nto our selves? Charity begins at home, is the voice of the World; yet is\nevery man his greatest enemy, and as it were, his own Executioner. _Non\noccides_, is the Commandment of God, yet scarce observed by any man; for\nI perceive every man is his own _Atropos_, and lends a hand to cut the\nthred of his own days. _Cain_ was not therefore the first Murtherer, but\n_Adam_, who brought in death; whereof he beheld the practice and example\nin his own son _Abel_, and saw that verified in the experience of\nanother, which faith could not perswade him in the Theory of himself.\n\n\nSECT. 5\n\nThere is, I think, no man that apprehends his own miseries less than my\nself, and no man that so neerly apprehends anothers. I could lose an arm\nwithout a tear, and with few groans, methinks, be quartered into pieces;\nyet can I weep most seriously at a Play, and receive with true passion,\nthe counterfeit grief of those known and professed Impostures. It is a\nbarbarous part of inhumanity to add unto any afflicted parties misery,\nor indeavour to multiply in any man, a passion, whose single nature is\nalready above his patience: this was the greatest affliction of _Job_;\nand those oblique expostulations of his Friends, a deeper injury than\nthe down-right blows of the Devil. It is not the tears of our own eyes\nonly, but of our friends also, that do exhaust the current of our\nsorrows; which falling into many streams, runs more peaceably, and is\ncontented with a narrower channel. It is an act within the power of\ncharity, to translate a passion out of one brest into another, and to\ndivide a sorrow almost out of it self; for an affliction, like a\ndimension, may be so divided, as if not indivisible, at least to become\ninsensible. Now with my friend I desire not to share or participate, but\nto engross, his sorrows; that by making them mine own, I may more easily\ndiscuss them; for in mine own reason, and within my self, I can command\nthat, which I cannot intreat without my self, and within the circle of\nanother. I have often thought those noble pairs and examples of\nfriendship not so truly Histories of what had been, as fictions of what\nshould be; but I now perceive nothing in them but possibilities, nor any\nthing in the Heroick examples of _Damon_ and _Pythias_, _Achilles_ and\n_Patroclus_, which methinks upon some grounds I could not perform within\nthe narrow compass of my self. That a man should lay down his life for\nhis Friend, seems strange to vulgar affections, and such as confine\nthemselves within that Worldly principle, Charity begins at home. For\nmine own part I could never remember the relations that I held unto my\nself, nor the respect that I owe unto my own nature, in the cause of\nGod, my Country, and my Friends. Next to these three I do embrace my\nself: I confess I do not observe that order that the Schools ordain our\naffections, to love our Parents, Wives, Children, and then our Friends;\nfor excepting the injunctions of Religion, I do not find in my self such\na necessary and indissoluble Sympathy to all those of my blood. I hope I\ndo not break the fifth Commandment, if I conceive I may love my friend\nbefore the nearest of my blood, even those to whom I owe the principles\nof life: I never yet cast a true affection on a woman, but I have loved\nmy friend as I do virtue, my soul, my God. From hence me thinks I do\nconceive how God loves man, what happiness there is in the love of God.\nOmitting all other, there are three most mystical unions, two natures in\none person; three persons in one nature; one soul in two bodies. For\nthough indeed they be really divided, yet are they so united, as they\nseem but one, and make rather a duality than two distinct souls.\n\n\nSECT. 6\n\nThere are wonders in true affection; it is a body of _Enigma's_,\nmysteries, and riddles; wherein two so become one, as they both become\ntwo: I love my friend before my self, and yet methinks I do not love him\nenough: some few months hence, my multiplied affection will make me\nbelieve I have not loved him at all: when I am from him, I am dead till\nI be with him; when I am with him, I am not satisfied, but would still\nbe nearer him. United souls are not satisfied with imbraces, but desire\nto be truly each other; which being impossible, their desires are\ninfinite, and must proceed without a possibility of satisfaction.\nAnother misery there is in affection, that whom we truly love like our\nown, we forget their looks, nor can our memory retain the Idea of their\nfaces; and it is no wonder, for they are ourselves, and our affection\nmakes their looks our own. This noble affection falls not on vulgar and\ncommon constitutions, but on such as are mark'd for virtue: he that can\nlove his friend with this noble ardour, will in a competent degree\naffect all. Now if we can bring our affections to look beyond the body,\nand cast an eye upon the soul, we have found out the true object, not\nonly of friendship, but Charity; and the greatest happiness that we can\nbequeath the soul, is that wherein we all do place our last felicity,\nSalvation; which though it be not in our power to bestow, it is in our\ncharity and pious invocations to desire, if not procure and further. I\ncannot contentedly frame a prayer for my self in particular, without a\ncatalogue for my friends; nor request a happiness wherein my sociable\ndisposition doth not desire the fellowship of my neighbour. I never hear\nthe Toll of a passing Bell, though in my mirth, without my prayers and\nbest wishes for the departing spirit: I cannot go to cure the body of my\npatient, but I forget my profession, and call unto God for his soul: I\ncannot see one say his prayers, but in stead of imitating him, I fall\ninto a supplication for him, who perhaps is no more to me than a common\nnature: and if God hath vouchsafed an ear to my supplications, there are\nsurely many happy that never saw me, and enjoy the blessing of mine\nunknown devotions. To pray for Enemies, that is, for their salvation, is\nno harsh precept, but the practice of our daily and ordinary devotions.\nI cannot believe the story of the Italian: our bad wishes and\nuncharitable desires proceed no further than this life; it is the Devil,\nand the uncharitable votes of Hell, that desire our misery in the World\nto come.\n\n\nSECT. 7\n\nTo do no injury, nor take none, was a principle, which to my former\nyears, and impatient affections, seemed to contain enough of Morality;\nbut my more setled years, and Christian constitution, have fallen upon\nseverer resolutions. I can hold there is no such thing as injury; that\nif there be, there is no such injury as revenge, and no such revenge as\nthe contempt of an injury: that to hate another, is to malign himself;\nthat the truest way to love another, is to despise our selves. I were\nunjust unto mine own Conscience, if I should say I am at variance with\nany thing like my self. I find there are many pieces in this one fabrick\nof man; this frame is raised upon a mass of Antipathies: I am one\nmethinks, but as the World; wherein notwithstanding there are a swarm of\ndistinct essences, and in them another World of contrarieties; we carry\nprivate and domestick enemies within, publick and more hostile\nadversaries without. The Devil, that did but buffet St. _Paul_, plays\nmethinks at sharp with me. Let me be nothing, if within the compass of\nmy self I do not find the battail of _Lepanto_, Passion against Reason,\nReason against Faith, Faith against the Devil, and my Conscience against\nall. There is another man within me, that's angry with me, rebukes,\ncommands, and dastards me. I have no Conscience of Marble, to resist the\nhammer of more heavy offences; nor yet too soft and waxen, as to take\nthe impression of each single peccadillo or scape of infirmity: I am of\na strange belief, that it is as easie to be forgiven some sins, as to\ncommit some others. For my Original sin, I hold it to be washed away in\nmy Baptism, for my actual transgressions, I compute and reckon with God,\nbut from my last repentance, Sacrament, or general absolution; and\ntherefore am not terrified with the sins or madness of my youth. I thank\nthe goodness of God, I have no sins that want a name; I am not singular\nin offences; my transgressions are Epidemical, and from the common\nbreath of our corruption. For there are certain tempers of body, which\nmatcht with an humorous depravity of mind, do hatch and produce\nvitiosities, whose newness and monstrosity of nature admits no name;\nthis was the temper of that Lecher that fell in love with a Statua, and\nconstitution of _Nero_ in his Spintrian recreations. For the Heavens are\nnot only fruitful in new and unheard-of stars, the Earth in plants and\nanimals; but mens minds also in villany and vices: now the dulness of my\nreason, and the vulgarity of my disposition, never prompted my\ninvention, nor sollicited my affection unto any of those; yet even those\ncommon and quotidian infirmities that so necessarily attend me, and do\nseem to be my very nature, have so dejected me, so broken the estimation\nthat I should have otherwise of my self, that I repute my self the most\nabjectest piece of mortality. Divines prescribe a fit of sorrow to\nrepentance; there goes indignation, anger, sorrow, hatred, into mine;\npassions of a contrary nature, which neither seem to sute with this\naction, nor my proper constitution. It is no breach of charity to our\nselves, to be at variance with our Vices; nor to abhor that part of us,\nwhich is an enemy to the ground of charity, our God; wherein we do but\nimitate our great selves the world, whose divided Antipathies and\ncontrary faces do yet carry a charitable regard unto the whole by their\nparticular discords, preserving the common harmony, and keeping in\nfetters those powers, whose rebellions once Masters, might be the ruine\nof all.\n\n\nSECT. 8\n\nI thank God, amongst those millions of Vices I do inherit and hold from\n_Adam_, I have escaped one, and that a mortal enemy to Charity, the\nfirst and father-sin[C], not onely of man, but of the devil, Pride; a\nvice whose name is comprehended in a Monosyllable, but in its nature not\ncircumscribed with a World. I have escaped it in a condition that can\nhardly avoid it. Those petty acquisitions and reputed perfections that\nadvance and elevate the conceits of other men, add no feathers unto\nmine. I have seen a Grammarian towr and plume himself over a single line\nin _Horace_, and shew more pride in the construction of one Ode, than\nthe Author in the composure of the whole book. For my own part, besides\nthe _Jargon_ and _Patois_ of several Provinces, I understand no less\nthan six Languages; yet I protest I have no higher conceit of my self,\nthan had our Fathers before the confusion of _Babel_, when there was but\none Language in the World, and none to boast himself either Linguist or\nCritick. I have not onely seen several Countries, beheld the nature of\ntheir Climes, the Chorography of their Provinces, Topography of their\nCities, but understood their several Laws, Customs, and Policies; yet\ncannot all this perswade the dulness of my spirit unto such an opinion\nof my self, as I behold in nimbler and conceited heads, that never\nlooked a degree beyond their Nests. I know the names, and somewhat more,\nof all the constellations in my Horizon; yet I have seen a prating\nMariner, that could onely name the pointers and the North Star, out-talk\nme, and conceit himself a whole Sphere above me. I know most of the\nPlants of my Countrey, and of those about me; yet methinks I do not know\nso many as when I did but know a hundred, and had scarcely ever Simpled\nfurther than _Cheap-side_. For indeed, heads of capacity, and such as\nare not full with a handful, or easie measure of knowledge, think they\nknow nothing, till they know all; which being impossible, they fall upon\nthe opinion of _Socrates_, and only know they know not any thing. I\ncannot think that _Homer_ pin'd away upon the riddle of the fishermen;\nor that _Aristotle_, who understood the uncertainty of knowledge, and\nconfessed so often the reason of man too weak for the works of nature,\ndid ever drown himself upon the flux and reflux of _Euripus_. We do but\nlearn to-day, what our better advanced judgements will unteach\nto-morrow; and _Aristotle_ doth but instruct us, as _Plato_ did him;\nthat is, to confute himself. I have run through all sorts, yet find no\nrest in any: though our first studies and _junior_ endeavours may style\nus Peripateticks, Stoicks, or Academicks, yet I perceive the wisest\nheads prove, at last, almost all Scepticks, and stand like _Janus_ in\nthe field of knowledge. I have therefore one common and authentick\nPhilosophy I learned in the Schools, whereby I discourse and satisfie\nthe reason of other men; another more reserved, and drawn from\nexperience, whereby I content mine own. _Solomon_, that complained of\nignorance in the height of knowledge, hath not only humbled my conceits,\nbut discouraged my endeavours. There is yet another conceit that hath\nsometimes made me shut my books, which tells me it is a vanity to waste\nour days in the blind pursuit of knowledge; it is but attending a little\nlonger, and we shall enjoy that by instinct and infusion, which we\nendeavour at here by labour and inquisition. It is better to sit down in\na modest ignorance, and rest contented with the natural blessing of our\nown reasons, than buy the uncertain knowledge of this life, with sweat\nand vexation, which Death gives every fool _gratis_, and is an accessary\nof our glorification.\n\n  [C] Farther-sin, 1682.\n\n\nSECT. 9\n\nI was never yet once, and commend their resolutions who never marry\ntwice: not that I disallow of second marriage; as neither in all cases,\nof Polygamy, which considering some times, and the unequal number of\nboth sexes, may be also necessary. The whole World was made for man, but\nthe twelfth part of man for woman: Man is the whole World, and the\nBreath of God; Woman the Rib and crooked piece of man. I could be\ncontent that we might procreate like trees, without conjunction, or that\nthere were any way to perpetuate the World without this trivial and\nvulgar way of coition; it is the foolishest act a wise man commits in\nall his life; nor is there any thing that will more deject his cool'd\nimagination, when he shall consider what an odd and unworthy piece of\nfolly he hath committed. I speak not in prejudice, nor am averse from\nthat sweet Sex, but naturally amorous of all that is beautiful; I can\nlook a whole day with delight upon a handsome Picture, though it be but\nof an Horse. It is my temper, and I like it the better, to affect all\nharmony; and sure there is musick even in the beauty, and the silent\nnote which _Cupid_ strikes, far sweeter than the sound of an instrument.\nFor there is a musick where ever there is a harmony, order or\nproportion; and thus far we may maintain the musick of the Sphears: for\nthose well-ordered motions, and regular paces, though they give no sound\nunto the ear, yet to the understanding they strike a note most full of\nharmony. Whosoever is harmonically composed, delights in harmony; which\nmakes me much distrust the symmetry of those heads which declaim against\nall Church-Musick. For my self, not only from my obedience, but my\nparticular Genius, I do embrace it: for even that vulgar and\nTavern-Musick, which makes one man merry, another mad, strikes in me a\ndeep fit of devotion, and a profound contemplation of the first\nComposer. There is something in it of Divinity more than the ear\ndiscovers: it is an Hieroglyphical and shadowed lesson of the whole\nWorld, and creatures of God; such a melody to the ear, as the whole\nWorld well understood, would afford the understanding. In brief, it is a\nsensible fit of that harmony, which intellectually sounds in the ears of\nGod. I will not say with _Plato_, the soul is an harmony, but\nharmonical, and hath its nearest sympathy unto Musick: thus some whose\ntemper of body agrees, and humours the constitution of their souls, are\nborn Poets, though indeed all are naturally inclined unto Rhythme.\n[16]This made _Tacitus_ in the very first line of his Story, fall upon a\nverse, and _Cicero_ the worst of Poets, but [17]declaiming for a Poet,\nfalls in the very first sentence upon a perfect [18]Hexameter. I feel not\nin me those sordid and unchristian desires of my profession; I do not\nsecretly implore and wish for Plagues, rejoyce at Famines, revolve\nEphemerides and Almanacks, in expectation of malignant Aspects, fatal\nConjunctions, and Eclipses: I rejoyce not at unwholesome Springs, nor\nunseasonable Winters; my Prayer goes with the Husbandman's; I desire\nevery thing in its proper season, that neither men nor the times be put\nout of temper. Let me be sick my self, if sometimes the malady of my\npatient be not a disease unto me; I desire rather to cure his\ninfirmities than my own necessities: where I do him no good, methinks it\nis scarce honest gain; though I confess 'tis but the worthy salary of\nour well-intended endeavours. I am not only ashamed, but heartily sorry,\nthat besides death, there are diseases incurable; yet not for my own\nsake, or that they be beyond my Art, but for the general cause and sake\nof humanity, whose common cause I apprehend as mine own. And to speak\nmore generally, those three Noble Professions which all civil\nCommonwealths do honour, are raised upon the fall of _Adam_, and are not\nexempt from their infirmities; there are not only diseases incurable in\nPhysick, but cases indissolvable in Laws, Vices incorrigible in\nDivinity: if general Councils may err, I do not see why particular\nCourts should be infallible; their perfectest rules are raised upon the\nerroneous reasons of Man; and the Laws of one, do but condemn the rules\nof another; as _Aristotle_ oft-times the opinions of his Predecessours,\nbecause, though agreeable to reason, yet were not consonant to his own\nrules, and Logick of his proper Principles. Again, to speak nothing of\nthe Sin against the Holy Ghost, whose cure not onely, but whose nature\nis unknown; I can cure the Gout or Stone in some, sooner than Divinity\nPride or Avarice in others. I can cure Vices by Physick, when they\nremain incurable by Divinity; and shall obey my Pills, when they contemn\ntheir precepts. I boast nothing, but plainly say, we all labour against\nour own cure; for death is the cure of all diseases. There is no\nCatholicon or universal remedy I know but this, which, though nauseous\nto queasie stomachs, yet to prepared appetites is Nectar, and a pleasant\npotion of immortality.\n\n  [16] _Urbem Roman in principio Reges habuere._\n\n  [17] _Pro Archia Poeta._\n\n  [18] _In qua me non inficior mediocriter esse._\n\n\nSECT. 10\n\nFor my Conversation, it is like the Sun's with all men, and with a\nfriendly aspect to good and bad. Methinks there is no man bad, and the\nworst, best; that is, while they are kept within the circle of those\nqualities, wherein they are good; there is no man's mind of such\ndiscordant and jarring a temper, to which a tunable disposition may not\nstrike a harmony. _Magnae virtutes, nee minora vitia_; it is the posie of\nthe best natures, and may be inverted on the worst; there are in the\nmost depraved and venemous dispositions, certain pieces that remain\nuntoucht, which by an _Antiperistasis_ become more excellent, or by the\nexcellency of their antipathies are able to preserve themselves from the\ncontagion of their enemy vices, and persist intire beyond the general\ncorruption. For it is also thus in nature. The greatest Balsomes do lie\nenveloped in the bodies of most powerful Corrosives; I say moreover, and\nI ground upon experience, that poisons contain within themselves their\nown Antidote, and that which preserves them from the venome of\nthemselves, without which they were not deleterious to others onely, but\nto themselves also. But it is the corruption that I fear within me, not\nthe contagion of commerce without me. 'Tis that unruly regiment within\nme, that will destroy me; 'tis I that do infect my self; the man without\na Navel yet lives in me; I feel that original canker corrode and devour\nme; and therefore _Defenda me_ Dios _de me_, Lord deliver me from my\nself, is a part of my Letany, and the first voice of my retired\nimaginations. There is no man alone, because every man is a _Microcosm_,\nand carries the whole World about him; _Nunquam minus solus quam cum\nsolus_, though it be the Apothegme of a wise man, is yet true in the\nmouth of a fool; indeed, though in a Wilderness, a man is never alone,\nnot only because he is with himself and his own thoughts, but because he\nis with the Devil, who ever consorts with our solitude, and is that\nunruly rebel that musters up those disordered motions which accompany\nour sequestred imaginations. And to speak more narrowly, there is no\nsuch thing as solitude, nor any thing that can be said to be alone and\nby itself, but God, who is his own circle, and can subsist by himself;\nall others, besides their dissimilary and Heterogeneous parts, which in\na manner multiply their natures, cannot subsist without the concourse of\nGod, and the society of that hand which doth uphold their natures. In\nbrief, there can be nothing truly alone and by it self, which is not\ntruly one; and such is only God: All others do transcend an unity, and\nso by consequence are many.\n\nSECT. 11\n\nNow for my life, it is a miracle of thirty years, which to relate, were\nnot a History, but a piece of Poetry, and would sound to common ears\nlike a Fable; for the World, I count it not an Inn, but an Hospital; and\na place not to live, but to dye in. The world that I regard is my self;\nit is the Microcosm of my own frame that I cast mine eye on; for the\nother, I use it but like my Globe, and turn it round sometimes for my\nrecreation. Men that look upon my outside, perusing only my condition\nand Fortunes, do err in my Altitude, for I am above _Atlas_ his\nshoulders. The earth is a point not only in respect of the Heavens above\nus, but of that heavenly and celestial part within us: that mass of\nFlesh that circumscribes me, limits not my mind: that surface that tells\nthe Heavens it hath an end, cannot persuade me I have any: I take my\ncircle to be above three hundred and sixty; though the number of the\nArk do measure my body, it comprehendeth not my mind: whilst I study to\nfind how I am a Microcosm, or little World, I find my self something\nmore than the great. There is surely a piece of Divinity in us,\nsomething that was before the Elements, and owes no homage unto the Sun.\nNature tells me I am the Image of God, as well as Scripture: he that\nunderstands not thus much, hath not his introduction or first lesson,\nand is yet to begin the Alphabet of man. Let me not injure the felicity\nof others, if I say I am as happy as any: _Ruat coelum, Fiat voluntas\ntua_, salveth all; so that whatsoever happens, it is but what our daily\nprayers desire. In brief, I am content, and what should providence add\nmore? Surely this is it we call Happiness, and this do I enjoy; with\nthis I am happy in a dream, and as content to enjoy a happiness in a\nfancy, as others in a more apparent truth and realty. There is surely a\nneerer apprehension of any thing that delights us in our dreams, than in\nour waked senses; without this I were unhappy: for my awaked judgment\ndiscontents me, ever whispering unto me, that I am from my friend; but\nmy friendly dreams in night requite me, and make me think I am within\nhis arms. I thank God for my happy dreams, as I do for my good rest, for\nthere is a satisfaction in them unto reasonable desires, and such as can\nbe content with a fit of happiness. And surely it is not a melancholy\nconceit to think we are all asleep in this World, and that the conceits\nof this life are as meer dreams to those of the next, as the Phantasms\nof the night, to the conceits of the day. There is an equal delusion in\nboth, and the one doth but seem to be the embleme or picture of the\nother; we are somewhat more than our selves in our sleeps, and the\nslumber of the body seems to be but the waking of the soul. It is the\nligation of sense, but the liberty of reason, and our waking conceptions\ndo not match the Fancies of our sleeps. At my Nativity, my Ascendant was\nthe watery sign of _Scorpius_; I was born in the Planetary hour of\n_Saturn_, and I think I have a piece of that Leaden Planet in me. I am\nno way facetious, nor disposed for the mirth and galliardize of company;\nyet in one dream I can compose a whole Comedy, behold the action,\napprehend the jests, and laugh my self awake at the conceits thereof:\nwere my memory as faithful as my reason is then fruitful, I would never\nstudy but in my dreams; and this time also would I chuse for my\ndevotions: but our grosser memories have then so little hold of our\nabstracted understandings, that they forget the story, and can only\nrelate to our awaked souls, a confused and broken tale of that that hath\npassed. _Aristotle_, who hath written a singular Tract of Sleep, hath\nnot methinks throughly defined it; nor yet _Galen_, though he seem to\nhave corrected it; for those _Noctambuloes_ and night-walkers, though in\ntheir sleep, do yet injoy the action of their senses: we must therefore\nsay that there is something in us that is not in the jurisdiction of\n_Morpheus_; and that those abstracted and ecstatick souls do walk about\nin their own corps, as spirits with the bodies they assume; wherein they\nseem to hear, and feel, though indeed the Organs are destitute of sense,\nand their natures of those faculties that should inform them. Thus it is\nobserved, that men sometimes upon the hour of their departure, do speak\nand reason above themselves; for then the soul beginning to be freed\nfrom the ligaments of the body, begins to reason like her self, and to\ndiscourse in a strain above mortality.\n\n\nSECT. 12\n\nWe term sleep a death, and yet it is waking that kills us, and destroys\nthose spirits that are the house of life. 'Tis indeed a part of life\nthat best expresseth death; for every man truely lives, so long as he\nacts his nature, or some way makes good the faculties of himself:\n_Themistocles_ therefore that slew his Soldier in his sleep, was a\nmerciful Executioner: 'tis a kind of punishment the mildness of no laws\nhath invented; I wonder the fancy of _Lucan_ and _Seneca_ did not\ndiscover it. It is that death by which we may be literally said to dye\ndaily; a death which _Adam_ dyed before his mortality; a death whereby\nwe live a middle and moderating point between life and death; in fine,\nso like death, I dare not trust it without my prayers, and an half adieu\nunto the World, and take my farewell in a Colloquy with God.\n\n          _The night is come, like to the day;\n          Depart not thou great God away.\n          Let not my sins, black as the night,\n          Eclipse the lustre of thy light.\n          Keep still in my Horizon; for to me\n          The Sun makes not the day, but thee.\n          Thou whose nature cannot sleep,\n          On my temples centry keep;\n          Guard me 'gainst those watchful foes,\n          Whose eyes are open while mine close.\n          Let no dreams my head infest,\n          But such as_ Jacob's _temples blest.\n          While I do rest, my Soul advance;\n          Make my sleep a holy trance.\n          That I may, my rest being wrought,\n          Awake into some holy thought;\n          And with as active vigour run\n          My course, as doth the nimble Sun.\n          Sleep is a death; O make me try,\n          By sleeping, what it is to die;\n          And as gently lay my head\n          On my grave, as now my bed.\n          Howere I rest, great God, let me\n          Awake again at last with thee.\n          And this assur'd, behold I lie\n          Securely, or to awake or die.\n          These are my drowsie days; in vain\n          I do now wake to sleep again:\n          O come that hour, when I shall never\n          Sleep again, but wake for ever._\n\nThis is the Dormative I take to bedward; I need no other _Laudanum_ than\nthis to make me sleep; after which, I close mine eyes in security,\ncontent to take my leave of the Sun, and sleep unto the resurrection.\n\n\nSECT. 13\n\nThe method I should use in distributive Justice, I often observe in\ncommutative; and keep a Geometrical proportion in both; whereby becoming\nequable to others, I become unjust to my self, and supererogate in that\ncommon principle, _Do unto others as thou wouldst be done unto thy\nself_. I was not born unto riches, neither is it I think my Star to be\nwealthy; or if it were, the freedom of my mind, and frankness of my\ndisposition, were able to contradict and cross my fates. For to me\navarice seems not so much a vice, as a deplorable piece of madness; to\nconceive ourselves Urinals, or be perswaded that we are dead, is not so\nridiculous, nor so many degrees beyond the power of Hellebore, as this.\nThe opinion of Theory, and positions of men, are not so void of reason\nas their practised conclusions: some have held that Snow is black, that\nthe earth moves, that the Soul is air, fire, water; but all this is\nPhilosophy, and there is no _delirium_, if we do but speculate the folly\nand indisputable dotage of avarice, to that subterraneous Idol, and God\nof the Earth. I do confess I am an Atheist; I cannot perswade myself to\nhonour that the World adores; whatsoever virtue its prepared substance\nmay have within my body, it hath no influence nor operation without: I\nwould not entertain a base design, or an action that should call me\nvillain, for the Indies; and for this only do I love and honour my own\nsoul, and have methinks two arms too few to embrace myself. _Aristotle_\nis too severe, that will not allow us to be truely liberal without\nwealth, and the bountiful hand of Fortune; if this be true, I must\nconfess I am charitable only in my liberal intentions, and bountiful\nwell-wishes. But if the example of the Mite be not only an act of\nwonder, but an example of the noblest Charity, surely poor men may also\nbuild Hospitals, and the rich alone have not erected Cathedrals. I have\na private method which others observe not; I take the opportunity of my\nself to do good; I borrow occasion of Charity from mine own necessities,\nand supply the wants of others, when I am in most need my self; for it\nis an honest stratagem to make advantage of our selves, and so to\nhusband the acts of vertue, that where they were defective in one\ncircumstance, they may repay their want, and multiply their goodness in\nanother. I have not _Peru_ in my desires, but a competence, and ability\nto perform those good works to which he hath inclined my nature. He is\nrich, who hath enough to be charitable; and it is hard to be so poor,\nthat a noble mind may not find a way to this piece of goodness. _He that\ngiveth to the poor, lendeth to the Lord_; there is more Rhetorick in\nthat one sentence, than in a Library of Sermons; and indeed if those\nSentences were understood by the Reader, with the same Emphasis as they\nare delivered by the Author, we needed not those Volumes of\ninstructions, but might be honest by an Epitome. Upon this motive only\nI cannot behold a Beggar without relieving his Necessities with my\nPurse, or his Soul with my Prayers; these scenical and accidental\ndifferences between us, cannot make me forget that common and untoucht\npart of us both; there is under these _Cantoes_ and miserable outsides,\nthese mutilate and semi-bodies, a soul of the same alloy with our own,\nwhose Genealogy is God as well as ours, and in as fair a way to\nSalvation as our selves. Statists that labour to contrive a\nCommon-wealth without our poverty, take away the object of charity, not\nunderstanding only the Common-wealth of a Christian, but forgetting the\nprophecie of Christ.\n\n\nSECT. 14\n\nNow there is another part of charity, which is the Basis and Pillar of\nthis, and that is the love of God, for whom we love our neighbour; for\nthis I think charity, to love God for himself, and our neighbour for\nGod. All that is truly amiable is God, or as it were a divided piece of\nhim, that retains a reflex or shadow of himself. Nor is it strange that\nwe should place affection on that which is invisible; all that we truly\nlove is thus; what we adore under affection of our senses, deserves not\nthe honour of so pure a title. Thus we adore virtue, though to the eyes\nof sense she be invisible: thus that part of our noble friends that we\nlove, is not that part that we imbrace, but that insensible part that\nour arms cannot embrace. God being all goodness, can love nothing but\nhimself, and the traduction of his holy Spirit. Let us call to assize\nthe loves of our parents, the affection of our wives and children, and\nthey are all dumb shows and dreams, without reality, truth or constancy:\nfor first, there is a strong bond of affection between us and our\nParents; yet how easily dissolved? We betake our selves to a woman,\nforget our mother in a wife, and the womb that bare us, in that that\nshall bear our Image: this woman blessing us with children, our\naffection leaves the level it held before, and sinks from our bed unto\nour issue and picture of Posterity, where affection holds no steady\nmansion. They, growing up in years, desire our ends; or applying\nthemselves to a woman, take a lawful way to love another better than our\nselves. Thus I perceive a man may be buried alive, and behold his grave\nin his own issue.\n\n\nSECT. 15\n\nI conclude therefore and say, there is no happiness under (or as\n_Copernicus_ will have it, above) the Sun, nor any Crambe in that\nrepeated verity and burthen of all the wisdom of _Solomon, All is vanity\nand vexation of Spirit_. There is no felicity in that the World adores:\n_Aristotle_ whilst he labours to refute the Idea's of _Plato_, falls\nupon one himself: for his _summum bonum_ is a _Chimaera_, and there is no\nsuch thing as his Felicity. That wherein God himself is happy, the holy\nAngels are happy, in whose defect the Devils are unhappy; that dare I\ncall happiness: whatsoever conduceth unto this, may with an easy\nMetaphor deserve that name: whatsoever else the World terms Happiness,\nis to me a story out of _Pliny_, a tale of _Boccace_ or _Malizspini_; an\napparition or neat delusion, wherein there is no more of Happiness, than\nthe name. Bless me in this life with but peace of my Conscience, command\nof my affections, the love of thy self and my dearest friends, and I\nshall be happy enough to pity _Caesar_. These are, O Lord, the humble\ndesires of my most reasonable ambition, and all I dare call happiness\non earth; wherein I set no rule or limit to thy Hand or Providence;\ndispose of me according to the wisdom of thy pleasure. Thy will be done,\nthough in my own undoing.\n\nFINIS\n\n\n\n\n                         PSEUDODOXIA EPIDEMICA\n\n                              OR ENQUIRIES\n\n                         INTO VERY MANY RECEIVED\n\n                          TENENTS AND COMMONLY\n\n                            PRESUMED TRUTHS\n\n\n\n\nTO THE READER\n\n\n_Would Truth dispense, we could be content, with_ Plato, _that knowledge\nwere but remembrance; that intellectual acquisition were but\nreminiscential evocation, and new Impressions but the colouring of old\nstamps which stood pale in the soul before. For what is worse, knowledge\nis made by oblivion, and to purchase a clear and warrantable body of\nTruth, we must forget and part with much we know. Our tender Enquiries\ntaking up Learning at large, and together with true and assured notions,\nreceiving many, wherein our reviewing judgments do find no satisfaction.\nAnd therefore in this_ Encyclopaedie _and round of Knowledge, like the\ngreat and exemplary Wheels of Heaven, we must observe two Circles: that\nwhile we are daily carried about, and whirled on by the swing and rapt\nof the one, we may maintain a natural and proper course, in the slow and\nsober wheel of the other. And this we shall more readily perform, if we\ntimely survey our knowledge; impartially singling out those\nencroachments, which junior compliance and popular credulity hath\nadmitted. Whereof at present we have endeavoured a long and serious_\nAdviso; _proposing not only a large and copious List, but from\nexperience and reason attempting their decisions._\n\n_And first we crave exceeding pardon in the audacity of the Attempt,\nhumbly acknowledging a work of such concernment unto truth, and\ndifficulty in it self, did well deserve the conjunction of many heads.\nAnd surely more advantageous had it been unto Truth, to have fallen into\nthe endeavors of some co-operating advancers, that might have performed\nit to the life, and added authority thereto; which the privacy of our\ncondition, and unequal abilities cannot expect. Whereby notwithstanding\nwe have not been diverted; nor have our solitary attempts been so\ndiscouraged, as to dispair the favourable look of Learning upon our\nsingle and unsupported endeavours_.\n\n_Nor have we let fall our Pen, upon discouragement of Contradiction,\nUnbelief and Difficulty of disswasion from radicated beliefs, and points\nof high prescription, although we are very sensible, how hardly teaching\nyears do learn, what roots old age contracteth unto errors, and how such\nas are but acorns in our younger brows, grow Oaks in our elder heads,\nand become inflexible unto the powerfullest arm of reason. Although we\nhave also beheld, what cold requitals others have found in their several\nredemptions of Truth; and how their ingenuous Enquiries have been\ndismissed with censure, and obloquie of singularities_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Inspection of Urines._]\n\n_Some consideration we hope from the course of our Profession, which\nthough it leadeth us into many truths that pass undiscerned by others,\nyet doth it disturb their Communications, and much interrupt the office\nof our Pens in their well intended Transmissions. And therefore surely\nin this work attempts will exceed performances; it being composed by\nsnatches of time, as medical vacations, and the fruitless importunity\nof_ Uroscopy _would permit us. And therefore also, perhaps it hath not\nfound that regular and constant stile, those infallible experiments and\nthose assured determinations, which the subject sometime requireth, and\nmight be expected from others, whose quiet doors and unmolested hours\nafford no such distractions. Although whoever shall indifferently\nperpend the exceeding difficulty, which either the obscurity of the\nsubject, or unavoidable paradoxology must often put upon the Attemptor,\nhe will easily discern, a work of this nature is not to be performed\nupon one legg; and should smel of oyl, if duly and deservedly handled_.\n\n_Our first intentions considering the common interest of Truth, resolved\nto propose it unto the Latine republique and equal Judges of_ Europe,\n_but owing in the first place this service unto our Country, and therein\nespecially unto its ingenuous Gentry, we have declared our self in a\nlanguage best conceived. Although I confess the quality of the Subject\nwill sometimes carry us into expressions beyond meer English\napprehensions. And indeed, if elegancy still proceedeth, and English\nPens maintain that stream, we have of late observed to flow from many;\nwe shall within few years be fain to learn Latine to understand English,\nand a work will prove of equal facility in either. Nor have we addressed\nour Pen or Stile unto the people (whom Books do not redress, and are\nthis way incapable of reduction), but unto the knowing and leading part\nof Learning. As well understanding (at least probably hoping) except\nthey be watered from higher regions, and fructifying meteors of\nKnowledge, these weeds must lose their alimental sap, and wither of\nthemselves. Whose conserving influence, could our endeavours prevent; we\nshould trust the rest unto the sythe of_ Time, _and hopefull dominion of\nTruth_.\n\n[Sidenote: {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PSI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, _Athenaei_, lib. 7.]\n\n_We hope it will not be unconsidered, that we find no open tract, or\nconstant manuduction in this Labyrinth; but are oft-times fain to\nwander in the_ America _and untravelled parts of Truth. For though not\nmany years past, Dr._ Primrose _hath made a learned Discourse of vulgar\nErrors in Physick, yet have we discussed but two or three thereof._\nScipio Mercurii _hath also left an excellent tract in_ Italian,\n_concerning popular Errors; but confining himself only unto those in\nPhysick, he hath little conduced unto the generality of our doctrine._\nLaurentius Ioubertus, _by the same Title led our expectation into\nthoughts of great relief; whereby notwithstanding we reaped no\nadvantage; it answering scarce at all the promise of the inscription.\nNor perhaps (if it were yet extant) should we find any farther\nAssistance from that ancient piece of_ Andreas, _pretending the same\nTitle. And therefore we are often constrained to stand alone against the\nstrength of opinion, and to meet the_ Goliah _and Giant of Authority,\nwith contemptible pibbles, and feeble arguments, drawn from the scrip\nand slender stock of our selves. Nor have we indeed scarce named any\nAuthor whose name we do not honour; and if detraction could invite us,\ndiscretion surely would contain us from any derogatory intention, where\nhighest Pens and friendliest eloquence must fail in commendation_.\n\n_And therefore also we cannot but hope the equitable considerations, and\ncandour of reasonable minds. We cannot expect the frown of_ Theology\n_herein; nor can they which behold the present state of things, and\ncontroversie of points so long received in Divinity, condemn our sober\nEnquiries in the doubtfull appertinancies of Arts, and Receptaries of\nPhilosophy. Surely Philologers and Critical Discoursers, who look beyond\nthe shell and obvious exteriours of things, will not be angry with our\nnarrower explorations. And we cannot doubt, our Brothers in Physick\n(whose knowledge in Naturals will lead them into a nearer apprehension\nof many things delivered) will friendly accept, if not countenance our\nendeavours. Nor can we conceive it may be unwelcome unto those honoured\nWorthies, who endeavour the advancement of Learning: as being likely to\nfind a clearer progression, when so many rubs are levelled, and many\nuntruths taken off, which passing as principles with common beliefs,\ndisturb the tranquility of Axioms, which otherwise might be raised. And\nwise men cannot but know, that arts and learning want this expurgation:\nand if the course of truth be permitted unto its self, like that of time\nand uncorrected computations, it cannot escape many errors, which\nduration still enlargeth_.\n\n_Lastly, we are not Magisterial in opinions, nor have we Dictator-like\nobtruded our conceptions; but in the humility of Enquiries or\ndisquisitions, have only proposed them unto more ocular discerners. And\ntherefore opinions are free, and open it is for any to think or declare\nthe contrary. And we shall so far encourage contradiction, as to promise\nno disturbance, or re-oppose any Pen, that shall fallaciously or\ncaptiously refute us_; _that shall only lay hold of our lapses, single\nout Digressions, Corollaries, or Ornamental conceptions, to evidence his\nown in as indifferent truths. And shall only take notice of such, whose\nexperimental and judicious knowledge shall solemnly look upon it; not\nonly to destroy of ours, but to establish of his own; not to traduce or\nextenuate, but to explain and dilucidate, to add and ampliate, according\nto the laudable custom of the Ancients in their sober promotions of\nLearning. Unto whom notwithstanding, we shall not contentiously rejoin,\nor only to justifie our own, but to applaud or confirm his maturer\nassertions; and shall confer what is in us unto his name and honour;\nReady to be swallowed in any worthy enlarger: as having acquired our\nend, if any way, or under any name we may obtain a work, so much\ndesired, and yet desiderated of Truth._\n\n                                                      _THOMAS BROWN._\n\n\n\n\nTHE POSTSCRIPT\n\n\nReaders,\n\n_To enform you of the Advantages of the present Impression, and disabuse\nyour expectations of any future Enlargements; these are to advertise\nthee, that this Edition comes forth with very many Explanations,\nAdditions, and Alterations throughout, besides that of one entire\nChapter: But that now this Work is compleat and perfect, expect no\nfurther Additions._\n\n\n\n\nTHE FIRST BOOK\n\nOR GENERAL PART\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nOf the Causes of Common Errors.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The Introduction._]\n\nThe First and Father-cause of common Error, is, The common infirmity of\nHuman Nature; of whose deceptible condition, although perhaps there\nshould not need any other eviction, than the frequent Errors we shall\nour selves commit, even in the express declarement hereof: yet shall we\nillustrate the same from more infallible constitutions, and persons\npresumed as far from us in condition, as time, that is, our first and\ningenerated forefathers. From whom as we derive our Being, and the\nseveral wounds of constitution; so, may we in some manner excuse our\ninfirmities in the depravity of those parts, whose Traductions were pure\nin them, and their Originals but once removed from God. Who\nnotwithstanding (if posterity may take leave to judge of the fact, as\nthey are assured to suffer in the punishment) were grossly deceived, in\ntheir perfection; and so weakly deluded in the clarity of their\nunderstanding, that it hath left no small obscurity in ours, How error\nshould gain upon them.\n\n[Sidenote: _Matter of great dispute, how our first parents could be so\ndeceived._]\n\nFor first, They were deceived by Satan; and that not in an invisible\ninsinuation; but an open and discoverable apparition, that is, in the\nform of a Serpent; whereby although there were many occasions of\nsuspition, and such as could not easily escape a weaker circumspection,\nyet did the unwary apprehension of _Eve_ take no advantage thereof. It\nhath therefore seemed strange unto some, she should be deluded by a\nSerpent, or subject her reason to a beast, which God had subjected unto\nhers. It hath empuzzled the enquiries of others to apprehend, and\nenforced them unto strange conceptions, to make out, how without fear or\ndoubt she could discourse with such a creature, or hear a Serpent speak,\nwithout suspition of Imposture. The wits of others have been so bold, as\nto accuse her simplicity, in receiving his Temptation so coldly; and\nwhen such specious effects of the Fruit were Promised, as to make them\nlike God; not to desire, at least not to wonder he pursued not that\nbenefit himself. And had it been their own case, would perhaps have\nreplied, If the tast of this Fruit maketh the eaters like _Gods_, why\nremainest thou a Beast? If it maketh us but _like Gods_, we are so\nalready. If thereby our eyes shall be opened hereafter, they are at\npresent quick enough, to discover thy deceit; and we desire them no\nopener, to behold our own shame. If to know good and evil be our\nadvantage, although we have Free-will unto both, we desire to perform\nbut one; We know 'tis good to obey the commandement of God, but evil if\nwe transgress it.\n\n[Sidenote: Adam _supposed by some to have been the wisest man that ever\nwas._]\n\nThey were deceived by one another, and in the greatest disadvantage of\nDelusion, that is, the stronger by the weaker: For _Eve_ presented the\nFruit, and _Adam_ received it from her. Thus the _Serpent_ was cunning\nenough, to begin the deceit in the weaker, and the weaker of strength,\nsufficient to consummate the fraud in the stronger. Art and fallacy was\nused unto her; a naked offer proved sufficient unto him: So his\nsuperstruction was his Ruine, and the fertility of his Sleep an issue of\nDeath unto him. And although the condition of Sex, and posteriority of\nCreation, might somewhat extenuate the Error of the Woman: Yet was it\nvery strange and inexcusable in the Man; especially, if as some affirm,\nhe was the wisest of all men since; or if, as others have conceived, he\nwas not ignorant of the Fall of the Angels, and had thereby Example and\npunishment to deterr him.\n\n[Sidenote: Adam _and_ Eve _how they fell._]\n\nThey were deceived from themselves, and their own apprehensions; for\n_Eve_ either mistook, or traduced the commandment of God. _Of every Tree\nof the Garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the Tree of knowledge of\ngood and evil thou shalt not eat: for in the day thou eatest thereof,\nthou shall surely die._ Now _Eve_ upon the question of the _Serpent_,\nreturned the Precept in different terms: _You shall not eat of it,\nneither shall you touch it, less perhaps you die._ In which delivery,\nthere were no less than two mistakes, or rather additional mendacities;\nfor the Commandment forbad not the touch of the Fruit; and positively\nsaid, _Ye shall surely die_: but she extenuating, replied, _ne forte\nmoriamini, lest perhaps ye die_. For so in the vulgar translation it\nrunneth, and so it is expressed in the _Thargum_ or Paraphrase of\n_Jonathan_. And therefore although it be said, and that very truely,\n_that the Devil was a lyer from the beginning_, yet was the Woman herein\nthe first express beginner: and falsified twice, before the reply of\n_Satan_. And therefore also, to speak strictly, the sin of the Fruit was\nnot the first Offence: They first transgressed the Rule of their own\nReason; and after the Commandment of God.\n\nThey were deceived through the Conduct of their Senses, and by\nTemptations from the Object it self; whereby although their\nintellectuals had not failed in the Theory of truth, yet did the\ninservient and brutal Faculties controll the suggestion of Reason:\nPleasure and Profit already overswaying the instructions of Honesty, and\nSensuality perturbing the reasonable commands of Vertue. For so it is\ndelivered in the Text: That when the Woman saw, _that the Tree was good\nfor food_, and _that it was pleasant unto the eye_, and _a Tree to be\ndesired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat_.\nNow hereby it appeareth, that _Eve_, before the Fall, was by the same\nand beaten away of allurements inveigled, whereby her posterity hath\nbeen deluded ever since; that is, those three delivered by St. _John,\nThe lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life_:\nWhere indeed they seemed as weakly to fail, as their debilitated\nposterity, ever after. Whereof notwithstanding, some in their\nimperfection, have resisted more powerful temptations; and in many\nmoralities condemned the facility of their seductions.\n\n[Sidenote: Adam _whence (probably) induced to eat._]\n\n[Sidenote: _Whether_ Cain _intended to kill_ Abel.]\n\nAgain, they might, for ought we know, be still deceived in the unbelief\nof their Mortality, even after they had eat of the Fruit: For, _Eve_\nobserving no immediate execution of the Curse, she delivered the Fruit\nunto _Adam_: who, after the tast thereof, perceiving himself still to\nlive, might yet remain in doubt, whether he had incurred Death; which\nperhaps he did not indubitably believe, until he was after convicted in\nthe visible example of _Abel_. For he that would not believe the Menace\nof God at first, it may be doubted whether, before an ocular example, he\nbelieved the Curse at last. And therefore they are not without all\nreason, who have disputed the Fact of _Cain_: that is, although he\npurposed to do mischief, whether he intended to kill his Brother; or\ndesigned that, whereof he had not beheld an example in his own kind.\nThere might be somewhat in it, that he would not have done, or desired\nundone, when he brake forth as desperately, as before he had done\nuncivilly, _My iniquity is greater than can be forgiven me_.\n\n[Sidenote: _The_ Thalmudist's _Allegories upon the History of_ Adam\n_and_ Eve's _Fall._]\n\nSome nicities I confess there are which extenuate, but many more that\naggravate this Delusion; which exceeding the bounds of this Discourse,\nand perhaps our Satisfaction, we shall at present pass over. And\ntherefore whether the Sin of our First Parents were the greatest of any\nsince; whether the transgression of _Eve_ seducing, did not exceed that\nof _Adam_ seduced; or whether the resistibility of his Reason, did not\nequivalence the facility of her Seduction; we shall refer it to the\n_Schoolman_; Whether there was not in _Eve_ as great injustice in\ndeceiving her husband, as imprudence in being deceived her self;\nespecially, if foretasting the Fruit, her eyes were opened before his,\nand she knew the effect of it, before he tasted of it; we leave it unto\nthe _Moralist_. Whether the whole relation be not Allegorical, that is,\nwhether the temptation of the Man by the Woman, be not the seduction of\nthe rational and higher parts by the inferiour and feminine faculties;\nor whether the Tree in the midst of the Garden, were not that part in\nthe Center of the body, in which was afterward the appointment of\nCircumcision in Males, we leave it unto the _Thalmudist_. Whether there\nwere any Policy in the Devil to tempt them before the Conjunction, or\nwhether the Issue before tentation, might in justice have suffered with\nthose after, we leave it unto the _Lawyer_. Whether _Adam_ foreknew the\nadvent of Christ, or the reparation of his Error by his Saviour; how the\nexecution of the Curse should have been ordered, if, after _Eve_ had\neaten, _Adam_ had yet refused. Whether if they had tasted the Tree of\nlife, before that of Good and Evil, they had yet suffered the curse of\nMortality: or whether the efficacy of the one had not over-powred the\npenalty of the other, we leave it unto GOD. For he alone can truly\ndetermine these, and all things else; Who as he hath proposed the World\nunto our disputation, so hath he reserved many things unto his own\nresolution; whose determination we cannot hope from flesh, but must with\nreverence suspend unto that great Day, whose justice shall either\ncondemn our curiosities, or resolve our disquisitions.\n\nLastly, Man was not only deceivable in his Integrity, but the Angels of\nlight in all their Clarity. He that said, He would be like the highest\ndid erre, if in some way he conceived himself so already: but in\nattempting so high an effect from himself, he mis-understood the nature\nof God, and held a false apprehension of his own; whereby vainly\nattempting not only insolencies, but impossibilities, he deceived\nhimself as low as Hell. In brief, there is nothing infallible but GOD,\nwho cannot possibly erre. For things are really true as they correspond\nunto his conception; and have so much verity as they hold of conformity\nunto that Intellect, in whose _Idea_ they had their first\ndeterminations. And therefore being the Rule, he cannot be Irregular;\nnor, being Truth it self, conceaveably admit the impossible society of\nError.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nA further Illustration of the same.\n\n\nBeing thus deluded before the Fall, it is no wonder if their conceptions\nwere deceitful, and could scarce speak without an Error after. For, what\nis very remarkable (and no man that I know hath yet observed) in the\nrelations of Scripture before the Flood, there is but one speech\ndelivered by Man, wherein there is not an erroneous conception; and,\nstrictly examined, most hainously injurious unto truth. The pen of\n_Moses_ is brief in the account before the Flood, and the speeches\nrecorded are but six. The first is that of _Adam_, when upon the\nexpostulation of God, he replied; _I heard thy voice in the Garden, and\nbecause I was naked I hid my self_. In which reply, there was included a\nvery gross Mistake, and, if with pertinacity maintained, a high and\ncapital Error. For thinking by this retirement to obscure himself from\nGod, he infringed the omnisciency and essential Ubiquity of his Maker,\nWho as he created all things, so is he beyond and in them all, not only\nin power, as under his subjection, or in his presence, as being in his\ncognition; but in his very Essence, as being the soul of their\ncausalities, and the essential cause of their existencies. Certainly,\nhis posterity at this distance and after so perpetuated an impairment,\ncannot but condemn the poverty of his conception, that thought to\nobscure himself from his Creator in the shade of the Garden, who had\nbeheld him before in the darkness of his Chaos, and the great obscurity\nof Nothing; that thought to fly from God, which could not fly himself;\nor imagined that one tree should conceal his nakedness from Gods eye, as\nanother had revealed it unto his own. Those tormented Spirits that wish\nthe mountains to cover them, have fallen upon desires of minor\nabsurdity, and chosen ways of less improbable concealment. Though this\nbe also as ridiculous unto reason, as fruitless unto their desires; for\nhe that laid the foundations of the Earth, cannot be excluded the\nsecrecy of the Mountains; nor can there any thing escape the\nperspicacity of those eyes which were before light, and in whose opticks\nthere is no opacity. This is the consolation of all good men, unto whom\nhis Ubiquity affordeth continual comfort and security: And this is the\naffliction of Hell, unto whom it affordeth despair, and remediless\ncalamity. For those restless Spirits that fly the face of the Almighty,\nbeing deprived the fruition of his eye, would also avoid the extent of\nhis hand; which being impossible, their sufferings are desperate, and\ntheir afflictions without evasion; until they can get out of\n_Trismegistus_ his Circle, that is, to extend their wings above the\nUniverse, and pitch beyond Ubiquity.\n\nThe Second is that Speech of _Adam_ unto God; _The woman whom thou\ngavest me to be with me, she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat_. This\nindeed was an unsatisfactory reply, and therein was involved a very\nimpious Error, as implying God the Author of sin, and accusing his Maker\nof his transgression. As if he had said, If thou hadst not given me a\nwoman, I had not been deceived: Thou promisedst to make her a help, but\nshe hath proved destruction unto me: Had I remained alone, I had not\nsinned; but thou gavest me a Consort, and so I became seduced. This was\na bold and open accusation of God, making the fountain of good, the\ncontriver of evil, and the forbidder of the crime an abettor of the\nfact prohibited. Surely, his mercy was great that did not revenge the\nimpeachment of his justice; And his goodness to be admired, that it\nrefuted not his argument in the punishment of his excusation, and only\npursued the first transgression without a penalty of this the second.\n\nThe third was that of _Eve; The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat_. In\nwhich reply, there was not only a very feeble excuse, but an erroneous\ntranslating her own offence upon another; Extenuating her sin from that\nwhich was an aggravation, that is, to excuse the Fact at all, much more\nupon the suggestion of a beast, which was before in the strictest terms\nprohibited by her God. For although we now do hope the mercies of God\nwill consider our degenerated integrities unto some minoration of our\noffences; yet had not the sincerity of our first parents so colourable\nexpectations, unto whom the commandment was but single, and their\nintegrities best able to resist the motions of its transgression. And\ntherefore so heinous conceptions have risen hereof, that some have\nseemed more angry therewith, than God himself: Being so exasperated with\nthe offence, as to call in question their salvation, and to dispute the\neternal punishment of their Maker. Assuredly with better reason may\nposterity accuse them than they the Serpent or one another; and the\ndispleasure of the _Pelagians_ must needs be irreconcilable, who\nperemptorily maintaining they can fulfil the whole Law, will\ninsatisfactorily condemn the non-observation of one.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Devill knew not our Saviour to be God when he tempted\nhim._]\n\nThe fourth, was that speech of _Cain_ upon the demand of God, _Where is\nthy brother?_ and he said, _I know not_. In which Negation, beside the\nopen impudence, there was implied a notable Error; for returning a lie\nunto his Maker, and presuming in this manner to put off the Searcher of\nhearts, he denied the omnisciency of God, whereunto there is nothing\nconcealable. The answer of Satan in the case of _Job_, had more of\ntruth, wisdom, and Reverence, this; _Whence comest thou Satan?_ and he\nsaid, _From compassing of the Earth_. For though an enemy of God, and\nhater of all Truth, his wisdom will hardly permit him to falsifie with\nthe All-mighty. For well understanding the Omniscience of his nature, he\nis not so ready to deceive himself, as to falsifie unto him whose\ncognition is no way deludable. And therefore when in the tentation of\nChrist he played upon the fallacy, and thought to deceive the Author of\nTruth, the Method of this proceeding arose from the uncertainty of his\nDivinity; whereof had he remained assured, he had continued silent; nor\nwould his discretion attempt so unsucceedable a temptation. And so again\nat the last day, when our offences shall be drawn into accompt, the\nsubtilty of that Inquisitor shall not present unto God a bundle of\ncalumnies or confutable accusations, but will discreetly offer up unto\nhis Omnisciency, a true and undeniable list of our transgressions.\n\nThe fifth is another reply of _Cain_ upon the denouncement of his curse,\n_My iniquity is greater then can be forgiven_: For so it is expressed in\nsome Translations. The assertion was not only desperate, but the conceit\nerroneous, overthrowing that glorious Attribute of God, his Mercy, and\nconceiving the sin of murder unpardonable. Which how great soever, is\nnot above the repentance of man; but far below the mercies of God, and\nwas (as some conceive) expiated in that punishment he suffered\ntemporally for it. There are but two examples of this error in holy\nScripture, and they both for Murder, and both as it were of the same\nperson; for Christ was mystically slain in _Abel_, and therefore _Cain_\nhad some influence on his death as well as _Judas_; but the sin had a\ndifferent effect on _Cain_, from that it had on _Judas_; and most that\nsince have fallen into it. For they like _Judas_ desire death, and not\nunfrequently pursue it: _Cain_ on the contrary grew afraid thereof, and\nobtained a securement from it. Assuredly, if his despair continued,\nthere was punishment enough in life, and Justice sufficient in the mercy\nof his protection. For the life of the desperate equalls the anxieties\nof death; who in uncessant inquietudes but act the life of the damned,\nand anticipate the desolations of Hell. 'Tis indeed a sin in man, but a\npunishment only in Devils, who offend not God but afflict themselves, in\nthe appointed despair of his mercies. And as to be without hope is the\naffliction of the damned, so is it the happiness of the blessed; who\nhaving all their expectations present, are not distracted with\nfuturities: So is it also their felicity to have no Faith; for enjoying\nthe beatifical vision, there is nothing unto them inevident; and in the\nfruition of the object of Faith, they have received the full evacuation\nof it.\n\n[Sidenote: Cain, _as the Rabbins think, was the man slain by_ Lamech,\n_Gen. 4, 23._]\n\nThe last speech was that of _Lamech, I have slain a man to my wound, and\na young man in my hurt_: If _Cain_ be avenged seven fold, truly _Lamech_\nseventy and seven fold. Now herein there seems to be a very erroneous\nIllation: from the Indulgence of God unto _Cain_, concluding an immunity\nunto himself; that is, a regular protection from a single example, and\nan exemption from punishment in a fact that naturally deserved it. The\nError of this offender was contrary to that of _Cain_, whom the\n_Rabbins_ conceive that _Lamech_ at this time killed. He despaired in\nGods mercy in the same Fact, where this presumed of it; he by a\ndecollation of all hope annihilated his mercy, this by an immoderancy\nthereof destroyed his Justice. Though the sin were less, the Error was\nas great; For as it is untrue, that his mercy will not forgive\noffenders, or his benignity co-operate to their conversions; So is it\nalso of no less falsity to affirm His justice will not exact account of\nsinners, or punish such as continue in their transgressions.\n\nThus may we perceive, how weakly our fathers did Erre before the Floud,\nhow continually and upon common discourse they fell upon Errors after;\nit is therefore no wonder we have been erroneous ever since. And being\nnow at greatest distance from the beginning of Error, are almost lost in\nits dissemination, whose waies are boundless, and confess no\ncircumscription.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nOf the second cause of Popular Errors; the erroneous disposition of the\nPeople.\n\n\nHaving thus declared the infallible nature of Man even from his first\nproduction, we have beheld the general cause of Error. But as for\npopular Errors, they are more neerly founded upon an erroneous\ninclination of the people; as being the most deceptable part of Mankind\nand ready with open armes to receive the encroachments of Error. Which\ncondition of theirs although deducible from many Grounds, yet shall we\nevidence it but from a few, and such as most neerly and undeniably\ndeclare their natures.\n\nHow unequal discerners of truth they are, and openly exposed unto\nError, will first appear from their unqualified intellectuals, unable to\numpire the difficulty of its dissensions. For Error, to speak largely,\nis a false judgment of things, or, an assent unto falsity. Now whether\nthe object whereunto they deliver up their assent be true or false, they\nare incompetent judges.\n\nFor the assured truth of things is derived from the principles of\nknowledge, and causes which determine their verities. Whereof their\nuncultivated understandings, scarce holding any theory, they are but bad\ndiscerners of verity; and in the numerous track of Error, but casually\ndo hit the point and unity of truth.\n\n[Sidenote: _Arguments of sensitive quality most prevailing upon vulgar\ncapacities._]\n\nTheir understanding is so feeble in the discernment of falsities, and\naverting the Errors of reason, that it submitteth unto the fallacies of\nsense, and is unable to rectifie the Error of its sensations. Thus the\ngreater part of Mankind having but one eye of Sense and Reason, conceive\nthe Earth far bigger than the Sun, the fixed Stars lesser than the Moon,\ntheir figures plain, and their spaces from Earth equidistant. For thus\ntheir Sense informeth them, and herein their reason cannot Rectifie\nthem; and therefore hopelesly continuing in mistakes, they live and die\nin their absurdities; passing their days in perverted apprehensions, and\nconceptions of the World, derogatory unto God, and the wisdom of the\nCreation.\n\nAgain, being so illiterate in the point of intellect, and their sense so\nincorrected, they are farther indisposed ever to attain unto truth; as\ncommonly proceeding in those wayes, which have most reference unto\nsense, and wherein there lyeth most notable and popular delusion.\n\nFor being unable to wield the intellectuall arms of reason, they are\nfain to betake themselves unto wasters, and the blunter weapons of\ntruth: affecting the gross and sensible ways of Doctrine, and such as\nwill not consist with strict and subtile Reason. [SN: _Fable._] Thus\nunto them a piece of Rhetorick is a sufficient argument of Logick; an\nApologue of _Esop_, beyond a Syllogysm in _Barbara_; parables than\npropositions, and proverbs more powerful than demonstrations. And\ntherefore are they led rather by Example, than Precept; receiving\nperswasions from visible inducements, before electual instructions. And\ntherefore also they judge of human actions by the event; for being\nuncapable of operable circumstances, or rightly to judge the\nprudentiality of affairs, they only gaze upon the visible success, and\ntherefore condemn or cry up the whole progression. And so from this\nground in the Lecture of holy Scripture, their apprehensions are\ncommonly confined unto the literal sense of the Text, from whence have\nensued the gross and duller sort of Heresies. For not attaining the\ndeuteroscopy, and second intention of the words, they are fain to omit\nthe Superconsequencies, Coherencies, Figures, or Tropologies; and are\nnot sometime perswaded by fire beyond their literalities. And therefore\nalso things invisible, but into intellectual discernments, to humour the\ngrossness of their comprehensions, have been degraded from their proper\nforms, and God Himself dishonoured into manual expressions. And so\nlikewise being unprovided, or unsufficient for higher speculations, they\nwill alwayes betake themselves unto sensible representations, and can\nhardly be restrained the dulness of Idolatry: A sin or folly not only\nderogatory unto God but men; overthrowing their Reason, as well as his\nDivinity. In brief, a reciprocation, or rather, an inversion of the\nCreation, making God one way, as he made us another; that is, after our\nImage, as he made us after His own.\n\nMoreover, their understanding thus weak in it self, and perverted by\nsensible delusions, is yet farther impaired by the dominion of their\nappetite; that is, the irrational and brutal part of the soul, which\nlording it over the soveraign faculty, interrupts the actions of that\nnoble part, and choaks those tender sparks, which _Adam_ hath left them\nof reason. And therefore they do not only swarm with Errors, but vices\ndepending thereon. Thus they commonly affect no man any further than he\ndeserts his reason, or complies with their aberrancies. Hence they\nimbrace not vertue for it self, but its reward; and the argument from\npleasure or Utility is far more powerful, than that from vertuous\nHonesty: which _Mahomet_ and his contrivers well understood, when he set\nout the felicity of his Heaven, by the contentments of flesh, and the\ndelights of sense, slightly passing over the accomplishment of the Soul,\nand the beatitude of that part which Earth and visibilities too weakly\naffect. But the wisdom of our Saviour, and the simplicity of his truth\nproceeded another way; defying the popular provisions of happiness from\nsensible expectations; placing his felicity in things removed from\nsense, and the intellectual enjoyment of God. And therefore the doctrine\nof the one was never afraid of Universities, or endeavoured the\nbanishment of learning, like the other. And though _Galen_ doth\nsometimes nibble at _Moses_, and, beside the Apostate Christian, [SN:\n_Julian._] some _Heathens_ have questioned his Philosophical part, or\ntreaty of the Creation: Yet is there surely no reasonable _Pagan_, that\nwill not admire the rational and well grounded precepts of Christ; whose\nlife, as it was conformable unto his Doctrine, so was that unto the\nhighest rules of Reason; and must therefore flourish in the advancement\nof learning, and the perfection of parts best able to comprehend it.\n\n[Sidenote: Non sani esse hominis, non sanus juret Orestes.]\n\nAgain, Their individual imperfections being great, they are moreover\nenlarged by their aggregation; and being erroneous in their single\nnumbers, once hudled together, they will be Error it self. For being a\nconfusion of knaves and fools, and a farraginous concurrence of all\nconditions, tempers, sexes, and ages; it is but natural if their\ndeterminations be monstrous, and many wayes inconsistent with Truth. And\ntherefore wise men have alwaies applauded their own judgment, in the\ncontradiction of that of the people; and their soberest adversaries,\nhave ever afforded them the stile of fools and mad men; and, to speak\nimpartially, their actions have made good these _Epithets_. Had\n_Orestes_ been Judge, he would not have acquitted that _Lystrian_ rabble\nof madness, who, upon a visible miracle, falling into so high a conceit\nof _Paul_ and _Barnabas_, that they termed the one _Jupiter_, the other\n_Mercurius_; that they brought Oxen and Garlands, and were hardly\nrestrained from sacrificing unto them; did notwithstanding suddenly\nafter fall upon _Paul_, and having stoned him drew him for dead out of\nthe City. It might have hazarded the sides of _Democritus_, had he been\npresent at that tumult of _Demetrius_; when the people flocking together\nin great numbers, some crying one thing, and some another, and the\nassembly was confused, and the most part knew not wherefore they were\ncome together; notwithstanding, all with one voice for the space of two\nhours cried out, Great is _Diana_ of the _Ephesians_. It had overcome\nthe patience of _Job_, as it did the meekness of _Moses_, and would\nsurely have mastered any, but the longanimity, and lasting sufferance of\nGod; had they beheld the Mutiny in the wilderness, when, after ten\ngreat Miracles in _Egypt_, and some in the same place, they melted down\ntheir stoln ear-rings into a Calf, and monstrously cryed out; _These are\nthy Gods_, O Israel, _that brought thee out of the land_ of Egypt. It\nmuch accuseth the impatience of _Peter_, who could not endure the staves\nof the multitude, and is the greatest example of lenity in our Saviour,\nwhen he desired of God forgiveness unto those, who having one day\nbrought him into the City in triumph, did presently after, act all\ndishonour upon him, and nothing could be heard but, _Crucifige_, in\ntheir Courts. Certainly he that considereth these things in God's\npeculiar people will easily discern how little of truth there is in the\nwayes of the Multitude; and though sometimes they are flattered with\nthat _Aphorism_, will hardly believe, The voice of the people to be the\nvoice of God.\n\nLastly, being thus divided from truth in themselves, they are yet\nfarther removed by advenient deception. For true it is (and I hope I\nshall not offend their vulgarities,) if I say, they are daily mocked\ninto Error by subtler devisors, and have been expressly deluded by all\nprofessions and ages. Thus the _Priests_ of Elder time, have put upon\nthem many incredible conceits, not only deluding their apprehensions\nwith Ariolation, South-saying, and such oblique Idolatries, but winning\ntheir credulities unto the literal and down right adorement of Cats,\nLizzards, and Beetles. And thus also in some Christian Churches, wherein\nis presumed an irreprovable truth, if all be true that is suspected, or\nhalf what is related; there have not wanted many strange deceptions, and\nsome thereof are still confessed by the name of Pious Frauds. Thus\n_Theudas_ an Impostor was able to lead away Four thousand into the\nWilderness. and the delusions of _Mahomet_ almost the fourth part of\nMankind. Thus all Heresies, how gross soever, have found a welcome with\nthe people. For thus, many of the Jews were wrought into belief that\n_Herod_ was the _Messias_; and _David George_ of _Leyden and Arden_,\nwere not without a party amongst the people, who maintained the same\nopinion of themselves almost in our days.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Author's Censure upon Judgment by Urine._]\n\nPhysitians (many at least that make profession thereof) beside divers\nless discoverable wayes of fraud, have made them believe, there is the\nbook of fate, or the power of _Aarons_ breast-plate, in Urins. And\ntherefore hereunto they have recourse, as unto the Oracle of life, the\ngreat determinator of Virginity, Conception, Fertility, and the\nInscrutable infirmities of the whole Body. For as though there were a\nseminality in Urine, or that, like the Seed, it carried with it the\n_Idea_ of every part, they foolishly conceive, we visibly behold therein\nthe Anatomy of every particle, and can thereby indigitate their\nDiseases: And running into any demands, expect from us a sudden\nresolution in things, whereon the Devil of _Delphos_ would demurr; and\nwe know hath taken respite of some dayes to answer easier questions.\n\n[Sidenote: _Places in_ Venice _and_ Paris, _where Mountebanks play their\npranks._]\n\n_Saltimbancoes_, _Quacksalvers_, and _Charlatans_, deceive them in lower\ndegrees. Were _Esop_ alive, the _Piazza_ and _Pont-Neuf_ could not but\nspeak their fallacies; mean while there are too many, whose cries cannot\nconceal their mischief. For their Impostures are full of cruelty, and\nworse than any other; deluding not only unto pecuniary defraudations,\nbut the irreparable deceit of death.\n\n_Astrologers_, which pretend to be of _Cabala_ with the Starrs (such I\nmean as abuse that worthy Enquiry) have not been wanting in their\ndeceptions; who having won their belief unto principles whereof they\nmake great doubt themselves, have made them believe that arbitrary\nevents below, have necessary causes, above; whereupon their credulities\nassent unto any Prognosticks; and daily swallow the Predictions of men,\nwhich, considering the independency of their causes, and contigency in\ntheir Events, are only in the prescience of God.\n\nFortune-tellers, Juglers, Geomancers, and the like incantory Impostors,\nthough commonly men of Inferiour rank, and from whom without\nIllumination they can expect no more than from themselves, do daily and\nprofessedly delude them. Unto whom (what is deplorable in Men and\nChristians) too many applying themselves, betwixt jest and earnest,\nbetray the cause of Truth, and sensibly make up the legionary body of\nError.\n\n[Sidenote: _The people of_ Rome, _why never suffered to know the right\nname of their City._]\n\n_Statists_ and _Politicians_, unto whom _Ragione di Stato_, is the first\nConsiderable, as though it were their business to deceive the people, as\na Maxim, do hold, that truth is to be concealed from them; unto whom\nalthough they reveal the visible design, yet do they commonly conceal\nthe capital intention. And therefore have they ever been the instruments\nof great designes, yet seldom understood the true intention of any,\naccomplishing the drifts of wiser heads, as inanimate and ignorant\nAgents, the general design of the World; who though in some Latitude of\nsense, and in a natural cognition perform their proper actions, yet do\nthey unknowingly concurr unto higher ends, and blindly advance the great\nintention of Nature. Now how far they may be kept in ignorance a greater\nexample there is in the people of _Rome_; who never knew the true and\nproper name of their own City. For, beside that common appellation\nreceived by the Citizens, it had a proper and secret name concealed from\nthem: _Cujus alterum nomen discere secretis Ceremoniarum nefas habetur_,\nsaith _Plinie_; lest the name thereof being discovered unto their\nenemies, their _Penates_ and Patronal God might be called forth by\ncharms and incantations. For according unto the tradition of\n_Magitians_, the tutelary Spirits will not remove at common\nappellations, but at the proper names of things whereunto they are\nProtectors.\n\nThus having been deceived by themselves, and continually deluded by\nothers, they must needs be stuffed with Errors, and even over-run with\nthese inferiour falsities; whereunto whosoever shall resign their\nreasons, either from the Root of deceit in themselves, or inability to\nresist such trivial deceptions from others, although their condition and\nfortunes may place them many Spheres above the multitude; yet are they\nstill within the line of Vulgarity, and Democratical enemies of truth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\n     Of the nearer and more Immediate Causes of popular Errors, both in\n     the wiser and common sort, Misapprehension, Fallacy, or false\n     Deduction, Credulity, Supinity, Adherence unto Antiquity, Tradition\n     and Authority.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The belief of_ Centaures _whence occasioned._]\n\nThe first is a mistake, or a misconception of things, either in their\nfirst apprehensions, or secondary relations. So _Eve_ mistook the\nCommandment, either from the immediate injunction of God, or from the\nsecondary narration of her Husband. So might the Disciples mistake our\nSaviour, in his answer unto _Peter_ concerning the death of _John_, as\nis delivered, _John_ 21. Peter _seeing_ John, _said unto_ Jesus, _Lord,\nand what shall this man do?_ Jesus _saith, If I will, that he tarry till\nI come, what is that unto thee? Then went this saying abroad among the\nbrethren, that that Disciple should not die._ Thus began the conceit and\nopinion of the _Centaures_: that is, in the mistake of the first\nbeholders, as is declared by _Servius_; when some young _Thessalians_ on\nhorseback were beheld afar off, while their horses watered, that is,\nwhile their heads were depressed, they were conceived by the first\nSpectators, to be but one animal; and answerable hereunto have their\npictures been drawn ever since.\n\n[Sidenote: _Equivocation and Amphibologie, how they differ._]\n\n[Sidenote: Pythagoras, _his Allegorical precepts moralized._]\n\nAnd, as simple mistakes commonly beget fallacies, so men rest not in\nfalse apprehensions, without absurd and inconsequent deductions; from\nfallacious foundations, and misapprehended _mediums_, erecting\nconclusions no way inferrible from their premises. Now the fallacies\nwhereby men deceive others, and are deceived themselves, the Ancients\nhave divided into Verbal and Real. Of the Verbal, and such as conclude\nfrom mistakes of the Word, although there be no less than six, yet are\nthere but two thereof worthy our notation, and unto which the rest may\nbe referred; that is the fallacy of Equivocation and Amphibology which\nconclude from the ambiguity of some one word, or the ambiguous Syntaxis\nof many put together. From this fallacy arose that calamitous Error of\nthe Jews, misapprehending the Prophesies of their _Messias_, and\nexpounding them alwayes unto literal and temporal expectations. By this\nway many Errors crept in and perverted the Doctrine of _Pythagoras_,\nwhilst men received his Precepts in a different sense from his\nintention; converting Metaphors into proprieties, and receiving as\nliteral expressions, obscure and involved truths. Thus when he enjoyned\nhis Disciples, an abstinence from Beans, many conceived they were with\nseverity debarred the use of that pulse; which notwithstanding could not\nbe his meaning; for as _Aristoxenus_, who wrote his life averreth, he\ndelighted much in that kind of food himself. But herein, as _Plutarch_\nobserveth, he had no other intention than to dissuade men from\nMagistracy, or undertaking the publick offices of state; for by beans\nwas the Magistrate elected in some parts of _Greece_; and, after his\ndaies, we read in _Thucydides_, of the Councel of the bean in _Athens_.\n[SN: {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}.] The same word\nalso in Greek doth signifie a Testicle, and hath been thought by some an\ninjunction only of Continency, as _Aul. Gellius_ hath expounded, and as\n_Empedocles_ may also be interpreted: that is, _Testiculis miseri\ndextras subducite_; and might be the original intention of _Pythagoras_;\nas having a notable hint hereof in Beans, from the natural signature of\nthe venereal organs of both Sexes. Again, his injunction is, not to\nharbour Swallows in our Houses: Whose advice notwithstanding we do not\ncontemn, who daily admit and cherish them: For herein a caution is only\nimplied, not to entertain ungrateful and thankless persons, which like\nthe Swallow are no way commodious unto us; but having made use of our\nhabitations, and served their own turns, forsake us. So he commands to\ndeface the Print of a Cauldron in the ashes, after it hath boiled. Which\nstrictly to observe were condemnable superstition: But hereby he\ncovertly adviseth us not to persevere in anger; but after our choler\nhath boiled, to retain no impression thereof. In the like sense are to\nbe received, when he adviseth his Disciples to give the right hand but\nto few, to put no viands in a Chamber-pot, not to pass over a Balance,\nnot to rake up fire with a Sword, or piss against the Sun. Which\naenigmatical deliveries comprehend useful verities, but being mistaken by\nliteral Expositors at the first, they have been mis-understood by most\nsince, and may be occasion of Error to Verbal capacities for ever.\n\nThis fallacy in the first delusion Satan put upon _Eve_, and his whole\ntentation might be the same continued; so when he said, _Ye shall not\ndie_, that was, in his equivocation, ye shall not incurr a present\ndeath, or a destruction immediately ensuing your transgression. _Your\neyes shall be opened_; that is, not to the enlargement of your\nknowledge, but discovery of your shame and proper confusion; _You shall\nknow good and evil_; that is, you shall have knowledge of good by its\nprivation, but cognisance of evil by sense and visible experience. And\nthe same fallacy or way of deceit, so well succeeding in Paradise, he\ncontinued in his Oracles through all the World. Which had not men more\nwarily understood, they might have performed many acts inconsistent with\nhis intention. _Brutus_ might have made haste with _Tarquine_ to have\nkissed his own Mother. The _Athenians_ might have built them wooden\nWalls, or doubled the Altar at _Delphos_.\n\nThe circle of this fallacy is very large; and herein may be comprised\nall Ironical mistakes, for intended expressions receiving inverted\nsignifications; all deductions from Metaphors, Parables, Allegories,\nunto real and rigid interpretations. [SN: _De haeresibus._] Whereby have\nrisen not only popular Errors in Philosophy, but vulgar and senseless\nHeresies in Divinity; as will be evident unto any that shall examine\ntheir foundations, as they stand related by _Epiphanius_, _Austin_, or\n_Prateolus_.\n\nOther wayes there are of deceit; which consist not in false apprehension\nof Words, that is, Verbal expressions or sentential significations, but\nfraudulent deductions, or inconsequent illations, from a false\nconception of things. Of these extradictionary and real fallacies,\n_Aristotle_ and _Logicians_ make in number six, but we observe that men\nare most commonly deceived by four thereof: those are, _Petitio\nprincipii, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, A non causa pro\ncausa_; And, _fallacia consequentis_.\n\nThe first is, _Petitio principii_. Which fallacy is committed, when a\nquestion is made a _medium_, or we assume a _medium_ as granted, whereof\nwe remain as unsatisfied as of the question. Briefly, where that is\nassumed as a Principle to prove another thing, which is not conceded as\ntrue it self. By this fallacy was _Eve_ deceived, when she took for\ngranted, a false assertion of the Devil; _Ye shall not surely die; for\nGod doth know that in the day ye shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be\nopened, and you shall be as Gods_. Which was but a bare affirmation of\nSatan, without proof or probable inducement, contrary unto the command\nof God, and former belief of her self. And this was the Logick of the\n_Jews_ when they accused our _Saviour_ unto _Pilate_; who demanding a\nreasonable impeachment, or the allegation of some crime worthy of\nCondemnation; they only replied, _If he had not been worthy of Death, we\nwould not have brought Him before thee_. Wherein there was neither\naccusation of the person, nor satisfaction of the Judge; who well\nunderstood, a bare accusation was not presumption of guilt, and the\nclamours of the people no accusation at all. The same Fallacy is\nsometime used in the dispute, between _Job_ and his friends; they often\ntaking that for granted which afterward he disproveth.\n\nThe second is, _A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter_, when from\nthat which is but true in a qualified sense, an inconditional and\nabsolute verity is inferred; transferring the special consideration of\nthings unto their general acceptions, or concluding from their strict\nacception, unto that without all limitation. This fallacy men commit\nwhen they argue from a particular to a general; as when we conclude the\nvices or qualities of a few, upon a whole Nation. Or from a part unto\nthe whole. Thus the Devil argues with our Saviour: and by this, he would\nperswade Him he might be secure, if he cast himself from the Pinnacle:\nFor, said he, it is written, _He shall give his Angels charge concerning\nthee, and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou\ndash thy foot against a stone._ [SN: Psal. 91.] But this illation was\nfallacious, leaving one part of the Text, _He shall keep thee in all thy\nwayes_; that is, in the wayes of righteousness, and not of rash\nattempts: so he urged a part for the whole, and inferred more in the\nconclusion, than was contained in the premises. By the same fallacy we\nproceed, when we conclude from the sign unto the thing signified. By\nthis incroachment, Idolatry first crept in, men converting the\nsymbolical use of Idols into their proper Worship, and receiving the\nrepresentation of things as the substance and thing it self. So the\nStatue of _Belus_ at first erected in his memory, was in after-times\nadored as a Divinity. [SN: _The Original of Idolatry._] And so also in\nthe Sacrament of the _Eucharist_, the Bread and Wine which were but the\nsignals or visible signs, were made the things signified, and worshipped\nas the Body of Christ. And hereby generally men are deceived that take\nthings spoken in some Latitude without any at all. Hereby the _Jews_\nwere deceived concerning the commandment of the Sabbath, accusing our\nSaviour _for healing the sick_, and his Disciples _for plucking the ears\nof Corn upon that day_. And by this deplorable mistake they were\ndeceived unto destruction, upon the assault of _Pompey_ the great, made\nupon that day; by whose superstitious observation they could not defend\nthemselves, or perform any labour whatever.\n\n[Sidenote: _The_ Alcoran _endures neither Wine nor Universities._]\n\nThe third is, _A non causa pro causa_, when that is pretended for a\ncause which is not, or not in that sense which is inferred. Upon this\nconsequence the law of _Mahomet_ forbids the use of Wine; and his\nSuccessors abolished Universities. By this also many Christians have\ncondemned literature, misunderstanding the counsel of Saint _Paul_, who\nadviseth no further than to beware of Philosophy. On this Foundation\nwere built the conclusions of Southsayers in their Augurial, and\nTripudiary divinations; collecting presages from voice or food of Birds,\nand conjoyning Events unto causes of no connection. Hereupon also are\ngrounded the gross mistakes, in the cure of many diseases: not only from\nthe last medicine, and sympathetical Receipts, but Amulets, Charms, and\nall incantatory applications; deriving effects not only from\ninconcurring causes, but things devoid of all efficiency whatever.\n\nThe fourth is, the Fallacy of the Consequent; which if strictly taken,\nmay be a fallacious illation in reference unto antecedency, or\nconsequency; as to conclude from the position of the antecedent to the\nposition of the consequent, or from the remotion of the consequent to\nthe remotion of the antecedent. This is usually committed, when in\nconnexed Propositions the Terms adhere contingently. This is frequent in\nOratory illations; and thus the _Pharisees_, because He conversed with\nPublicans and Sinners, accused the holiness of Christ. But if this\nFallacy be largely taken, it is committed in any vicious illation,\noffending the rules of good consequence; and so it may be very large,\nand comprehend all false illations against the settled Laws of Logick:\nBut the most usual inconsequencies are from particulars, from negatives,\nand from affirmative conclusions in the second figure, wherein indeed\noffences are most frequent, and their discoveries not difficult.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nOf Credulity and Supinity.\n\n\nA third cause of common Errors is the Credulity of men, that is, an\neasie assent to what is obtruded, or a believing at first ear, what is\ndelivered by others. This is a weakness in the understanding, without\nexamination assenting unto things, which from their Natures and Causes\ndo carry no perswasion; whereby men often swallow falsities for truths,\ndubiosities for certainties, feasibilities for possibilities, and things\nimpossible as possibilities themselves. Which, though the weakness of\nthe Intellect, and most discoverable in vulgar heads; yet hath it\nsometime fallen upon wiser brains, and greater advancers of Truth. Thus\nmany wise _Athenians_ so far forgot their Philosophy, and the nature of\nhumane production, that they descended unto belief, that the original of\ntheir Nation was from the Earth, and had no other beginning than the\nseminality and womb of their great Mother. Thus is it not without\nwonder, how those learned _Arabicks_ so tamely delivered up their belief\nunto the absurdities of the _Alcoran_. How the noble _Geber_,\n_Avicenna_, and _Almanzor_, should rest satisfied in the nature and\ncauses of Earthquakes, delivered from the doctrine of their _Prophet_;\nthat is, from the motion of a great Bull, upon whose horns all the earth\nis poised. How their faiths could decline so low, as to concede their\ngenerations in Heaven, to be made by the smell of a Citron, or that the\nfelicity of their Paradise should consist in a Jubile of copulation,\nthat is, a coition of one act prolonged unto fifty years. Thus is it\nalmost beyond wonder, how the belief of reasonable creatures, should\never submit unto Idolatry: and the credulity of those men scarce\ncredible (without presumption of a second Fall) who could believe a\nDeity in the work of their own hands. For although in that ancient and\ndiffused adoration of Idols, unto the _Priests_ and subtiler heads, the\nworship perhaps might be symbolical, and as those Images some way\nrelated unto their Deities; yet was the Idolatry direct and down-right\nin the People; whose credulity is illimitable, who may be made believe\nthat any thing is God; and may be made believe there is no God at all.\n\n[Sidenote: _Obstinate and irrational Scepticism, justly censured._]\n\nAnd as Credulity is the cause of Error, so Incredulity oftentimes of not\nenjoying truth; and that not only an obstinate incredulity, whereby we\nwill not acknowledge assent unto what is reasonably inferred, but any\nAcademical reservation in matters of easie truth, or rather sceptical\ninfidelity against the evidence of reason and sense. For these are\nconceptions befalling wise men, as absurd as the apprehensions of fools,\nand the credulity of the people which promiscuously swallow any thing.\nFor this is not only derogatory unto the wisdom of God, who hath\nproposed the World unto our knowledge, and thereby the notion of\nHimself; but also detractory unto the intellect, and sense of man\nexpressly disposed for that inquisition. And therefore, _hoc tantum\nscio, quod nihil scio_, is not to be received in an absolute sense, but\nis comparatively expressed unto the number of things whereof our\nknowledge is ignorant. Nor will it acquit the insatisfaction of those\nwhich quarrel with all things, or dispute of matters, concerning whose\nverities we have conviction from reason, or decision from the inerrable\nand requisite conditions of sense. And therefore if any affirm, the\nearth doth move, and will not believe with us, it standeth still;\nbecause he hath probable reasons for it, and I no infallible sense, nor\nreason against it, I will not quarrel with his assertion. But if, like\n_Zeno_, he shall walk about, and yet deny there is any motion in Nature,\nsurely that man was constituted for _Anticera_, and were a fit companion\nfor those, who having a conceit they are dead, cannot be convicted into\nthe society of the living.\n\nThe fourth is a Supinity, or neglect of Enquiry, even of matters whereof\nwe doubt; rather believing, than going to see; or doubting with ease and\n_gratis_, than believing with difficulty or purchase. Whereby, either\nfrom a temperamental inactivity, we are unready to put in execution the\nsuggestions or dictates of reason; or by a content and acquiescence in\nevery species of truth, we embrace the shadow thereof, or so much as may\npalliate its just and substantial acquirements. Had our fore-Fathers sat\ndown in these resolutions, or had their curiosities been sedentary, who\npursued the knowledge of things through all the corners of nature, the\nface of truth had been obscure unto us, whose lustre in some part their\nindustries have revealed.\n\nCertainly the sweat of their labours was not salt unto them, and they\ntook delight in the dust of their endeavours. For questionless, in\nKnowledge there is no slender difficulty; and Truth, which wise men say\ndoth lye in a Well, is not recoverable by exantlation. It were some\nextenuation of the Curse, if _in sudore vultus tui_ were confinable unto\ncorporal exercitations, and there still remained a Paradise, or unthorny\nplace of knowledge. But now our understandings being eclipsed, as well\nas our tempers infirmed, we must betake our selves to wayes of\nreparation, and depend upon the illumination of our endeavours. For,\nthus we may in some measure repair our primary ruines, and build our\nselves Men again. And though the attempts of some have been precipitous,\nand their Enquiries so audacious, as to come within command of the\nflaming swords, and lost themselves in attempts above humanity; yet have\nthe Enquiries of most defected by the way, and tired within the sober\ncircumference of Knowledge.\n\nAnd this is the reason, why some have transcribed any thing; and\nalthough they cannot but doubt thereof, yet neither make Experiment by\nsense, or Enquiry by reason; but live in doubts of things, whose\nsatisfaction is in their own power; which is indeed the inexcusable part\nof our ignorance, and may perhaps fill up the charge of the last day.\nFor, not obeying the dictates of Reason, and neglecting the cries of\nTruth, we fail not only in the trust of our undertakings, but in the\nintention of man it self. Which although more venial in ordinary\nconstitutions, and such as are not framed beyond the capacity of beaten\nnotions, yet will inexcusably condemn some men, who having received\nexcellent endowments, have yet sate down by the way, and frustrated the\nintention of their liabilities. For certainly, as some men have sinned\nin the principles of humanity, and must answer, for not being men, so\nothers offend, if they be not more. _Magis extra vitia, quam cum\nvirtutibus_, would commend those: These are not excusable without an\nExcellency. For, great constitutions, and such as are constellated unto\nknowledge, do nothing till they out-do all; they come short of\nthemselves, if they go not beyond others; and must not sit down under\nthe degree of Worthies. God expects no lustre from the minor Stars; but\nif the Sun should not illuminate all, it were a sin in Nature. _Ultimus\nbonoram_, will not excuse every man, nor is it sufficient for all to\nhold the common level: Mens names should not only distinguish them: A\nman should be something, that men are not, and individual in somewhat\nbeside his proper Name. Thus while it exceeds not the bounds of reason\nand modesty, we cannot condemn singularity, _Nos numerus sumus_, is the\nMotto of the multitude, and for that reason are they Fools. For things\nas they recede from unity, the more they approach to imperfection, and\nDeformity; for they hold their perfection in their Simplicities, and as\nthey nearest approach unto God.\n\n[Sidenote: _Universities why many times full of Scholars, and empty of\nLearning._]\n\n[Sidenote: _The natural genius or inclination, have much to be regarded\nin the choice of a Profession._]\n\nNow as there are many great Wits to be condemned, who have neglected the\nincrement of Arts, and the sedulous pursuit of knowledge; so are there\nnot a few very much to be pitied, whose industry being not attended with\nnatural parts, they have sweat to little purpose, and rolled the stone\nin vain. Which chiefly proceedeth from natural incapacity, and genial\nindisposition, at least, to those particulars whereunto they apply their\nendeavours. And this is one reason why, though Universities be full of\nmen, they are oftentimes empty of learning: Why, as there are some men\ndo much without learning, so others but little with it, and few that\nattain to any measure of it. For many heads that undertake it, were\nnever squared, nor timber'd for it. There are not only particular men,\nbut whole Nations indisposed for learning; whereunto is required, not\nonly education, but a pregnant _Minerva_, and teeming Constitution. For\nthe Wisdom of God hath divided the _Genius_ of men according to the\ndifferent affairs of the World: and varied their inclination according\nto the variety of Actions to be performed therein. Which they who\nconsider not, rudely rushing upon professions and ways of life, unequal\nto their natures; dishonour, not only themselves and their Functions,\nbut pervert the harmony of the whole World. For, if the World went on as\nGod hath ordained it, and were every one imployed in points concordant\nto their Natures, Professions; Arts and Commonwealths would rise up of\nthemselves; nor needed we a Lanthorn to find a man in _Athens_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nOf adherence unto Antiquity.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _Immoderate respect unto Antiquity, a general cause of\nError._]\n\nBut the mortallest enemy unto Knowledge, and that which hath done the\ngreatest execution upon truth, hath been a peremptory adhesion unto\nAuthority, and more especially, the establishing of our belief upon the\ndictates of Antiquity. For (as every capacity may observe) most men of\nAges present, so superstitiously do look on Ages past, that the\nAuthorities of the one, exceed the reasons of the other: Whose persons\nindeed being far removed from our times, their works, which seldom with\nus pass uncontrouled, either by contemporaries, or immediate successors,\nare now become out of the distance of Envies: and the farther removed\nfrom present times, are conceived to approach the nearer unto truth it\nself. Now hereby methinks we manifestly delude our selves, and widely\nwalk out of the track of Truth.\n\nFor first, Men hereby impose a Thraldom on their Times, which the\ningenuity of no Age should endure, or indeed, the presumption of any did\never yet enjoyn. Thus _Hippocrates_ about 2000 years ago, conceived it\nno injustice, either to examine or refute the Doctrines of his\nPredecessors: _Galen_ the like, and _Aristotle_ the most of any. Yet did\nnot any of these conceive themselves infallible, or set down their\ndictates as verities irrefragable, but when they deliver their own\nInventions, or reject other mens Opinions, they proceed with Judgment\nand Ingenuity; establishing their assertion, not only with great\nsolidity, but submitting them also unto the correction of future\ndiscovery.\n\nSecondly, Men that adore times past, consider not that those times were\nonce present; that is, as our own are at this instant, and we our selves\nunto those to come, as they unto us at present, as we relye on them,\neven so will those on us, and magnifie us hereafter, who at present\ncondemn our selves. Which very absurdity is daily committed amongst us,\neven in the esteem and censure of our own times. And to speak\nimpartially, old Men, from whom we should expect the greatest example of\nWisdom, do most exceed in this point of folly; commending the days of\ntheir youth, which they scarce remember, at least well understood not;\nextolling those times their younger years have heard their Fathers\ncondemn, and condemning those times the gray heads of their posterity\nshall commend. And thus is it the humour of many heads, to extol the\ndays of their Fore-fathers, and declaim against the wickedness of times\npresent. Which notwithstanding they cannot handsomly do, without the\nborrowed help and Satyrs of times past; condemning the vices of their\nown times, by the expressions of vices in times which they commend;\nwhich cannot but argue the community of vice in both. _Horace_\ntherefore, _Juvenal_, and _Persius_ were no Prophets, although their\nlines did seem to indigitate and point at our times. There is a certain\nlist of vices committed in all Ages, and declaimed against by all\nAuthors, which will last as long as humane nature; which digested into\ncommon places, may serve for any Theme, and never be out of date until\nDooms-day.\n\nThirdly, The Testimonies of Antiquity and such as pass oraculously\namongst us, were not, if we consider them, always so exact, as to\nexamine the doctrine they delivered. For some, and those the acutest of\nthem, have left unto us many things of falsity; controlable, not only by\ncritical and collective reason, but common and Country observation.\n\nHereof there want not many examples in _Aristotle_, through all his Book\nof Animals; we shall instance onely in three of his Problems, and all\ncontained under one Section. The first enquireth, why a Man doth cough,\nbut not an Oxe or Cow; whereas, notwithstanding the contrary is often\nobserved by Husbandmen, and stands confirmed by those who have expressly\ntreated _De Re Rustica_, and have also delivered divers remedies for it.\nWhy Juments, as Horses, Oxen, and Asses, have no eructation or belching,\nwhereas indeed the contrary is often observed, and also delivered by\n_Columella_. And thirdly, Why Man alone hath gray hairs? whereas it\ncannot escape the eyes, and ordinary observation of all men, as Horses,\nDogs, and Foxes, wax gray with age in our Countries; and in the colder\nRegions, many other Animals without it. And though favourable\nconstructions may somewhat extenuate the rigour of these concessions,\nyet will scarce any palliate that in the fourth of his Meteors, that\nSalt is easiest dissolvable in cold water: Nor that of _Diascorides_,\nthat Quicksilver is best preserved in Vessels of Tin and Lead.\n\nOther Authors write often dubiously even in matters wherein is expected\na strict and definite truth; extenuating their affirmations, with\n_aiunt_, _ferunt_, _fortasse_: as _Diascorides_, _Galen_, _Aristotle_,\nand many more. Others by hear-say; taking upon trust most they have\ndelivered, whose Volumes are nicer Collections, drawn from the mouths or\nleaves of other Authors; as may be observed in _Plinie_, _Elian_,\n_Athenaeus_, and many more. Not a few transcriptively, subscribing their\nNames unto other mens endeavours, and meerly transcribing almost all\nthey have written. The _Latines_ transcribing the _Greeks_, the _Greeks_\nand _Latines_, each other.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Antiquity, and some notable instances of Plagiarism,\nthat is, of transcribing or filching Authors._]\n\nThus hath _Justine_ borrowed all from _Trogus Pompeius_, and _Julius\nSolinus_, in a manner transcribed _Plinie_. Thus have _Lucian_ and\n_Apuleius_ served _Lucius Pratensis_: men both living in the same time,\nand both transcribing the same Author, in those famous Books, entituled\n_Lucius_ by the one, and _Aureus Asinus_ by the other. In the same\nmeasure hath _Simocrates_ in his Tract De Nilo, dealt with _Diodorus\nSiculus_, as may be observed in that work annexed unto _Herodotus_, and\ntranslated by _Jungermannus_. Thus _Eratosthenes_ wholly translated\n_Timotheus de Insulis_, not reserving the very Preface. The same doth\n_Strabo_ report of _Eudorus_, and _Ariston_, in a Treatise entituled _De\nNilo_. _Clemens Alexandrinus_ hath observed many examples hereof among\nthe _Greeks_; and _Pliny_ speaketh very plainly in his Preface, that\nconferring his Authors, and comparing their works together, he generally\nfound those that went before _verbatim_ transcribed, by those that\nfollowed after, and their Originals never so much as mentioned. To omit\nhow much the wittiest piece of _Ovid_ [SN: _His_ Metamorphosis.] is\nbeholden unto _Parthenius Chius_; even the magnified _Virgil_ hath\nborrowed, almost in all his Works; his _Eclogues_ from _Theocritus_, his\n_Georgicks_ from _Hesiod_ and _Aratus_, his _AEneads_ from _Homer_, the\nsecond Book whereof containing the exploit of _Sinon_ and the _Trojan_\nHorse (as _Macrobius_ observeth) he hath _verbatim_ derived from\n_Pisander_. Our own Profession is not excusable herein. Thus\n_Oribasius_, AEtius, and _AEgineta_, have in a manner transcribed _Galen_.\nBut _Marcellus Empericus_, who hath left a famous Work _De\nMedicamentis_, hath word for word transcribed all _Scribonius Largus_,\n_De Compositione Medicamentorum_, and not left out his very Peroration.\nThus may we perceive the Ancients were but men, even like our selves.\nThe practice of transcription in our days, was no Monster in theirs:\n_Plagiarie_ had not its Nativity with Printing, but began in times when\nthefts were difficult, and the paucity of Books scarce wanted that\nInvention.\n\nNor did they only make large use of other Authors, but often without\nmention of their names. _Aristotle_, who seems to have borrowed many\nthings from _Hippocrates_, in the most favourable construction, makes\nmention but once of him, and that by the by, and without reference unto\nhis present Doctrine. [SN: _In his_ Politicks.] _Virgil_, so much\nbeholding unto _Homer_, hath not his name in all his Works: and\n_Plinie_, who seems to borrow many Authors out of _Dioscorides_, hath\ntaken no notice of him. I wish men were not still content to plume\nthemselves with others Feathers. Fear of discovery, not single ingenuity\naffords Quotations rather than Transcriptions; wherein notwithstanding\nthe Plagiarisme of many makes little consideration, whereof though great\nAuthors may complain, small ones cannot but take notice.\n\n[Sidenote: _An ancient Author who writ_ {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, sive de\nincredibilibus, _whereof some part is yet extant_.]\n\n[Sidenote: _The Fable of_ Orpheus _his Harp, etc. whence occasioned._]\n\nFourthly, While we so eagerly adhere unto Antiquity, and the accounts of\nelder times, we are to consider the fabulous condition thereof. And that\nwe shall not deny, if we call to mind the Mendacity of _Greece_, from\nwhom we have received most relations, and that a considerable part of\nancient Times, was by the _Greeks_ themselves termed {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, that is,\nmade up or stuffed out with Fables. And surely the fabulous inclination\nof those days, was greater then any since; which swarmed so with Fables,\nand from such slender grounds, took hints for fictions, poysoning the\nWorld ever after; wherein how far they exceeded, may be exemplified from\n_Palephatus_, in his Book of _Fabulous Narrations_. That Fable of\n_Orpheus_ who by the melody of his Musick, made Woods and Trees to\nfollow him, was raised upon a slender foundation; for there were a crew\nof mad women, retired unto a Mountain from whence being pacified by his\nMusick, they descended with boughs in their hands, which unto the\nfabulosity of those times proved a sufficient ground to celebrate unto\nall posterity the Magick of _Orpheus_ Harp, and its power to attract the\nsenseless Trees about it. That _Medea_ the famous Sorceress could renew\nyouth, and make old men young again, was nothing else, but that from the\nknowledge of Simples she had a Receit to make white hair black, and\nreduce old heads, into the tincture of youth again. The Fable of\n_Gerion_ and _Cerberus_ with three heads, was this: _Gerion_ was of the\nCity _Tricarinia_, that is, of three heads, and _Cerberus_ of the same\nplace was one of his Dogs, which running into a Cave upon pursuit of his\nMasters Oxen, _Hercules_ perforce drew him out of that place, from\nwhence the conceits of those days affirmed no less, then that _Hercules_\ndescended into Hell, and brought up _Cerberus_ into the habitation of\nthe living. Upon the like grounds was raised the figment of _Briareus_,\nwho dwelling in a City called _Hecatonchiria_, the fansies of those\ntimes assigned him an hundred hands. 'Twas ground enough to fansie wings\nunto _Daedalus_, in that he stole out of a Window from _Minos_, and\nsailed away with his son _Icarus_: who steering his course wisely,\nescaped; but his son carrying too high a sail was drowned. That _Niobe_\nweeping over her children, was turned into a Stone, was nothing else,\nbut that during her life she erected over their Sepultures a Marble Tomb\nof her own. When _Acteon_ had undone himself with Dogs, and the prodigal\nattendants of hunting, they made a solemn story how he was devoured by\nhis Hounds. And upon the like grounds was raised the Anthropophagie of\n_Diomedes_ his horses. [SN: Eating of Mans flesh.] Upon as slender\nfoundation was built the Fable of the _Minotaure_; for one _Taurus_ a\nservant of _Minos_ gat his Mistris _Pasiphae_ with child, from whence\nthe Infant was named _Minotaurus_. Now this unto the fabulosity of those\ntimes was thought sufficient to accuse _Pasiphae_ of Beastiality, or\nadmitting conjunction with a Bull; and in succeeding ages gave a hint of\ndepravity unto _Domitian_ to act the Fable into reality. In like manner,\nas _Diodorus_ plainly delivereth, the famous Fable of _Charon_ had its\nNativity; who being no other but the common Ferry-man of _Egypt_, that\nwafted over the dead bodies from _Memphis_, was made by the _Greeks_ to\nbe the Ferry-man of Hell, and solemn stories raised after of him.\nLastly, we shall not need to enlarge, if that be true which grounded the\ngeneration of _Castor_ and _Helen_ out of an Egg, because they were born\nand brought up in an upper room, according unto the Word {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, which with\nthe _Lacoedemonians_ had also that signification.\n\nFifthly, We applaud many things delivered by the Ancients, which are in\nthemselves but ordinary, and come short of our own Conceptions. Thus we\nusually extol, and our Orations cannot escape the sayings of the wise\nmen of _Greece_. _Nosce teipsum_, of _Thales_: _Nosce tempus_, of\n_Pittacus_: _Nihil nimis_, of _Cleobulus_; which notwithstanding to\nspeak indifferently, are but vulgar precepts in Morality, carrying with\nthem nothing above the line, or beyond the extemporary sententiosity of\ncommon conceits with us. Thus we magnifie the Apothegms or reputed\nreplies of Wisdom, whereof many are to be seen in _Laertius_, more in\n_Lycosthenes_, not a few in the second Book of _Macrobius_, in the salts\nof _Cicero_, _Augustus_, and the Comical wits of those times: in most\nwhereof there is not much to admire, and are methinks exceeded, not only\nin the replies of wise men, but the passages of society, and urbanities\nof our times. And thus we extol their Adages, or Proverbs; and _Erasmus_\nhath taken great pains to make collections of them, whereof\nnotwithstanding, the greater part will, I believe, unto indifferent\nJudges be esteemd no extraordinaries: and may be parallel'd, if not\nexceeded, by those of more unlearned Nations, and many of our own.\n\n[Sidenote: _A pedantical vanity to quote Authors in matters of common\nsense or of familiar acknowledgement._]\n\nSixthly, We urge Authorities in points that need not, and introduce the\ntestimony of ancient Writers, to confirm things evidently believed, and\nwhereto no reasonable hearer but would assent without them; such as are,\n_Nemo mortalium omnibus horis sapit. Virtute nil praeastantius, nil\npulchrius. Omnia vincit amor. Proeclarum quiddam veritas_. All which,\nalthough things known and vulgar, are frequently urged by many men, and\nthough trivial verities in our mouths, yet, noted from _Plato_, _Ovid_,\nor _Cicero_, they become reputed elegancies. For many hundred to\ninstance but in one we meet with while we are writing. _Antonius\nGuevara_ that elegant _Spaniard_, in his Book entituled, _The Dial of\nPrinces_, beginneth his Epistle thus. _Apolonius Thyancus_, disputing\nwith the Scholars of _Hiarchas_, said, that among all the affections of\nnature, nothing was more natural, then the desire all have to preserve\nlife. Which being a confessed Truth, and a verity acknowledged by all,\nit was a superfluous affectation to derive its Authority from\n_Apolonius_, or seek a confirmation thereof as far as _India_, and the\nlearned Scholars of _Hiarchas_. Which whether it be not all one to\nstrengthen common Dignities and Principles known by themselves, with the\nAuthority of Mathematicians; or think a man should believe, the whole is\ngreater then its parts, rather upon the Authority of _Euclide_, then if\nit were propounded alone; I leave unto the second and wiser cogitations\nof all men. 'Tis sure a Practice that savours much of Pedantry; a\nreserve of Puerility we have not shaken off from School; where being\nseasoned with Minor sentences, by a neglect of higher Enquiries, they\nprescribe upon our riper ears, and are never worn out but with our\nMemories.\n\n[Sidenote: _Some remarkable mistakes among the Ancients._]\n\nLastly, While we so devoutly adhere unto Antiquity in some things, we do\nnot consider we have deserted them in several others. For they indeed\nhave not onely been imperfect, in the conceit of some things, but either\nignorant or erroneous in many more. They understood not the motion of\nthe eighth sphear from West to East, and so conceived the longitude of\nthe Stars invariable. They conceived the torrid Zone unhabitable, and so\nmade frustrate the goodliest part of the Earth. But we now know 'tis\nvery well empeopled, and the habitation thereof esteemed so happy, that\nsome have made it the proper seat of Paradise; and been so far from\njudging it unhabitable, that they have made it the first habitation of\nall. Many of the Ancients denied the _Antipodes_, and some unto the\npenalty of contrary affirmations; but the experience of our enlarged\nnavigations, can now assert them beyond all dubitation. Having thus\ntotally relinquisht them in some things, it may not be presumptuous, to\nexamine them in others; but surely most unreasonable to adhere to them\nin all, as though they were infallible, or could not err in any way.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nOf Authority.\n\n\nNor is onely a resolved prostration unto Antiquity a powerful enemy unto\nknowledge, but any confident adherence unto Authority, or resignation of\nour judgements upon the testimony of Age or Author whatsoever.\n\n[Sidenote: _Authority (simply) but a mean argument especially._]\n\nFor first, to speak generally an argument from Authority to wiser\nexaminations, is but a weaker kind of proof; it being but a topical\nprobation, and as we term it, an inartificial argument, depending upon a\nnaked asseveration: wherein neither declaring the causes, affections or\nadjuncts of what we believe, it carrieth not with it the reasonable\ninducements of knowledge. And therefore, _Contra negantem principia,\nIpse dixit_, or _Oportet discentem credere_, although Postulates very\naccommodable unto _Junior_ indoctrinations; yet are their Authorities\nbut temporary, and not to be imbraced beyond the minority of our\nintellectuals. For our advanced beliefs are not to be built upon\ndictates, but having received the probable inducements of truth, we\nbecome emancipated from testimonial engagements, and are to erect upon\nthe surer base of reason.\n\nSecondly, Unto reasonable perpensions it hath no place in some Sciences,\nsmall in others, and suffereth many restrictions, even where it is most\nadmitted. [SN: _In the Mathematicks._] It is of no validity in the\nMathematicks, especially the mother part thereof, Arithmetick and\nGeometry. For these Sciences concluding from dignities and principles\nknown by themselves: receive not satisfaction from probable reasons,\nmuch less from bare and peremptory asseverations. And therefore if all\n_Athens_ should decree, that in every Triangle, two sides, which soever\nbe taken, are greater then the side remaining, or that in rectangle\ntriangles the square which is made of the side that subtendeth the right\nangle, is equal to the squares which are made of the sides containing\nthe right angle: although there be a certain truth therein,\nGeometricians notwithstanding would not receive satisfaction without\ndemonstration thereof. 'Tis true, by the vulgarity of Philosophers,\nthere are many points believed without probation; nor if a man affirm\nfrom _Ptolomy_, that the Sun is bigger then the Earth, shall he probably\nmeet with any contradiction: whereunto notwithstanding Astronomers will\nnot assent without some convincing argument or demonstrative proof\nthereof. And therefore certainly of all men a Philosopher should be no\nswearer; for an oath which is the end of controversies in Law, cannot\ndetermine any here; nor are the deepest Sacraments or desperate\nimprecations of any force to perswade, where reason only, and necessary\n_mediums_ must induce.\n\n[Sidenote: _And Physick._]\n\nIn Natural Philosophy more generally pursued amongst us, it carrieth but\nslender consideration; for that also proceeding from setled Principles,\ntherein is expected a satisfaction from scientifical progressions, and\nsuch as beget a sure rational belief. For if Authority might have made\nout the assertions of Philosophy, we might have held that Snow was\nblack, that the Sea was but the sweat of the Earth, and many of the like\nabsurdities. Then was _Aristotle_ injurious to fall upon _Melissus_, to\nreject the assertions of _Anaxagoras_, _Anaximander_, and _Empedocles_;\nthen were we also ungrateful unto himself; from whom our _Junior_\nendeavours embracing many things on his authority, our mature and\nsecondary enquiries, are forced to quit those receptions, and to adhere\nunto the nearer account of Reason. And although it be not unusual, even\nin Philosophical Tractates to make enumeration of Authors, yet are there\nreasons usually introduced, and to ingenious Readers do carry the stroke\nin the perswasion. And surely if we account it reasonable among our\nselves, and not injurious unto rational Authors, no farther to abet\ntheir Opinions then as they are supported by solid Reasons: certainly\nwith more excusable reservation may we shrink at their bare testimonies;\nwhose argument is but precarious, and subsists upon the charity of our\nassentments.\n\nIn Morality, Rhetorick, Law and History, there is I confess a frequent\nand allowable use of testimony; and yet herein I perceive, it is not\nunlimitable, but admitteth many restrictions. Thus in Law both Civil and\nDivine: that is onely esteemed a legal testimony, which receives\ncomprobation from the mouths of at least two witnesses; and that not\nonly for prevention of calumny, but assurance against mistake; whereas\nnotwithstanding the solid reason of one man, is as sufficient as the\nclamor of a whole Nation; and with imprejudicate apprehensions begets as\nfirm a belief as the authority or aggregated testimony of many hundreds.\nFor reason being the very root of our natures, and the principles\nthereof common unto all, what is against the Laws of true reason, or the\nunerring understanding of any one, if rightly apprehended; must be\ndisclaimed by all Nations, and rejected even by mankind.\n\nAgain, A testimony is of small validity if deduced from men out of their\nown profession; so if _Lactantius_ affirm the Figure of the Earth is\nplain, or _Austin_ deny there are _Antipodes_; though venerable Fathers\nof the Church, and ever to be honoured, yet will not their Authorities\nprove sufficient to ground a belief thereon. Whereas notwithstanding the\nsolid reason or confirmed experience of any man, is very approvable in\nwhat profession soever. So _Raymund Sebund_ a Physitian of _Tholouze_,\nbesides his learned Dialogues _De Natura Humana_, hath written a natural\nTheologie; demonstrating therein the Attributes of God, and attempting\nthe like in most points of Religion. So _Hugo Grotius_ a Civilian, did\nwrite an excellent Tract of the verity of Christian Religion. Wherein\nmost rationally delivering themselves, their works will be embraced by\nmost that understand them, and their reasons enforce belief even from\nprejudicate Readers. Neither indeed have the Authorities of men been\never so awful; but that by some they have been rejected, even in their\nown professions. Thus _Aristotle_ affirming the birth of the Infant or\ntime of its gestation, extendeth sometimes unto the eleventh Month, but\n_Hippocrates_, averring that it exceedeth not the tenth: _Adrian_ the\nEmperour in a solemn process, determined for _Aristotle_; but\n_Justinian_ many years after, took in with _Hippocrates_ and reversed\nthe Decree of the other. Thus have Councils, not only condemned private\nmen, but the Decrees and Acts of one another. So _Galen_ after all his\nveneration of _Hippocrates_, in some things hath fallen from him.\n_Avicen_ in many from _Galen_; and others succeeding from him. And\nalthough the singularity of _Paracelsus_ be intolerable, who sparing\nonely _Hippocrates_, hath reviled not onely the Authors, but almost all\nthe learning that went before him; yet is it not much less injurious\nunto knowledge obstinately and inconvincibly to side with any one. Which\nhumour unhappily possessing many, they have by prejudice withdrawn\nthemselves into parties, and contemning the soveraignty of truth,\nseditiously abetted the private divisions of error.\n\nMoreover a testimony in points Historical, and where it is of\nunavoidable use, is of no illation in the negative, nor is it of\nconsequence that _Herodotus_ writing nothing of _Rome_, there was\ntherefore no such City in his time; or because _Dioscorides_ hath made\nno mention of Unicorns horn, there is therefore no such thing in Nature.\nIndeed, intending an accurate enumeration of Medical materials, the\nomission hereof affords some probability, it was not used by the\nAncients, but will not conclude the non-existence thereof. For so may we\nannihilate many Simples unknown to his enquiries, as _Senna_, _Rhubarb_,\n_Bezoar_, _Ambregris_, and divers others. Whereas indeed the reason of\nman hath not such restraint; concluding not onely affirmatively but\nnegatively; not onely affirming there is no magnitude beyond the last\nheavens, but also denying there is any vacuity within them. Although it\nbe confessed, the affirmative hath the prerogative illation, and\n_Barbara_ engrosseth the powerful demonstration.\n\nLastly, The strange relations made by Authors, may sufficiently\ndiscourage our adherence unto Authority; and which if we believe we must\nbe apt to swallow any thing. Thus _Basil_ will tell us, the Serpent went\nerect like Man, and that that Beast could speak before the Fall.\n_Tostatus_ would make us believe that _Nilus_ encreaseth every new Moon.\n_Leonardo Fioravanti_ an Italian Physitian, beside many other secrets,\nassumeth unto himself the discovery of one concerning Pellitory of the\nWall; that is, that it never groweth in the sight of the _North_ star.\n_Doue si possa vedere la stella Tramontana_, wherein how wide he is from\ntruth, is easily discoverable unto every one, who hath but Astronomy\nenough to know that Star. _Franciscus Sanctius_ in a laudable Comment\nupon _Alciats_ Emblems, affirmeth, and that from experience, a\nNightingale hath no tongue. _Avem Philomelam lingua carere pro certo\naffirmare possum, nisi me oculi fallunt._ Which if any man for a while\nshall believe upon his experience, he may at his leisure refute it by\nhis own. What fool almost would believe, at least, what wise man would\nrelie upon that Antidote delivered by _Pierius_ in his Hieroglyphicks\nagainst the sting of a Scorpion? that is, to sit upon an Ass with ones\nface toward his tail; for so the pain leaveth the Man, and passeth into\nthe Beast. It were methinks but an uncomfortable receit for a Quartane\nAgue (and yet as good perhaps as many others used) to have recourse\nunto the _Recipe_ of _Sammonicus_; that is, to lay the fourth Book of\n_Homers_ Iliads under ones head, according to the precept of that\nPhysitian and Poet, _Maeoniae Iliados quartum suppone trementi_. [SN: _An\neye medicine._] There are surely few that have belief to swallow, or\nhope enough to experiment the Collyrium of _Albertus_; which promiseth a\nstrange effect, and such as Thieves would count inestimable, that is, to\nmake one see in the dark: yet thus much, according unto his receit, will\nthe right eye of an Hedge-hog boiled in oyl, and preserved in a brazen\nvessel effect. As strange it is, and unto vicious inclinations were\nworth a nights lodging with _Lais_, what is delivered in _Kiranides_;\nthat the left stone of a Weesel, wrapt up in the skin of a she Mule, is\nable to secure incontinency from conception. [SN: _Ten thousand\ndrachms._]\n\nThese with swarms of others have men delivered in their Writings, whose\nverities are onely supported by their authorities: But being neither\nconsonant unto reason, nor correspondent unto experiment, their\naffirmations are unto us no axioms: We esteem thereof as things unsaid,\nand account them but in the list of nothing. I wish herein the\n_Chymists_ had been more sparing: who over-magnifying their\npreparations, inveigle the curiosity of many, and delude the security of\nmost. For if experiments would answer their encomiums, the Stone and\nQuartane Agues were not opprobrious unto Physitians: we might contemn\nthat first and most uncomfortable Aphorism of _Hippocrates_, [SN: _Ars\nlonga vita brevis._] for surely that Art were soon attained, that hath\nso general remedies; and life could not be short, were there such to\nprolong it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nA brief enumeration of Authors.\n\n\nNow for as much as we have discoursed of Authority, and there is scarce\nany tradition or popular error but stands also delivered by some good\nAuthor; we shall endeavour a short discovery of such, as for the major\npart have given authority hereto: who though excellent and useful\nAuthors, yet being either transcriptive, or following common relations,\ntheir accounts are not to be swallowed at large, or entertained without\nall circumspection. In whom the _ipse dixit_, although it be no powerful\nargument in any, is yet less authentick then in many other, because they\ndeliver not their own experiences, but others affirmations, and write\nfrom others, as later pens from them.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Authors judgement, or a character given of some eminent\nAuthors._]\n\n1. The first in order, as also in time shall be _Herodotus_ of\n_Halicarnassus_, an excellent and very elegant Historian; whose Books of\nHistory were so well received in his own days, and at their rehearsal in\nthe Olympick games, they obtained the names of the nine Muses; and\ncontinued in such esteem unto descending Ages, that _Cicero_ termed him,\n_Historiarum parens_. And _Dionysius_ his Countryman, in an Epistle to\n_Pompey_, after an express comparison, affords him the better of\n_Thucydides_; all which notwithstanding, he hath received from some, the\nstile of _Mendaciorum pater_. His Authority was much infringed by\n_Plutarch_, who being offended with him, as _Polybius_ had been with\n_Philarcus_ for speaking too coldly of his Countrymen, hath left a\nparticular Tract, _De malignitate Herodoti_. But in this latter\nCentury, _Camerarius_ and _Stephanus_ have stepped in, and by their\nwitty Apologies, effectually endeavoured to frustrate the Arguments of\n_Plutarch_, or any other. Now in this Author, as may be observed in our\nensuing discourse, and is better discernable in the perusal of himself,\nthere are many things fabulously delivered, and not to be accepted as\ntruths: whereby nevertheless if any man be deceived, the Author is not\nso culpable as the Believer. For he indeed imitating the Father Poet,\nwhose life he hath also written, and as _Thucydides_ observeth, as well\nintending the delight as benefit of his Reader, hath besprinkled his\nwork with many fabulosities; whereby if any man be led into error, he\nmistaketh the intention of the Author, who plainly confesseth he writeth\nmany things by hear-say, and forgetteth a very considerable caution of\nhis; that is, _Ego quae fando cognovi, exponere narratione mea debeo\nomnia: credere autem esse vera omnia, non debeo_.\n\n2. In the second place is _Ctesias_: the Cnidian, Physitian unto\n_Artaxerxes_ King of _Persia_, his Books are often recited by ancient\nWriters, and by the industry of _Stephanus_ and _Rhodomanus_, there are\nextant some fragments thereof in our days; he wrote the History of\n_Persia_, and many narrations of _India_. In the first, as having a fair\nopportunity to know the truth, and as _Diodorus_ affirmeth the perusal\nof _Persian_ Records, his testimony is acceptable. In his _Indian_\nRelations, wherein are contained strange and incredible accounts, he is\nsurely to be read with suspension. These were they which weakned his\nauthority with former ages; for as we may observe, he is seldom\nmentioned, without a derogatory Parenthesis in any Author. _Aristotle_\nbesides the frequent undervaluing of his authority, in his Books of\nAnimals gives him the lie no less then twice, concerning the seed of\nElephants. _Strabo_ in his eleventh Book hath left a harder censure of\nhim. _Equidem facilius Hesiodo & Homero, aliquis fidem adhibuerit,\nitemque Tragicis Poetis, quam Ctesiae, Herodoto, Hellanico & eorum\nsimilibus._ But _Lucian_ hath spoken more plainer then any. _Scripsit\nCtesias de Indorum regione, deque iis quae apud illos sunt, ea quae nec\nipse vidit, neque ex ullius sermone audivit._ Yet were his relations\ntaken up by some succeeding Writers, and many thereof revived by our\nCountryman, Sir _John Mandevil_, Knight, and Doctor in Physick; who\nafter thirty years peregrination died at _Liege_, and was there\nhonourably interred. He left a Book of his Travels, which hath been\nhonoured with the translation of many Languages, and now continued above\nthree hundred years; herein he often attesteth the fabulous relations of\n_Ctesias_, and seems to confirm the refuted accounts of Antiquity. All\nwhich may still be received in some acceptions of morality, and to a\npregnant invention, may afford commendable mythologie; but in a natural\nand proper exposition, it containeth impossibilities, and things\ninconsistent with truth.\n\n3. There is a Book _De mirandis auditionibus_, ascribed unto\n_Aristotle_; another _De mirabilibus narrationibus_, written long after\nby _Antigonus_, another also of the same title by _Plegon Trallianus_,\ntranslated by _Xilander_, and with the Annotations of _Meursius_, all\nwhereof make good the promise of their titles, and may be read with\ncaution. Which if any man shall likewise observe in the Lecture of\n_Philostratus_, concerning the life of _Apollonius_, and even in some\npassages of the sober and learned _Plutarchus_; or not only in ancient\nWriters, but shall carry a wary eye on _Paulus Venetus_, _Jovius_,\n_Olaus Magnus_, _Nierembergius_, and many other: I think his\ncircumspection is laudable, and he may thereby decline occasion of\nError.\n\n[Sidenote: _A like opinion there is now of Elder._]\n\n4. _Dioscorides Anazarbeus_, he wrote many Books in Physick, but six\nthereof _De Materia Medica_, have found the greatest esteem: he is an\nAuthor of good antiquity and use, preferred by _Galen_ before\n_Cratevas_, _Pamphilus_, and all that attempted the like description\nbefore him; yet all he delivereth therein is not to be conceived\nOraculous. For beside that, following the wars under _Anthony_, the\ncourse of his life would not permit a punctual _Examen_ in all; there\nare many things concerning the nature of Simples, traditionally\ndelivered, and to which I believe he gave no assent himself. It had been\nan excellent Receit, and in his time when Saddles were scarce in fashion\nof very great use, if that were true which he delivers, that _Vitex_, or\n_Agnus Castus_ held only in the hand, preserveth the rider from galling.\nIt were a strange effect, and Whores would forsake the experiment of\n_Savine_, if that were a truth which he delivereth of Brake or female\nFearn, that onely treading over it, it causeth a sudden abortion. It\nwere to be wished true, and women would idolize him, could that be made\nout which he recordeth of _Phyllon_, _Mercury_, and other vegetables,\nthat the juice of the male Plant drunk, or the leaves but applied unto\nthe genitals, determines their conceptions unto males. In these\nrelations although he be more sparing, his predecessors were very\nnumerous; and _Galen_ hereof most sharply accuseth _Pamphilus_. Many of\nthe like nature we meet sometimes in _Oribasius_, _AEtius_, _Trallianus_,\n_Serapion_, _Evax_, and _Marcellus_, whereof some containing no colour\nof verity, we may at first sight reject them; others which seem to\ncarry some face of truth, we may reduce unto experiment. And herein we\nshall rather perform good offices unto truth, then any disservice unto\ntheir relators, who have well deserved of succeeding Ages; from whom\nhaving received the conceptions of former Times, we have the readier\nhint of their conformity with ours, and may accordingly explore and sift\ntheir verities.\n\n[Sidenote: _Plinius Natural History collected out of 2000 several\nAuthors._]\n\n5. _Plinius Secundus of Verona_; a man of great Eloquence, and industry\nindefatigable, as may appear by his writings, especially those now\nextant, and which are never like to perish, but even with learning it\nself; that is, his Natural History. He was the greatest Collector or\nRhapsodist of the Latines, and as _Suetonius_ observeth, he collected\nthis piece out of two thousand Latine and Greek Authors. Now what is\nvery strange, there is scarce a popular error passant in our days, which\nis not either directly expressed, or diductively contained in this Work;\nwhich being in the hands of most men, hath proved a powerful occasion of\ntheir propagation. Wherein notwithstanding the credulity of the Reader,\nis more condemnable than the curiosity of the Author: for commonly he\nnameth the Authors from whom he received those accounts, and writes but\nas he reads, as in his Preface to _Vespasian_ he acknowledgeth.\n\n6. _Claudius AElianus_, who flourished not long after in the reign of\n_Trajan_, unto whom he dedicated his Tacticks; an elegant and\nmiscellaneous Author, he hath left two Books which are in the hands of\nevery one, his History of Animals, and his _Varia Historia_. Wherein are\ncontained many things suspicious, not a few false, some impossible; he\nis much beholding unto _Ctesias_, and in many uncertainties writes more\nconfidently then _Pliny_.\n\n7. _Julius Solinus_, who lived also about his time: He left a Work\nentituled _Polyhistor_, containing great variety of matter, and is with\nmost in good request at this day. But to speak freely what cannot be\nconcealed, it is but _Pliny_ varied, or a transcription of his Natural\nHistory: nor is it without all wonder it hath continued so long, but is\nnow likely, and deserves indeed to live for ever; not onely for the\nelegancy of the Text, but the excellency of the Comment, lately\nperformed by _Salmasius_, under the name of _Plinian_ Exercitations.\n\n8. _Athenaes_, a delectable Author, very various, and justly stiled by\n_Casaubon, Graecorum Plinius_. There is extant of his, a famous Piece,\nunder the name of _Deipnosophista_, or _Coena Sapientum_, containing\nthe Discourse of many learned men, at a Feast provided by _Laurentius_.\nIt is a laborious Collection out of many Authors, and some whereof are\nmentioned no where else. It containeth strange and singular relations,\nnot without some spice or sprinkling of all Learning. The Author was\nprobably a better Grammarian then Philosopher, dealing but hardly with\n_Aristotle_ and _Plato_, and betrayeth himself much in his Chapter _De\nCuriositate Aristotelis_. In brief, he is an Author of excellent use,\nand may with discretion be read unto great advantage: and hath therefore\nwell deserved the Comments of _Casaubon_ and _Dalecampius_. But being\nmiscellaneous in many things, he is to be received with suspition; for\nsuch as amass all relations, must erre in some, and may without offence\nbe unbelieved in many.\n\n[Sidenote: _That write Hexameters, or long verses._]\n\n9. We will not omit the works of _Nicander_, a Poet of good antiquity:\nthat is, his _Theriaca_, and _Alexipharmaca_, Translated and Commented\nby _Gorraeus_: for therein are contained several Traditions, and popular\nConceits of venemous Beasts; which only deducted, the Work is to be\nembraced, as containing the first description of poysons and their\nantidotes, whereof _Dioscorides_, _Pliny_, and _Galen_, have made\nespecial use in elder times; and _Ardoynus_, _Grevinus_, and others, in\ntimes more near our own. We might perhaps let pass _Oppianus_, that\nfamous Cilician Poet. There are extant of his in Greek, four Books of\nCynegeticks or Venation, five of Halieuticks or Piscation, commented and\npublished by _Ritterhusius_; wherein describing Beasts of venery and\nFishes, he hath indeed but sparingly inserted the vulgar conceptions\nthereof. So that abating the annual mutation of Sexes in the _Hyaena_,\nthe single Sex of the _Rhinoceros_, the Antipathy between two Drums, of\na Lamb and a Wolfes skin, the informity of Cubs, the venation of\n_Centaures_, the copulation of the _Murena_ and the Viper, with some few\nothers, he may be read with great delight and profit. It is not without\nsome wonder his Elegant Lines are so neglected. Surely hereby we reject\none of the best Epick Poets, and much condemn the Judgement of\n_Antoninus_, whose apprehensions so honoured his Poems, that as some\nreport, for every verse, he assigned him a Stater of Gold.\n\n10. More warily are we to receive the relations of _Philes_, who in\n_Greek Iambicks_ delivered the proprieties of Animals, for herein he\nhath amassed the vulgar accounts recorded by the Ancients, and hath\ntherein especially followed _AElian_. And likewise _Johannes Tzetzes_, a\nGrammarian, who besides a Comment upon _Hesiod_ and _Homer_, hath left\nus _Chiliads de Varia Historia_; wherein delivering the accounts of\n_Ctesias_, _Herodotus_, and most of the Ancients, he is to be embraced\nwith caution, and as a transcriptive Relator.\n\n11. We cannot without partiality omit all caution even of holy Writers,\nand such whose names are venerable unto all posterity: not to meddle at\nall with miraculous Authors, or any Legendary relators, we are not\nwithout circumspection to receive some Books even of authentick and\nrenowned Fathers. So are we to read the leaves of _Basil_ and _Ambrose_,\nin their Books entituled _Hexameron_, or _The Description of the\nCreation_; Wherein delivering particular accounts of all the Creatures,\nthey have left us relations sutable to those of _AElian_, _Plinie_, and\nother Natural Writers; whose authorities herein they followed, and from\nwhom most probably they desumed their Narrations. And the like hath been\ncommitted by _Epiphanius_, in his Physiologie: that is, a Book he hath\nleft concerning the Nature of Animals. With no less caution must we look\non _Isidor_ Bishop of _Sevil_; who having left in twenty Books, an\naccurate work _De Originibus_, hath to the Etymologie of Words,\nsuper-added their received Natures; wherein most generally he consents\nwith common Opinions and Authors which have delivered them.\n\n12. _Albertus_ Bishop of _Ratisbone_, for his great Learning and\nlatitude of Knowledge, sirnamed _Magnus_. Besides Divinity, he hath\nwritten many Tracts in Philosophy; what we are chiefly to receive with\ncaution, are his Natural Tractates, more especially those of Minerals,\nVegetables, and Animals, which are indeed chiefly Collections out of\n_Aristotle_, _AElian_, and _Pliny_, and respectively contain many of our\npopular Errors. A man who hath much advanced these Opinions by the\nauthority of his Name, and delivered most Conceits, with strict Enquiry\ninto few. In the same _Classis_ may well be placed _Vincentius\nBelluacensis_, or rather he from whom he collected his _Speculum\nnaturale_, that is, _Guilielmus de Conchis_; and also _Hortus\nSanitatis_, and _Bartholomeus Glanvil_, sirnamed _Anglicus_, who writ\n_De proprietatibus Rerum_. Hither also may be referred _Kiranides_,\nwhich is a Collection out of _Harpocration_ the Greek, and sundry\nArabick Writers; delivering not onely the Natural but Magical propriety\nof things; a Work as full of Vanity as Variety; containing many\nrelations, whose Invention is as difficult as their Beliefs, and their\nExperiments sometime as hard as either.\n\n13. We had almost forgot _Jeronimus Cardanus_ that famous Physician of\n_Milan_, a great Enquirer of Truth, but too greedy a Receiver of it. He\nhath left many excellent Discourses, Medical, Natural, and Astrological;\nthe most suspicious are those two he wrote by admonition in a dream,\nthat is _De Subtilitate & Varietate Rerum_. Assuredly this learned man\nhath taken many things upon trust, and although examined some, hath let\nslip many others. He is of singular use unto a prudent Reader; but unto\nhim that onely desireth Hoties, or to replenish his head with varieties;\nlike many others before related, either in the Original or confirmation,\nhe may become no small occasion of Error.\n\n14. Lastly, Authors are also suspicious, not greedily to be swallowed,\nwho pretend to write of Secrets, to deliver Antipathies, Sympathies, and\nthe occult abstrusities of things; in the list whereof may be accounted,\n_Alexis Pedimontanus_, _Antonius Mizaldus_, _Trinum Magicum_, and many\nothers. Not omitting that famous Philosopher of _Naples_, _Baptista\nPorta_; in whose Works, although there be contained many excellent\nthings, and verified upon his own Experience; yet are there many also\nreceptary, and such as will not endure the test. Who although he hath\ndelivered many strange Relations in his Phytognomia, and his Villa; yet\nhath he more remarkably expressed himself in his Natural Magick, and the\nmiraculous effects of Nature. Which containing various and delectable\nsubjects, withall promising wondrous and easie effects, they are\nentertained by Readers at all hands; whereof the major part sit down in\nhis authority, and thereby omit not onely the certainty of Truth, but\nthe pleasure of its Experiment.\n\nThus have we made a brief enumeration of these Learned Men; not willing\nany to decline their Works (without which it is not easie to attain any\nmeasure of general Knowledge,) but to apply themselves with caution\nthereunto. And seeing the lapses of these worthy Pens, to cast a wary\neye on those diminutive, and pamphlet Treaties daily published amongst\nus. Pieces maintaining rather Typography than Verity, Authors presumably\nwriting by Common Places, wherein for many years promiscuously amassing\nall that makes for their subject, they break forth at last in trite and\nfruitless Rhapsodies; doing thereby not only open injury unto Learning,\nbut committing a secret treachery upon truth. For their relations\nfalling upon credulous Readers, they meet with prepared beliefs; whose\nsupinities had rather assent unto all, then adventure the trial of any.\n\nThus, I say, must these Authors be read, and thus must we be read our\nselves; for discoursing of matters dubious, and many convertible truths;\nwe cannot without arrogancy entreat a credulity, or implore any farther\nassent, then the probability of our Reasons, and verity of experiments\ninduce.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nOf the Same.\n\n\nThere are beside these Authors and such as have positively promoted\nerrors, divers other which are in some way accessory; whose verities\nalthough they do not directly assert, yet do they obliquely concur unto\ntheir beliefs. In which account are many holy Writers, Preachers,\nMoralists, Rhetoricians, Orators and Poets; for they depending upon\nInvention, deduce their mediums from all things whatsoever; and playing\nmuch upon the simile, or illustrative argumentation: to induce their\nEnthymemes unto the people, they took up popular conceits, and from\ntraditions unjustifiable or really false, illustrate matters of\nundeniable truth. Wherein although their intention be sincere, and that\ncourse not much condemnable; yet doth it notoriously strengthen common\nErrors, and authorise Opinions injurious unto truth.\n\n[Sidenote: _Expressions of holy Scripture fitted many times rather to\npopular and common apprehension, then to the exact Nature of things._]\n\nThus have some Divines drawn into argument the Fable of the _Phoenix_,\nmade use of that of the _Salamander_, _Pelican_, _Basilisk_, and divers\nrelations of _Plinie_; deducing from thence most worthy morals, and even\nupon our Saviour. Now although this be not prejudicial unto wiser\nJudgments, who are but weakly moved with such arguments, yet it is oft\ntimes occasion of Error unto vulgar heads, who expect in the Fable as\nequal a truth as in the Moral, and conceive that infallible Philosophy,\nwhich is in any sense delivered by Divinity. But wiser discerners do\nwell understand, that every Art hath its own circle; that the effects\nof things are best examined, by sciences wherein are delivered their\ncauses; that strict and definitive expressions, are alway required in\nPhilosophy, but a loose and popular delivery will serve oftentimes in\nDivinity. As may be observed even in holy Scripture, which often\nomitteth the exact account of things; describing them rather to our\napprehensions, then leaving doubts in vulgar minds, upon their unknown\nand Philosophical descriptions. Thus it termeth the Sun and the Moon the\ntwo great lights of Heaven. Now if any shall from hence conclude, the\nMoon is second in magnitude unto the Sun, he must excuse my belief; and\nit cannot be strange, if herein I rather adhere unto the demonstration\nof _Ptolomy_, then the popular description of _Moses_. Thus is it said,\n_Chron._ 2. 4. That _Solomon_ made a molten Sea of ten Cubits from brim\nto brim round in compass, and five Cubits the height thereof, and a line\nof thirty Cubits did compass it round about. Now in this description,\nthe circumference is made just treble unto the Diameter: that is, as 10.\nto 30. or 7. to 21. But _Archimedes_ [SN: _In his Cyclometria._]\ndemonstrates, that the proportion of the Diameter unto the\ncircumference, is as 7. unto almost 22. which will occasion a sensible\ndifference, that is almost a Cubit. Now if herein I adhere unto\n_Archimedes_ who speaketh exactly, rather then the sacred Text which\nspeaketh largely; I hope I shall not offend Divinity: I am sure I shall\nhave reason and experience of every circle to support me.\n\nThus Moral Writers, Rhetoricians and Orators make use of several\nrelations which will not consist with verity. _Aristotle_ in his Ethicks\ntakes up the conceit of the _Bever_, and the divulsion of his Testicles.\nThe tradition of the Bear, the Viper, and divers others are frequent\namongst Orators. All which although unto the illiterate and undiscerning\nhearers may seem a confirmation of their realities; yet is this no\nreasonable establishment unto others, who will not depend hereon\notherwise then common Apologues: which being of impossible falsities, do\nnotwithstanding include wholsome moralities, and such as expiate the\ntrespass of their absurdities.\n\nThe Hieroglyphical doctrine of the AEgyptians (which in their four\nhundred years cohabitation some conjecture they learned from the\nHebrews) hath much advanced many popular conceits. For using an Alphabet\nof things, and not of words, through the image and pictures thereof,\nthey endeavoured to speak their hidden conceits in the letters and\nlanguage of Nature. In pursuit whereof, although in many things, they\nexceeded not their true and real apprehensions; yet in some other they\neither framing the story, or taking up the tradition, conducible unto\ntheir intentions, obliquely confirmed many falsities; which as\nauthentick and conceded truths did after pass unto the Greeks, from them\nunto other Nations, and are still retained by symbolical Writers,\nEmblematists, Heralds, and others. Whereof some are strictly maintained\nfor truths, as naturally making good their artificial representations;\nothers symbolically intended, are literally received, and swallowed in\nthe first sense, without all gust of the second. Whereby we pervert the\nprofound and mysterious knowledge of AEgypt; containing the Arcana's of\nGreek Antiquities, the Key of many obscurities and ancient learning\nextant. Famous herein in former Ages were _Heraiscus_, _Cheremon_,\n_Epius_, especially _Orus Apollo Niliacus_: who lived in the reign of\n_Theodosius_, and in AEgyptian language left two Books of\nHieroglyphicks, translated into Greek by _Philippus_, and a large\ncollection of all made after by _Pierius_. But no man is likely to\nprofound the Ocean of that Doctrine, beyond that eminent example of\nindustrious Learning, _Kircherus_.\n\nPainters who are the visible representers of things, and such as by the\nlearned sense of the eye endeavour to inform the understanding, are not\ninculpable herein, who either describing Naturals as they are, or\nactions as they have been, have oftentimes erred in their delineations.\nWhich being the Books that all can read, are fruitful advancers of these\nconceptions, especially in common and popular apprehensions: who being\nunable for farther enquiry, must rest in the draught and letter of their\ndescriptions.\n\nLastly, Poets and Poetical Writers have in this point exceeded others,\ntrimly advancing the AEgyptian notions of _Harpies_, _Phoenix_,\n_Gryphins_ and many more. Now however to make use of Fictions,\nApologues, and Fables, be not unwarrantable, and the intent of these\ninventions might point at laudable ends; yet do they afford our junior\ncapacities a frequent occasion of error, setling impressions in our\ntender memories, which our advanced judgments generally neglect to\nexpunge. This way the vain and idle fictions of the Gentiles did first\ninsinuate into the heads of Christians; and thus are they continued even\nunto our days. Our first and literary apprehensions being commonly\ninstructed in Authors which handle nothing else; wherewith our memories\nbeing stuffed, our inventions become pedantick, and cannot avoid their\nallusions; driving at these as at the highest elegancies, which are but\nthe frigidities of wit, and become not the genius of manly ingenuities.\nIt were therefore no loss like that of _Galens_ Library, if these had\nfound the same fate; and would in some way requite the neglect of solid\nAuthors, if they were less pursued. For were a pregnant wit educated in\nignorance hereof, receiving only impressions from realities; upon such\nsolid foundations, it must surely raise more substantial\nsuperstructions, and fall upon very many excellent strains, which have\nbeen jusled off by their intrusions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nOf the last and common Promoter of false Opinions, the endeavours of\nSatan.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _The Devils method of propagating Error in the World._]\n\nBut beside the infirmities of humane Nature, the seed of Error within\nour selves, and the several ways of delusion from each other, there is\nan invisible Agent, and secret promoter without us, whose activity is\nundiscerned, and plays in the dark upon us; and that is the first\ncontriver of Error, and professed opposer of Truth, the Devil. For\nthough permitted unto his proper principles, _Adam_ perhaps would have\nsinned without the suggestion of Satan: and from the transgressive\ninfirmities of himself might have erred alone, as well as the Angels\nbefore him: And although also there were no Devil at all, yet there is\nnow in our Natures a confessed sufficiency unto corruption, and the\nfrailty of our own Oeconomie, were able to betray us out of Truth, yet\nwants there not another Agent, who taking advantage hereof proceedeth to\nobscure the diviner part, and efface all tract of its traduction. To\nattempt a particular of all his wiles, is too bold an Arithmetick for\nman: what most considerably concerneth his popular and practised ways of\ndelusion, he first deceiveth mankind in five main points concerning God\nand himself.\n\nAnd first his endeavours have ever been, and they cease not yet to\ninstill a belief in the mind of Man, there is no God at all. And this he\nprincipally endeavours to establish in a direct and literal\napprehension; that is, that there is no such reality existent, that the\nnecessity of his entity dependeth upon ours, and is but a Political\nChymera; that the natural truth of God is an artificial erection of Man,\nand the Creator himself but a subtile invention of the Creature. Where\nhe succeeds not thus high, he labours to introduce a secondary and\ndeductive Atheism; that although men concede there is a God, yet should\nthey deny his providence. And therefore assertions have flown about,\nthat he intendeth only the care of the species or common natures, but\nletteth loose the guard of individuals, and single existencies therein:\nthat he looks not below the Moon, but hath designed the regiment of\nsublunary affairs unto inferiour deputations. To promote which\napprehensions, or empuzzel their due conceptions, he casteth in the\nnotions of fate, destiny, fortune, chance, and necessity; terms commonly\nmisconceived by vulgar heads, and their propriety sometime perverted by\nthe wisest. Whereby extinguishing in minds the compensation of vertue\nand vice, the hope and fear of Heaven or Hell; they comply in their\nactions unto the drift of his delusions, and live like creatures without\nthe capacity of either.\n\nNow hereby he not onely undermineth the Base of Religion, and destroyeth\nthe principle preambulous unto all belief; but puts upon us the remotest\nError from Truth. For Atheism is the greatest falsity, and to affirm\nthere is no God, the highest lie in Nature. And therefore strictly\ntaken, some men will say his labour is in vain; For many there are, who\ncannot conceive there was ever any absolute _Atheist_; or such as could\ndetermine there was no God, without all check from himself, or\ncontradiction from his other opinions. And therefore those few so called\nby elder times, might be the best of _Pagans_; suffering that name\nrather in relation to the gods of the Gentiles, then the true Creator of\nall. A conceit that cannot befal his greatest enemy, or him that would\ninduce the same in us; who hath a sensible apprehension hereof, for he\nbelieveth with trembling. To speak yet more strictly and conformably\nunto some Opinions, no creature can wish thus much; nor can the Will\nwhich hath a power to run into velleities, and wishes of\nimpossibilities, have any _utinam_ of this. For to desire there were no\nGod, were plainly to unwish their own being; which must needs be\nannihilated in the substraction of that essence which substantially\nsupporteth them, and restrains them from regression into nothing. And if\nas some contend, no creature can desire his own annihilation, that\nNothing is not appetible, and not to be at all, is worse then to be in\nthe miserablest condition of something; the Devil himself could not\nembrace that motion, nor would the enemy of God be freed by such a\nRedemption.\n\nBut coldly thriving in this design, as being repulsed by the principles\nof humanity, and the dictates of that production, which cannot deny its\noriginal, he fetcheth a wider circle; and when he cannot make men\nconceive there is no God at all, he endeavours to make them believe\nthere is not one, but many: wherein he hath been so successful with\ncommon heads, that he hath led their belief thorow the Works of Nature.\n\n[Sidenote: _Areopagus the severe Court of Athens._]\n\nNow in this latter attempt, the subtilty of his circumvention, hath\nindirectly obtained the former. For although to opinion there be many\ngods, may seem an excess in Religion, and such as cannot at all consist\nwith Atheism, yet doth it deductively and upon inference include the\nsame, for Unity is the inseparable and essential attribute of Deity; and\nif there be more then one God, it is no Atheism to say there is no God\nat all. And herein though _Socrates_ only suffered, yet were _Plato_ and\n_Aristotle_ guilty of the same Truth; who demonstratively understanding\nthe simplicity of perfection, and the indivisible condition of the first\ncausator, it was not in the power of Earth, or Areopagy of Hell [SN:\n_Areopagus the severe Court of Athens._] to work them from it. For\nholding an [19]Apodictical knowledge, and assured science of its verity,\nto perswade their apprehensions unto a plurality of gods in the world,\nwere to make _Euclide_ believe there were more than one Center in a\nCircle, or one right Angle in a Triangle; which were indeed a fruitless\nattempt, and inferreth absurdities beyond the evasion of Hell. For\nthough Mechanick and vulgar heads ascend not unto such comprehensions,\nwho live not commonly unto half the advantage of their principles; yet\ndid they not escape the eye of wiser _Minerva's_, and such as made good\nthe genealogie of _Jupiters_ brains; who although they had divers stiles\nfor God, yet under many appellations acknowledged one divinity: rather\nconceiving thereby the evidence or acts of his power in several ways and\nplaces, then a multiplication of Essence, or real distraction of unity\nin any one.\n\n  [19] _Demonstrative._\n\nAgain, To render our errors more monstrous (and what unto miracle sets\nforth the patience of God,) he hath endeavoured to make the world\nbelieve, that he was God himself; and failing of his first attempt to be\nbut like the highest in Heaven, he hath obtained with men to be the same\non Earth. And hath accordingly assumed the annexes of Divinity, and the\nprerogatives of the Creator, drawing into practice the operation of\nmiracles, and the prescience of things to come. Thus hath he in a\nspecious way wrought cures upon the sick: played over the wondrous acts\nof Prophets, and counterfeited many miracles of Christ and his Apostles.\nThus hath he openly contended with God, and to this effect his insolency\nwas not ashamed to play a solemn prize with _Moses_; wherein although\nhis performance were very specious, and beyond the common apprehension\nof any power below a Deity; yet was it not such as could make good his\nOmnipotency. For he was wholly confounded in the conversion of dust into\nlice. An act Philosophy can scarce deny to be above the power of Nature,\nnor upon a requisite predisposition beyond the efficacy of the Sun.\nWherein notwithstanding the head of the old Serpent was confessedly too\nweak for _Moses_ hand, and the arm of his Magicians too short for the\nfinger of God.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Authors opinion, touching Necromancy and apparitions of\nthe spirits of men departed._]\n\nThus hath he also made men believe that he can raise the dead, that he\nhath the key of life and death, and a prerogative above that principle\nwhich makes no regression from privations. The Stoicks that opinioned\nthe souls of wise men dwelt about the Moon, and those of fools wandered\nabout the Earth, advantaged the conceit of this effect; wherein the\nEpicureans, who held that death was nothing, nor nothing after death,\nmust contradict their principles to be deceived. Nor could the\nPythagoreans or such as maintained the transmigration of souls give\neasie admittance hereto: for holding that separated souls successively\nsupplied other bodies, they could hardly allow the raising of souls from\nother worlds, which at the same time, they conceived conjoyned unto\nbodies in this. More inconsistent with these Opinions, is the Error of\nChristians, who holding the dead do rest in the Lord, do yet believe\nthey are at the lure of the Devil; that he who is in bonds himself\ncommandeth the fetters of the dead, and dwelling in the bottomless lake,\nthe blessed from _Abrahams_ bosome, that can believe the real\nresurrection of _Samuel_: or that there is any thing but delusion in the\npractice of [20]Necromancy and popular raising of Ghosts.\n\n  [20] _Divination by the dead._\n\n[Sidenote: _How the Devil works his pretended revelations or\npredictions._]\n\nHe hath moreover endeavoured the opinion of Deity, by the delusion of\nDreams, and the discovery of things to come in sleep, above the\nprescience of our waked senses. In this expectation he perswaded the\ncredulity of elder times to take up their lodging before his temple, in\nskins of their own sacrifices: till his reservedness had contrived\nanswers, whose accomplishments were in his power, or not beyond his\npresagement. Which way, although it had pleased Almighty God, sometimes\nto reveal himself, yet was the proceeding very different. For the\nrevelations of Heaven are conveyed by new impressions, and the immediate\nillumination of the soul, whereas the deceiving spirit, by concitation\nof humours, produceth his conceited phantasms, or by compounding the\nspecies already residing, doth make up words which mentally speak his\nintentions.\n\nBut above all he most advanced his Deity in the solemn practice of\nOracles, wherein in several parts of the World, he publikely professed\nhis Divinity; but how short they flew of that spirit, whose omniscience,\nthey would resemble, their weakness sufficiently declared. What jugling\nthere was therein, the Orator [SN: _Demosthenes._] plainly confessed,\nwho being good at the same game himself, could say that _Pythia_\nPhilippised. Who can but laugh at the carriage of _Ammon_ unto\n_Alexander_, who addressing unto him as a god, was made to believe, he\nwas a god himself? How openly did he betray his Indivinity unto\n_Croesus_, who being ruined by his Amphibology, and expostulating with\nhim for so ungrateful a deceit, received no higher answer then the\nexcuse of his impotency upon the contradiction of fate, and the setled\nlaw of powers beyond his power to controle! What more then sublunary\ndirections, or such as might proceed from the Oracle of humane Reason,\nwas in his advice unto the Spartans in the time of a great Plague; when\nfor the cessation thereof, he wisht them to have recourse unto a Fawn,\nthat is in open terms, unto one Nebrus, a good Physitian of those days?\n[SN: Nebros, _in Greek, a Fawn_.] From no diviner a spirit came his\nreply unto _Caracalla_, who requiring a remedy for his Gout, received no\nother counsel then to refrain cold drink; which was but a dietetical\ncaution, and such as without a journey unto _AEsculapius_, culinary\nprescription and kitchin Aphorisms might have afforded at home. Nor\nsurely if any truth there were therein, of more then natural activity\nwas his counsel unto _Democritus_; when for the Falling sickness he\ncommended the Maggot in a Goats head. For many things secret are true;\nsympathies and antipathies are safely authentick unto us, who ignorant\nof their causes may yet acknowledge their effects. Beside, being a\nnatural Magician he may perform many acts in ways above our knowledge,\nthough not transcending our natural power, when our knowledge shall\ndirect it. Part hereof hath been discovered by himself, and some by\nhumane indagation: which though magnified as fresh inventions unto us,\nare stale unto his cognition. I hardly believe he hath from elder times\nunknown the verticity of the Loadstone; surely his perspicacity\ndiscerned it to respect the North, when ours beheld it indeterminately.\nMany secrets there are in Nature of difficult discovery unto man, of\neasie knowledge unto Satan; whereof some his vain glory cannot conceal,\nothers his envy will not discover.\n\nAgain, Such is the mysterie of his delusion, that although he labour to\nmake us believe that he is God, and supremest nature whatsoever, yet\nwould he also perswade our beliefs, that he is less then Angels or men;\nand his condition not onely subjected unto rational powers, but the\nactions of things which have no efficacy on our selves. Thus hath he\ninveigled no small part of the world into a credulity of artificial\nMagick: That there is an Art, which without compact commandeth the\npowers of Hell; whence some have delivered the polity of spirits, and\nleft an account even to their Provincial Dominions: that they stand in\nawe of Charms, Spels, and Conjurations; that he is afraid of letters and\ncharacters, of notes and dashes, which set together do signifie nothing,\nnot only in the dictionary of man, but the subtiler vocabulary of Satan.\nThat there is any power in _Bitumen_, Pitch, or Brimstone, to purifie\nthe air from his uncleanness; that any vertue there is in _Hipericon_\n[SN: St. Johns _Wort, so called by Magicians_.] to make good the name of\n_fuga Daemonis_, any such Magick as is ascribed unto the Root _Baaras_ by\n_Josephus_, or _Cynospastus_ by _AElianus_, it is not easie to believe;\nnor is it naturally made out what is delivered of _Tobias_, that by the\nfume of a Fishes liver, he put to flight _Asmodeus_. That they are\nafraid of the pentangle of _Solomon_, though so set forth with the body\nof man, as to touch and point out the five places wherein our Saviour\nwas wounded, I know not how to assent. [SN: _3 triangles intersected and\nmade of five lines._] If perhaps he hath fled from holy Water, if he\ncares not to hear the sound of _Tetragrammaton_ [SN: _Implying Jehovah,\nwhich in Hebrew consisteth of four letters._], if his eye delight not in\nthe sign of the Cross; and that sometimes he will seem to be charmed\nwith words of holy Scripture, and to flie from the letter and dead\nverbality, who must onely start at the life and animated interiors\nthereof: It may be feared they are but _Parthian_ flights, _Ambuscado_\nretreats, and elusory tergiversations: Whereby to confirm our\ncredulities, he will comply with the opinion of such powers, which in\nthemselves have no activities. Whereof having once begot in our minds an\nassured dependence, he makes us relie on powers which he but\nprecariously obeys; and to desert those true and only charms which Hell\ncannot withstand.\n\nLastly, To lead us farther into darkness, and quite to lose us in this\nmaze of Error, he would make men believe there is no such creature as\nhimself: and that he is not onely subject unto inferiour creatures, but\nin the rank of nothing. Insinuating into mens minds there is no Devil at\nall, and contriveth accordingly, many ways to conceal or indubitate his\nexistency. Wherein beside that he annihilates the blessed Angels and\nSpirits in the rank of his Creation; he begets a security of himself,\nand a careless eye unto the last remunerations. And therefore hereto he\ninveigleth, not only _Sadduces_ and such as retain unto the Church of\nGod: but is also content that _Epicurus_, _Democritus_, or any Heathen\nshould hold the same. And to this effect he maketh men believe that\napparitions, and such as confirm his existence are either deceptions of\nsight, or melancholly depravements of phansie. Thus when he had not\nonely appeared but spake unto _Brutus_; _Cassius_ the Epicurian was\nready at hand to perswade him, it was but a mistake in his weary\nimagination, and that indeed there were no such realities in nature.\nThus he endeavours to propagate the unbelief of Witches, whose\nconcession infers his co-existency; by this means also he advanceth the\nopinion of total death, and staggereth the immortality of the soul; for,\nsuch as deny there are spirits subsistent without bodies, will with more\ndifficulty affirm the separated existence of their own.\n\nNow to induce and bring about these falsities, he hath laboured to\ndestroy the evidence of Truth, that is the revealed verity and written\nWord of God. To which intent he hath obtained with some to repudiate the\nBooks of _Moses_, others those of the Prophets, and some both: to deny\nthe Gospel and authentick Histories of Christ; to reject that of _John_,\nand to receive that of _Judas_; to disallow all, and erect another of\n_Thomas_. And when neither their corruption by _Valentinus_ and\n_Arrius_, their mutilation by _Marcion_, _Manes_, and _Ebion_ could\nsatisfie his design, he attempted the ruine and total destruction\nthereof; as he sedulously endeavoured, by the power and subtilty of\n_Julian_, _Maximinus_, and _Dioclesian_.\n\nBut the longevity of that piece, which hath so long escaped the common\nfate, and the providence of that Spirit which ever waketh over it, may\nat last discourage such attempts; and if not make doubtful its\nMortality, at least indubitably declare; this is a stone too big for\n_Saturns_ mouth, and a bit indeed Oblivion cannot swallow.\n\nAnd thus how strangely he possesseth us with Errors may clearly be\nobserved, deluding us into contradictory and inconsistent falsities;\nwhilest he would make us believe, That there is no God. That there are\nmany. That he himself is God. That he is less then Angels or Men. That\nhe is nothing at all.\n\nNor hath he onely by these wiles depraved the conception of the Creator,\nbut with such Riddles hath also entangled the Nature of our Redeemer.\nSome denying his Humanity, and that he was one of the Angels, as\n_Ebion_; that the Father and Son were but one person, as _Sabellius_.\nThat his body was phantastical, as _Manes_, _Basilides_, _Priscillian_,\n_Jovinianus_; that he only passed through _Mary_, as _Utyches_ and\n_Valentinus_. Some denying his Divinity; that he was begotten of humane\nprinciples, and the seminal Son of _Joseph_; as _Carpocras_,\n_Symmachus_, _Photinus_: that he was _Seth_ the Son of _Adam_, as the\n_Sethians_: that he was less then Angels, as _Cherinthus_: that he was\ninferiour unto _Melchisedec_, as _Theodotus_: that he was not God, but\nGod dwelt in him, as _Nicholaus_: and some embroyled them both. So did\nthey which converted the Trinity into a Quaternity, and affirmed two\npersons in Christ, as _Paulus Samosatenus_: that held he was Man without\na Soul, and that the Word performed that office in him, as\n_Apollinaris_: that he was both Son and Father, as _Montanus_: that\n_Jesus_ suffered, but Christ remained impatible, as _Cherinthus_. Thus\nhe endeavours to entangle Truths: And when he cannot possibly destroy\nits substance, he cunningly confounds its apprehensions; that from the\ninconsistent and contrary determinations thereof, consectary impieties,\nand hopeful conclusions may arise, there's no such thing at all.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nA further Illustration.\n\n\nNow although these ways of delusions most Christians have escaped, yet\nare there many other whereunto we are daily betrayed, and these we meet\nwith in obvious occurrents of the world, wherein he induceth us, to\nascribe effects unto causes of no cognation; and distorting the order\nand theory of causes perpendicular to their effects, he draws them aside\nunto things whereto they run parallel, and in their proper motions would\nnever meet together.\n\nThus doth he sometime delude us in the conceits of Stars and Meteors,\nbeside their allowable actions ascribing effects thereunto of\nindependent causations. Thus hath he also made the ignorant sort believe\nthat natural effects immediately and commonly proceed from supernatural\npowers: and these he usually drives from Heaven, his own principality\nthe Air, and Meteors therein; which being of themselves the effects of\nnatural and created causes, and such as upon a due conjunction of\nactives and passives, without a miracle must arise unto what they\nappear; are always looked on by ignorant spectators as supernatural\nspectacles, and made the causes or signs of most succeeding\ncontingencies. To behold a Rainbow in the night, is no prodigy unto a\nPhilosopher. Then Eclipses of Sun or Moon, nothing is more natural. Yet\nwith what superstition they have been beheld since the Tragedy of\n_Nicias_ and his Army, many examples declare.\n\nTrue it is, and we will not deny, that although these being natural\nproductions from second and setled causes, we need not alway look upon\nthem as the immediate hand of God, or of his ministring Spirits; yet do\nthey sometimes admit a respect therein; and even in their naturals, the\nindifferency of their existencies contemporised unto our actions, admits\na further consideration.\n\nThat two or three Suns or Moons appear in any mans life or reign, it is\nnot worth the wonder. But that the same should fall out at a remarkable\ntime, or point of some decisive action; that the contingency of the\nappearance should be confirmed unto that time; that those two should\nmake but one line in the Book of Fate, and stand together in the great\nEphemerides of God; beside the Philosophical assignment of the cause, it\nmay admit a Christian apprehension in the signality.\n\nBut above all he deceiveth us, when we ascribe the effects of things\nunto evident and seeming causalities, which arise from the secret and\nundiscerned action of himself. Thus hath he deluded many Nations in his\nAugurial and Extispicious inventions, from casual and uncontrived\ncontingencies divining events succeeding. Which _Tuscan_ superstition\nseizing upon _Rome_, hath since possessed all _Europe_. When _Augustus_\nfound two galls in his sacrifice, the credulity of the City concluded a\nhope of peace with _Anthony_; and the conjunction of persons in choler\nwith each other. Because _Brutus_ and _Cassius_ met a Blackmore, and\n_Pompey_ had on a dark or sad coloured garment at _Pharsalia_; these\nwere presages of their overthrow. Which notwithstanding are scarce\nRhetorical sequels; concluding Metaphors from realities, and from\nconceptions metaphorical inferring realities again.\n\nNow these divinations concerning events, being in his power to force,\ncontrive, prevent, or further, they must generally fall out conformably\nunto his predictions. When _Graccus_ was slain, the same day the\nChickens refused to come out of the Coop: and _Claudius Pulcher_\nunderwent the like success, when he contemned the Tripudiary\nAugurations: They died not because the Pullets would not feed: but\nbecause the Devil foresaw their death, he contrived that abstinence in\nthem. So was there no natural dependence of the event. An unexpected way\nof delusion, and whereby he more easily led away the incircumspection of\ntheir belief. Which fallacy he might excellently have acted before the\ndeath of _Saul_; for that being within his power to foretell, was not\nbeyond his ability to foreshew: and might have contrived signs thereof\nthrough all the creatures, which visibly confirmed by the event, had\nproved authentick unto those times, and advanced the Art ever after.\n\n[Sidenote: _The danger and delusion that is in cures by Charms, Amulets,\nLigatures, Characters, etc._]\n\nHe deludeth us also by Philters, Ligatures, Charms, ungrounded Amulets,\nCharacters, and many superstitious ways in the cure of common diseases:\nseconding herein the expectation of men with events of his own\ncontriving. Which while some unwilling to fall directly upon Magick,\nimpute unto the power of imagination, or the efficacy of hidden causes,\nhe obtains a bloody advantage: for thereby he begets not only a false\nopinion, but such as leadeth the open way of destruction. In maladies\nadmitting natural reliefs, making men rely on remedies, neither of real\noperation in themselves, nor more then seeming efficacy in his\nconcurrence. Which whensoever he pleaseth to withdraw, they stand naked\nunto the mischief of their diseases: and revenge the contempt of the\nmedicines of the Earth which God hath created for them. And therefore\nwhen neither miracle is expected, nor connection of cause unto effect\nfrom natural grounds concluded; however it be sometime successful, it\ncannot be safe to rely on such practises, and desert the known and\nauthentick provisions of God. In which rank of remedies, if nothing in\nour knowledge or their proper power be able to relieve us, we must with\npatience submit unto that restraint, and expect the will of the\nRestrainer.\n\nNow in these effects although he seems oft-times to imitate, yet doth he\nconcur unto their productions in a different way from that spirit which\nsometime in natural means produceth effects above Nature. For whether he\nworketh by causes which have relation or none unto the effect, he maketh\nit out by secret and undiscerned ways of Nature. So when _Caius_ the\nblind, in the reign of _Antoninus_, was commanded to pass from the right\nside of the Altar unto the left, to lay five fingers of one hand\nthereon, and five of the other upon his eys; although the cure succeeded\nand all the people wondered, there was not any thing in the action which\ndid produce it, nor any thing in his power that could enable it\nthereunto. So for the same infirmity, when _Aper_ was counselled by him\nto make a Collyrium or ocular medicine with the blood of a white Cock\nand Honey, and apply it to his eyes for three days: When _Julian_ for\nhis spitting of blood, was cured by Honey and Pine nuts taken from his\nAltar: When _Lucius_ for the pain in his side, applied thereto the ashes\nfrom his Altar with wine; although the remedies were somewhat rational,\nand not without a natural vertue unto such intentions, yet need we not\nbelieve that by their proper faculties they produced these effects.\n\nBut the effects of powers Divine flow from another operation; who either\nproceeding by visible means or not, unto visible effects, is able to\nconjoin them by his co-operation. And therefore those sensible ways\nwhich seem of indifferent natures, are not idle ceremonies, but may be\ncauses by his command, and arise unto productions beyond their regular\nactivities. If _Nahaman_ the Syrian had washed in _Jordan_ without the\ncommand of the Prophet, I believe he had been cleansed by them no more\nthen by the waters of _Damascus_. I doubt if any beside _Elisha_ had\ncast in Salt, the waters of _Jericho_ had not been made wholsome. I know\nthat a decoction of wild gourd or Colocynthis (though somewhat\nqualified) will not from every hand be dulcified unto aliment by an\naddition of flower or meal. There was some natural vertue in the\nPlaister of figs applied unto _Ezechias_; we find that gall is very\nmundificative, and was a proper medicine to clear the eyes of _Tobit_:\nwhich carrying in themselves some action of their own, they were\nadditionally promoted by that power, which can extend their natures unto\nthe production of effects beyond their created efficiencies. And thus\nmay he operate also from causes of no power unto their visible effects;\nfor he that hath determined their actions unto certain effects, hath not\nso emptied his own, but that he can make them effectual unto any other.\n\nAgain, Although his delusions run highest in points of practice, whose\nerrors draw on offensive or penal enormities, yet doth he also deal in\npoints of speculation, and things whose knowledge terminates in\nthemselves. Whose cognition although it seems indifferent, and therefore\nits aberration directly to condemn no man; yet doth he hereby\npreparatively dispose us unto errors, and deductively deject us into\ndestructive conclusions.\n\nThat the Sun, Moon, and Stars are living creatures, endued with soul and\nlife, seems an innocent Error, and an harmless digression from truth;\nyet hereby he confirmed their Idolatry, and made it more plausibly\nembraced. For wisely mistrusting that reasonable spirits would never\nfirmly be lost in the adorement of things inanimate, and in the lowest\nform of Nature; he begat an opinion that they were living creatures, and\ncould not decay for ever.\n\nThat spirits are corporeal, seems at first view a conceit derogative\nunto himself, and such as he should rather labour to overthrow; yet\nhereby he establisheth the Doctrine of Lustrations, Amulets and Charms,\nas we have declared before.\n\nThat there are two principles of all things, one good, and another evil;\nfrom the one proceeding vertue, love, light, and unity; from the other,\ndivision, discord, darkness, and deformity, was the speculation of\n_Pythagoras_, _Empedocles_, and many ancient Philosophers, and was no\nmore then _Oromasdes_ and _Arimanius_ of _Zoroaster_. Yet hereby he\nobtained the advantage of Adoration, and as the terrible principle\nbecame more dreadful then his Maker; and therefore not willing to let it\nfall, he furthered the conceit in succeeding Ages, and raised the\nfaction of _Manes_ to maintain it.\n\nThat the feminine sex have no generative emission, affording no seminal\nPrinciples of conception; was _Aristotles_ Opinion of old, maintained\nstill by some, and will be countenanced by him forever. For hereby he\ndisparageth the fruit of the Virgin, frustrateth the fundamental\nProphesie, nor can the seed of the Woman then break the head of the\nSerpent.\n\nNor doth he only sport in speculative Errors, which are of consequent\nimpieties; but the unquietness of his malice hunts after simple lapses,\nand such whose falsities do only condemn our understandings. Thus if\n_Xenophanes_ will say there is another world in the Moon; If\n_Heraclitus_ with his adherents will hold the Sun is no bigger then it\nappeareth; If _Anaxagoras_ affirm that Snow is black; If any other\nopinion there are no _Antipodes_, or that Stars do fall, he shall not\nwant herein the applause or advocacy of Satan. For maligning the\ntranquility of truth, he delighteth to trouble its streams; and being a\nprofessed enemy unto God (who is truth it self) he promoteth any Error\nas derogatory to his nature; and revengeth himself in every deformity\nfrom truth. If therefore at any time he speak or practise truth, it is\nupon design, and a subtile inversion of the precept of God, to do good\nthat evil may come of it. And therefore sometime we meet with wholsome\ndoctrines from Hell; _Nosce teipsum_, the Motto of _Delphos_, was a good\nprecept in morality: That a just man is beloved of the gods, an\nuncontrolable verity. 'Twas a good deed, though not well done, which he\nwrought by _Vespasian_, when by the touch of his foot he restored a lame\nman, and by the stroak of his hand another that was blind, but the\nintention hereof drived at his own advantage; for hereby he not only\nconfirmed the opinion of his power with the people, but his integrity\nwith Princes; in whose power he knew it lay to overthrow his Oracles,\nand silence the practice of his delusions.\n\n[Sidenote: _How spirits understand one another._]\n\nBut of such a diffused nature, and so large is the Empire of Truth, that\nit hath place within the walls of Hell, and the Devils themselves are\ndaily forced to practise it; not onely as being true themselves in a\nMetaphysical verity, that is, as having their essence conformable unto\nthe Intellect of their Maker, but making use of Moral and Logical\nverities; that is, whether in the conformity of words unto things, or\nthings unto their own conceptions, they practise truth in common among\nthemselves. For although without speech they intuitively conceive each\nother, yet do their apprehensions proceed through realities; and they\nconceive each other by species, which carry the true and proper notions\nof things conceived. And so also in Moral verities, although they\ndeceive us, they lie unto each other; as well understanding that all\ncommunity is continued by Truth, and that of Hell cannot consist without\nit.\n\nTo come yet nearer the point, and draw into a sharper angle; They do not\nonly speak and practise truth, but may be said well-wishers hereunto,\nand in some sense do really desire its enlargement. For many things\nwhich in themselves are false, they do desire were true; He cannot but\nwish he were as he professeth, that he had the knowledge of future\nevents; were it in his power, the Jews should be in the right, and the\n_Messias_ yet to come. Could his desires effect it, the opinion of\n_Aristotle_ should be true, the world should have no end, but be as\nimmortal as himself. For thereby he might evade the accomplishment of\nthose afflictions, he now but gradually endureth; for comparatively unto\nthose flames, he is but yet in _Balneo_, then begins his _Ignis Rotae_,\nand terrible fire, which will determine his disputed subtilty, and even\nhazard his immortality.\n\n[Sidenote: _How the Devils fell._]\n\nBut to speak strictly, he is in these wishes no promoter of verity, but\nif considered some ways injurious unto truth; for (besides that if\nthings were true, which now are false, it were but an exchange of their\nnatures, and things must then be false, which now are true) the setled\nand determined order of the world would be perverted, and that course of\nthings disturbed, which seemed best unto the immutable contriver. For\nwhilest they murmur against the present disposure of things, regulating\ndetermined realities unto their private optations, they rest not in\ntheir established natures; but unwishing their unalterable verities, do\ntacitely desire in them a deformity from the primitive Rule, and the\nIdea of that mind that formed all things best. And thus he offended\ntruth even in his first attempt; For not content with his created\nnature, and thinking it too low, to be the highest creature of God, he\noffended the Ordainer, not only in the attempt, but in the wish and\nsimple volition thereof.\n\n\n\n\n                            THE SECOND BOOK\n\n                 Of sundry popular Tenets concerning\n               Mineral, and vegetable bodies, generally\n                 held for truth; which examined, prove\n                      either false, or dubious.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nOf Crystal.\n\n\nHereof the common Opinion hath been, and still remaineth amongst us,\nthat Crystal is nothing else but Ice or Snow concreted, and by duration\nof time, congealed beyond liquation. Of which assertion, if prescription\nof time, and numerosity of Assertors, were a sufficient demonstration,\nwe might sit down herein, as an unquestionable truth; nor should there\nneed _ulterior_ disquisition. For few Opinions there are which have\nfound so many friends, or been so popularly received, through all\nProfessions and Ages. _Pliny_ is positive in this Opinion: _Crystallus\nsit gelu vehementius concreto_: the same is followed by _Seneca_,\nelegantly described by _Claudian_, not denied by _Scaliger_, some way\naffirmed by _Albertus_, _Brasavolus_, and directly by many others. The\nvenerable Fathers of the Church have also assented hereto; As _Basil_ in\nhis _Hexameron_, _Isidore_ in his Etymologies, and not only _Austin_ a\nLatine Father, but _Gregory_ the Great, and _Jerome_ upon occasion of\nthat term expressed in the first of _Ezekiel_.\n\n[Sidenote: _That Crystal is not Ice or Snow congealed._]\n\nAll which notwithstanding, upon a strict enquiry, we find the matter\ncontrovertible, and with much more reason denied then is as yet\naffirmed. For though many have passed it over with easie affirmatives,\nyet are there also many Authors that deny it, and the exactest\nMineralogists have rejected it. _Diodorus_ in his eleventh Book denieth\nit, (if Crystal be there taken in its proper acception, as _Rhodiginus_\nhath used it, and not for a Diamond, as _Salmatius_ hath expounded it)\nfor in that place he affirmeth; _Crystallum esse lapidem ex aqua pura\nconcretum, non tamen frigore sed divini caloris vi_. _Solinus_ who\ntranscribed _Pliny_, and therefore in almost all subscribed unto him,\nhath in this point dissented from him. _Putant quidam glaciem coire, et\nin Crystallum corporari, sed frustra._ _Mathiolus_ in his Comment upon\n_Dioscorides_, hath with confidence rejected it. The same hath been\nperformed by _Agricola de natura fossilium_; by _Cardan_, _Boetius de\nBoot_, _Caesius Bernardus_, _Sennertus_, and many more.\n\nNow besides Authority against it, there may be many reasons deduced from\ntheir several differences which seem to overthrow it. And first, a\ndifference is probable in their concretion. For if Crystal be a stone\n(as in the number thereof it is confessedly received,) it is not\nimmediately concreted by the efficacy of cold, but rather by a Mineral\nspirit, and lapidifical principles of its own, and therefore while it\nlay _in solutis principiis_, and remained in a fluid Body, it was a\nsubject very unapt for proper conglaciation; for Mineral spirits do\ngenerally resist and scarce submit thereto. So we observe that many\nwaters and springs will never freeze, and many parts in Rivers and\nLakes, where there are Mineral eruptions, will still persist without\ncongelations, as we also observe in _Aqua fortis_, or any Mineral\nsolution, either of Vitriol, Alum, Salt-petre, Ammoniac, or Tartar,\nwhich although to some degree exhaled, and placed in cold\nConservatories, will Crystallize and shoot into white and glacious\nbodies; yet is not this a congelation primarily effected by cold, but an\nintrinsecal induration from themselves; and a retreat into their proper\nsolidities, which were absorbed by the liquor, and lost in a full\nimbibition thereof before. And so also when wood and many other bodies\ndo putrifie, either by the Sea, other waters, or earths abounding in\nsuch spirits; we do not usually ascribe their induration to cold, but\nrather unto salinous spirits, concretive juices, and causes\ncircumjacent, which do assimilate all bodies not indisposed for their\nimpressions.\n\nBut Ice is water congealed by the frigidity of the air, whereby it\nacquireth no new form, but rather a consistence or determination of its\ndiffluency, and amitteth not its essence, but condition of fluidity.\nNeither doth there any thing properly conglaciate but water, or watery\nhumidity; for the determination of quick-silver is properly fixation,\nthat of milk coagulation, and that of oyl and unctious bodies, only\nincrassation; And therefore _Aristotle_ makes a trial of the fertility\nof humane seed, from the experiment of congelation; for that (saith he)\nwhich is not watery and improlifical will not conglaciate; which perhaps\nmust not be taken strictly, but in the germ and spirited particles: For\nEggs I observe will freeze, in the albuginous part thereof. And upon\nthis ground _Paracelsus_ in his Archidoxis, extracteth the magistery of\nwine; after four moneths digestion in horse-dung, exposing it unto the\nextremity of cold; whereby the aqueous parts will freeze, but the\nSpirit retire and be found congealed in the Center.\n\n[Sidenote: _How to make Ice at any time of the year._]\n\nBut whether this congelation be simply made by cold, or also by\nco-operation of any nitrous coagulum, or spirit of Salt the principle of\nconcretion; whereby we observe that ice may be made with Salt and Snow\nby the fire side; as is also observable from Ice made by Saltpetre and\nwater, duly mixed and strongly agitated at any time of the year, were a\nvery considerable enquiry. For thereby we might clear the generation of\nSnow, Hail, and hoary Frosts, the piercing qualities of some winds, the\ncoldness of Caverns, and some Cells. We might more sensibly conceive how\nSalt-petre fixeth the flying spirits of Minerals in Chymical\nPreparations, and how by this congealing quality it becomes an useful\nmedicine in Fevers.\n\nAgain, The difference of their concretion is collectible from their\ndissolution; which being many ways performable in Ice, is few ways\neffected in Crystal. Now the causes of liquation are contrary to those\nof concretion; and as the Atoms and indivisible parcels are united, so\nare they in an opposite way disjoyned. That which is concreted by\nexsiccation or expression of humidity, will be resolved by humectation,\nas Earth, Dirt, and Clay; that which is coagulated by a fiery siccity,\nwill suffer colliquation from an aqueous humidity, as Salt and Sugar,\nwhich are easily dissoluble in water, but not without difficulty in oyl,\nand well rectified spirits of Wine. That which is concreted by cold,\nwill dissolve by a moist heat, if it consist of watery parts, as Gums,\nArabick, Tragacanth, Ammoniac and others; in an airy heat or oyl, as all\nresinous bodies, Turpentine, Pitch, and Frankincense; in both, as gummy\nresinous bodies, Mastick, Camphire and Storax; in neither, as neutrals\nand bodies anomalous hereto, as Bdellium, Myrrhe, and others. Some by a\nviolent dry heat, as Metals; which although corrodible by waters, yet\nwill they not suffer a liquation from the powerfullest heat,\ncommunicable unto that element. Some will dissolve by this heat although\ntheir ingredients be earthy, as Glass, whose materials are fine Sand,\nand the ashes of Chali or Fearn; [SN: _The original ingredients of\nGlass._] and so will Salt run with fire, although it be concreted by\nheat. And this way may be effected a liquation in Crystal, but not\nwithout some difficulty; that is, calcination or reducing it by Art into\na subtle powder; by which way and a vitreous commixture, Glasses are\nsometime made hereof, and it becomes the chiefest ground for artificial\nand factitious gemms. But the same way of solution is common also unto\nmany Stones; and not onely Beryls and Cornelians, but Flints and\nPebbles, are subject unto fusion, and will run like Glass in fire.\n\nBut Ice will dissolve in any way of heat, for it will dissolve with\nfire, it will colliquate in water, or warm oyl; nor doth it only submit\nunto an actual heat, but not endure the potential calidity of many\nwaters. For it will presently dissolve in cold _Aqua fortis_, sp. of\nVitriol, Salt, or Tartar, nor will it long continue its fixation in\nspirits of Wine, as may be observed in Ice injected therein.\n\nAgain, The concretion of Ice will not endure a dry attrition without\nliquation; for if it be rubbed long with a cloth, it melteth. But\nCrystal will calefie unto electricity, that is, a power to attract\nstraws or light bodies, and convert the needle freely placed. Which is a\ndeclarement of very different parts, wherein we shall not inlarge, as\nhaving discoursed concerning such bodies in the Chap. of Electricks.\n\nThey are differenced by supernatation or floating upon water; for\nCrystal will sink in water, as carrying in its own bulk a greater\nponderosity then the space in any water it doth occupy; and will\ntherefore only swim in molten Metal and Quicksilver. But Ice will swim\nin water of what thinness soever; and though it sink in oyl, will float\nin spirits of Wine or _Aqua vitae_. And therefore it may swim in water,\nnot only as being water it self, and in its proper place, but perhaps as\nweighing somewhat less then the water it possesseth. And therefore as it\nwill not sink unto the bottom, so will it neither float above like\nlighter bodies, but being near in weight, lie superficially or almost\nhorizontally unto it. And therefore also an Ice or congelation of Salt\nor Sugar, although it descend not unto the bottom, yet will it abate,\nand decline below the surface in thin water, but very sensibly in\nspirits of Wine. For Ice although it seemeth as transparent and compact\nas Crystal, yet is it short in either; for its atoms are not concreted\ninto continuity, which doth diminish its translucency; it is also full\nof spumes and bubbles, which may abate its gravity. And therefore waters\nfrozen in Pans, and open Glasses, after their dissolution do commonly\nleave a froth and spume upon them, which are caused by the airy parts\ndiffused in the congealable mixture which uniting themselves and finding\nno passage at the surface, do elevate the mass, and make the liquor take\nup a greater place then before: as may be observed in Glasses filled\nwith water, which being frozen, will seem to swell above the brim. So\nthat if in this condensation any one affirmeth there is also some\nrarefaction, experience may assert it.\n\nThey are distinguished in substance of parts and the accidents thereof,\nthat is, in colour and figure; for Ice is a similary body, and\nhomogeneous concretion, whose material is properly water, and but\naccidentally exceeding the simplicity of that element. But the body of\nCrystal is mixed; its ingredients many, and sensibly containeth those\nprinciples into which mixt bodies are reduced. For beside the spirit and\nmercurial principle it containeth a sulphur or inflamable part, and that\nin no small quantity; for besides its Electrick attraction, which is\nmade by a sulphureous effluvium, it will strike fire upon percussion\nlike many other stones, and upon collision with Steel actively send\nforth its sparks, not much inferiourly unto a flint. Now such bodies as\nstrike fire have sulphureous or ignitible parts within them, and those\nstrike best, which abound most in them. For these scintillations are not\nthe accension of the air, upon the collision of two hard bodies, but\nrather the inflamable effluencies or vitrified sparks discharged from\nthe bodies collided. For Diamonds, Marbles, Heliotropes and Agaths,\nthough hard bodies, will not readily strike fire with a steel, much less\nwith one another: Nor a Flint so readily with a Steel, if they both be\nvery wet, for then the sparks are sometimes quenched in their eruption.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Physical causes of liquation or melting of Mettals,\netc._]\n\nIt containeth also a salt, and that in some plenty, which may occasion\nits fragility, as is also observable in Coral. This by the Art of\nChymistry is separable, unto the operations whereof it is liable, with\nother concretions, as calcination, reverberation, sublimation,\ndistillation: And in the preparation of Crystal, _Paracelsus_ [SN: _de\nPraeparationibus._] hath made a rule for that of Gemms. Briefly, it\nconsisteth of parts so far from an Icie dissolution, that powerful\nmenstruums are made for its emollition; whereby it may receive the\ntincture of Minerals, and so resemble Gemms, as _Boetius_ hath declared\nin the distillation of Urine; spirits of Wine and Turpentine; and is\nnot only triturable, and reducible into powder, by contrition, but will\nsubsist in a violent fire, and endure a vitrification. Whereby are\ntestified its earthly and fixed parts. For vitrification is the last\nwork of fire, and a fusion of the Salt and Earth, which are the fixed\nelements of the composition, wherein the fusible Salt draws the Earth\nand infusible part into one continuum, and therefore ashes will not run\nfrom whence the Salt is drawn, as bone ashes prepared for the Test of\nMetals. Common fusion in Metals is also made by a violent heat, acting\nupon the volatile and fixed, the dry and humid parts of those bodies;\nwhich notwithstanding are so united, that upon attenuation from heat,\nthe humid parts will not fly away, but draw the fixed ones into fluor\nwith them. Ordinary liquation in wax and oily bodies is made by a\ngentler heat, where the oyl and salt, the fixed and fluid principles\nwill not easily separate. All which, whether by vitrification, fusion or\nliquation, being forced into fluent consistencies, do naturally regress\ninto their former solidities. Whereas the melting of Ice is a simple\nresolution, or return from solid to fluid parts, wherein it naturally\nresteth.\n\nAs for colour, although Crystal in his pellucid body seems to have none\nat all, yet in its reduction into powder, it hath a vail and shadow of\nblew; and in its courser pieces, is of a sadder hue then the powder of\nVenice glass; and this complexion it will maintain although it long\nendure the fire. Which notwithstanding needs not move us unto wonder;\nfor vitrified and pellucid bodies, are of a clearer complexion in their\ncontinuities, then in their powders and Atomical divisions. So _Stibium_\nor glass of _Antimony_, appears somewhat red in glass, but in its\npowder yellow; so painted glass of a sanguine red will not ascend in\npowder above a murrey.\n\n[Sidenote: _In Stone-pits and chalk-mines. Which seemeth to be Echinites\ndecima Aldrovandi._ Musaei Metallici, lib. 4. _Rather Echinometrites, as\nbest resembling the Echinometra found commonly on our Sea-shore._]\n\nAs for the figure of Crystal (which is very strange, and forced _Pliny_\nto despair of resolution) it is for the most part hexagonal or six\ncornered; being built upon a confused matter, from whence as it were\nfrom a root angular figures arise, even as in the Amethyst and Basaltes.\nWhich regular figuration hath made some opinion, it hath not its\ndetermination from circumscription, or as conforming unto contiguities,\nbut rather from a seminal root, and formative principle of its own, even\nas we observe in several other concretions. So the stones which are\nsometime found in the gall of a man, are most triangular and pyramidal,\nalthough the figure of that part seems not to co-operate thereto. So the\n_Asteria_ or _lapis stellaris_; hath on it the figure of a Star, so\n_Lapis Judaicus_ hath circular lines in length all down its body, and\nequidistant, as though they had been turned by Art. So that we call a\nFayrie stone, and is often found in _gravel pits_ amongst us, being of\nan hemispherical figure, hath five double lines rising from the center\nof its basis, which if no accretion distract them, do commonly concur,\nand meet in the pole thereof. The figures are regular in many other\nstones, as in the Belemnites, _Lapis Anguinus_, _Cornu Ammonis_, and\nmany more; as by those which have not the experience hereof may be\nobserved in their figures expressed by Mineralogists. But Ice receiveth\nits figure according unto the surface wherein it concreteth, or the\ncircumambiency which conformeth it. So it is plain upon the surface of\nwater, but round in Hayl (which is also a glaciation,) and figured in\nits guttulous descent from the air, and so growing greater or lesser\naccording unto the accretion or pluvious aggelation about the mother and\nfundamental Atomes thereof; which seems to be some feathery particle of\nSnow; although Snow it self be sexangular, or at least of a starry and\nmany-pointed figure.\n\nThey are also differenced in the places of their generation; for though\nCrystal be found in cold countries, and where Ice remaineth long, and\nthe air exceedeth in cold, yet is it also found in regions, where Ice is\nseldom seen or soon dissolved; as _Pliny_ and _Agricola_ relate of\n_Cyprus_, _Caramania_ and an Island in the Red sea; It hath been also\nfound in the veins of Minerals, sometimes agglutinated unto lead,\nsometimes in Rocks, opacous stones, and the marble face of _Octavius_\nDuke of _Parma_. [SN: _Wherein the Sculptor found a piece of pure\nCrystal._] It hath also constant veins; as beside others, that of mount\n_Salvino_ about the Territory of _Bergamo_; from whence if part be\ntaken, in no long tract of time out of the same place, as from its\nmineral matrix, others are observed to arise. Which made the learned\n_Cerautus_ to conclude, _Videant hi an sit glacies, an vero corpus\nfossile_. [SN: _Mus. Calceolar._] It is also found in the veins of\nMinerals, in rocks, and sometime in common earth. But as for Ice, it\nwill not readily concrete but in the approachment of the air, as we have\nmade trial in glasses of water, covered an inch with oyl, which will not\neasily freeze in hard frosts of our climate. For water commonly\nconcreteth first in its surface, and so conglaciates downward; and so\nwill it do although it be exposed in the coldest metal of lead, which\nwell accordeth with that expression of _Job_, _The waters are hid as\nwith a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen_. [SN: _Chap. 38._] But\nwhether water which hath been boiled or heated, doth sooner receive this\ncongelation, as commonly is delivered, we rest in the experiment of\n_Cabeus_, who hath rejected the same in his excellent discourse of\nMeteors.\n\nThey have contrary qualities elemental, and uses medicinal; for Ice is\ncold and moist, of the quality of water; but Crystal is cold and dry,\naccording to the condition of earth. The use of Ice is condemned by most\nPhysicians, that of Crystal commended by many. For although\n_Dioscorides_ and _Galen_ have left no mention thereof, yet hath\n_Mathiolus_, _Agricola_, and many commended it in dysenteries and\nfluxes; all for the increase of milk, most Chymists for the Stone, and\nsome, as _Brassavolus_ and _Boetius_, as an antidote against poyson.\nWhich occult and specifical operations are not expectable from Ice; for\nbeing but water congealed, it can never make good such qualities; nor\nwill it reasonably admit of secret proprieties, which are the affections\nof forms, and compositions at distance from their elements.\n\n[Sidenote: _What Crystal is._]\n\nHaving thus declared what Crystal is not, it may afford some\nsatisfaction to manifest what it is. To deliver therefore what with the\njudgement of approved Authors, and best reason consisteth, It is a\nMineral body in the difference of stones, and reduced by some unto that\nsubdivision, which comprehendeth gemms, transparent and resembling Glass\nor Ice, made of a lentous percolation of earth, drawn from the most pure\nand limpid juice thereof, owing unto the coldness of the earth some\nconcurrence or coadjuvancy, but not immediate determination and\nefficiency, which are wrought by the hand of its concretive spirit, the\nseeds of petrification and Gorgon of it self. As sensible Philosophers\nconceive of the generation of Diamonds, Iris, Berils. Not making them of\nfrozen icecles, or from meer aqueous and glaciable substances,\ncondensing them by frosts into solidities, vainly to be expected even\nfrom Polary congelations: but from thin and finest earths, so well\ncontempered and resolved, that transparency is not hindred; and\ncontaining lapidifical spirits, able to make good their solidities\nagainst the opposition and activity of outward contraries, and so leave\na sensible difference between the bonds of glaciation, which in the\nmountains of Ice about the Northern Seas, are easily dissolved by\nordinary heat of the Sun, and between the finer ligatures of\npetrification, whereby not only the harder concretions of Diamonds and\nSaphirs, but the softer veins of Crystal remain indissolvable in\nscorching Territories, and the _Negro_ land of Congor.\n\nAnd therefore I fear we commonly consider subterranities, not in\ncontemplations sufficiently respective unto the Creation. For though\n_Moses_ have left no mention of Minerals, nor made any other description\nthen sutes unto the apparent and visible Creation, yet is there\nunquestionably, a very large Classis of Creatures in the Earth, far\nabove the condition of elementarity. And although not in a distinct and\nindisputable way of vivency, or answering in all points the properties\nor affections of Plants, yet in inferiour and descending constitutions,\nthey do like these contain specifical distinctions, and are determined\nby seminalities, that is, created and defined seeds committed unto the\nEarth from the beginning. Wherein although they attain not the\nindubitable requisites of Animation, yet have they a near affinity\nthereto. And though we want a proper name and expressive appellation,\nyet are they not to be closed up in the general name of concretions; or\nlightly passed over as only Elementary and Subterraneous mixtions.\n\n[Sidenote: _Exact continuity of parts a cause of transparency in things,\nand why._]\n\nThe principle and most gemmary affection is its Tralucency: as for\nirradiancy or sparkling which is found in many gemms, it is not\ndiscoverable in this, for it cometh short of their compactness and\ndurity: and therefore requireth not the Emery, as the Saphir, Granate,\nand Topaz, but will receive impression from Steel, in a manner like the\nTurchois. As for its diaphanity or perspicuity, it enjoyeth that most\neminently; and the reason thereof is its continuity; as having its\nearthy and salinous parts so exactly resolved, that its body is left\nimporous and not discreted by atomical terminations. For, that\ncontinuity of parts is the cause of perspicuity, it is made perspicuous\nby two ways of experiment. That is, either in effecting transparency in\nthose bodies which were not so before, or at least far short of the\nadditional degree: So Snow becomes transparent upon liquation, so Horns\nand Bodies resolvable into continued parts or gelly. The like is\nobservable in oyled paper, wherein the interstitial divisions being\ncontinuated by the accession of oyl, it becometh more transparent, and\nadmits the visible rayes with less umbrosity. Or else the same is\neffected by rendring those bodies opacous, which were before pellucid\nand perspicuous.\n\nSo Glass which was before diaphanous, being by powder reduced into\nmultiplicity of superficies, becomes an opacous body, and will not\ntransmit the light. So it is in Crystal powdered, and so it is also\nbefore; for if it be made hot in a crucible, and presently projected\nupon water, it will grow dim, and abate its diaphanity; for the water\nentering the body, begets a division of parts, and a termination of\nAtoms united before unto continuity.\n\nThe ground of this Opinion might be, first the conclusions of some men\nfrom experience; for as much as Crystal is found sometimes in rocks, and\nin some places not much unlike the stirious or stillicidious\ndependencies of Ice. Which notwithstanding may happen either in places\nwhich have been forsaken or left bare by the earth, or may be\npetrifications, or Mineral indurations, like other gemms, proceeding\nfrom percolations of the earth disposed unto such concretions.\n\nThe second and most common ground is from the name _Crystallus_, whereby\nin Greek both Ice and Crystal are expressed; which many not duly\nconsidering, have from their community of name, conceived a community of\nnature; and what was ascribed unto the one, not unfitly appliable unto\nthe other. But this is a fallacy of AEquivocation, from a society in name\ninferring an Identity in nature. By this fallacy was he deceived that\ndrank _Aqua fortis_ for strong water. By this are they deluded, who\nconceive _sperma Coeti_ which is found about the head, to be the spawn\nof the Whale: Or take _sanguis draconis_ (which is the gumme of a tree,)\nto be the blood of a Dragon. By the same Logick we may infer, the\nCrystalline humour of the eye, or rather the Crystalline heaven above,\nto be of the substance of Crystal here below; Or that God sendeth down\nCrystal, because it is delivered in the vulgar translation, Psal. 47.\n_Mittit Crystallum suum sicut Buccellas_. [SN: _Agreement in name._]\nWhich translation although it literally express the Septuagint; yet is\nthere no more meant thereby, than what our translation in plain English\nexpresseth; that is, he casteth forth his Ice like morsels, or what\n_Tremellius_ and _Junius_ as clearly deliver, _Deficit gelu suum sicut\nfrusta, coram frigore ejus quis consistet?_ which proper and latine\nexpressions, had they been observed in ancient translations, elder\nExpositors had not been misguided by the Synonomy; nor had they\nafforded occasion unto _Austin_, the Gloss, _Lyranus_, and many others,\nto have taken up the common conceit, and spoke of this Text conformably\nunto the opinion rejected.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nConcerning the Loadstone.\n\n     Of things particularly spoken thereof, evidently or probably true.\n     Of things generally believed, or particularly delivered, manifestly\n     or probably false. In the first of the Magnetical vertue of the\n     Earth, of the four motions of the stone, that is, its Verticity or\n     Direction, its Attraction or Coition, its Declination, its\n     Variation, and also of its Antiquity. In the second a rejection of\n     sundry opinions and relations thereof, Natural, Medical,\n     Historical, Magical.\n\n\n[Sidenote: _How the earth is a Magnetical body._]\n\nAnd first we conceive the earth to be a Magnetical body. A Magnetical\nbody, we term not onely that which hath a power attractive, but that\nwhich seated in a convenient medium, naturally disposeth it self to one\ninvariable and fixed situation. And such a Magnetical vertue we conceive\nto be in the Globe of the Earth, whereby as unto its natural points and\nproper terms, it disposeth it self unto the poles; being so framed,\nconstituted, and ordered unto these points, that those parts which are\nnow at the poles, would not naturally abide under the AEquator, nor\n_Greenland_ remain in the place of _Magellanica_. And if the whole earth\nwere violently removed, yet would it not foregoe its primitive points,\nnor pitch in the East or West, but return unto its polary position\nagain. For though by compactness or gravity it may acquire the lowest\nplace, and become the center of the universe, yet that it makes good\nthat point, not varying at all by the accession of bodies upon, or\nsecession thereof from its surface, perturbing the equilibration of\neither Hemisphere (whereby the altitude of the stars might vary) or that\nit strictly maintains the North and Southern points; that neither upon\nthe motions of the heavens, air, and winds without, large eruptions and\ndivision of parts within, its polary parts should never incline or veer\nunto the Equator (whereby the latitude of places should also vary) it\ncannot so well be salved from gravity as a Magnetical verticity. [SN:\n_The foundation of the Earths stability._] This is probably, that\nfoundation the wisdom of the Creator hath laid unto the earth; in this\nsense we may more nearly apprehend, and sensibly make out the\nexpressions of holy Scripture [SN: _Psal. 93._], as _Firmavit orbem\nterrae qui non commovebitur_, he hath made the round world so sure that\nit cannot be moved: as when it is said by _Job, Extendit Aquilonem super\nvacuo, &c._ [SN: _Job 38._] He stretcheth forth the North upon the empty\nplace, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. And this is the most probable\nanswer unto that great question. Whereupon are the foundations of the\nEarth fastened, or who laid the corner stone thereof? Had they been\nacquainted with this principle, _Anaxagoras_, _Socrates_, and\n_Democritus_, had better made out the ground of this stability;\n_Xenophanes_ had not been fain to say the Earth had no bottom; and\n_Thales Milesius_ to make it swim in water.\n\n[Sidenote: _The magnetical vertue of the Earth diffused_ extra se _and\ncommunicated to bodies adjacent._]\n\nNor is the vigour of this great body included only in its self, or\ncircumferenced by its surface, but diffused at indeterminate distances\nthrough the air, water, and all bodies circumjacent. Exciting and\nimpregnating Magnetical bodies within its surface or without it, and\nperforming in a secret and invisible way what we evidently behold\neffected by the Loadstone. For these effluxions penetrate all bodies,\nand like the species of visible objects are ever ready in the medium,\nand lay hold on all bodies proportionate or capable of their action,\nthose bodies likewise being of a congenerous nature, do readily receive\nthe impressions of their motor; and if not fettered by their gravity,\nconform themselves to situations, wherein they best unite unto their\nAnimator. And this will sufficiently appear from the observations that\nare to follow, which can no better way be made out then by this we speak\nof, the Magnetical vigour of the Earth. Now whether these effluviums do\nflye by striated Atoms and winding particles as _Renatus des Cartes_\nconceiveth; or glide by streams attracted from either Pole and\nHemisphere of the Earth unto the Equator, as Sir _Kenelm Digby_\nexcellently declareth, it takes not away this vertue of the Earth, but\nmore distinctly sets down the gests and progress thereof, and are\nconceits of eminent use to salve Magnetical Phenomena's. [SN:\n_Apparencies observations._] And as in Astronomy those hypotheses though\nnever so strange are best esteemed which best do salve apparencies; so\nsurely in Philosophy those principles (though seeming monstrous) may\nwith advantage be embraced, which best confirm experiment, and afford\nthe readiest reason of observation.[SN: _The doctrine of effluxions\nacknowledged by the Author._] And truly the doctrine of effluxions,\ntheir penetrating natures, their invisible paths, and insuspected\neffects, are very considerable; for besides this Magnetical one of the\nEarth, several effusions there may be from divers other bodies, which\ninvisibly act their parts at any time, and perhaps through any medium; a\npart of Philosophy but yet in discovery, and will, I fear, prove the\nlast leaf to be turned over in the Book of Nature.\n\n[Sidenote: _Point to the North._]\n\n[Sidenote: _Point to the South._]\n\nFirst, Therefore it is true, and confirmable by every experiment, that\nSteel and good Iron never excited by the Loadstone, discover in\nthemselves a verticity; that is, a directive or polary faculty, whereby,\nconveniently placed, they do Septentrionate at one extream, and\nAustralize at another. This is manifestable in long and thin plates of\nSteel perforated in the middle and equilibrated; or by an easier way in\nlong wires equiponderate with untwisted Silk and soft Wax; for in this\nmanner pendulous, they will conform themselves Meridionally, directing\none extream unto the North, another to the South. The same is also\nmanifest in Steel wires thrust through little sphears or globes of Cork\nand floated on the water, or in naked Needles gently let fall thereon;\nfor so disposed they will not rest, until they have found out the\nMeridian, and as near as they can lye parallel unto the Axis of the\nEarth: Sometimes the eye, sometimes the point Northward in divers\nNeedles, but the same point always in most: Conforming themselves unto\nthe whole Earth, in the same manner as they do unto every Loadstone. For\nif a Needle untoucht he hanged above a Loadstone, it will convert into a\nparallel position thereto; for in this situation it can best receive its\nverticity and be excited proportionably at both extreams. Now this\ndirection proceeds not primitively from themselves, but is derivative\nand contracted from the Magnetical effluxions of the Earth; which they\nhave winded in their hammering and formation; or else by long\ncontinuance in one position, as we shall declare hereafter.\n\nIt is likewise true what is delivered of Irons heated in the fire, that\nthey contract a verticity in their refrigeration; for heated red hot and\ncooled in the Meridian from North to South, they presently contract a\npolary power, and being poised in air or water, convert that part unto\nthe North which respected that point in its refrigeration, so that if\nthey had no sensible verticity before, it may be acquired by this way;\nor if they had any, it might be exchanged by contrary position in the\ncooling. For by the fire they omit not onely many drossie and scorious\nparts, but whatsoever they had received either from the Earth or\nLoadstone; and so being naked and despoiled of all verticity, the\nMagnetical Atomes invade their bodies with more effect and agility.\n\nNeither is it only true what _Gilbertus_ first observed, that Irons\nrefrigerated North and South acquire a Directive faculty; but if they be\ncooled upright and perpendicularly, they will also obtain the same. That\npart which is cooled toward the North on this side the Equator,\nconverting it self unto the North, and attracting the South point of the\nNeedle: the other and highest extream respecting the South, and\nattracting the Northern, according unto Laws Magnetical: For (what must\nbe observed) contrary Poles or faces attract each other, as the North\nthe South; and the like decline each other, as the North the North. Now\non this side of the Equator, that extream which is next the Earth is\nanimated unto the North, and the contrary unto the South; so that in\ncoition it applies it self quite oppositely, the coition or attraction\nbeing contrary to the Verticity or Direction. Contrary, If we speak\naccording unto common use, yet alike, if we conceive the vertue of the\nNorth Pole to diffuse it self and open at the South, and the South at\nthe North again.\n\n[Sidenote: _Some conceive that the figure of the Tree or Spread-eagle in\nthe root of Brake or Fern stands North and South, but not truly._]\n\nThis polarity from refrigeration upon extremity and in defect of a\nLoadstone might serve to invigorate and touch a Needle any where; and\nthis, allowing variation, is also the readiest way at any season to\ndiscover the North or South; and surely far more certain then what is\naffirmed of the grains and circles in trees, or the figure in the root\nof Fern. For if we erect a red hot wire until it cool, then hang it up\nwith wax and untwisted Silk, where the lower end and that which cooled\nnext the earth doth rest, that is the Northern point; and this we affirm\nwill still be true whether it be cooled in the air or extinguished in\nwater, oyl of Vitriol, _Aqua fortis_, or Quicksilver. And this is also\nevidenced in culinary utensils and Irons that often feel the force of\nfire, as Tongs, Fire-shovels, Prongs, and Andirons; all which acquire a\nMagnetical and polary condition, and being suspended, convert their\nlower extreams unto the North; with the same attracting the Southern\npoint of the Needle. For easier experiment, if we place a Needle touched\nat the foot of Tongs or Andirons, it will obvert or turn aside its\nlillie or North point, and conform its cuspis or South extream unto the\nAndiron. The like verticity though more obscurely is also contracted by\nBricks and Tiles, as we have made trial in some taken out of the backs\nof chimneys. Now to contract this Direction, there needs not a total\nignition, nor is it necessary the Irons should be red hot all over. For\nif a wire be heated only at one end, according as that end is cooled\nupward or downward, it respectively acquires a verticity, as we have\ndeclared in wires totally candent. Nor is it absolutely requisite they\nshould be cooled perpendicularly, or strictly lie in the Meridian; for\nwhether they be refrigerated inclinatorily or somewhat AEquinoxially,\nthat is toward the Eastern or Western points; though in a lesser degree,\nthey discover some verticity.\n\nNor is this onely true in Irons, but in the Loadstone it self. For if a\nLoadstone be made red hot, it loseth the magnetical vigour it had before\nin it self, and acquires another from the Earth in its refrigeration;\nfor that part which cooleth toward the Earth will acquire the respect of\nthe North, and attract the Southern point or cuspis of the Needle. The\nexperiment hereof we made in a Loadstone of a parallelogram or long\nsquare figure; wherein onely inverting the extreams, as it came out of\nthe fire, we altered the poles or faces thereof at pleasure.\n\nIt is also true what is delivered of the Direction and coition of Irons,\nthat they contract a verticity by long and continued position: that is,\nnot onely being placed from North to South, and lying in the Meridian,\nbut respecting the Zenith and perpendicular unto the Center of the\nEarth; as is manifest in bars of windows, casements, hinges and the\nlike. For if we present the Needle unto their lower extreams, it wheels\nabout and turns its Southern point unto them. The same condition in long\ntime do Bricks contract which are placed in walls, and therefore it may\nbe a fallible way to find out the Meridian by placing the Needle on a\nwall; for some Bricks therein by a long and continued position, are\noften magnetically enabled to distract the polarity of the Needle. And\ntherefore those Irons which are said to have been converted into\nLoadstones; whether they were real conversions, or onely attractive\naugmentations, might be much promoted by this position: as the Iron\ncross of an hundred weight upon the Church of St. _John_ in _Ariminum_,\nor that Loadston'd Iron of _Caesar Moderatus_, set down by _Aldrovandus_.\n[SN: _De miner. l. 1._]\n\nLastly, Irons do manifest a verticity not only upon refrigeration and\nconstant situation, but (what is wonderful and advanceth the magnetical\nHypothesis) they evidence the same by meer position according as they\nare inverted, and their extreams disposed respectively unto the Earth.\nFor if an Iron or Steel not firmly excited, be held perpendicularly or\ninclinatorily unto the Needle, the lower end thereof will attract the\n_cuspis_ or Southern point; but if the same extream be inverted and held\nunder the Needle, it will then attract the lilly or Northern point; for\nby inversion it changeth its direction acquired before, and receiveth a\nnew and Southern polarity from the Earth, as being the upper extream.\nNow if an Iron be touched before, it varieth not in this manner; for\nthen it admits not this magnetical impression, as being already informed\nby the Loadstone, and polarily determined by its preaction.\n\nAnd from these grounds may we best determine why the Northern Pole of\nthe Loadstone attracteth a greater weight than the Southern on this side\nthe AEquator; why the stone is best preserved in a natural and polary\nsituation; and why as _Gilbertus_ observeth, it respecteth that Pole out\nof the Earth, which it regarded in its Mineral bed and subterraneous\nposition.\n\nIt is likewise true and wonderful what is delivered of the Inclination\nor Declination of the Loadstone; that is, the descent of the Needle\nbelow the plain of the Horizon. For long Needles which stood before upon\ntheir _axis_, _parallel_ unto the Horizon, being vigorously excited,\nincline and bend downward, depressing the North extream below the\nHorizon. That is the North on this, the South on the other side of the\nEquator; and at the very Line or middle circle stand without deflexion.\nAnd this is evidenced not onely from observations of the Needle in\nseveral parts of the earth, but sundry experiments in any part thereof,\nas in a long Steel wire, equilibrated or evenly ballanced in the air;\nfor excited by a vigorous Loadstone it will somewhat depress its\nanimated extream, and intersect the horizontal circumference. It is also\nmanifest in a Needle pierced through a Globe of Cork so cut away and\npared by degrees, that it will swim under water, yet sink not unto the\nbottom, which may be well effected; for if the Cork be a thought too\nlight to sink under the surface, the body of the water may be attenuated\nwith spirits of wine; if too heavy, it may be incrassated with salt; and\nif by chance too much be added, it may again be thinned by a\nproportionable addition of fresh water. If then the Needle be taken out,\nactively touched and put in again, it will depress and bow down its\nNorthern head toward the bottom, and advance its Southern extremity\ntoward the brim. This way invented by _Gilbertus_ may seem of\ndifficulty; the same with less labour may be observed in a needled\nsphere of Cork equally contiguous unto the surface of the water; for if\nthe Needle be not exactly equiponderant, that end which is a thought too\nlight, if touched becometh even; that Needle also which will but just\nswim under the water, if forcibly touched will sink deeper, and sometime\nunto the bottom. If likewise that inclinatory vertue be destroyed by a\ntouch from the contrary Pole, that end which before was elevated will\nthen decline, and this perhaps might be observed in some scales exactly\nballanced, and in such Needles which for their bulk can hardly be\nsupported by the water. For if they be powerfully excited and equally\nlet fall, they commonly sink down and break the water at that extream\nwhereat they were septentrionally excited: and by this way it is\nconceived there may be some fraud in the weighing of precious\ncommodities, and such as carry a value in quarter-grains; by placing a\npowerful Loadstone above or below, according as we intend to depress or\nelevate one extream.\n\nNow if these Magnetical emissions be onely qualities, and the gravity of\nbodies incline them onely unto the earth; surely that which alone moveth\nother bodies to descent, carrieth not the stroak in this, but rather the\nMagnetical alliciency of the Earth; unto which with alacrity it applieth\nit self, and in the very same way unto the whole Earth, as it doth unto\na single Loadstone. For if an untouched Needle be at a distance\nsuspended over a Loadstone, it will not hang parallel, but decline at\nthe North extream, and at that part will first salute its Director.\nAgain, what is also wonderful, this inclination is not invariable; for\njust under the line the Needle lieth parallel with the Horizon, but\nsailing North or South it beginneth to incline, and encreaseth according\nas it approacheth unto either Pole; and would at last endeavour to erect\nit self. And this is no more then what it doth upon the Loadstone, and\nthat more plainly upon the Terrella or spherical magnet Cosmographically\nset out with circles of the Globe. For at the Equator thereof, the\nNeedle will stand rectangularly; but approaching Northward toward the\nTropick it will regard the stone obliquely, and when it attaineth the\nPole, directly; and if its bulk be no impediment, erect it self and\nstand perpendicularly thereon. And therefore upon strict observation of\nthis inclination in several latitudes and due records preserved,\ninstruments are made whereby without the help of Sun or Star, the\nlatitude of the place may be discovered; and yet it appears the\nobservations of men have not as yet been so just and equal as is\ndesirable; for of those Tables of declination which I have perused,\nthere are not any two that punctually agree; though some have been\nthought exactly calculated, especially that which _Ridley_ received from\nMr. _Brigs_, in our time Geometry Professor in _Oxford_.\n\n[Sidenote: _What the variation of the Compass is._]\n\nIt is also probable what is delivered concerning the variation of the\nCompass that is the cause and ground thereof, for the manner as being\nconfirmed by observation we shall not at all dispute. The variation of\nthe Compass is an Arch of the Horizon intercepted between the true and\nMagnetical Meridian; or more plainly, a deflexion and siding East and\nWest from the true Meridian. The true Meridian is a major Circle passing\nthrough the Poles of the World, and the Zenith or Vertex of any place,\nexactly dividing the East from the West. Now on this line the Needle\nexactly lieth not, but diverts and varieth its point, that is, the North\npoint on this side the Equator, the South on the other; sometimes on the\nEast, sometime toward the West, and in some few places varieth not at\nall. First, therefore it is observed that betwixt the Shore of\n_Ireland_, _France_, _Spain_, _Guiny_, and the _Azores_, the North point\nvarieth toward the East, and that in some variety; at _London_ it\nvarieth eleven degrees, at _Antwerp_ nine, at _Rome_ but five: at some\nparts of the _Azores_ it deflecteth not, but lieth in the true Meridian;\non the other side of the _Azores_, and this side of the Equator, the\nNorth point of the Needle wheeleth to the West; so that in the latitude\nof 36 near the shore, the variation is about eleven degrees; but on the\nother side the Equator, it is quite otherwise: for about _Capio Frio_ in\n_Brasilia_, the South point varieth twelve degrees unto the West, and\nabout the mouth of the Straits of _Magellan_ five or six; but elongating\nfrom the coast of _Brasilia_ toward the shore of _Africa_ it varieth\nEastward, and arriving at _Capo de las Agullas_, it resteth in the\nMeridian, and looketh neither way.\n\n[Sidenote: _The cause of the variation of the Compass._]\n\nNow the cause of this variation was thought by _Gilbertus_ to be the\ninequality of the Earth, variously disposed, and indifferently\nintermixed with the Sea: withal the different disposure of its\nMagnetical vigor in the eminencies and stronger parts thereof. For the\nNeedle naturally endeavours to conform unto the Meridian, but being\ndistracted, driveth that way where the greater and powerfuller part of\nthe Earth is placed. Which may be illustrated from what hath been\ndelivered and may be conceived by any that understands the generalities\nof Geography. For whereas on this side the Meridian, or the Isles of\n_Azores_, where the first Meridian is placed, the Needle varieth\nEastward; it may be occasioned by that vast Tract of Earth, that is, of\n_Europe_, _Asia_, and _Africa_, seated toward the East, and disposing\nthe Needle that way. For arriving at some part of the _Azores_, or\nIslands of Saint _Michael_, which have a middle situation between these\nContinents, and that vast and almost answerable Tract of _America_, it\nseemeth equally distracted by both; and diverting unto neither, doth\nparallel and place it self upon the true Meridian. But sailing farther,\nit veers its Lilly to the West, and regardeth that quarter wherein the\nLand is nearer or greater; and in the same latitude as it approacheth\nthe shore augmenteth its variation. And therefore as some observe, if\n_Columbus_ or whosoever first discovered _America_, had apprehended the\ncause of this variation, having passed more then half the way, he might\nhave been confirmed in the discovery, and assuredly foretold there lay a\nvast and mighty continent toward the West. The reason I confess and\ninference is good, but the instance perhaps not so. For _Columbus_ knew\nnot the variation of the compass, whereof _Sebastian Cabot_ first took\nnotice, who after made discovery in the Northern part of that continent.\nAnd it happened indeed that part of _America_ was first discovered,\nwhich was on this side farthest distant, that is, _Jamaica_, _Cuba_, and\nthe Isles in the Bay of _Mexico_. And from this variation do some new\ndiscoverers deduce a probability in the attempts of the Northern passage\ntoward the _Indies_.\n\nNow because where the greater continents are joyned, the action and\neffluence is also greater; therefore those Needles do suffer the\ngreatest variation which are in Countries which most do feel that\naction. And therefore hath _Rome_ far less variation then _London_; for\non the West side of _Rome_ are seated the great continents of _France_,\n_Spain_, _Germany_, which take off the exuperance, and in some way\nballance the vigor of the Eastern parts. But unto _England_ there is\nalmost no Earth West, but the whole extent of _Europe_ and _Asia_ lieth\nEastward; and therefore at _London_ it varieth eleven degrees, that is\nalmost one _Rhomb_. Thus also by reason of the great continent of\n_Brasilia_, _Peru_, and _Chili_, the Needle deflecteth toward the Land\ntwelve degrees; but at the straits of _Magellan_ where the Land is\nnarrowed, and the Sea on the other side, it varieth but five or six.\nAnd so likewise, because the Cape _de las Agullas_ hath Sea on both\nsides near it, and other Land remote, and as it were aequidistant from\nit, therefore at that point the Needle conforms unto the true Meridian,\nand is not distracted by the vicinity of Adjacencies. This is the\ngeneral and great cause of variation. But if in certain Creeks and\nVallies the Needle prove irregular, and vary beyond expectation, it may\nbe imputed unto some vigorous part of the Earth, or Magnetical eminence\nnot far distant. And this was the invention of _D. Gilbert_, not many\nyears past, a Physician in _London_. And therefore although some assume\nthe invention of its direction, and other have had the glory of the\nCard; yet in the experiments, grounds, and causes thereof, _England_\nproduced the Father Philosopher, and discovered more in it then\n_Columbus_ or _Americus_ did ever by it.\n\nUnto this in great part true the reason of _Kircherus_ may be added:\nThat this variation proceedeth not only from terrestrious eminencies,\nand magnetical veins of the Earth, laterally respecting the Needle, but\nthe different coagmentation of the Earth disposed unto the Poles, lying\nunder the Sea and Waters, which affect the Needle with great or lesser\nvariation, according to the vigour or imbecility of these subterraneous\nlines, or the entire or broken compagination of the magnetical fabrick\nunder it. As is observable from several Loadstones placed at the bottom\nof any water, for a Loadstone or Needle upon the surface, will variously\nconform it self, according to the vigour or faintness of the Loadstones\nunder it.\n\nThus also a reason may be alledged for the variation of the variation,\nand why, according to observation, the variation of the Needle hath\nafter some years been found to vary in some places. For this may\nproceed from mutations of the earth, by subterraneous fires, fumes,\nmineral spirits, or otherwise; which altering the constitution of the\nmagnetical parts, in process of time, doth vary the variation over the\nplace.\n\nIt is also probable what is conceived of its Antiquity, that the\nknowledge of its polary power and direction unto the North was unknown\nunto the Ancients; and though _Levinus Lemnius_, and _Caelius\nColcagninus_, are of another belief, is justly placed with new\ninventions by _Pancirollus_. For their _Achilles_ and strongest argument\nis an expression in _Plautus_, a very Ancient author, and contemporary\nunto _Ennius_. _Hic ventus jam secundus est, cape modo versoriam._ Now\nthis _versoriam_ they construe to be the compass, which notwithstanding\naccording unto _Pineda_, who hath discussed the point, _Turnebus_,\n_Cabeus_, and divers others, is better interpreted the rope that helps\nto turn the Ship, or as we say, doth make it tack about; the Compass\ndeclaring rather the Ship is turned, then conferring unto its\nconversion. As for the long expeditions and sundry voyages of elder\ntimes, which might confirm the Antiquity of this invention, it is not\nimprobable they were performed by the help of Stars; and so might the\nPhoenicean navigators, and also _Ulisses_ sail about the\nMediterranean, by the flight of Birds, or keeping near the shore; and so\nmight _Hanno_ coast about _Africa_; or by the help of Oars, as is\nexpressed in the voyage of _Jonah_. And whereas it is contended that\nthis verticity was not unknown unto _Solomon_, in whom is presumed an\nuniversality of knowledge; it will as forcibly follow, he knew the Art\nof Typography, Powder and Guns, or had the Philosophers Stone, yet sent\nunto _Ophir_ for Gold. It is not to be denied, that beside his\nPolitical wisdom, his knowledge in Philosophy was very large; and\nperhaps from his works therein, the ancient Philosophers, especially\n_Aristotle_, who had the assistance of _Alexanders_ acquirements,\ncollected great observables. Yet if he knew the use of the Compass, his\nShips were surely very slow, that made a three years voyage from\n_Eziongeber_ in the red Sea unto _Ophir_; which is supposed to be\n_Taprobana_ or _Malaca_ in the _Indies_, not many moneths sail; and\nsince in the same or lesser time, _Drake_ and _Candish_ performed their\nvoyage about the Earth.\n\nAnd as the knowledge of its verticity is not so old as some conceive, so\nit is more ancient then most believe; nor had its discovery with Guns,\nPrinting, or as many think, some years before the discovery of\n_America_. For it was not unknown unto _Petrus Peregrinus_ a Frenchman,\nwho two hundred years since left a Tract of the Magnet, and a perpetual\nmotion to be made thereby, preserved by _Gasserus_. _Paulus Venetus_,\nand about five hundred years past _Albertus Magnus_ make mention hereof,\nand quote for it a Book of _Aristotle_, _De Lapide_; which Book although\nwe find in the Catalogue of _Laertius_, yet with _Cabeus_ we may rather\njudge it to be the work of some Arabick Writer, not many years before\nthe days of _Albertus_.\n\nLastly, It is likewise true what some have delivered of _Crocus Martis_,\nthat is, Steel corroded with Vinegar, Sulphur, or otherwise, and after\nreverberated by fire. For the Loadstone will not at all attract it, nor\nwill it adhere, but lye therein like Sand. This to be understood of\n_Crocus Martis_ well reverberated, and into a violet colour: for common\n_chalybs praeparatus_, or corroded and powdered Steel, the Loadstone\nattracts like ordinary filings of Iron; and many times most of that\nwhich passeth for _Crocus Martis_. So that this way may serve as a test\nof its preparation; after which it becometh a very good medicine in\nfluxes. The like may be affirmed of flakes of Iron that are rusty and\nbegin to tend unto Earth; for their cognation then expireth, and the\nLoadstone will not regard them.\n\nAnd therefore this may serve as a trial of good Steel. The Loadstone\ntaking up a greater mass of that which is most pure, it may also decide\nthe conversion of Wood into Iron, as is pretended from some Waters: and\nthe common conversion of Iron into Copper by the mediation of blew\nCoperose, for the Loadstone will not attract it. Although it may be\nquestioned, whether in this operation, the Iron or Coperose be\ntransmuted, as may be doubted from the cognation of Coperose with\nCopper; and the quantity of Iron remaining after the conversion. And the\nsame may be useful to some discovery concerning Vitriol or Coperose of\nMars, by some called Salt of Steel, made by the spirits of Vitriol or\nSulphur. For the corroded powder of Steel will after ablution be\nactively attracted by the Loadstone, and also remaineth in little\ndiminished quantity. And therefore whether those shooting Salts partake\nbut little of Steel, and be not rather the vitriolous spirits fixed into\nSalt by the effluvium or odor of Steel, is not without good question.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\n     Concerning the Loadstone, therein of sundry common Opinions, and\n     received several relations: Natural, Historical, Medical, Magical.\n\n\nAnd first not only a simple Heterodox, but a very hard Paradox, it will\nseem, and of great absurdity unto obstinate ears, if we say, attraction\nis unjustly appropriated unto the Loadstone, and that perhaps we speak\nnot properly, when we say vulgarly and appropriately the Loadstone\ndraweth Iron; and yet herein we should not want experiment and great\nauthority. The words of _Renatus des Cartes_ in his Principles of\nPhilosophy are very plain. _Praeterea magnes trahet ferrum, sive potius\nmagnes & ferrum ad invicem accedunt, neque enim ulla ibi tractio est._\nThe same is solemnly determined by _Cabeus_. _Nec magnes trahit proprie\nferrum, nec ferrum ad se magnetem provocat, sed ambo pari conatu ad\ninvicem confluunt._ Concordant hereto is the assertion of Doctor\n_Ridley_, Physitian unto the Emperour of _Russia_, in his Tract of\nMagnetical Bodies, defining Magnetical attraction to be a natural\nincitation and disposition conforming unto contiguity, an union of one\nMagnetical Body with another, and no violent haling of the weak unto the\nstronger. And this is also the doctrine of _Gilbertus_, by whom this\nmotion is termed Coition, and that not made by any faculty attractive of\none, but a Syndrome and concourse of each; a Coition alway of their\nvigours, and also of their bodies, if bulk or impediment prevent not.\nAnd therefore those contrary actions which flow from opposite Poles or\nFaces, are not so properly expulsion and attraction, as _Sequela_ and\n_Fuga_, a mutual flight and following. Consonant whereto are also the\ndetermination of _Helmontius_, _Kircherus_, and _Licetus_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Attraction reciprocal betwixt the Loadstone and Iron._]\n\nThe same is also confirmed by experiment; for if a piece of Iron be\nfastened in the side of a bowl or bason water, a Loadstone swimming\nfreely in a Boot of Cork, will presently make unto it. So if a Steel or\nKnife untouched, be offered toward the Needle that is touched, the\nNeedle nimbly moveth toward it, and conformeth unto union with the Steel\nthat moveth not. Again, If a Loadstone be finely filed, the Atoms or\ndust thereof will adhere unto Iron that was never touched, even as the\npowder of Iron doth also unto the Loadstone. And lastly, if in two\nSkiffs of Cork, a Loadstone and Steel be placed within the Orb of their\nactivities, the one doth not move the other standing still, but both\nhoise sail and steer unto each other. So that if the Loadstone attract,\nthe Steel hath also its attraction; for in this action the Alliciency is\nreciprocal, which joyntly felt, they mutually approach and run into each\nothers arms.\n\nAnd therefore surely more moderate expressions become this action, then\nwhat the Ancients have used, which some have delivered in the most\nviolent terms of their language; so _Austin_ calls it, _Mirabilem ferri\nraptorem_: _Hippocrates_ {~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ZETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}, _Lapis qui ferrum\nrapit_. _Galen_ disputing against _Epicurus_ useth the term {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH DASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}, but\nthis also is too violent: among the Ancients _Aristotle_ spake most\nwarily, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH DASIA AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}, _Lapis qui ferrum movet_: and in some\ntolerable acception do run the expressions of _Aquinas_, _Scaliger_ and\n_Cusanus_.\n\nMany relations are made, and great expectations are raised from the\n_Magnes Carneus_, or a Loadstone, that hath a faculty to attract not\nonly iron but flesh; but this upon enquiry, and as _Cabeus_ also\nobserved, is nothing else but a weak and inanimate kind of Loadstone,\nveined here and there with a few magnetical and ferreous lines; but\nconsisting of a bolary and clammy substance, whereby it adheres like\n_Haematites_, or _Terra Lemnia_, unto the Lips. And this is that stone\nwhich is to be understood, when Physitians joyn it with _AEtites_, or the\nEagle stone, and promise therein a vertue against abortion.\n\nThere is sometime a mistake concerning the variation of the Compass, and\ntherein one point is taken for another. For beyond that Equator some men\naccount its variation by the diversion of the Northern point, whereas\nbeyond that Circle the Southern point is Soveraign, and the North\nsubmits his preheminency. For in the Southern coast either of _America_\nor _Africa_, the Southern point deflects and varieth toward the Land, as\nbeing disposed and spirited that way by the Meridional and proper\nHemisphere. And therefore on that side of the Earth the varying point is\nbest accounted by the South. And therefore also the writings of some,\nand Maps of others, are to be enquired, that make the Needle decline\nunto the East twelve degrees at _Capo Frio_, and six at the straits of\n_Magellan_; accounting hereby one point for another, and preferring the\nNorth in the Liberties and Province of the South.\n\n[Sidenote: _That Garlick hinders not the attraction of the Loadstone._]\n\nBut certainly false it is what is commonly affirmed and believed, that\nGarlick doth hinder the attraction of the Loadstone, which is\nnotwithstanding delivered by grave and worthy Writers, by _Pliny_,\n_Solinus_, _Ptolemy_, _Plutarch_, _Albertus_, _Mathiolus_, _Rueus_,\n_Langius_, and many more. An effect as strange as that of _Homers\nMoly_, and the Garlick that _Mercury_ bestowed upon _Ulysses_. But that\nit is evidently false, many experiments declare. For an Iron wire heated\nred hot and quenched in the juice of Garlick, doth notwithstanding\ncontract a verticity from the Earth, and attracteth the Southern point\nof the Needle. If also the tooth of a Loadstone be covered or stuck in\nGarlick, it will notwithstanding attract; and Needles excited and fixed\nin Garlick until they begin to rust, do yet retain their attractive and\npolary respects.\n\n[Sidenote: _Nor yet the Adamant or Diamond._]\n\nOf the same stamp is that which is obtruded upon us by Authors ancient\nand modern, that an Adamant or Diamond prevents or suspends the\nattraction of the Loadstone: as is in open terms delivered by _Pliny_.\n_Adamas dissidet cum Magnete lapide, ut juxta positus ferrum non\npatiatur abstrahi, aut si admotus magnes, apprehenderit, rapiat atque\nauferat_. For if a Diamond be placed between a Needle and a Loadstone,\nthere will nevertheless ensue a Coition even over the body of the\nDiamond. And an easie matter it is to touch or excite a Needle through a\nDiamond, by placing it at the tooth of a Loadstone; and therefore the\nrelation is false, or our estimation of these gemms untrue; nor are they\nDiamonds which carry that name amongst us.\n\n[Sidenote: De generatione rerum.]\n\nIt is not suddenly to be received what _Paracelsus_ affirmeth, that if a\nLoadstone be anointed with Mercurial oyl, or onely put into Quicksilver,\nit omitteth its attraction for ever. For we have found that Loadstones\nand touched Needles which have laid long time in Quicksilver have not\namitted their attraction. And we also find that red hot Needles or wires\nextinguished in Quicksilver, do yet acquire a verticity according to the\nLaws of position in extinction. Of greater repugnancy unto reason is\nthat which he delivers concerning its graduation, that heated in fire\nand often extinguished in oyl of Mars or Iron, it acquires an ability to\nextract or draw forth a nail fastened in a wall; for, as we have\ndeclared before, the vigor of the Loadstone is destroyed by fire, nor\nwill it be re-impregnated by any other Magnete then the Earth.\n\nNor is it to be made out what seemeth very plausible, and formerly hath\ndeceived us, that a Loadstone will not attract an Iron or Steel red hot.\nThe falsity hereof discovered first by _Kircherus_, we can confirm by\niterated experiment; very sensibly in armed Loadstones, and obscurely in\nany other.\n\nTrue it is, that besides fire some other wayes there are of its\ndestruction, as Age, Rust; and what is least dreamt on, an unnatural or\ncontrary situation. For being impolarily adjoyned unto a more vigorous\nLoadstone, it will in a short time enchange its Poles; or being kept in\nundue position, that is, not lying on the Meridian, or else with its\npoles inverted, it receives in longer time impair in activity, exchange\nof Faces; and is more powerfully preserved by position then by the dust\nof Steel. But the sudden and surest way is fire; that is, fire not onely\nactual but potential; the one surely and suddenly, the other slowly and\nimperfectly; the one changing, the other destroying the figure. For if\ndistilled Vinegar or _Aqua fortis_ be poured upon the powder of\nLoadstone, the subsiding powder dryed, retains some Magnetical vertue,\nand will be attracted by the Loadstone: but if the menstruum or\ndissolvent be evaporated to a consistence, and afterward doth shoot into\nIcycles or Crystals, the Loadstone hath no power upon them; and if in a\nfull dissolution of Steel a separation of parts be made by precipitation\nor exhalation, the exsiccated powder hath lost its wings and ascends\nnot unto the Loadstone. And though a Loadstone fired doth presently omit\nits proper vertue, and according to the position in cooling contracts a\nnew verticity from the Earth; yet if the same be laid awhile in _aqua\nfortis_ or other corrosive water, and taken out before a considerable\ncorrosion, it still reserves its attraction, and will convert the Needle\naccording to former polarity. And that duly preserved from violent\ncorrosion, or the natural disease of rust, it may long conserve its\nvertue, beside the Magnetical vertue of the Earth, which hath lasted\nsince the Creation, a great example we have from the observation of our\nlearned friend Mr. _Graves_, [SN: _In his learned Pyramidographia._] in\nan AEgyptian Idol cut out of Loadstone, and found among the _Mummies_;\nwhich still retains its attraction, though probably taken out of the\nMine about two thousand years ago.\n\nIt is improbable what _Pliny_ affirmeth concerning the object of its\nattraction, that it attracts not only ferreous bodies, but also\n_liquorem vitri_; for in the body of Glass there is no ferreous or\nmagnetical nature which might occasion attraction. For of the Glass we\nuse, the purest is made of the finest sand and the ashes of Chali or\nGlaswort, and the courser or green sort of the ashes of Brake or other\nplants. True it is that in the making of Glass, it hath been an ancient\npractice to cast in pieces of magnet, or perhaps manganes: conceiving it\ncarried away all ferreous and earthy parts, from the pure and running\nportion of Glass, which the Loadstone would not respect; and therefore\nif that attraction were not rather Electrical then Magnetical, it was a\nwondrous effect what _Helmont_ delivereth concerning a Glass wherein the\nMagistery of Loadstone was prepared, which after retained an attractive\nquality.\n\nBut whether the Magnet attracteth more then common Iron, may be tried in\nother bodies. It seems to attract the Smyris or Emery in powder; It\ndraweth the shining or glassie powder brought from the _Indies_, and\nusually implied in writing-dust. There is also in Smiths Cinders by some\nadhesion of Iron whereby they appear as it were glazed, sometime to be\nfound a magnetical operation; for some thereof applied have power to\nmove the Needle. But whether the ashes of vegetables which grow over\nIron Mines contract a magnetical quality, as containing some mineral\nparticles, which by sublimation ascend unto their Roots, and are\nattracted together with their nourishment; according as some affirm from\nthe like observations upon the Mines of Silver, Quick silver, and Gold,\nwe must refer unto further experiment.\n\nIt is also improbable and something singular what some conceive, and\n_Eusebius Nierembergius_, a learned Jesuit of _Spain_ delivers, that the\nbody of man is magnetical, and being placed in a Boat, the Vessel will\nnever rest untill the head respecteth the North. If this be true, the\nbodies of Christians do lye unnaturally in their Graves. King _Cheops_\nin his Tomb, and the _Jews_ in their beds have fallen upon the natural\nposition: who reverentially declining the situation of their Temple, nor\nwilling to lye as that stood, do place their Beds from North to South,\nand delight to sleep Meridionally. This Opinion confirmed would much\nadvance the Microcosmical conceit, and commend the Geography of\n_Paracelsus_, who according to the Cardinal points of the World divideth\nthe body of man: and therefore working upon humane ordure, and by long\npreparation rendring it odoriferous, he terms it _Zibeta Occidentalis_,\nWestern _Civet_; making the face the East, but the posteriours the\n_America_ or Western part of his Microcosm. The verity hereof might\neasily be tried in _Wales_, where there are portable Boats, and made of\nLeather, which would convert upon the impulsion of any verticity; and\nseem to be the same whereof in his description of _Britain Caesar_ hath\nleft some mention.\n\n[Sidenote: _Anagrammatically._]\n\nAnother kind of verticity, is that which _Angelus doce mihi jus_,\n_alias_, _Michael Sundevogis_, in a Tract _De Sulphure_, discovereth in\nVegetables, from sticks let fall or depressed under water; which equally\nframed and permitted unto themselves, will ascend at the upper end, or\nthat which was vertical in their vegetation; wherein notwithstanding, as\nyet, we have not found satisfaction. Although perhaps too greedy of\nMagnalities, we are apt to make but favourable experiments concerning\nwelcome Truths, and such desired verities.\n\nIt is also wondrous strange what _Laelius Bisciola_ reporteth, that if\nunto ten ounces of Loadstone one of Iron be added, it encreaseth not\nunto eleven, but weighs ten ounces still. [SN: Horae subsecivae.] A\nrelation inexcusable in a work of leisurable hours: the examination\nbeing as ready as the relation, and the falsity tried as easily as\ndelivered. Nor is it to be omitted what is taken up by the _Coesius\nBernardus_ a late Mineralogist, and originally confirmed by _Porta_,\nthat Needles touched with a _Diamond_ contract a verticity, even as they\ndo with a Loadstone, which will not consist with experiment. And\ntherefore, as _Gilbertus_ observeth, he might be deceived, in touching\nsuch Needles with _Diamonds_, which had a verticity before, as we have\ndeclared most Needles to have; and so had he touched them with Gold or\nSilver, he might have concluded a magnetical vertue therein.\n\nIn the same form may we place _Fracastorius_ his attraction of silver.\n_Philostratus_ his _Pantarbes_, _Apollodorus_ and _Beda_ his relation of\nthe Loadstone that attracted onely in the night. But most inexcusable is\n_Franciscus Rueus_, a man of our own profession; who in his discourse of\n_Gemms_ mentioned in the _Apocalyps_, undertakes a Chapter of the\nLoadstone. Wherein substantially and upon experiment he scarce\ndelivereth any thing: making long enumeration of its traditional\nqualities, whereof he seemeth to believe many, and some above convicted\nby experience, he is fain to salve as impostures of the Devil. But\n_Boetius de Boot_ Physitian unto _Rodulphus_ the second, hath\nrecompenced this defect; and in his Tract _De Lapidibus & Gemmis_,\nspeaks very materially hereof; and his Discourse is consonant unto\nExperience and Reason.\n\nAs for Relations Historical, though many there be of less account, yet\ntwo alone deserve consideration: The first concerneth magnetical Rocks,\nand attractive Mountains in several parts of the Earth. The other the\nTomb of _Mahomet_ and bodies suspended in the air. Of Rocks magnetical\nthere are likewise two relations; for some are delivered to be in the\n_Indies_, and some in the extremity of the North, and about the very\nPole. The Northern account is commonly ascribed unto _Olaus Magnus_\nArchbishop of _Upsale_, who out of his Predecessor _Joannes_, _Saxo_,\nand others, compiled a History of some Northern Nations; but this\nassertion we have not discovered in that Work of his which commonly\npasseth amongst us, and should believe his Geography herein no more then\nthat in the first line of his Book; when he affirmeth that _Biarmia_\n(which is not seventy degrees in latitude) hath the Pole for its Zenith,\nand Equinoctial for the Horizon.\n\nNow upon this foundation, how uncertain soever men have erected mighty\nillations, ascribing thereto the cause of the Needles direction, and\nconceiving the effluctions from these Mountains and Rocks invite the\nLilly toward the North. Which conceit though countenanced by learned\nmen, is not made out either by experience or reason, for no man hath yet\nattained or given a sensible account of the Pole by some degrees. It is\nalso observed the Needle doth very much vary as it approacheth the Pole;\nwhereas were there such direction from the Rocks, upon a nearer\napproachment it would more directly respect them. Beside, were there\nsuch magnetical Rocks under the Pole, yet being so far removed they\nwould produce no such effect. For they that sail by the Isle of _Ilua_\nnow called _Elba_ in the Thuscan Sea which abounds in veins of\nLoadstone, observe no variation or inclination of the Needle; much less\nmay they expect a direction from Rocks at the end of the Earth. And\nlastly, men that ascribe thus much unto Rocks of the North, must presume\nor discover the like magneticals at the South: For in the Southern Seas\nand far beyond the Equator, variations are large, and declinations as\nconstant as in the Northern Ocean.\n\n[Sidenote: _(Probably) there be no magnetical Rocks._]\n\nThe other relation of Loadstone Mines and Rocks, in the shore of _India_\nis delivered of old by _Pliny_; wherein, saith he, they are so placed\nboth in abundance and vigour, that it proves an adventure of hazard to\npass those Coasts in a Ship with Iron nails. _Serapion_ the Moor, an\nAuthor of good esteem and reasonable Antiquity, confirmeth the same,\nwhose expression in the word _magnes_ is this. The Mine of this Stone is\nin the Sea-coast of _India_, whereto when Ships approach, there is no\nIron in them which flies not like a Bird unto those Mountains; and\ntherefore their ships are fastened not with Iron but Wood, for otherwise\nthey would be torn to pieces. But this assertion, how positive soever,\nis contradicted by all Navigators that pass that way; which are now\nmany, and of our own Nation, and might surely have been controled by\n_Nearchus_ the Admiral of _Alexander_; who not knowing the Compass, was\nfain to coast that shore.\n\n[Sidenote: Mahomet's _tomb of stone, and built upon the ground._]\n\nFor the relation concerning _Mahomet_, it is generally believed his Tomb\nat _Medina Talnabi_, in _Arabia_, without any visible supporters hangeth\nin the air between two Loadstones artificially contrived both above and\nbelow; which conceit is fabulous and evidently false from the testimony\nof Ocular Testators, who affirm his Tomb is made of Stone, and lyeth\nupon the ground; as beside others the learned _Vossius_ observeth from\n_Gabriel Sionita_, and _Joannes Hesronita_, two _Maronites_ in their\nrelations hereof. Of such intentions and attempt by _Mahometans_ we read\nin some Relators, and that might be the occasion of the Fable, which by\ntradition of time and distance of place enlarged into the Story of being\naccomplished. And this hath been promoted by attempts of the like\nnature; for we read in _Pliny_ that one _Dinocrates_ began to Arch the\nTemple of _Arsinoe_ in _Alexandria_ with Loadstone, that so her Statue\nmight be suspended in the air to the amazement of the beholders. And to\nlead on our crudelity herein, confirmation may be drawn from History and\nWriters of good authority. So it is reported by _Ruffinus_, that in the\nTemple of _Serapis_ there was an Iron Chariot suspended by Loadstones in\nthe air; which stones removed, the Chariot fell and dashed into pieces.\nThe like doth _Beda_ report of _Bellerophons_ Horse, which framed of\nIron, was placed between two Loadstones, with wings expansed, pendulous\nin the air.\n\nThe verity of these Stories we shall not further dispute, their\npossibility we may in some way determine; if we conceive what no man\nwill deny, that bodies suspended in the air have this suspension from\none or many Loadstones placed both above and below it; or else by one or\nmany placed only above it. Likewise the body to be suspended in respect\nof the Loadstone above, is either placed first at a pendulous distance\nin the medium, or else attracted unto that site by the vigor of the\nLoadstone. And so we first affirm, that possible it is, a body may be\nsuspended between two Loadstones; that is, it being so equally attracted\nunto both, that it determineth it self unto neither. But surely this\nposition will be of no duration; for if the air be agitated or the body\nwaved either way, it omits the equilibration, and disposeth it self unto\nthe nearest attractor. Again, It is not impossible (though hardly\nfeasible) by a single Loadstone to suspend an Iron in the air, the Iron\nbeing artificially placed and at a distance guided toward the stone,\nuntil it find the neutral point, wherein its gravity just equals the\nmagnetical quality, the one exactly extolling as much as the other\ndepresseth. And lastly, Impossible it is that if an Iron rest upon the\nground, and a Loadstone be placed over it, it should ever so arise as to\nhang in the way or medium; for that vigor which at a distance is able to\novercome the resistance of its gravity and to lift it up from the Earth,\nwill as it approacheth nearer be still more able to attract it; never\nremaining in the middle that could not abide in the extreams. Now the\nway of _Baptista Porta_ that by a thred fastneth a Needle to a Table,\nand then so guides and orders the same, that by the attraction of the\nLoadstone it abideth in the air, infringeth not this reason; for this is\na violent retention, and if the thred be loosened, the Needle ascends\nand adheres unto the Attractor.\n\n[Sidenote: _Powder of Loadstones, of what operation._]\n\nThe third consideration concerneth Medical relations; wherein what ever\neffects are delivered, they are either derived from its mineral and\nferreous condition, or else magnetical operation. Unto the ferreous and\nmineral quality pertaineth what _Dioscorides_ an ancient Writer and\nSouldier under _Anthony_ and _Cleopatra_ affirmeth, that half a dram of\nLoadstone given with Honey and Water, proves a purgative medicine, and\nevacuateth gross humours. But this is a quality of great incertainty;\nfor omitting the vehicle of Water and Honey, which is of a laxative\npower it self, the powder of some Loadstones in this dose doth rather\nconstipate and binde, then purge and loosen the belly. And if sometimes\nit cause any laxity, it is probably in the same way with Iron and Steel\nunprepared, which will disturb some bodies, and work by Purge and Vomit.\nAnd therefore, whereas it is delivered in a Book ascribed unto _Galen_,\nthat it is a good medicine in dropsies, and evacuates the waters of\npersons so affected: It may I confess by siccity and astriction afford a\nconfirmation unto parts relaxed, and such as be hydropically disposed;\nand by these qualities it may be useful in _Hernias_ or _Ruptures_, and\nfor these it is commended by _AEtius_, _AEgineta_, and _Oribatius_; who\nonly affirm that it contains the vertue of _Haematites_, and being burnt\nwas sometimes vended for it. Wherein notwithstanding there is an higher\nvertue; and in the same prepared, or in rich veins thereof, though\ncrude, we have observed the effects of Chalybeat Medicines; and the\nbenefits of Iron and Steel in strong obstructions. And therefore that\nwas probably a different vein of Loadstone, or infected with other\nmineral mixture, which the Ancients commended for a purgative medicine,\nand ranked the same with the violentest kinds thereof: with _Hippophae_,\n_Cneoron_, and _Thymelaea_, as we find it in _Hippocrates_ [SN: _De\nmorbis internis._]; and might be somewhat doubtful, whether by the\nmagnesian stone, he understood the Loadstone; did not _Achilles Statius_\ndefine the same, the Stone that loveth Iron.\n\nTo this mineral condition belongeth what is delivered by some, that\nwounds which are made with weapons excited by the Loadstone, contract a\nmalignity, and become of more difficult cure; which nevertheless is not\nto be found in the incision of Chyrurgions with knives and lances\ntouched; which leave no such effect behind them. Hither we also refer\nthat affirmative, which sayes the Loadstone is poison; and therefore in\nthe lists of poisons we find it in many Authors. But this our experience\ncannot confirm, and the practice of the King of _Zeilan_ clearly\ncontradicteth; who as _Garcias ab Horto_, Physitian unto the _Spanish_\nViceroy delivereth, hath all his meat served up in dishes of Loadstone,\nand conceives thereby he preserveth the vigour of youth.\n\nBut surely from a magnetical activity must be made out what is let fall\nby _AEtius_, that a Loadstone held in the hand of one that is podagrical,\ndoth either cure or give great ease in the Gout. Or what _Marcellus\nEmpericus_ affirmeth, that as an amulet, it also cureth the headach;\nwhich are but additions unto its proper nature, and hopeful enlargements\nof its allowed attraction. For perceiving its secret power to draw\nmagnetical bodies, men have invented a new attraction, to draw out the\ndolour and pain of any part. And from such grounds it surely became a\nphilter, and was conceived a medicine of some venereal attraction; and\ntherefore upon this stone they graved the Image of _Venus_, according\nunto that of _Claudian_, _Venerem magnetica gemma figurat_. Hither must\nwe also ruler what is delivered concerning its power to draw out of the\nbody bullets and heads of arrows, and for the like intention is mixed up\nin plaisters. Which course, although as vain and ineffectual it be\nrejected by many good Authors, yet is it not methinks so readily to be\ndenied, nor the Practice of many Physicians which have thus compounded\nplaisters, thus suddenly to be condemned, as may be observed in the\n_Emplastrum divinum Nicolai_, the _Emplastrum nigrum_ of _Augspurg_, the\n_Opodeldoch_ and _Attractivum_ of _Paracelsus_, with several more in the\nDispensatory of _Wecker_, and practice of _Sennertus_. The cure also of\n_Hernias_, or _Ruptures_ in _Pareus_: and the method also of curation\nlately delivered by _Daniel Beckherus_,[D] and approved by the\nProfessors of _Leyden_, that is, of a young man of _Spruceland_ that\ncasually swallowed a knife about ten inches long, which was cut out of\nhis stomach, and the wound healed up. In which cure to attract the knife\nto a convenient situation, there was applied a plaister made up with the\npowder of Loadstone. Now this kind of practice _Libavius_, _Gilbertus_,\nand lately _Swickardus_ [SN: _In his Ars Magnetica._] condemn, as vain,\nand altogether unuseful; because a Loadstone in powder hath no\nattractive power; for in that form it omits his polarly respects, and\nloseth those parts which are the rule of attraction.\n\n  [D] De cultrivoro Prussiaco, 1636. _The cure of the Prussian Knife._\n\nWherein to speak compendiously, if experiment hath not deceived us, we\nfirst affirm that a Loadstone in powder omits not all attraction. For\nif the powder of a rich vein be in a reasonable quantity presented\ntoward the Needle freely placed, it will not appear to be void of all\nactivity, but will be able to stir it. Nor hath it only a power to move\nthe Needle in powder and by it self, but this will it also do, if\nincorporated and mixed with plaisters; as we have made trial in the\n_Emplastrum de Minia_, with half an ounce of the mass, mixing a dram of\nLoadstone. For applying the magdaleon or roal unto the Needle, it would\nboth stir and attract it; not equally in all parts, but more vigorously\nin some, according unto the Mine of the Stone, more plentifully\ndispersed in the mass. And lastly, In the Loadstone powdered, the polary\nrespects are not wholly destroyed. For those diminutive particles are\nnot atomical or meerly indivisible, but consist of dimensions sufficient\nfor their operations, though in obscurer effects. Thus if unto the\npowder of Loadstone or Iron we admove the North Pole of the Loadstone,\nthe Powders or small divisions will erect and conform themselves\nthereto: but if the South Pole approach, they will subside, and\ninverting their bodies, respect the Loadstone with the other extream.\nAnd this will happen not only in a body of powder together, but in any\nparticle or dust divided from it.\n\nNow though we disavow not these plaisters, yet shall we not omit two\ncautions in their use, that therein the Stone be not too subtilly\npowdered, for it will better manifest its attraction in a more sensible\ndimension. That where is desired a speedy effect, it may be considered\nwhether it were not better to relinquish the powdered plaisters, and to\napply an entire Loadstone unto the part: And though the other be not\nwholly ineffectual, whether this way be not more powerful, and so might\nhave been in the cure of the young man delivered by _Beckerus_.\n\nThe last consideration concerneth Magical relations; in which account we\ncomprehend effects derived and fathered upon hidden qualities,\nspecifical forms, Antipathies and Sympathies, whereof from received\ngrounds of Art, no reasons are derived. Herein relations are strange and\nnumerous; men being apt in all Ages to multiply wonders, and\nPhilosophers dealing with admirable bodies, as Historians have done with\nexcellent men, upon the strength of their great atcheivements, ascribing\nacts unto them not only false but impossible; and exceeding truth as\nmuch in their relations, as they have others in their actions. Hereof we\nshall briefly mention some delivered by Authors of good esteem: whereby\nwe may discover the fabulous inventions of some, the credulous supinity\nof others, and the great disservice unto truth by both: multiplying\nobscurities in Nature, and authorising hidden qualities that are false;\nwhereas wise men are ashamed there are so many true.\n\nAnd first, _Dioscorides_ puts a shrewd quality upon it, and such as men\nare apt enough to experiment, who therewith discovers the incontinency\nof a wife, by placing the Loadstone under her pillow, whereupon she will\nnot be able to remain in bed with her husband. The same he also makes a\nhelp unto thievery. For Thieves saith he, having a design upon a house,\ndo make a fire at the four corners thereof, and cast therein the\nfragments of Loadstone: whence ariseth a fume that so disturbeth the\ninhabitants, that they forsake the house and leave it to the spoil of\nthe Robbers. This relation, how ridiculous soever, hath _Albertus_ taken\nup above a thousand years after, and _Marbodeus_ the Frenchman hath\ncontinued the same in Latine Verse, which with the Notes of _Pictorius_\nis currant unto our dayes. As strange must be the Lithomancy or\ndivination from this Stone, whereby as _Tzetzes_ delivers, _Helenus_ the\nProphet foretold the destruction of _Troy_: and the Magick thereof not\nsafely to be believed, which was delivered by _Orpheus_, that sprinkled\nwith water it will upon a question emit a voice not much unlike an\nInfant. But surely the Loadstone of _Laurentius Guascus_ the Physitian,\nis never to be matched; wherewith, as _Cardan_ delivereth, whatsoever\nNeedles or Bodies were touched, the wounds and punctures made thereby,\nwere never felt at all. And yet as strange is that which is delivered by\nsome, that a Loadstone preserved in the salt of a _Remora_, acquires a\npower to attract gold out of the deepest Wells. Certainly a studied\nabsurdity, not casually cast out, but plotted for perpetuity: for the\nstrangeness of the effect ever to be admired, and the difficulty of the\ntrial never to be convicted.\n\nThese conceits are of that monstrosity that they refute themselves in\ntheir recitements. There is another of better notice, and whispered\nthorow the World with some attention; credulous and vulgar auditors\nreadily believing it, and more judicious and distinctive heads, not\naltogether rejecting it. The conceit is excellent, and if the effect\nwould follow, somewhat divine; whereby we might communicate like\nspirits, and confer on earth with _Menippus_ in the Moon. And this is\npretended from the sympathy of two Needles touched with the same\nLoadstone, and placed in the center of two Abecedary circles or rings,\nwith letters described round about them, one friend keeping one, and\nanother the other, and agreeing upon an hour wherein they will\ncommunicate. For then, saith Tradition, at what distance of place\nsoever, when one Needle shall be removed unto any letter, the other by a\nwonderful sympathy will move unto the same. But herein I confess my\nexperience can find no truth; for having expressly framed two circles of\nWood, and according to the number of the Latine letters divided each\ninto twenty three parts, placing therein two stiles or Needles composed\nof the same steel, touched with the same Loadstone, and at the same\npoint: of these two, whensoever I removed the one, although but at the\ndistance of half a span, the other would stand like _Hercules_ pillars,\nand if the Earth stand still, have surely no motion at all. Now as it is\nnot possible that any body should have no boundaries, or Sphear of its\nactivity, so it is improbable it should effect that at distance, which\nnearer hand it cannot at all perform.\n\nAgain, The conceit is ill contrived, and one effect inferred, whereas\nthe contrary will ensue. For if the removing of one of the Needles from\n_A_ to _B_, should have any action or influence on the other, it would\nnot intice it from _A_ to _B_, but repell it from _A_ to _Z_: for\nNeedles excited by the same point of the stone, do not attract, but\navoid each other, even as these also do, when their invigorated extreams\napproach unto one other.\n\nLastly, Were this conceit assuredly true, yet were it not a conclusion\nat every distance to be tried by every head: it being no ordinary or\nAlmanack business, but a Problem Mathematical, to finde out the\ndifference of hours in different places; nor do the wisest exactly\nsatisfie themselves in all. For the hours of several places anticipate\neach other, according unto their Longitudes, which are not exactly\ndiscovered of every place; and therefore the trial hereof at a\nconsiderable interval, is best performed at the distance of the\n_Antoeci_; that is, such habitations as have the same Meridian and\nequal parallel, on different sides of the AEquator; or more plainly the\nsame Longitude and the same Latitude unto the South, which we have in\nthe North. For unto such situations it is noon and midnight at the very\nsame time.\n\nAnd therefore the Sympathy of these Needles is much of the same mould\nwith that intelligence which is pretended from the flesh of one body\ntransmuted by incision into another. [SN: De curtorum Chyrurgia.] For if\nby the Art of _Taliacotius_, a permutation of flesh, or transmutation be\nmade from one mans body into another, as if a piece of flesh be\nexchanged from the bicipital muscle of either parties arm, and about\nthem both an Alphabet circumscribed; upon a time appointed as some\nconceptions affirm, they may communicate at what distance soever. For if\nthe one shall prick himself in _A_, the other at the same time will have\na sense thereof in the same part: and upon inspection of his arm\nperceive what letters the other points out in his. Which is a way of\nintelligence very strange: and would requite the lost Art of\n_Pythagoras_, who could read a reverse in the Moon.\n\nNow this magnetical conceit how strange soever, might have some original\nin Reason; for men observing no solid body, whatsoever did interrupt its\naction, might be induced to believe no distance would terminate the\nsame; and most conceiving it pointed unto the Pole of Heaven, might also\nopinion that nothing between could restrain it. Whosoever was the\nAuthor, the _AEolus_ that blew it about was _Famianus Strada_, that\nElegant Jesuit, in his Rhetorical prolusions, who chose out this subject\nto express the stile of _Lucretius_. But neither _Baptista Porta_, _de\nFurtivis Literarum notis_; _Trithemius_ in his Steganography, _Selenus_\nin his Cryptography, [SN: Nunc. inanim. _by D._ Godwin _Bishop of\nHereford_.] or _Nuncius inanimatus_ make any consideration hereof,\nalthough they deliver many ways to communicate thoughts at distance. And\nthis we will not deny may in some manner be effected by the Loadstone;\nthat is, from one room into another; by placing a table in the wall\ncommon unto both, and writing thereon the same letters one against\nanother: for upon the approach of a vigorous Loadstone unto a letter on\nthis side, the Needle will move unto the same on the other. But this is\na very different way from ours at present; and hereof there are many\nways delivered, and more may be discovered which contradict not the rule\nof its operations.\n\nAs for _Unguentum Armarium_, called also _Magneticum_, it belongs not to\nthis discourse, it neither having the Loadstone for its ingredient, nor\nany one of its actions: but supposeth other principles, as common and\nuniversal spirits, which convey the action of the remedy unto the part,\nand conjoins the vertue of bodies far disjoyned. But perhaps the cures\nit doth, are not worth so mighty principles; it commonly healing but\nsimple wounds, and such as mundified and kept clean, do need no other\nhand then that of Nature, and the Balsam of the proper part. Unto which\neffect there being fields of Medicines, it may be a hazardous curiosity\nto rely on this; and because men say the effect doth generally follow,\nit might be worth the experiment to try, whether the same will not\nensue, upon the same Method of cure, by ordinary Balsams, or common\nvulnerary plaisters.\n\nMany other Magnetisms may be pretended, and the like attractions through\nall the creatures of Nature. Whether the same be verified in the action\nof the Sun upon inferiour bodies, whether there be _AEolian_ Magnets,\nwhether the flux and reflux of the Sea be caused by any Magnetism from\nthe Moon; whether the like be really made out, or rather Metaphorically\nverified in the sympathies of Plants and Animals, might afford a large\ndispute; and _Kircherus_ in his _Catena Magnetica_ hath excellently\ndiscussed the same; which work came late unto our hand, but might have\nmuch advantaged this Discourse.\n\nOther Discourses there might be made of the Loadstone: as Moral,\nMystical, Theological; and some have handsomely done them; as _Ambrose_,\n_Austine_, _Gulielmus Parisiensis_, and many more, but these fall under\nno Rule, and are as boundless as mens inventions. And though honest\nminds do glorifie God hereby; yet do they most powerfully magnifie him,\nand are to be looked on with another eye, who demonstratively set forth\nits Magnalities; who not from postulated or precarious inferences,\nentreat a courteous assent; but from experiments and undeniable effects,\nenforce the wonder of its Maker.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nOf Bodies Electrical.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Bodies Electrical, what?]\n\nHaving thus spoken of the Loadstone and Bodies Magnetical, I shall in\nthe next place deliver somewhat of Electrical, and such as may seem to\nhave attraction like the other. Hereof we shall also deliver what\nparticularly spoken or not generally known is manifestly or probably\ntrue, what generally believed is also false or dubious. Now by\nElectrical bodies, I understand not such as are Metallical, mentioned by\n_Pliny_, and the Ancients; for their Electrum was a mixture made of\nGold, with the Addition of a fifth part of Silver; a substance now as\nunknown as true _Aurichalcum_, or _Corinthian_ Brass, and set down among\nthings lost by _Pancirollus_. Nor by Electrick Bodies do I conceive such\nonly as take up shavings, straws, and light bodies, in which number the\nAncients only placed _Jet_ and _Amber_; but such as conveniently placed\nunto their objects attract all bodies palpable whatsoever. I say\nconveniently placed, that is, in regard of the object, that it be not\ntoo ponderous, or any way affixed; in regard of the Agent, that it be\nnot foul or sullied, but wiped, rubbed, and excitated; in regard of\nboth, that they be conveniently distant, and no impediment interposed. I\nsay, all bodies palpable, thereby excluding fire, which indeed it will\nnot attract, nor yet draw through it; for fire consumes its effluxions\nby which it should attract.\n\nNow although in this rank but two were commonly mentioned by the\nAncients, _Gilbertus_ discovereth many more; as _Diamonds_, _Saphyrs_,\n_Carbuncles_, _Iris_, _Opalls_, _Amethysts_, _Beril_, _Crystal_,\n_Bristol-stones_, _Sulphur_, _Mastick_, hard _Wax_, hard _Rosin_,\n_Arsenic_, _Sal-gemm_, _Roch-Allum_, common Glass, _Stibium_, or Glass\nof _Antimony_. Unto these Cabeus addeth white Wax, _Gum Elemi_, _Gum\nGuaici_, _Pix Hispanica_, and _Gipsum_. And unto these we add _Gum\nAnime_, _Benjamin_, _Talcum_, _China-dishes_, _Sandaraca_, _Turpentine_,\n_Styrax Liquida_, and _Caranna_ dried into a hard consistence. And the\nsame attraction we find, not onely in simple bodies, but such as are\nmuch compounded; as in the _Oxycroceum_ plaister, and obscurely that _ad\nHerniam_, and _Gratia Dei_; all which smooth and rightly prepared, will\ndiscover a sufficient power to stir the Needle, setled freely upon a\nwell-pointed pin; and so as the Electrick may be applied unto it without\nall disadvantage.\n\nBut the attraction of these Electricks we observe to be very different.\nResinous or unctuous bodies, and such as will flame, attract most\nvigorously, and most thereof without frication; as _Anime_, _Benjamin_,\nand most powerfully good hard Wax, which will convert the Needle almost\nas actively as the Loadstone. And we believe that all or most of this\nsubstance if reduced to hardness, tralucency or clearness, would have\nsome attractive quality. But juices concrete, or Gums easily dissolving\nin water, draw not at all: as _Aloe_, _Opium_, _Sanguis Draconis_,\n_Lacca_, _Calbanum_, _Sagapenum_. Many stones also both precious and\nvulgar, although terse and smooth, have not this power attractive: as\n_Emeralds_, _Pearl_, _Jaspis_, _Corneleans_, _Agathe_, _Heliotropes_,\n_Marble_, _Alablaster_, _Touchstone_, _Flint_, and _Bezoar_. Glass\nattracts but weakly, though clear; some slick stones and thick Glasses\nindifferently: _Arsenic_ but weakly, so likewise Glass of _Antimony_,\nbut _Crocus Metallorum_ not at all. Salts generally but weakly, as _Sal\nGemma_, _Allum_, and also _Talke_; nor very discoverably by any\nfrication, but if gently warmed at the fire, and wiped with a dry cloth,\nthey will better discover their Electricities.\n\nNo Metal attracts, nor Animal concretion we know, although polite and\nsmooth; as we have made trial in _Elks_ Hoofs, Hawks-Talons, the Sword\nof a _Sword-fish_, _Tortois-shells_, _Sea-horse_, and _Elephants_ Teeth,\nin Bones, in _Harts-horn_, and what is usually conceived\n_Unicorns-horn_. No Wood though never so hard and polished, although out\nof some thereof Electrick bodies proceed; as _Ebony_, _Box_, _Lignum\nvitae_, _Cedar_, _etc._ And although _Jet_ and _Amber_ be reckoned among\n_Bitumens_, yet neither do we find _Asphaltus_, that is, _Bitumens_ of\n_Judea_, nor _Sea-cole_, nor _Camphire_, nor _Mummia_ to attract,\nalthough we have tried in large and polished pieces. Now this attraction\nhave we tried in straws and paleous bodies, in Needles of Iron,\nequilibrated, Powders of Wood and Iron, in Gold and Silver foliate. And\nnot only in solid but fluent and liquid bodies, as oyls made both by\nexpression and distillation; in Water, in spirits of Wine, _Vitriol_ and\n_Aquafortis_.\n\nBut how this attraction is made, is not so easily determined; that 'tis\nperformed by effluviums is plain, and granted by most; for Electricks\nwill not commonly attract, except they grow hot or become perspirable.\nFor if they be foul and obnubilated, it hinders their effluxion; nor if\nthey be covered, though but with Linen or Sarsenet, or if a body be\ninterposed, for that intercepts the effluvium. If also a powerful and\nbroad Electrick of Wax or _Anime_ be held over fine powder, the Atoms or\nsmall particles will ascend most numerously unto it; and if the\nElectrick be held unto the light, it may be observed that many thereof\nwill fly, and be as it were discharged from the Electrick to the\ndistance sometime of two or three inches. Which motion is performed by\nthe breath of the effluvium issuing with agility; for as the Electrick\ncooleth, the projection of the Atoms ceaseth.\n\n[Sidenote: Cabeus _his way for attraction in bodies Electrick_.]\n\nThe manner hereof _Cabeus_ wittily attempteth, affirming that this\neffluvium attenuateth and impelleth the neighbor air, which returning\nhome in a gyration, carrieth with it the obvious bodies unto the\nElectrick. And this he labours to confirm by experiments; for if the\nstraws be raised by a vigorous Electrick, they do appear to wave and\nturn in their ascents. If likewise the Electrick be broad, and the\nstraws light and chaffy, and held at a reasonable distance, they will\nnot arise unto the middle, but rather adhere toward the Verge or Borders\nthereof. And lastly, if many straws be laid together, and a nimble\nElectrick approach, they will not all arise unto it, but some will\ncommonly start aside, and be whirled a reasonable distance from it. Now\nthat the air impelled returns unto its place in a gyration or whirling,\nis evident from the Atoms or Motes in the Sun. For when the Sun so\nenters a hole or window, that by its illumination the Atoms or Motes\nbecome perceptible, if then by our breath the air be gently impelled, it\nmay be perceived, that they will circularly return and in a gyration\nunto their places again.\n\n[Sidenote: _The way of Sir_ Kenelm Digby.]\n\nAnother way of their attraction is also delivered; that is, by a tenuous\nemanation or continued effluvium, which after some distance retracteth\ninto it self; as is observable in drops of Syrups, Oyl, and seminal\nViscosities, which spun at length, retire into their former dimensions.\nNow these effluviums advancing from the body of the Electrick, in their\nreturn do carry back the bodies whereon they have laid hold within the\nSphere or Circle of their continuities; and these they do not onely\nattract, but with their viscous arms hold fast a good while after. And\nif any shall wonder why these effluviums issuing forth impel and\nprotrude not the straw before they can bring it back, it is because the\neffluvium passing out in a smaller thred and more enlengthened filament,\nit stirreth not the bodies interposed, but returning unto its original,\nfalls into a closer substance, and carrieth them back unto it self. And\nthis way of attraction is best received, embraced by Sir _Kenelm Digby_\nin his excellent Treaty of bodies, allowed by _Des Cartes_ in his\nprinciples of Philosophy, as far and concerneth fat and resinous bodies,\nand with exception of Glass, whose attraction he also deriveth from the\nrecess of its effluction. And this in some manner the words of\n_Gilbertus_ will bear: _Effluvia illa tenuiora concipiunt & amplectuntur\ncorpora, quibus uniuntur, & electris tanquam extensis brachiis, & ad\nfontem propinquitate invalescentibus effluviis, deducuntur_. And if the\nground were true, that the Earth were an Electrick body, and the air but\nthe effluvium thereof, we might have more reason to believe that from\nthis attraction, and by this effluction, bodies tended to the Earth, and\ncould not remain above it.\n\nOur other discourse of Electricks concerneth a general opinion touching\n_Jet_ and _Amber_, that they attract all light bodies, except _Ocymum_\nor _Basil_, and such as be dipped in oyl or oyled; and this is urged as\nhigh as _Theophrastus_: but _Scaliger_ acquitteth him; And had this been\nhis assertion, _Pliny_ would probably have taken it up, who herein\nstands out, and delivereth no more but what is vulgarly known. But\n_Plutarch_ speaks positively in his _Symposiacks_, that _Amber_\nattracteth all bodies, excepting Basil and oyled substances. With\n_Plutarch_ consent many Authors both Ancient and Modern; but the most\ninexcusable are _Lemnius_ and _Rueus_, whereof the one delivering the\nnature of Minerals mentioned in Scripture, the infallible fountain of\nTruth, confirmeth their vertues with erroneous traditions; the other\nundertaking the occult and hidden Miracles of Nature, accepteth this for\none; and endeavoureth to alledge a reason of that which is more then\noccult, that is, not existent.\n\nNow herein, omitting the authority of others, as the Doctrine of\nexperiment hath informed us, we first affirm, That _Amber_ attracts not\nBasil, is wholly repugnant unto truth. For if the leaves thereof or\ndried stalks be stripped into small straws, they arise unto _Amber_,\n_Wax_, and other Electries, no otherwise then those of Wheat and Rye:\nnor is there any peculiar fatness or singular viscosity in that plant\nthat might cause adhesion, and so prevent its ascension. But that _Jet_\nand _Amber_ attract not straws oyled, is in part true and false. For if\nthe straws be much wet or drenched in oyl, true it is that _Amber_\ndraweth them not; for then the oyl makes the straws to adhere unto the\npart whereon they are placed, so that they cannot rise unto the\nAttractor; and this is true, not onely if they be soaked in Oyl, but\nspirits of Wine or Water. But if we speak of Straws or festucous\ndivisions lightly drawn over with oyl, and so that it causeth no\nadhesion; or if we conceive an Antipathy between Oyl and _Amber_, the\nDoctrine is not true. For _Amber_ will attract straws thus oyled, it\nwill convert the Needles of Dials made either of Brass or Iron, although\nthey be much oyled; for in these Needles consisting free upon their\nCenter, there can be no adhesion. It will likewise attract Oyl it self,\nand if it approacheth unto a drop thereof, it becometh conical, and\nariseth up unto it, for Oyl taketh not away his attraction, although it\nbe rubbed over it. For if you touch a piece of Wax already excitated\nwith common Oyl, it will notwithstanding attract, though not so\nvigorously as before. But if you moisten the same with any Chymical Oyl,\nWater, or spirits of Wine, or only breath upon it, it quite omits its\nattraction, for either its influencies cannot get through, or will not\nmingle with those substances.\n\nIt is likewise probable the Ancients were mistaken concerning its\nsubstance and generation; they conceiving it a vegetable concretion made\nof the gums of Trees, especially _Pine_ and _Poplar_ falling into the\nwater, and after indurated or hardened, whereunto accordeth the Fable of\n_Phaetons_ sisters: but surely the concretion is Mineral, according as\nis delivered by _Boetius_. For either it is found in Mountains and\nmediterraneous parts; and so it is a fat and unctuous sublimation in the\nEarth, concreted and fixed by salt and nitrous spirits wherewith it\nmeeteth. Or else, which is most usual, it is collected upon the\nSea-shore; and so it is a fat and bituminous juice coagulated by the\nsaltness of the Sea. Now that salt spirits have a power to congeal and\ncoagulate unctuous bodies, is evident in Chymical operations; in the\ndistillations of _Arsenick_, sublimate and _Antimony_; in the mixture of\noyl of _Juniper_, with the salt and acide spirit of _Sulphur_, for\nthereupon ensueth a concretion unto the consistence of _Birdlime_; as\nalso in spirits of salt, or _Aqua fortis_ poured upon oyl of Olive, or\nmore plainly in the Manufacture of Soap. And many bodies will coagulate\nupon commixture, whose separated natures promise no concretion. Thus\nupon a solution of _Tin_ by _Aqua fortis_, there will ensue a\ncoagulation, like that of whites of Eggs. [SN: _How the stone is bred in\nthe Kidney or Bladder._] Thus the volatile salt of Urine will coagulate\n_Aqua vitae_, or spirits of Wine; and thus perhaps (as _Helmont_\nexcellently declareth) the stones or calculous concretions in Kidney or\nBladder may be produced: the spirits or volatile salt of Urine\nconjoyning with the _Aqua vitae_ potentially lying therein; as he\nillustrateth from the distillation of fermented Urine. From whence\nariseth an _Aqua vitae_ or spirit, which the volatile salt of the same\nUrine will congeal; and finding an earthy concurrence, strike into a\nlapideous substance.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of a Bee and a Viper involved in Amber._ Mart. _l._ 4.]\n\nLastly, We will not omit what _Bellabonus_ upon his own experiment writ\nfrom _Dantzich_ unto _Mellichius_, as he hath left recorded in his\nChapter, _De succino_, that the bodies of _Flies_, _Pismires_, and the\nlike, which are said oft-times to be included in _Amber_, are not real\nbut representative, as he discovered in several pieces broke for that\npurpose. If so, the two famous Epigrams hereof in _Martial_ are but\nPoetical, the _Pismire_ of _Brassavolus_ imaginary, and _Cardans\nMousoleum_ for a Flie, a meer phansie. But hereunto we know not how to\nassent, as having met with some whose reals made good their\nrepresentments.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nCompendiously of sundry other common Tenents, concerning Mineral and\nTerreous Bodies, which examined, prove either false or dubious.\n\n\n1. And first we hear it in every mouth, and in many good Authors read\nit, That a _Diamond_, which is the hardest of stones, not yielding unto\n_Steel_, _Emery_, or any thing but its own powder, is yet made soft, or\nbroke by the blood of a Goat. Thus much is affirmed by _Pliny_,\n_Solinus_, _Albertus_, _Cyprian_, _Austin_, _Isidore_, and many\nChristian Writers, alluding herein unto the heart of man and the\nprecious bloud of our Saviour, who was typified by the Goat that was\nslain, and the scape-Goat in the Wilderness; and at the effusion of\nwhose bloud, not only the hard hearts of his enemies relented, but the\nstony rocks and vail of the Temple were shattered. But this I perceive\nis easier affirmed then proved. For _Lapidaries_, and such as profess\nthe art of cutting this stone, do generally deny it; and they that seem\nto countenance it, have in their deliveries so qualified it, that little\nfrom thence of moment can be inferred for it. For first, the holy\nFathers, without a further enquiry did take it for granted, and rested\nupon the authority of the first deliverers. As for _Albertus_, he\npromiseth this effect, but conditionally, not except the Goat drink\nwine, and be fed with _Siler montanum, petroselinum_, and such herbs as\nare conceived of power to break the stone in the bladder. But the words\nof _Pliny_, from whom most likely the rest at first derived it, if\nstrictly considered, do rather overthrow, then any way advantage this\neffect. His words are these: _Hircino rumpitur sanguine, nec aliter quam\nrecenti, calidoque macerata, & sic quoque multis ictibus, tunc etiam\npraeterquam eximias incudes malleosque ferreos frangens_. That is, it is\nbroken with Goats blood, but not except it be fresh and warm, and that\nnot without many blows, and then also it will break the best Anvils and\nHammers of Iron. And answerable hereto, is the assertion of _Isidore_\nand _Solinus_. By which account, a Diamond steeped in Goats bloud,\nrather increaseth in hardness, then acquireth any softness by the\ninfusion; for the best we have are comminuible without it; and are so\nfar from breaking hammers, that they submit unto pistillation, and\nresist not an ordinary pestle.\n\n[Sidenote: Pulvis Lithontripticus.]\n\nUpon this conceit arose perhaps the discovery of another; that the bloud\nof a Goat was soveraign for the Stone, as it stands commended by many\ngood Writers, and brings up the composition in the powder of\n_Nicolaus_, and the Electuary of the Queen of _Colein_. Or rather\nbecause it was found an excellent medicine for the Stone, and its\nability commended by some to dissolve the hardest thereof; it might be\nconceived by amplifying apprehensions, to be able to break a _Diamond_;\nand so it came to be ordered that the Goat should be fed with\nsaxifragous herbs, and such as are conceived of power to break the\nstone. However it were, as the effect is false in the one, so is it\nsurely very doubtful in the other. For although inwardly received it may\nbe very diuretick, and expulse the stone in the Kidneys, yet how it\nshould dissolve or break that in the bladder, will require a further\ndispute; and perhaps would be more reasonably tried by a warm injection\nthereof, then as it is commonly used. Wherein notwithstanding, we should\nrather rely upon the urine in a castlings bladder, a resolution of Crabs\neyes, or the second distillation of Urine, as _Helmont_ hath commended;\nor rather (if any such might be found) a Chylifactory menstruum or\ndigestive preparation drawn from species or individuals, whose stomacks\npeculiarly dissolve lapideous bodies.\n\n2. _That Glass is poison_, according unto common conceit, I know not how\nto grant. Not onely from the innocency of its ingredients, that is, fine\nSand, and the ashes of Glass-wort of Fearn, which in themselves are\nharmless and useful: or because I find it by many commended for the\nStone, but also from experience, as having given unto Dogs above a dram\nthereof, subtilly powdered in Butter and Paste, without any visible\ndisturbance.\n\n[Sidenote: _Why Glass is commonly held to be poysonous._]\n\nThe conceit is surely grounded upon the visible mischief of Glass grosly\nor coursly powdered, for that indeed is mortally noxious, and\neffectually used by some to destroy Mice and Rats; for by reason of its\nacuteness and angularity, it commonly excoriates the parts through which\nit passeth, and solicits them unto a continual expulsion. Whereupon\nthere ensues fearful symptomes, not much unlike those which attend the\naction of poison. From whence notwithstanding, we cannot with propriety\nimpose upon it that name, either by occult or elementary quality, which\nhe that concedeth will much enlarge the Catalogue or Lists of Poisons.\nFor many things, neither deleterious by substance or quality, are yet\ndestructive by figure, or some occasional activity. So are Leeches\ndestructive, and by some accounted poison; not properly, that is by\ntemperamental contrariety, occult form, or so much as elemental\nrepugnancy; but because being inwardly taken they fasten upon the veins,\nand occasion an effusion of bloud, which cannot be easily stanched. So a\nSponge is mischievous, not in it self, for in its powder it is harmless:\nbut because being received into the stomach it swelleth, and occasioning\na continual distension, induceth a strangulation. So Pins, Needles, ears\nof Rye or Barley may be poison. So _Daniel_ destroyed the Dragon by a\ncomposition of three things, whereof neither was poison alone, nor\nproperly all together, that is, Pitch, Fat, and Hair, according as is\nexpressed in the History. Then _Daniel_ took Pitch, and Fat, and Hair,\nand did seeth them together, and made lumps thereof, these he put in the\nDragons mouth, and so he burst asunder. That is, the Fat and Pitch being\ncleaving bodies, and the Hair continually extimulating the parts: by the\naction of the one, Nature was provoked to expell, but by the tenacity of\nthe other forced to retain: so that there being left no passage in or\nout, the Dragon brake in pieces. It must therefore be taken of\ngrosly-powdered Glass, what is delivered by _Grevinus_: and from the\nsame must that mortal dysentery proceed which is related by\n_Sanctorius_. And in the same sense shall we only allow a _Diamond_ to\nbe poison; and whereby as some relate _Paracelsus_ himself was poisoned.\nSo even the precious fragments and cordial gems which are of frequent\nuse in Physick, and in themselves confessed of useful faculties,\nreceived in gross and angular Powders, may so offend the bowels, as to\nprocure desperate languors, or cause most dangerous fluxes.\n\nThat Glass may be rendred malleable and pliable unto the hammer, many\nconceive, and some make little doubt, when they read in _Dio_, _Pliny_,\nand _Petronius_, that one unhappily effected it for _Tiberius_. Which\nnotwithstanding must needs seem strange unto such as consider, that\nbodies are ductile from a tenacious humidity, which so holdeth the parts\ntogether; that though they dilate or extend, they part not from each\nothers. That bodies run into Glass, when the volatile parts are exhaled,\nand the continuating humour separated: the Salt and Earth, that is, the\nfixed parts remaining. And therefore vitrification maketh bodies\nbrittle, as destroying the viscous humours which hinder the disruption\nof parts. Which may be verified even in the bodies of Metals. For Glass\nof Lead or Tin is fragile, when that glutinous Sulphur hath been fired\nout, which made their bodies ductile.\n\nHe that would most probably attempt it, must experiment upon Gold. Whose\nfixed and flying parts are so conjoined, whose Sulphur and continuating\nprinciple is so united unto the Salt, that some may be hoped to remain\nto hinder fragility after vitrification. But how to proceed, though\nafter frequent corrosion, as that upon the agency of fire, it should\nnot revive into its proper body before it comes to vitrifie, will prove\nno easie discovery.\n\n3. That Gold inwardly taken, either in substance, infusion, decoction or\nextinction, is a cordial of great efficacy, in sundry Medical uses,\nalthough a practice much used, is also much questioned, and by no man\ndetermined beyond dispute. There are hereof I perceive two extream\nopinions; some excessively magnifying it, and probably beyond its\ndeserts; others extreamly vilifying it, and perhaps below its demerits.\nSome affirming it a powerful Medicine in many diseases, others averring\nthat so used, it is effectual in none: and in this number are very\neminent Physicians, _Erastus_, _Duretus_, _Rondeletius_, _Brassavolus_\nand many other, who beside the strigments and sudorous adhesions from\nmens hands, acknowledge that nothing proceedeth from Gold in the usual\ndecoction thereof. Now the capital reason that led men unto this\nopinion, was their observation of the inseparable nature of Gold; it\nbeing excluded in the same quantity as it was received, without\nalteration of parts, or diminution of its gravity.\n\nNow herein to deliver somewhat which in a middle way may be entertained;\nwe first affirm, that the substance of Gold is invincible by the\npowerfullest action of natural heat; and that not only alimentally in a\nsubstantial mutation, but also medicamentally in any corporeal\nconversion. As is very evident, not only in the swallowing of golden\nbullets, but in the lesser and foliate divisions thereof: passing the\nstomach and guts even as it doth the throat, that is, without abatement\nof weight or consistence. So that it entereth not the veins with those\nelectuaries, wherein it is mixed: but taketh leave of the permeant\nparts, at the mouths of the _Meseraicks_, or Lacteal Vessels, and\naccompanieth the inconvertible portion unto the siege. Nor is its\nsubstantial conversion expectible in any composition or aliment wherein\nit is taken. And therefore that was truly a starving absurdity, which\nbefel the wishes of _Midas_. And little credit there is to be given to\nthe golden Hen, related by _Wendlerus_. So in the extinction of Gold, we\nmust not conceive it parteth with any of its salt or dissoluble\nprinciple thereby, as we may affirm of Iron; for the parts thereof are\nfixed beyond division, nor will they separate upon the strongest test of\nfire. This we affirm of pure Gold: for that which is currant and passeth\nin stamp amongst us, by reason of its allay, which is a proportion of\nSilver or Copper mixed therewith, is actually dequantitated by fire, and\npossibly by frequent extinction.\n\nSecondly, Although the substance of Gold be not immuted or its gravity\nsensibly decreased, yet that from thence some vertue may proceed either\nin substantial reception or infusion we cannot safely deny. For possible\nit is that bodies may emit vertue and operation without abatement of\nweight; as is evident in the Loadstone, whose effluencies are continual,\nand communicable without a minoration of gravity. And the like is\nobservable in Bodies electrical, whose emissions are less subtile. So\nwill a Diamond or Saphire emit an effluvium sufficient to move the\nNeedle or a Straw, without diminution of weight. Nor will polished Amber\nalthough it send forth a gross and corporal exhalement, be found a long\ntime defective upon the exactest scales. Which is more easily\nconceivable in a continued and tenacious effluvium, whereof a great part\nretreats into its body.\n\nThirdly, If amulets do work by emanations from their bodies, upon those\nparts whereunto they are appended, and are not yet observed to abate\ntheir weight; if they produce visible and real effects by imponderous\nand invisible emissions, it may be unjust to deny the possible efficacy\nof Gold, in the non-omission of weight, or deperdition of any ponderous\nparticles.\n\nLastly, Since _Stibium_ or Glass of Antimony, since also its _Regulus_\nwill manifestly communicate unto Water or Wine, a purging and vomitory\noperation; and yet the body it self, though after iterated infusions,\ncannot be found to abate either vertue or weight: we shall not deny but\nGold may do the like, that is, impart some effluences unto the infusion,\nwhich carry with them the separable subtilties thereof.\n\nThat therefore this Metal thus received, hath any undeniable effect, we\nshall not imperiously determine, although beside the former experiments,\nmany more may induce us to believe it. But since the point is dubious\nand not yet authentically decided, it will be no discretion to depend on\ndisputable remedies; but rather in cases of known danger, to have\nrecourse unto medicines of known and approved activity. For, beside the\nbenefit accruing unto the sick, hereby may be avoided a gross and\nfrequent errour, commonly committed in the use of doubtful remedies,\nconjointly with those which are of approved vertues; that is to impute\nthe cure unto the conceited remedy, or place it on that whereon they\nplace their opinion. Whose operation although it be nothing, or its\nconcurrence not considerable, yet doth it obtain the name of the whole\ncure: and carrieth often the honour of the capital energie, which had no\nfinger in it.\n\nHerein exact and critical trial should be made by publick enjoinment,\nwhereby determination might be setled beyond debate: for since thereby\nnot only the bodies of men, but great Treasures might be preserved, it\nis not only an errour of Physick, but folly of State, to doubt thereof\nany longer.\n\n4. That a pot full of ashes, will still contain as much water as it\nwould without them, although by _Aristotle_ in his Problems taken for\ngranted, and so received by most, is not effectable upon the strictest\nexperiment I could ever make. For when the airy intersticies are filled,\nand as much of the salt of the ashes as the water will imbibe is\ndissolved, there remains a gross and terreous portion at the bottom,\nwhich will possess a space by it self, according whereto there will\nremain a quantity of Water not receivable; so will it come to pass in a\npot of salt, although decrepitated; and so also in a pot of Snow. For so\nmuch it will want in reception, as its solution taketh up, according\nunto the bulk whereof, there will remain a portion of Water not to be\nadmitted. So a Glass stuffed with pieces of Sponge will want about a\nsixth part of what it would receive without it. So Sugar will not\ndissolve beyond the capacity of the Water, nor a Metal in _aqua fortis_\nbe corroded beyond its reception. And so a pint of salt of Tartar\nexposed unto a moist air until it dissolve, will make far more liquor,\nor as some term it oyl, then the former measure will contain.\n\nNor is it only the exclusion of air by water, or repletion of cavities\npossessed thereby, which causeth a pot of ashes to admit so great a\nquantity of Water, but also the solution of the salt of the ashes into\nthe body of the dissolvent. So a pot of ashes will receive somewhat more\nof hot Water then of cold, for the warm water imbibeth more of the\nSalt; and a vessel of ashes more then one of pin-dust or filings of\nIron; and a Glass full of Water will yet drink in a proportion of Salt\nor Sugar without overflowing.\n\nNevertheless to make the experiment with most advantage, and in which\nsense it approacheth nearest the truth, it must be made in ashes\nthroughly burnt and well reverberated by fire, after the salt thereof\nhath been drawn out by iterated decoctions. For then the body being\nreduced nearer unto Earth, and emptied of all other principles, which\nhad former ingression unto it, becometh more porous, and greedily\ndrinketh in water. He that hath beheld what quantity of Lead the test of\nsaltless ashes will imbibe, upon the refining of Silver, hath\nencouragement to think it will do very much more in water.\n\n[Sidenote: _The Ingredients of Gunpowder._]\n\n5. Of white powder and such as is discharged without report, there is no\nsmall noise in the World: but how far agreeable unto truth, few I\nperceive are able to determine. Herein therefore to satisfie the doubts\nof some, and amuse the credulity of others, We first declare, that\nGunpowder consisteth of three ingredients, Salt-petre, Small-coal, and\nBrimstone. Salt-petre although it be also natural and found in several\nplaces, yet is that of common use an artificial Salt, drawn from the\ninfusion of salt Earth, as that of Stales, Stables, Dove-houses,\nCellers, and other covered places, where the rain can neither dissolve,\nnor the Sun approach to resolve it. Brimstone is a Mineral body of fat\nand inflamable parts, and this is either used crude, and called Sulphur\nVive, and is of a sadder colour; or after depuration, such as we have in\nmagdeleons or rolls, of a lighter yellow. Small-coal is known unto all,\nand for this use is made of _Sallow_, _Willow_, _Alder_, _Hazel_, and\nthe like; which three proportionably mixed, tempered, and formed into\ngranulary bodies, do make up that Powder which is in use for Guns.\n\nNow all these, although they bear a share in the discharge, yet have\nthey distinct intentions, and different offices in the composition. From\nBrimstone proceedeth the piercing and powerful firing; for Small-coal\nand Petre together will onely spit, nor vigorously continue the\nignition. From Small-coal ensueth the black colour and quick accension;\nfor neither Brimstone nor Petre, although in Powder, will take fire like\nSmall-coal, nor will they easily kindle upon the sparks of a Flint; as\nneither will _Camphire_, a body very inflamable: but Small-coal is\nequivalent to Tinder, and serveth to light the Sulphur. It may also\nserve to diffuse the ignition through every part of the mixture; and\nbeing of more gross and fixed parts, may seem to moderate the activity\nof Salt-petre, and prevent too hasty rarefaction. From Salt-petre\nproceedeth the force and the report; for Sulphur and Small-coal mixed\nwill not take fire with noise, or exilition, and Powder which is made of\nimpure and greasie Petre hath but a weak emission, and giveth a faint\nreport. And therefore in the three sorts of Powder the strongest\ncontaineth most Salt-petre, and the proportion thereof is about ten\nparts of Petre unto one of Coal and Sulphur.\n\nBut the immediate cause of the Report is the vehement commotion of the\nair upon the sudden and violent eruption of the Powder; for that being\nsuddenly fired, and almost altogether, upon this high rarefaction,\nrequireth by many degrees a greater space then before its body occupied;\nbut finding resistance, it actively forceth his way, and by concusion of\nthe air occasioneth the Report. Now with what violence it forceth upon\nthe air, may easily be conceived, if we admit what _Cardan_ affirmeth,\nthat the Powder fired doth occupy an hundred times a greater space then\nits own bulk; or rather what _Snellius_ more exactly accounteth; that it\nexceedeth its former space no less then 12000 and 500 times. [SN: _The\ncause of Thunder._] And this is the reason not only of this fulminating\nreport of Guns, but may resolve the cause of those terrible cracks, and\naffrighting noises of Heaven; that is, the nitrous and sulphureous\nexhalations, set on fire in the Clouds; whereupon requiring a larger\nplace, they force out their way, not only with the breaking of the\ncloud, but the laceration of the air about it. [SN: _The greatest\ndistance of the Clouds._] When if the matter be spirituous, and the\ncloud compact, the noise is great and terrible: If the cloud be thin,\nand the Materials weak, the eruption is languid, ending in coruscations\nand flashes without noise, although but at the distance of two miles;\nwhich is esteemed the remotest distance of clouds. And therefore such\nlightnings do seldom any harm. And therefore also it is prodigious to\nhave thunder in a clear sky, as is observably recorded in some\nHistories.\n\n[Sidenote: _The cause of Earthquakes._]\n\nFrom the like cause may also proceed subterraneous Thunders and\nEarthquakes, when sulphureous and nitreous veins being fired, upon\nrarefaction do force their way through bodies that resist them. Where if\nthe kindled matter be plentiful, and the Mine close and firm about it,\nsubversion of Hills and Towns doth sometimes follow: If scanty, weak,\nand the Earth hollow or porous, there only ensueth some faint concussion\nor tremulous and quaking Motion. Surely, a main reason why the Ancients\nwere so imperfect in the doctrine of Meteors, was their ignorance of\nGunpowder and Fire-works, which best discover the causes of many\nthereof.\n\nNow therefore he that would destroy the report of Powder, must work upon\nthe Petre; he that would exchange the colour, must think how to alter\nthe Small-coal. For the one, that is, to make white Powder, it is surely\nmany ways feasible: The best I know is by the powder of rotten Willows,\nSpunk, or Touch-wood prepared, might perhaps make it Russet: and some,\nas _Beringuccio_ [SN: _In his_ Pyrotechnia.] affirmeth, have promised to\nmake it Red. All which notwithstanding doth little concern the Report,\nfor that, as we have shewed, depends on another Ingredient. And\ntherefore also under the colour of black, this principle is very\nvariable; for it is made not onely by _Willow_, _Alder_, _Hazel_, etc.\nBut some above all commend the coals of _Flax_ and _Rushes_, and some\nalso contend the same may be effected with Tinder.\n\nAs for the other, that is, to destroy the Report, it is reasonably\nattempted but two ways; either by quite leaving out, or else by\nsilencing the Salt-petre. How to abate the vigour thereof, or silence\nits bombulation, a way is promised by _Porta_, not only in general terms\nby some fat bodies, but in particular by _Borax_ and butter mixed in a\ndue proportion; which saith he, will so go off as scarce to be heard by\nthe discharger; and indeed plentifully mixed, it will almost take off\nthe Report, and also the force of the charge. That it may be thus made\nwithout Salt-petre, I have met with but one example, that is, of\n_Alphonsus_ Duke of _Ferrara_ [SN: De examine Salium.], who in the\nrelation of _Brassavolus_ and _Cardan_, invented such a Powder as would\ndischarge a bullet without Report.\n\nThat therefore white Powder there may be, there is no absurdity; that\nalso such a one as may give no report, we will not deny a possibility.\nBut this however, contrived either with or without Salt-petre, will\nsurely be of little force, and the effects thereof no way to be feared:\nFor as it omits of Report so will it of effectual exclusion, and so the\ncharge be of little force which is excluded. For thus much is reported\nof that famous Powder of _Alphonsus_, which was not of force enough to\nkill a Chicken, according to the delivery of _Brassavolus. Jamque pulvis\ninventus est qui glandem sine bombo projicit, nec tamen vehementer ut\nvel pullum interficere possit._\n\nIt is not to be denied, there are ways to discharge a bullet, not only\nwith Powder that makes no noise, but without any Powder at all; as is\ndone by Water and Wind-guns, but these afford no fulminating Report, and\ndepend on single principles. And even in ordinary Powder there are\npretended other ways to alter the noise and strength of the discharge;\nand the best, if not only way, consists in the quality of the Nitre: for\nas for other ways which make either additions or alterations in the\nPowder, or charge, I find therein no effect: That unto every pound of\nSulphur, an adjection of one ounce of Quick-silver, or unto every pound\nof Petre, one ounce of _Sal Armoniac_ will much intend the force, and\nconsequently the Report, as _Beringuccio_ hath delivered, I find no\nsuccess therein. That a piece of _Opium_ will dead the force and blow,\nas some have promised, I find herein no such peculiarity, no more then\nin any Gum or viscose body: and as much effect there is to be found from\n_Scammony_. That a bullet dipped in oyl by preventing the transpiration\nof air, will carry farther, and pierce deeper, as _Porta_ affirmeth, my\nexperience cannot discern. That Quick-silver is more destructive then\nshot, is surely not to be made out; for it will scarce make any\npenetration, and discharged from a Pistol, will hardly pierce through a\nParchment. That Vinegar, spirits of Wine, or the distilled water of\nOrange-pills, wherewith the Powder is tempered, are more effectual unto\nthe Report than common Water, as some do promise, I shall not affirm;\nbut may assuredly more conduce unto the preservation and durance of the\nPowder, as _Cataneo_ hath well observed. [SN: Cat. avertimenti intorne a\nun Bombardiero.]\n\nThat the heads of arrows and bullets have been discharged with that\nforce, as to melt or grow red hot in their flight, though commonly\nreceived, and taken up by _Aristotle_ in his Meteors, is not so easily\nallowable by any, who shall consider, that a Bullet of Wax will mischief\nwithout melting; that an Arrow or Bullet discharged against Linen or\nPaper do not set them on fire; and hardly apprehend how an Iron should\ngrow red hot, since the swiftest motion at hand will not keep one red\nthat hath been made red by fire; as may be observed in swinging a red\nhot Iron about, or fastning it into a Wheel; which under that motion\nwill sooner grow cold then without it. That a Bullet also mounts upward\nupon the horizontall or point-blank discharge, many Artists do not\nallow: who contend that it describeth a parabolical and bowing line, by\nreason of its natural gravity inclining it always downward.\n\nBut, Beside the prevalence from Salt-petre, as Master-ingredient in the\nmixture; Sulphur may hold a greater use in the composition and further\nactivity in the exclusion, then is by most conceived. For Sulphur vive\nmakes better Powder then common Sulphur, which nevertheless is of a\nquick accension. For Small-coal, Salt-petre, and _Camphire_ made into\nPowder will be of little force, wherein notwithstanding there wants not\nthe accending ingredient. And _Camphire_ though it flame well, yet will\nnot flush so lively, or defecate Salt-petre, if you inject it thereon,\nlike Sulphur; as in the preparation of _Sal prunellae_. And lastly,\nthough many ways may be found to light this Powder, yet is there none I\nknow to make a strong and vigorous Powder of Salt-petre, without the\nadmixtion of Sulphur. _Arsenic_ red and yellow, that is _Orpement_ and\n_Sandarach_ may perhaps do something, as being inflamable and containing\nSulphur in them; but containing also a salt, and mercurial mixtion, they\nwill be of little effect; and white or crystalline _Arsenic_ of less,\nfor that being artificial, and sublimed with salt, will not endure\nflammation.\n\nThis Antipathy or contention between Salt-petre and Sulphur upon an\nactual fire, in their compleat and distinct bodies, is also manifested\nin their preparations, and bodies which invisibly contain them. Thus in\nthe preparation of _Crocus Metallorum_, the matter kindleth and flusheth\nlike Gunpowder, wherein notwithstanding, there is nothing but _Antimony_\nand Salt-petre. But this may proceed from the Sulphur of _Antimony_, not\nenduring the society of Salt-petre; for after three or four accensions,\nthrough a fresh addition of Petre, the Powder will flush no more, for\nthe sulphur of the _Antimony_ is quite exhaled. Thus Iron in _Aqua\nfortis_ will fall into ebullition, with noise and emication, as also a\ncrass and fumid exhalation, which are caused from this combat of the\nsulphur of Iron with the acid and nitrous spirits of _Aqua fortis_. So\nis it also in _Aurum fulminans_, or Powder of Gold dissolved in _Aqua\nRegis_, and precipitated with oyl of _Tartar_, which will kindle without\nan actual fire, and afford a report like Gun-powder; that is not as\n_Crollius_ affirmeth from any Antipathy between _Sal Armoniac_ [SN: De\nconsensu Chymicorum, etc.]and _Tartar_, but rather between the nitrous\nspirits of _Aqua Regis_, commixed _per minima_ with the sulphur of Gold,\nas _Sennertus_ hath observed.\n\n[Sidenote: _How Coral of a Plant becomes a Stone._]\n\n6. That _Coral_ (which is a _Lithophyton_ or stone-plant, and groweth at\nthe bottom of the Sea) is soft under Water, but waxeth hard in the air,\nalthough the assertion of _Dioscorides_, _Pliny_, and consequently\n_Solinus_, _Isidore_, _Rueus_, and many others, and stands believed by\nmost, we have some reason to doubt, especially if we conceive with\ncommon Believers, a total softness at the bottom, and this induration to\nbe singly made by the air, not only from so sudden a petrifaction and\nstrange induration, not easily made out from the qualities of air, but\nbecause we find it rejected by experimental enquiries. _Johannes\nBeguinus_ [SN: _In the French Copy._] in his Chapter of the tincture of\n_Coral_ undertakes to clear the World of this Error, from the express\nexperiment of _John Baptista de Nicole_, who was Overseer of the\ngathering of _Coral_ upon the Kingdom of _Thunis_. This Gentleman, saith\nhe, desirous to find the nature of _Coral_, and to be resolved how it\ngroweth at the bottom of the Sea, caused a man to go down no less then a\nhundred fathom, with express to take notice whether it were hard or soft\nin the place where it groweth. Who returning, brought in each hand a\nbranch of _Coral_, affirming it was as hard at the bottom, as in the air\nwhere he delivered it. The same was also confirmed by a trial of his\nown, handling it a fathom under water before it felt the air. _Boetius_\nin his Tract _De Gemmis_, is of the same opinion, not ascribing its\nconcretion unto the air, but the coagulating spirits of Salt, and\nlapidifical juice of the Sea, which entring the parts of that Plant,\novercomes its vegetability, and converts it into a lapideous substance.\nAnd this, saith he, doth happen when the Plant is ready to decay; for\nall _Coral_ is not hard, and in many concreted Plants some parts remain\nunpetrified, that is the quick and livelier parts remain as Wood, and\nwere never yet converted. Now that Plants and ligneous bodies may\nindurate under Water without approachment of air, we have experiment in\n_Coralline_, with many Coralloidal concretions; and that little stony\nPlant which Mr. _Johnson_ nameth, _Hippuris coralloides_, and _Gesner_,\n_foliis mansu Arenosis_, we have found in fresh water, which is the less\nconcretive portion of that Element. We have also with us the visible\npetrification of Wood in many waters, whereof so much as is covered with\nwater converteth into stone; as much as is above it and in the air,\nretaineth the form of Wood, and continueth as before.\n\n[Sidenote: Gans _Histor. Coral._]\n\nNow though in a middle way we may concede, that some are soft and others\nhard; yet whether all _Coral_ were first a woody substance, and\nafterward converted; or rather some thereof were never such, but from\nthe sprouting spirit of Salt, were able even in their stony natures to\nramifie and send forth branches; as is observable in some stones, in\nsilver and metallick bodies, is not without some question. And such at\nleast might some of those be, which _Fiaroumti_ observed to grow upon\nBricks at the bottom of the Sea, upon the coast of _Barbaric_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Of what matter the_ China _dishes be made_.]\n\n7. We are not throughly resolved concerning _Porcellane_ or _China_\ndishes, that according to common belief they are made of Earth, which\nlieth in preparation about an hundred years under ground; for the\nrelations thereof are not onely divers, but contrary, and Authors agree\nnot herein. _Guido Pancirollus_ will have them made of Egg-shells,\nLobster-shells, and _Gypsum_ laid up in the Earth the space of 80\nyears: of the same affirmation is _Scaliger_, and the common opinion of\nmost. _Ramuzius_ in his Navigations is of a contrary assertion, that\nthey are made out of Earth, not laid under ground, but hardned in the\nSun and Wind, the space of forty years. But _Gonzales de Mendoza_, a man\nimployed into _China_ from _Philip_ the second King of _Spain_, upon\nenquiry and ocular experience, delivered a way different from all these.\nFor inquiring into the artifice thereof, he found they were made of a\nChalky Earth; which beaten and steeped in water, affordeth a cream or\nfatness on the top, and a gross subsidence at the bottom; out of the\ncream or superfluitance, the finest dishes, saith he, are made, out of\nthe residence thereof the courser; which being formed, they gild or\npaint, and not after an hundred years, but presently commit unto the\nfurnace. This, saith he, is known by experience, and more probable then\nwhat _Odoardus Barbosa_ hath delivered, that they are made of shells,\nand buried under earth an hundred years. And answerable in all points\nhereto, is the relation of _Linschotten_, a diligent enquirer, in his\nOriental Navigations. Later confirmation may be had from _Alvarez_ the\nJesuit, who lived long in those parts, in his relations of _China_. That\n_Porcellane_ Vessels were made but in one Town of the Province of\n_Chiamsi_: That the earth was brought out of other Provinces, but for\nthe advantage of water, which makes them more polite and perspicuous,\nthey were only made in this. That they were wrought and fashioned like\nthose of other Countries, whereof some were tincted blew, some red,\nothers yellow, of which colour only they presented unto the King.\n\nThe latest account hereof may be found in the voyage of the Dutch\nEmbassadors sent from _Batavia_ unto the Emperour of _China_, printed\nin _French_ 1665, which plainly informeth, that the Earth whereof\n_Porcellane_ dishes are made, is brought from the Mountains of _Hoang_,\nand being formed into square loaves, is brought by water, and marked\nwith the Emperours Seal: that the Earth it self is very lean, fine, and\nshining like Sand: and that it is prepared and fashioned after the same\nmanner which the _Italians_ observe in the fine Earthen Vessels of\n_Faventia_ or _Fuenca_: that they are so reserved concerning that\nArtifice, that 'tis only revealed from Father unto Son: that they are\npainted with _Indico_ baked in a fire for fifteen days together, and\nwith very dry and not smoaking Wood: which when the Author had seen he\ncould hardly contain from laughter at the common opinion above rejected\nby us.\n\nNow if any enquire, why being so commonly made, and in so short a time,\nthey are become so scarce, or not at all to be had? The Answer is given\nby these last Relators, that under great penalties it is forbidden to\ncarry the first sort out of the Country. And of those surely the\nproperties must be verified, which by _Scaliger_ and others are ascribed\nunto China-dishes: That they admit no poison, that they strike fire,\nthat they will grow hot no higher then the liquor in them ariseth. For\nsuch as pass amongst us, and under the name of the finest, will only\nstrike fire, but not discover _Aconite_, _Mercury_, or _Arsenic_; but\nmay be useful in dysenteries and fluxes beyond the other.\n\n8. Whether a Carbuncle (which is esteemed the best and biggest of\nRubies) doth flame in the dark, or shine like a coal in the night,\nthough generally agreed on by common Believers, is very much questioned\nby many. By _Milius_, who accounts it a Vulgar Error: By the learned\n_Boetius_, who could not find it verified in that famous one of\n_Rodulphus_, which was as big as an Egg, and esteemed the best in\n_Europe_. Wherefore although we dispute not the possibility, and the\nlike is said to have been observed in some Diamonds, yet whether herein\nthere be not too high an apprehension, and above its natural radiancy,\nis not without just doubt: however it be granted a very splendid _Gem_,\nand whose sparks may somewhat resemble the glances of fire, and\nMetaphorically deserve that name. And therefore when it is conceived by\nsome, that this Stone in the Brest-plate of _Aaron_ respected the Tribe\nof _Dan_, who burnt the City of _Laish_; and _Sampson_ of the same\nTribe, who fired the Corn of the _Philistims_; in some sense it may be\nadmitted, and is no intollerable conception.\n\nAs for that _Indian_ Stone that shined so brightly in the Night, and\npretended to have been shewn to many in the Court of _France_, as\n_Andreus Chioccus_ hath declared out of _Thuanus_, it proved but an\nimposture, as that eminent Philosopher _Licetus_ [SN: Licet de quaesit.\nper Epistolas.] hath discovered, and therefore in the revised Editions\nof _Thuanus_, it is not to be found. [SN: Licet de lapide Bononiensi.]\nAs for the _Phosphorus_ or _Bononian_ Stone, which exposed unto the Sun,\nand then closely shut up, will afterward afford a light in the dark; it\nis of unlike consideration, for that requireth calcination or reduction\ninto a dry powder by fire, whereby it imbibeth the light in the vaporous\nhumidity of the air about it, and therefore maintaineth its light not\nlong, but goes out when the vaporous vehicle is consumed.\n\n9. Whether the _AEtites_ or _Eagle_-stone hath that eminent property to\npromote delivery or restrain abortion, respectively applied to lower or\nupward parts of the body, we shall not discourage common practice by our\nquestion: but whether they answer the account thereof, as to be taken\nout of _Eagles_ nests, co-operating in Women unto such effects, as they\nare conceived toward the young _Eagles_: or whether the single signature\nof one stone included in the matrix and belly of another, were not\nsufficient at first, to derive this vertue of the pregnant Stone, upon\nothers in impregnation, may yet be farther considered. Many sorts there\nare of this ratling Stone, beside the _Geodes_, containing a softer\nsubstance in it. Divers are found in _England_, and one we met with on\nthe Sea-shore, but because many of eminent use are pretended to be\nbrought from _Iseland_, wherein are divers airies of _Eagles_, we cannot\nomit to deliver what we received from a learned person in that Country,\n[SN: Theodorus Ionas Hitterdalae Pastor.] _AEtites an in nidis Aquilarum\naliquando fuerit repertus, nescio. Nostra certe memoria, etiam\ninquirentibus non contigit invenisse, quare in fabulis habendum_.\n\n10. Terrible apprehensions and answerable unto their names, are raised\nof _Fayrie_ stones, and _Elves_ spurs, found commonly with us in Stone,\nChalk, and Marl-pits, which notwithstanding are no more than\n_Echinometrites_ and _Belemnites_, the Sea-Hedge-Hog, and the\n_Dart_-stone, arising from some siliceous Roots, and softer then that of\nFlint, the Master-stone, lying more regularly in courses, and arising\nfrom the primary and strongest spirit of the Mine. Of the _Echinites_,\nsuch as are found in Chalk-pits are white, glassie, and built upon a\nChalky inside; some of an hard and flinty substance, are found in\nStone-pits and elsewhere. Common opinion commendeth them for the Stone,\nbut are most practically used against Films in Horses eyes.\n\n11. Lastly, He must have more heads than _Rome_ had Hills, that makes\nout half of those vertues ascribed unto stones, and their not only\nMedical, but Magical proprieties, which are to be found in Authors of\ngreat Name. In _Psellus_, _Serapion_, _Evax_, _Albertus_, _Aleazar_,\n_Marbodeus_; in _Maiolus_, _Rueus_, _Mylius_, and many more.\n\nThat _Lapis Lasuli_ hath in it a purgative faculty we know; [SN:\n_Against poison.] that _Bezoar_ is Antidotal, [SN: Provoking Urine._]\n_Lapis Judaicus_ diuretical, [SN: _Against the Falling sickness._]\n_Coral_ Antepileptical, we will not deny. That _Cornelians_, _Jaspis_,\n_Heliotropes_, and Blood-stones, may be of vertue to those intentions\nthey are implied, experience and visible effects will make us grant. But\nthat an _Amethyst_ prevents inebriation, that an _Emerald_ will break if\nworn in copulation. That a _Diamond_ laid under the pillow, will betray\nthe incontinency of a wife. That a _Saphire_ is preservative against\ninchantments; that the fume of an _Agath_ will avert a tempest, or the\nwearing of a _Crysoprase_ make one out love with Gold; as some have\ndelivered, we are yet, I confess, to believe, and in that infidelity are\nlikely to end our days. And therefore, they which in the explication of\nthe two Beryls upon the _Ephod_, or the twelve stones in the Rational or\nBrest-plate of _Aaron_, or those twelve which garnished the wall of the\nholy City in the Apocalyps, have drawn their significations from such as\nthese; or declared their symbolical verities from such traditional\nfalsities, have surely corrupted the sincerity of their Analogies, or\nmisunderstood the mystery of their intentions.\n\nMost men conceive that the twelve stones in _Aarons_ brestplate made a\nJewel surpassing any, and not to be parallel'd; which notwithstanding\nwill hardly be made out from the description of the Text, for the names\nof the Tribes were engraven thereon, which must notably abate their\nlustre. Beside, it is not clear made out that the best of Gemms, a\nDiamond was amongst them; nor is to be found in the list thereof, set\ndown by the _Jerusalem Thargum_, wherein we find the darker stones of\n_Sardius_, _Sardonix_, and _Jasper_; and if we receive them under those\nnames wherein they are usually described, it is not hard to contrive a\nmore illustrious and splendent Jewel. But being not ordained for meer\nlustre by diaphanous and pure tralucencies, their mysterious\nsignifications became more considerable then their Gemmary substances;\nand those no doubt did nobly answer the intention of the Institutor.\nBeside some may doubt whether there be twelve distinct species of noble\ntralucent Gemms in nature, at least yet known unto us, and such as may\nnot be referred unto some of those in high esteem among us, which come\nshort of the number of twelve; which to make up we must find out some\nothers to match and join with the Diamond, _Beryl_, _Saphyr_, _Emerald_,\n_Amethyst_, _Topaz_, _Crysolit_, _Jacynth_, _Ruby_, and if we may admit\nit in this number, the Oriental Gianat.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\n  Of sundry Tenets concerning Vegetables or Plants, which examined,\n    prove either false or dubious.\n\n\n1. Many Mola's and false conceptions there are of _Mandrakes_, the first\nfrom great Antiquity, conceiveth the Root thereof resembleth the shape\nof Man; which is a conceit not to be made out by ordinary inspection, or\nany other eyes, then such as regarding the Clouds, behold them in\nshapes conformable to pre-apprehensions.\n\nNow whatever encouraged the first invention, there have not been wanting\nmany ways of its promotion. The first a Catachrestical and far derived\nsimilitude it holds with Man; that is, in a bifurcation or division of\nthe Root into two parts, which some are content to call Thighs; whereas\nnotwithstanding they are oft-times three, and when but two, commonly so\ncomplicated and crossed, that men for this deceit are fain to effect\ntheir design in other plants; And as fair a resemblance is often found\nin _Carrots_, _Parsnips_, _Briony_, and many others. There are, I\nconfess, divers Plants which carry about them not only the shape of\nparts, but also of whole Animals, but surely not all thereof, unto whom\nthis conformity is imputed. Whoever shall peruse the signatures of\n_Crollius_, or rather the Phytognomy of _Porta_, and strictly observe\nhow vegetable Realities are commonly forced into Animal Representations,\nmay easily perceive in very many, the semblance is but postulatory, and\nmust have a more assimilating phansie then mine to make good many\nthereof.\n\nIlliterate heads have been led on by the name [SN: {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}, Spelunca.],\nwhich in the first syllable expresseth its Representation; but others\nhave better observed the Laws of _Etymology_, and deduced it from a word\nof the same language, because it delighteth to grow in obscure and shady\nplaces; which derivation, although we shall not stand to maintain, yet\nthe other seemeth answerable unto the Etymologies of many Authors, who\noften confound such nominal Notations. Not to enquire beyond our own\nprofession, the Latine Physitians which most adhered unto the _Arabick_\nway, have often failed herein; particularly _Valescus de Tarranta_, [SN:\n_In the old Edition._] a received Physitian, in whose _Philonium_ or\nMedical practice these may be observed: _Diarhea_, saith he, _Quia\npluries venit in die. Herisepela, quasi haerens pilis, Emorrohis, ab\nemach sanguis & morrohis quod est cadere. Lithargia a Litos quod est\noblivio & Targus morbus, Scotomia a Scotus quod est videre, & mias\nmusca. Opthalmia ab opus Graece quod est succus, & Talmon quod est\nocculus. Paralisis, quasi laesio partis. Fistula a fos sonus & stolon\nquod est emissio, quasi emissio soni vel vocis._ Which are derivations\nas strange indeed as the other, and hardly to be parallel'd elsewhere;\nconfirming not only the words of one language with another, but creating\nsuch as were never yet in any.\n\nThe received distinction and common Notation by Sexes, hath also\npromoted the conceit; for true it is, that _Herbalists_ from ancient\ntimes have thus distinguished them, naming that the Male, whose leaves\nare lighter, and Fruit and Apples rounder; but this is properly no\ngenerative division, but rather some note of distinction in colour,\nfigure or operation. For though _Empedocles_ affirm, there is a mixt,\nand undivided Sex in Vegetables; and _Scaliger_ upon _Aristotle_ [SN: De\nPlantis.], doth favourably explain that opinion; yet will it not consist\nwith the common and ordinary acception, nor yet with _Aristotles_\ndefinition. For if that be Male which generates in another, that Female\nwhich procreates in it self; if it be understood of Sexes conjoined, all\nPlants are Female; and if of disjoined and congressive generation, there\nis no Male or Female in them at all.\n\n[Sidenote: _The impostures touching the Root of Mandrake._]\n\nBut the Atlas or main Axis which supported this opinion, was dayly\nexperience, and the visible testimony of sense. For many there are in\nseveral parts of _Europe_, who carry about Roots and sell them unto\nignorant people, which handsomely make out the shape of Man or Woman.\nBut these are not productions of Nature, but contrivances of Art, as\ndivers have noted, and _Mathiolus_ plainly detected, who learned this\nway of Trumpery from a vagabond cheater lying under his cure for the\nFrench disease. His words were these, and may determine the point, _Sed\nprofecto vanum & fabulosum, etc._ But this is vain and fabulous, which\nignorant people, and simple women believe; for the roots which are\ncarried about by impostors to deceive unfruitful women, are made of the\nroots of Canes, Briony and other plants: for in these yet fresh and\nvirent, they carve out the figures of men and women, first sticking\ntherein the grains of Barley or Millet, where they intend the hair\nshould grow; then bury them in sand until the grains shoot forth their\nroots, which at the longest will happen in twenty days; they afterward\nclip and trim those tender strings in the fashion of beards and other\nhairy tegument. All which like other impostures once discovered is\neasily effected, and in the root of white _Briony_ may be practised\nevery spring.\n\nWhat is therefore delivered in favour thereof, by Authors ancient or\nmodern, must have its root in tradition, imposture, far derived\nsimilitude, or casual and rare contingency. So may we admit of the\nEpithet of _Pythagoras_, who calls it _Anthropomorphus_[SN: Orchis\nAnthropomorphus cujus Icon in Kircheri Magia parastatica.]; and that of\n_Columella_, who terms it _Semihomo_; more appliable unto the\nMan-_Orchis_, whose flower represents a Man. Thus is _Albertus_ to be\nreceived when he affirmeth, that _Mandrakes_ represent man-kind with the\ndistinction of either Sex. [SN: De mandragora.] Under these restrictions\nmay those Authors be admitted, which for this opinion are introduced by\n_Drusius_; nor shall we need to question the monstrous root of\n_Briony_ described in _Aldrovandus_ [SN: De monstris.].\n\n[Sidenote: _Generations equivocal, are yet commonly regular and of a\ndeterminate form or species._]\n\nThe second assertion concerneth its production. That it naturally\ngroweth under Gallowses and places of execution, arising from fat or\nurine that drops from the body of the dead; a story somewhat agreeable\nunto the fable of the Serpents teeth sowed in the earth by _Cadmus_; or\nrather the birth of _Orion_ from the urine of _Jupiter_, _Mercury_, and\n_Neptune_. Now this opinion seems grounded on the former, that is, a\nconceived similitude it hath with man; and therefore from him in some\nway they would make out its production: Which conceit is not only\nerroneous in the foundation, but injurious unto Philosophy in the\nsuperstruction. Making putrifactive generations, correspondent unto\nseminal productions, and conceiving in equivocal effects and univocal\nconformity unto the efficient. Which is so far from being verified of\nanimals in their corruptive mutations into Plants, that they maintain\nnot this similitude in their nearer translation into animals. So when\nthe Oxe corrupteth into Bees, or the Horse into Hornets, they come not\nforth in the image of their originals. So the corrupt and excrementous\nhumours in man are animated into Lice; and we may observe, that Hogs,\nSheep, Goats, Hawks, Hens, and others, have one peculiar and proper kind\nof vermine; not resembling themselves according to seminal conditions,\nyet carrying a setled and confined habitude unto their corruptive\noriginals. And therefore come not forth in generations erratical, or\ndifferent from each other; but seem specifically and in regular shapes\nto attend the corruption of their bodies, as do more perfect\nconceptions, the rule of seminal productions.\n\nThe third affirmeth the roots of _Mandrakes_ do make a noise, or give a\nshriek upon eradication; which is indeed ridiculous, and false below\nconfute: arising perhaps from a small and stridulous noise, which being\nfirmly rooted, it maketh upon divulsion of parts. A slender foundation\nfor such a vast conception: for such a noise we sometime observe in\nother Plants, in Parsenips, Liquorish, Eringium, Flags, and others.\n\nThe last concerneth the danger ensuing, That there follows an hazard of\nlife to them that pull it up, that some evil fate pursues them, and they\nlive not very long after. Therefore the attempt hereof among the\nAncients, was not in ordinary way; but as _Pliny_ informeth, when they\nintended to take up the root of this Plant, they took the wind thereof,\nand with a sword describing three circles about it, they digged it up,\nlooking toward the _West_. A conceit not only injurious unto truth, and\nconfutable by daily experience, but somewhat derogatory unto the\nprovidence of God; that is, not only to impose so destructive a quality\non any Plant, but to conceive a Vegetable, whose parts are useful unto\nmany, should in the only taking up prove mortal unto any. To think he\nsuffereth the poison of _Nubia_ [SN: Granum Nubiae.] to be gathered,\n_Napellus_, _Aconite_, and _Thora_, to be eradicated, yet this not to be\nmoved. That he permitteth Arsenick and mineral poisons to be forced from\nthe bowels of the Earth, yet not this from the surface thereof. This\nwere to introduce a second forbidden fruit, and inhance the first\nmalediction, making it not only mortal for _Adam_ to taste the one, but\ncapital unto his posterity to eradicate or dig up the other.\n\nNow what begot, at least promoted so strange conceptions, might be the\nmagical opinion hereof; this being conceived the Plant so much in use\nwith _Circe_, and therefore named _Circea_, as _Dioscorides_ and\n_Theophrastus_ have delivered, which being the eminent Sorcerers of\nelder story, and by the magick of simples believed to have wrought many\nwonders: some men were apt to invent, others to believe any tradition or\nmagical promise thereof.\n\n_Analogous_ relations concerning other plants, and such as are of near\naffinity unto this, have made its currant smooth, and pass more easily\namong us. For the same effect is also delivered by _Josephus_,\nconcerning the root _Baaras_; by _AElian_ of _Cynospastus_; and we read\nin _Homer_ the very same opinion concerning Moly,\n\n          {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK ANO TELEIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH VARIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}' {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}\n          {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK ANO TELEIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH VARIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}.\n\n          The Gods it Moly call, whose Root to dig away,\n          Is dangerous unto Man; but Gods, they all things may.\n\nNow parallels or like relations alternately relieve each other, when\nneither will pass asunder, yet are they plausible together; their mutual\nconcurrences supporting their solitary instabilities.\n\nSignaturists have somewhat advanced it; who seldom omitting what\nAncients delivered; drawing into inference received distinction of sex,\nnot willing to examine its humane resemblance; and placing it in the\nform of strange and magical simples, have made men suspect there was\nmore therein, then ordinary practice allowed; and so became apt to\nembrace whatever they heard or read conformable unto such conceptions.\n\nLastly, The conceit promoteth it self: for concerning an effect whose\ntrial must cost so dear, it fortifies it self in that invention; and few\nthere are whose experiment it need to fear. For (what is most\ncontemptible) although not only the reason of any head, but experience\nof every hand may well convict it, yet will it not by divers be\nrejected; for prepossessed heads will ever doubt it, and timorous\nbeliefs will never dare to trie it. So these Traditions how low and\nridiculous soever, will find suspition in some, doubt in others, and\nserve as tests or trials of Melancholy and superstitious tempers for\never.\n\n[Sidenote: _That Cinamon, Ginger, Clove, etc., are not of the same\ntree._]\n\n2. That Cinamon, Ginger, Clove, Mace, and Nutmeg, are but the several\nparts and fruits of the same tree, is the common belief of those which\ndaily use them. Whereof to speak distinctly, Ginger is the root of\nneither Tree nor Shrub, but of an herbaceous Plant, resembling the Water\nFlower-De-luce, as _Garcias_ first described; or rather the common Reed,\nas _Lobelius_ since affirmed. Very common in many parts of _India_,\ngrowing either from Root or Seed, which in _December_ and _January_ they\ntake up, and gently dried, roll it up in earth, whereby occluding the\npores, they conserve the natural humidity, and so prevent corruption.\n\nCinamon is the inward bark of a Cinamon Tree, whereof the best is\nbrought from _Zeilan_; this freed from the outward bark, and exposed\nunto the Sun, contracts into those folds wherein we commonly receive it.\nIf it have not a sufficient isolation it looketh pale, and attains not\nits laudable colour; if it be sunned too long, it suffereth a\ntorrefaction, and descendeth somewhat below it.\n\nClove seems to be either the rudiment of a fruit, or the fruit it self\ngrowing upon the Clove tree, to be found but in few Countries. The most\ncommendable is that of the Isles of _Molucca_; it is first white,\nafterward green, which beaten down, and dried in the Sun, becometh\nblack, and in the complexion we receive it.\n\nNutmeg is the fruit of a Tree differing from all these, and as\n_Garcias_ describeth it, somewhat like a Peach; growing in divers\nplaces, but fructifying in the Isle of _Banda_, The fruit hereof\nconsisteth of four parts; the first or outward part is a thick and\ncarnous covering like that of a Wal-nut. The second a dry and flosculous\ncoat, commonly called Mace. The third a harder tegument or shell, which\nlieth under the Mace. The fourth a Kernel included in the shell, which\nis the same we call Nutmeg. All which both in their parts and order of\ndisposure, are easily discerned in those fruits, which are brought in\npreserves unto us.\n\nNow if because Mace and Nutmegs proceed from one Tree, the rest must\nbear them company; or because they are all from the _East Indies_, they\nare all from one Plant: the Inference is precipitous, nor will there\nsuch a Plant be found in the Herbal of Nature.\n\n[Sidenote: _What the Misseltoe in some Trees is._]\n\n3. That Viscus Arboreus or Misseltoe is bred upon Trees, from seeds\nwhich Birds, especially Thrushes and Ring-doves let fall thereon, was\nthe Creed of the Ancients, and is still believed among us, is the\naccount of its production, set down by _Pliny_, delivered by _Virgil_,\nand subscribed by many more. If so, some reason must be assigned, why it\ngroweth onely upon certain Trees, and not upon many whereon these Birds\ndo light. For as Exotick observers deliver, it groweth upon\nAlmond-trees, Chesnut, Apples, Oaks, and Pine-trees. As we observe in\n_England_ very commonly upon Apple, Crabs, and White-thorn; sometimes\nupon Sallow, Hazel, and Oak: rarely upon Ash, Lime-tree, and Maple;\nnever, that I could observe, upon Holly, Elm, and many more. Why it\ngroweth not in all Countries and places where these Birds are found; for\nso _Brassavolus_ affirmeth, it is not to be found in the Territory of\n_Ferrara_, and was fain to supply himself from other parts of _Italy_.\nWhy if it ariseth from a seed, if sown it will not grow again, as\n_Pliny_ affirmeth, and as by setting the Berries thereof, we have in\nvain attempted its production; why if it cometh from seed that falleth\nupon the tree, it groweth often downwards, and puts forth under the\nbough, where seed can neither fall nor yet remain. Hereof beside some\nothers, the Lord _Verulam_ hath taken notice. And they surely speak\nprobably who make it an arboreous excrescence, or rather superplant,\nbred of a viscous and superfluous sap which the tree it self cannot\nassimilate. And therefore sprouteth not forth in boughs and surcles of\nthe same shape, and similary unto the Tree that beareth it; but in a\ndifferent form, and secondary unto its specified intention, wherein once\nfailing, another form succeedeth: and in the first place that of\nMisseltoe, in Plants and Trees disposed to its production. And therefore\nalso where ever it groweth, it is of constant shape, and maintains a\nregular figure; like other supercrescences, and such as living upon the\nstock of others, are termed parasitical Plants, as Polypody, Moss, the\nsmaller Capillaries, and many more: So that several regions produce\nseveral Misseltoes; _India_ one, _America_ another, according to the law\nand rule of their degenerations.\n\nNow what begot this conceit, might be the enlargement of some part of\ntruth contained in its story. For certain it is, that some Birds do feed\nupon the berries of this Vegetable, and we meet in _Aristotle_ with one\nkind of Trush called the Missel Trush [SN: {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER BETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}.], or feeder upon\nMisseltoe. But that which hath most promoted it, is a received proverb,\n_Turdus sibi malum cacat_; appliable unto such men as are authors of\ntheir own misfortunes. For according unto ancient tradition and\n_Plinies_ relation, the Bird not able to digest the fruit whereon she\nfeedeth; from her inconverted muting ariseth this Plant, of the Berries\nwhereof Birdlime is made, wherewith she is after entangled. But although\nProverbs be popular principles, yet is not all true that is proverbial;\nand in many thereof, there being one thing delivered, and another\nintended; though the verbal expression be false, the Proverb is true\nenough in the verity of its intention.\n\n[Sidenote: _Paganish superstition about the Misseltoe of the Oak._]\n\nAs for the Magical vertues in this Plant, and conceived efficacy unto\nveneficial intentions, it seemeth a _Pagan_ relique derived from the\nancient _Druides_, the great admirers of the Oak, especially the\nMisseltoe that grew thereon; which according unto the particular of\n_Pliny_, they gathered with great solemnity. For after sacrifice the\nPriest in a white garment ascended the tree, cut down the Misseltoe with\na golden hook, and received it in a white coat; the vertue whereof was\nto resist all poisons, and make fruitful any that used it. Vertues not\nexpected from Classical practice; and did they fully answer their\npromise which are so commended, in Epileptical intentions, we would\nabate these qualities. Country practice hath added another, to provoke\nthe after-birth, and in that case the decoction is given unto Cows. That\nthe Berries are poison as some conceive, we are so far from averring,\nthat we have safely given them inwardly; and can confirm the experiment\nof _Brassavolus_, that they have some purgative quality.\n\n4. The Rose of _Jericho_, that flourishes every year just about\nChristmas Eve, is famous in Christian reports; which notwithstanding we\nhave some reason to doubt, and are plainly informed by _Bellonius_, it\nis but a Monastical imposture, as he hath delivered in his\nobservations, concerning the Plants in _Jericho_. That which promoted\nthe conceit, or perhaps begot its continuance, was a propriety in this\nPlant. For though it be dry, yet will it upon imbibition of moisture\ndilate its leaves, and explicate its flowers contracted, and seemingly\ndried up. And this is to be effected not only in the Plant yet growing,\nbut in some manner also in that which is brought exuccous and dry unto\nus. Which quality being observed, the subtilty of contrivers did\ncommonly play this shew upon the Eve of our Saviours Nativity, when by\ndrying the Plant again, it closed the next day, and so pretended a\ndouble mystery: referring unto the opening and closing of the womb of\n_Mary_.\n\nThere wanted not a specious confirmation from a text in _Ecclesiasticus\n[SN: _Cap. 24._], Quasi palma exultata sum in Cades, & quasi plantatio\nRosae in Jericho_: I was exalted like a Palm-tree in _Engaddi_, and as a\nRose in _Jericho_. The sound whereof in common ears, begat an\nextraordinary opinion of the Rose of that denomination. But herein there\nseemeth a mistake: for by the Rose in the Text, is implied the true and\nproper Rose, as first the Greek [SN: {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH PERISPOMENI~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}.], and\nours accordingly rendreth it. But that which passeth under this name,\nand by us is commonly called the Rose of _Jericho_, is properly no Rose,\nbut a small thorny shrub or kind of Heath, bearing little white flowers,\nfar differing from the Rose; whereof _Bellonius_ a very inquisitive\n_Herbalist_, could not find any in his travels thorow _Jericho_. A Plant\nso unlike a Rose, it hath been mistaken by some good _Simplist_ for\n_Amomum_; which truly understood is so unlike a Rose, that as\n_Dioscorides_ delivers, the flowers thereof are like the white Violet,\nand its leaves resemble _Briony_.\n\nSuitable unto this relation almost in all points is that of the Thorn at\n_Glassenbury_, and perhaps the daughter hereof; herein our endeavours\nas yet have not attained satisfaction, and cannot therefore enlarge.\nThus much in general we may observe, that strange effects are naturally\ntaken for miracles by weaker heads, and artificially improved to that\napprehension by wiser. Certainly many precocious Trees, and such as\nspring in the Winter, may be found in most parts of _Europe_, and divers\nalso in _England_. [SN: _Such a Thorn there is in_ Parham Park _in\nSuffolk, and elsewhere._] For most Trees do begin to sprout in the Fall\nof the leaf or Autumn, and if not kept back by cold and outward causes,\nwould leaf about the Solstice. Now if it happen that any be so strongly\nconstituted, as to make this good against the power of Winter, they may\nproduce their leaves or blossoms in that season. And perform that in\nsome singles, which is observable in whole kinds; as in _Ivy_, which\nblossoms and bears at least twice a year, and once in the Winter; as\nalso in _Furz_, which flowereth in that season.\n\n5. That _ferrum Equinum_, or _Sferra Cavallo_ hath a vertue attractive\nof Iron, a power to break locks, and draw off the shoes of a Horse that\npasseth over it; whether you take it for one kind of _Securidaca_, or\nwill also take in _Lunaria_, we know it to be false: and cannot but\nwonder at _Mathiolus_, who upon a parallel in _Pliny_ was staggered into\nsuspension. Who notwithstanding in the imputed vertue to open things,\nclose and shut up, could laugh himself at that promise from the herb\n_AEthiopis_ or _AEthiopian_ mullen; and condemn the judgment of _Scipio_,\nwho having such a picklock, would spend so many years in battering the\nGates of _Carthage_. Which strange and Magical conceit, seems to have no\ndeeper root in reason, then the figure of its seed; for therein indeed\nit somewhat resembles a Horse-shoe; which notwithstanding _Baptista\nPorta_ hath thought too low a signification, and raised the same unto a\nLunary representation.\n\n[Sidenote: _How Beer and Wine come to be spoiled by Lightning._]\n\n6. That _Bayes_ will protect from the mischief of Lightning and Thunder,\nis a quality ascribed thereto, common with the Fig-tree, Eagle, and skin\nof a Seal. Against so famous a quality, _Vicomercatus_ produceth\nexperiment of a Bay-tree blasted in _Italy_. And therefore although\n_Tiberius_ for this intent, did wear a Lawrel upon his Temples, yet did\n_Augustus_ take a more probable course, who fled under arches and hollow\nvaults for protection. And though _Porta_ conceive, because in a\nstreperous eruption, it riseth against fire, it doth therefore resist\nlightning, yet is that no emboldning Illation. And if we consider the\nthreefold effect of _Jupiters_ Trisulk, to burn, discuss, and terebrate;\nand if that be true which is commonly delivered, that it will melt the\nblade, yet pass the scabbard; kill the child, yet spare the mother; dry\nup the wine, yet leave the hogshead entire: though it favour the amulet,\nit may not spare us; it will be unsure to rely on any preservative, 'tis\nno security to be dipped in Styx, or clad in the armour of _Ceneus_. Now\nthat Beer, Wine, and other liquors, are spoiled with lightning and\nthunder, we conceive it proceeds not onely from noise and concussion of\nthe air, but also noxious spirits, which mingle therewith, and draw them\nto corruption; whereby they become not only dead themselves, but\nsometime deadly unto others, as that which _Seneca_ mentioneth; whereof\nwhosoever drank, either lost his life, or else his wits upon it.\n\n[Sidenote: _How drinks intoxicate or overcome men._]\n\n7. It hath much deceived the hope of good fellows, what is commonly\nexpected of bitter Almonds, and though in _Plutarch_ confirmed from the\npractice of _Claudius_ his Physitian, that Antidote against ebriety\nhath commonly failed. Surely men much versed in the practice do err in\nthe theory of inebriation; conceiving in that disturbance the brain doth\nonly suffer from exhalations and vaporous ascensions from the stomack,\nwhich fat and oyly substances may suppress. Whereas the prevalent\nintoxication is from the spirits of drink dispersed into the veins and\narteries, from whence by common conveyances they creep into the brain,\ninsinuate into its ventricles, and beget those vertigoes accompanying\nthat perversion. And therefore the same effect may be produced by a\nGlister, the Head may be intoxicated by a medicine at the Heel. So the\npoisonous bites of Serpents, although on parts at distance from the\nhead, yet having entered the veins, disturb the animal faculties, and\nproduce the effects of drink, or poison swallowed. And so as the Head\nmay be disturbed by the skin, it may the same way be relieved; as is\nobservable in balneations, washings, and fomentations, either of the\nwhole body, or of that part alone.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nOf some Insects, and the properties of several Plants.\n\n\n1. Few ears have escaped the noise of the Dead-watch, that is, the\nlittle clickling sound heard often in many rooms, somewhat resembling\nthat of a Watch; and this is conceived to be of an evil omen or\nprediction of some persons death: wherein notwithstanding there is\nnothing of rational presage or just cause of terrour unto melancholy and\nmeticulous heads. For this noise is made by a little sheath-winged gray\nInsect found often in Wainscot, Benches, and Wood-work, in the Summer.\nWe have taken many thereof, and kept them in thin boxes, wherein I have\nheard and seen them work and knack with a little _proboscis_ or trunk\nagainst the side of the box, like _Apicus Martius_, or Woodpecker\nagainst a tree. It worketh best in warm weather, and for the most part\ngiveth not over under nine or eleven stroaks at a time. He that could\nextinguish the terrifying apprehensions hereof, might prevent the\npassions of the heart, and many cold sweats in Grandmothers and Nurses,\nwho in the sickness of children, are so startled with these noises.\n\n2. The presage of the year succeeding, which is commonly made from\nInsects or little Animals in Oak apples, according to the kinds thereof,\neither Maggot, Fly, or Spider; that is, of Famine, War, or Pestilence;\nwhether we mean that woody excrescence, which shooteth from the branch\nabout _May_, or that round and Apple-like accretion which groweth under\nthe leaf about the latter end of Summer, is I doubt too distinct, nor\nverifiable from event.\n\nFor Flies and Maggots are found every year, very seldom Spiders: And\n_Helmont_ affirmeth he could never find the Spider and the Fly upon the\nsame Trees, that is the signs of War and Pestilence, which often go\ntogether: Beside, that the Flies found were at first Maggots, experience\nhath informed us; for keeping these excrescencies, we have observed\ntheir conversions, beholding in Magnifying Glasses the daily progression\nthereof. As may be also observed in other Vegetable excretions, whose\nMaggots do terminate in Flies of constant shapes; as in the Nutgalls of\nthe Out-landish Oak, and the Mossie tuft of the wild Briar; which having\ngathered in _November_ we have found the little Maggots which lodged in\nwooden Cells all _Winter_, to turn into Flies in _June_.\n\n[Sidenote: _Abundance of Flies, Maggots, etc., what may they naturally\nsignifie._]\n\nWe confess the opinion may hold some verity in the Analogy, or\nEmblematical phansie. For Pestilence is properly signified by the\nSpider, whereof some kinds are of a very venemous Nature. Famine by\nMaggots, which destroy the fruits of the Earth. And War not improperly\nby the Fly; if we rest in the phansie of _Homer_, who compares the\nvaliant _Grecian_ unto a Fly.\n\nSome verity it may also have in it self, as truly declaring the\ncorruptive constitution in the present sap and nutrimental juice of the\nTree; and may consequently discover the disposition of that year,\naccording to the plenty or kinds of these productions. For if the\nputrifying juices of bodies bring forth plenty of Flies and Maggots,\nthey give forth testimony of common corruption, and declare that the\nElements are full of the seeds of putrifaction, as the great number of\nCaterpillars, Gnats, and ordinary Insects do also declare. If they run\ninto Spiders, they give signs of higher putrifaction, as plenty of\nVipers and Scorpions are confessed to do; the putrifying Materials\nproducing Animals of higher mischiefs, according to the advance and\nhigher strain of corruption.\n\n3. Whether all Plants have seed, were more easily determinable, if we\ncould conclude concerning Harts-tongue, Fern, the Caterpillaries,\nLunaria, and some others. But whether those little dusty particles, upon\nthe lower side of the leaves, be seeds and seminal parts; or rather, as\nit is commonly conceived, excremental separations, we have not as yet\nbeen able to determine by any germination or univocal production from\nthem when they have been sowed on purpose: but having set the roots of\nHarts tongue in a garden, a year or two after there came up three or\nfour of the same Plants, about two yards distance from the first. Thus\nmuch we observe, that they seem to renew yearly, and come not fully out\ntill the Plant be in his vigour: and by the help of Magnifying Glasses\nwe find these dusty Atoms to be round at first, and fully representing\nseeds, out of which at last proceed little Mites almost invisible; so\nthat such as are old stand open, as being emptied of some bodies\nformerly included; which though discernable in Harts-tongue, is more\nnotoriously discoverable in some differencies of Brake or Fern.\n\nBut exquisite Microscopes and Magnifying Glasses have at last cleared\nthis doubt, whereby also long ago the noble _Fredericus Caesius_ beheld\nthe dusts of Polypody as bigg as Pepper corns; and as _Johannes Faber_\ntestifieth, made draughts on Paper of such kind of seeds, as bigg as his\nGlasses represented them: and set down such Plants under the Classis of\n_Herbae Tergifaetae_, as may be observed in his notable Botanical Tables.\n\n4. Whether the sap of Trees runs down to the roots in Winter, whereby\nthey become naked and grow not; or whether they do not cease to draw any\nmore, and reserve so much as sufficeth for conservation, is not a point\nindubitable. For we observe, that most Trees, as though they would be\nperpetually green, do bud at the Fall of the leaf, although they sprout\nnot much forward untill the Spring, and warmer weather approacheth; and\nmany Trees maintain their leaves all Winter, although they seem to\nreceive very small advantage in their growth. But that the sap doth\npowerfully rise in the Spring, to repair that moisture whereby they\nbarely subsisted in the Winter, and also to put the Plant in a capacity\nof fructification: he that hath beheld how many gallons of water may in\na small time be drawn from a Birch-tree in the Spring, hath slender\nreason to doubt.\n\n5. That _Camphire_ Eunuchates, or begets in Men an impotency unto\nVenery, observation will hardly confirm; and we have found it to fail in\nCocks and Hens, though given for many days; which was a more favourable\ntrial then that of _Scaliger_, when he gave it unto a Bitch that was\nproud. For the instant turgescence is not to be taken off, but by\nMedicines of higher Natures; and with any certainty but one way that we\nknow, which notwithstanding, by suppressing that natural evacuation, may\nencline unto Madness, if taken in the Summer.\n\n6. In the History of Prodigies we meet with many showrs of Wheat; how\ntrue or probable, we have not room to debate. Only thus much we shall\nnot omit to inform, That what was this year found in many places, and\nalmost preached for Wheat rained from the clouds, was but the seed of\nIvy-berries, which somewhat represent it; and though it were found in\nSteeples and high places, might be conveyed thither, or muted out by\nBirds: for many feed thereon, and in the crops of some we have found no\nless then three ounces.\n\n7. That every plant might receive a Name according unto the disease it\ncureth, was the wish of _Paracelsus_. A way more likely to multiply\nEmpiricks then Herbalists; yet what is practised by many is advantagious\nunto neither; that is, relinquishing their proper appellations to\nre-baptize them by the name of Saints, Apostles, Patriarchs, and\nMartyrs, to call this the herb of _John_, that of _Peter_, this of\n_James_, or _Joseph_, that of _Mary_ or _Barbara_. For hereby\napprehensions are made additional unto their proper Natures; whereon\nsuperstitious practices ensue, and stories are framed accordingly to\nmake good their foundations.\n\n8. We cannot omit to declare the gross mistake of many in the Nominal\napprehension of Plants; to instance but in few. An herb there is\ncommonly called _Betonica Pauli_, or _Pauls Betony_; hereof the People\nhave some conceit in reference to St. _Paul_; whereas indeed that name\nis derived from _Paulus AEgineta_, an ancient Physitian of _AEgina_, and\nis no more then Speed-well, or _Fluellen_. The like expectations are\nraised from _Herba Trinitatis_; which notwithstanding obtaineth that\nname from the figure of its leaves, and is one kind of Liverwort, or\n_Hepatica_. In _Milium Solis_, the Epithete of the Sun hath enlarged its\nopinion; which hath indeed no reference thereunto, it being no more then\n_Lithospermon_, or _Grummel_, or rather _Milium Soler_; which as\n_Serapion_ from _Aben Juliel_ hath taught us, because it grew\nplentifully in the Mountains of _Soler_, received that appellation. [SN:\n_Why the Jews ear is used for sore Throats._] In Jews-ears something is\nconceived extraordinary from the Name, which is in propriety but _Fungus\nsambucinus_, or an excrescence about the Roots of Elder, and concerneth\nnot the Nation of the _Jews_, but _Judas Iscariot_, upon a conceit, he\nhanged on this Tree; and is become a famous Medicine in Quinsies, sore\nThroats, and strangulations ever since. And so are they deceived in the\nname of Horse-Raddish, Horse-Mint, Bull-rush, and many more: conceiving\ntherein some prenominal consideration, whereas indeed that expression is\nbut a Grecism, by the prefix of _Hippos_ and _Bous_, that is, Horse and\nBull, intending no more then Great. According whereto the great Dock is\ncalled _Hippolapathum_; and he that calls the Horse of _Alexander_,\n_Great-head_, expresseth the same which the _Greeks_ do in _Bucephalus_.\n\n9. Lastly, Many things are delivered and believed of other Plants,\nwherein at least we cannot but suspend. That there is a property in\n_Basil_ to propagate Scorpions, and that by the smell thereof they are\nbred in the brains of men, is much advanced by _Hollerius_, who found\nthis Insect in the brains of a man that delighted much in this smell.\nWherein beside that we find no way to conjoin the effect unto the cause\nassigned; herein the Moderns speak but timorously, and some of the\nAncients quite contrarily. For, according unto _Oribasius_, Physitian\nunto _Julian_, The _Affricans_, Men best experienced in poisons, affirm,\nwhosoever hath eaten _Basil_, although he be stung with a Scorpion,\nshall feel no pain thereby: which is a very different effect, and rather\nantidotally destroying, then seminally promoting its production.\n\nThat the leaves of _Catapucia_ or Spurge, being plucked upward or\ndownward, respectively perform their operations by Purge or Vomit, as\nsome have written, and old wives still do preach, is a strange conceit,\nascribing unto Plants positional operations, and after the manner of the\nLoadstone; upon the Pole whereof if a Knife be drawn from the handle\nunto the point, it will take up a Needle; but if drawn again from the\npoint to the handle, it will attract it no more.\n\nThat Cucumbers are no commendable fruits, that being very waterish, they\nfill the veins with crude and windy serosities; that containing little\nSalt or spirit, they may also debilitate the vital acidity, and\nfermental faculty of the Stomach, we readily concede. But that they\nshould be so cold, as be almost poison by that quality, it will be hard\nto allow, without the contradiction of _Galen_ [SN: _In his Anatomia\nSambuci._]: who accounteth them cold but in the second degree, and in\nthat Classis have most Physitians placed them.\n\nThat Elder Berries are poison, as we are taught by tradition, experience\nwill unteach us. And beside the promises of _Blochwitius_, the healthful\neffects thereof daily observed will convict us.\n\nThat an Ivy Cup will separate Wine from Water, if filled with both, the\nWine soaking through, but the Water still remaining, as after _Pliny_\nmany have averred, we know not how to affirm; who making trial thereof,\nfound both the liquors to soak indistinctly through the bowl.\n\nThat Sheep do often get the Rot, by feeding in boggy grounds where\n_Ros-solis_ groweth, seems beyond dispute. That this herb is the cause\nthereof, Shepherds affirm and deny; whether it hath a cordial vertue by\nsudden refection, sensible experiment doth hardly confirm, but that it\nmay have a Balsamical and resumptive Vertue, whereby it becomes a good\nMedicine in Catarrhes and Consumptive dispositions, Practice and Reason\nconclude. That the lentous drops upon it are not extraneous, and rather\nan exudation from it self, then a rorid concretion from without, beside\nother grounds, we have reason to conceive; for having kept the Roots\nmoist and earthed in close chambers, they have, though in lesser plenty,\nsent out these drops as before.\n\nThat _Flos Affricanus_ is poison, and destroyeth Dogs, in two\nexperiments we have not found.\n\nThat Yew and the Berries thereof are harmless, we know.\n\nThat a Snake will not endure the shade of an Ash, we can deny. Nor is it\ninconsiderable what is affirmed by _Bellonius_ [SN: Lib. 1 observat.];\nfor if his Assertion be true, our apprehension is oftentimes wide in\nordinary simples, and in common use we mistake one for another. We know\nnot the true Thyme; the Savourie in our Gardens is not that commended of\nold; and that kind of Hysop the Ancients used, is unknown unto us, who\nmake great use of another.\n\nWe omit to recite the many Vertues, and endless faculties ascribed unto\nPlants, which sometime occur in grave and serious Authors; and we shall\nmake a bad transaction for truth to concede a verity in half. To reckon\nup all, it were employment for _Archimedes_, who undertook to write the\nnumber of the Sands. Swarms of others there are, some whereof our future\nendeavours may discover; common reason I hope will save us a labour in\nmany: Whose absurdities stand naked unto every eye; Errours not able to\ndeceive the Embleme of Justice, and need no _Argus_ to descry them.\nHerein there surely wants expurgatory animadversions, whereby we might\nstrike out great numbers of hidden qualities; and having once a serious\nand conceded list, we might with more encouragement and safety attempt\ntheir Reasons.\n\n\n\n\nTHE THIRD BOOK\n\nOf divers popular and received Tenets concerning Animals, which\nexamined, prove either false or dubious.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nOf the Elephant.\n\n\nThe first shall be of the Elephant, whereof there generally passeth an\nopinion it hath no joints; and this absurdity is seconded with another,\nthat being unable to lie down, it sleepeth against a Tree; which the\nHunters observing, do saw it almost asunder; whereon the Beast relying,\nby the fall of the Tree, falls also down it self, and is able to rise no\nmore. Which conceit is not the daughter of later times, but an old and\ngray-headed error, even in the days of _Aristotle_, as he delivereth in\nhis Book, _De incessu Animalium_, and stands successively related by\nseveral other authors: by _Diodorus Siculus_, _Strabo_, _Ambrose_,\n_Cassiodore_, _Solinus_, and many more. Now herein methinks men much\nforget themselves, not well considering the absurdity of such\nassertions.\n\n[Sidenote: _How progression is made in animals._]\n\nFor first, they affirm it hath no joints, and yet concede it walks and\nmoves about; whereby they conceive there may be a progression or\nadvancement made in Motion without inflexion of parts. Now all\nprogression or Animals locomotion being (as _Aristotle_ teacheth)\nperformed _tractu et pulsu_; that is, by drawing on, or impelling\nforward some part which was before in station, or at quiet; where there\nare no joints or flexures, neither can there be these actions. And this\nis true, not onely in Quadrupedes, Volatils, and Fishes, which have\ndistinct and prominent Organs of Motion, Legs, Wings, and Fins; but in\nsuch also as perform their progression by the Trunk, as Serpents, Worms,\nand Leeches. [SN: _Joint-like parts._] Whereof though some want bones,\nand all extended articulations, yet have they arthritical Analogies, and\nby the motion of fibrous and musculous parts, are able to make\nprogression. Which to conceive in bodies inflexible, and without all\nprotrusion of parts, were to expect a Race from _Hercules_ his pillars;\nor hope to behold the effects of _Orpheus_ his Harp, when trees found\njoints, and danced after his Musick.\n\nAgain, While men conceive they never lie down, and enjoy not the\nposition of rest, ordained unto all pedestrious Animals, hereby they\nimagine (what reason cannot conceive) that an Animal of the vastest\ndimension and longest duration, should live in a continual motion,\nwithout that alternity and vicissitude of rest whereby all others\ncontinue; and yet must thus much come to pass, if we opinion they lye\nnot down and enjoy no decumbence at all. [SN: _Extensive or Tonical\nMotion, what?_] For station is properly no rest, but one kind of motion,\nrelating unto that which Physitians (from _Galen_) do name extensive or\ntonical; that is, an extension of the muscles and organs of motion\nmaintaining the body at length or in its proper figure.\n\nWherein although it seem to be unmoved, it is not without all Motion;\nfor in this position the muscles are sensibly extended, and labour to\nsupport the body; which permitted unto its proper gravity, would\nsuddenly subside and fall unto the earth; as it happeneth in sleep,\ndiseases, and death. From which occult action and invisible motion of\nthe muscles in station (as _Galen_ declareth) proceed more offensive\nlassitudes then from ambulation. And therefore the Tyranny of some have\ntormented men with long and enforced station, and though _Ixion_ and\n_Sisiphus_ which always moved, do seem to have the hardest measure; yet\nwas not _Titius_ favoured, that lay extended upon _Caucasus_; and\n_Tantalus_ suffered somewhat more then thirst, that stood perpetually in\nHell. Thus _Mercurialis_ in his Gymnasticks justly makes standing one\nkind of exercise; and _Galen_ when we lie down, commends unto us middle\nfigures, that is, not to lye directly, or at length, but somewhat\ninflected, that the muscles may be at rest; for such as he termeth\n_Hypobolemaioi_ or figures, of excess, either shrinking up or stretching\nout, are wearisome positions, and such as perturb the quiet of those\nparts. Now various parts do variously discover these indolent and quiet\npositions, some in right lines, as the wrists: some at right angles, as\nthe cubit: others at oblique angles, as the fingers and the knees: all\nresting satisfied in postures of moderation, and none enduring the\nextremity of flexure or extension.\n\nMoreover men herein do strangely forget the obvious relations of\nhistory, affirming they have no joints, whereas they dayly read of\nseveral actions which are not performable without them. They forget what\nis delivered by _Xiphilinus_, and also by _Suetonius_ in the lives of\n_Nero_ and _Galba_, that Elephants have been instructed to walk on\nropes, in publick shews before the people. Which is not easily\nperformed by man, and requireth not only a broad foot, but a pliable\nflexure of joints, and commandible disposure of all parts of\nprogression. They pass by that memorable place in _Curtius_, concerning\nthe Elephant of King _Porus, Indus qui Elephantem regebat, descendere\neum ratus, more solito procumbere jussit in genua caeteri quoque (ita\nenim instituti erant) demisere corpora in terram_. [SN: De rebus gestis\nEmanuelis.] They remember not the expression of _Osorius_, when he\nspeaks of the Elephant presented to _Leo_ the tenth, _Pontificem ter\ngenibus flexis, et demisso corporis habitu venerabundus salutavit_. But\nabove all, they call not to mind that memorable shew of _Germanicus_,\nwherein twelve Elephants danced unto the sound of Musick, and after laid\nthem down in the _Tricliniums_, or places of festival Recumbency.\n\nThey forget the Etymologie of the Knee, approved by some Grammarians.\n[SN: {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~} _from_ {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}.] They disturb the position of\nthe young ones in the womb: which upon extension of legs is not easily\nconceivable; and contrary unto the general contrivance of Nature. Nor do\nthey consider the impossible exclusion thereof, upon extension and\nrigour of the legs.\n\nLastly, they forget or consult not experience, whereof not many years\npast, we have had the advantage in _England_, by an Elephant shewn in\nmany parts thereof, not only in the posture of standing, but kneeling\nand lying down. Whereby although the opinion at present be well\nsuppressed, yet from some strings of tradition, and fruitful recurrence\nof errour, it is not improbable it may revive in the next generation\nagain. This being not the first that hath been seen in _England_; for\n(besides some others) as _Polydore Virgil_ relateth, _Lewis_ the French\nKing sent one to Henry the third, and _Emanuel_ of _Portugal_ another to\n_Leo_ the tenth into _Italy_, where notwithstanding the errour is still\nalive and epidemical, as with us.\n\n[Sidenote: _Round, Pillar-like._]\n\nThe hint and ground of this opinion might be the gross and somewhat\nCylindrical composure of the legs, the equality and less perceptible\ndisposure of the joints, especially in the former legs of this Animal;\nthey appearing when he standeth, like Pillars of flesh, without any\nevidence of articulation. The different flexure and order of the joints\nmight also countenance the same, being not disposed in the Elephant, as\nthey are in other quadrupedes, but carry a nearer conformity unto those\nof Man; that is, the bought of the fore-legs, not directly backward, but\nlaterally and somewhat inward; but the hough or suffraginous flexure\nbehind rather outward. Somewhat different unto many other quadrupedes,\nas Horses, Camels, Deer, Sheep, and Dogs; for their fore-legs bend like\nour legs, and their hinder legs like our arms, when we move them to our\nshoulders. But quadrupedes oviparous, as Frogs, Lizards, Crocodiles,\nhave their joints and motive flexures more analogously framed unto ours;\nand some among viviparous, that is, such thereof as can bring their\nfore-feet and meat therein unto their mouths, as most can do that have\nthe clavicles or coller-bones: whereby their brests are broader, and\ntheir shoulders more asunder, as the Ape, the Monkey, the Squirrel and\nsome others. If therefore any shall affirm the joints of Elephants are\ndifferently framed from most of other quadrupedes, and more obscurely\nand grosly almost then any, he doth herein no injury unto truth. But if\n_a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter_, he affirmeth also they\nhave no articulations at all, he incurs the controulment of reason, and\ncannot avoide the contradiction also of sense.\n\nAs for the manner of their venation, if we consult historical\nexperience, we shall find it to be otherwise then as is commonly\npresumed, by sawing away of Trees. The accounts whereof are to be seen\nat large in _Johannes_, _Hugo_, _Edwardus Lopez_, _Garcias ab horto_,\n_Cadamustus_, and many more.\n\nOther concernments there are of the Elephant, which might admit of\ndiscourse; and if we should question the teeth of Elephants, that is,\nwhether they be properly so termed, or might not rather be called horns:\nit were no new enquiry of mine, but a Paradox as old as _Oppianus_ [SN:\nCyneget. lib. 2.]. Whether as _Pliny_ and divers since affirm it, that\nElephants are terrified, and make away upon the grunting of Swine,\n_Garcias ab horto_ may decide, who affirmeth upon experience, they enter\ntheir stalls, and live promiscuously in the Woods of _Malavar_. That the\nsituation of the genitals is averse, and their copulation like that\nwhich some believe of Camels, as _Pliny_ hath also delivered, is not to\nbe received; for we have beheld that part in a different position; and\ntheir coition is made by supersaliency, like that of horses, as we are\ninformed by some who have beheld them in that act. That some Elephants\nhave not only written whole sentences, as _AElian_ ocularly testifieth,\nbut have also spoken, as _Oppianus_ delivereth, and _Christophorus a\nCosta_ particularly relateth; although it sound like that of _Achilles_\nHorse in _Homer_, we do not conceive impossible. [SN: _Some_ Brutes\n_tolerably well organized for speech and approaching to reason_.] Nor\nbeside the affinity of reason in this Animal any such intollerable\nincapacity in the organs of divers quadrupedes, whereby they might not\nbe taught to speak, or become imitators of speech like Birds. Strange it\nis how the curiosity of men that have been active in the instruction of\nBeasts, have never fallen upon this artifice; and among those, many\nparadoxical and unheard of imitations, should not attempt to make one\nspeak. The Serpent that spake unto _Eve_, the Dogs and Cats that usually\nspeak unto Witches, might afford some encouragement. And since broad and\nthick chops are required in Birds that speak, since lips and teeth are\nalso organs of speech; from these there is also an advantage in\nquadrupedes, and a proximity of reason in Elephants and Apes above them\nall. Since also an Echo will speak without any mouth at all,\narticulately returning the voice of man, by only ordering the vocal\nspirit in concave and hollow places; whether the musculous and motive\nparts about the hollow mouths of Beasts, may not dispose the passing\nspirit into some articulate notes, seems a query of no great doubt.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nOf the Horse.\n\n\nThe second Assertion, that an Horse hath no gall, is very general, nor\nonly swallowed by the people, and common Farriers, but also received by\ngood _Veterinarians_, [SN: Veterinarians _or Farriers_.] and some who\nhave laudably discoursed upon Horses. It seemeth also very ancient;\nfor it is plainly set down by _Aristotle_, an Horse and all solid\nungulous or whole hoofed animals have no gall; and the same is also\ndelivered by _Pliny_, which notwithstanding we find repugnant unto\nexperience and reason. For first, it calls in question the providence\nor wise provision of Nature; who not abounding in superfluities, is\nneither deficient in necessities. Wherein nevertheless there would be a\nmain defect, and her improvision justly accusable, if such a feeding\nAnimal, and so subject unto diseases from bilious causes, should want a\nproper conveyance for choler; or have no other receptacle for that\nhumour then the Veins, and general mass of bloud.\n\nIt is again controllable by experience, for we have made some search and\nenquiry herein; encouraged by _Absyrtus_ a Greek Author, in the time of\n_Constantine_, who in his Hippiatricks [SN: Medicina equaria.],\nobscurely assigneth the gall a place in the liver; but more especially\nby _Carlo Ruini_ the _Bononian_, who in his _Anatomia del Cavallo_, hath\nmore plainly described it, and in a manner as I found it. For in the\nparticular enquiry into that part, in the concave or simous part of the\nLiver, whereabout the Gall is usually seated in quadrupedes, I discover\nan hollow, long and membranous substance, of a pale colour without, and\nlined with Choler and Gall within; which part is by branches diffused\ninto the lobes and several parcels of the Liver; from whence receiving\nthe fiery superfluity, or cholerick remainder, by a manifest and open\npassage, it conveyeth it into the _duodenum_ or upper gut, thence into\nthe lower bowels; which is the manner of its derivation in Man and other\nAnimals. And therefore although there be no eminent and circular\nfollicle, no round bag or vesicle which long containeth this humour: yet\nis there a manifest receptacle and passage of choler from the Liver into\nthe Guts: which being not so shut up, or at least not so long detained,\nas it is in other Animals: procures that frequent excretion, and\noccasions the Horse to dung more often then many other, which\nconsidering the plentiful feeding, the largeness of the guts, and their\nvarious circumvolution, was prudently contrived by providence in this\nAnimal. [SN: _Choler the natural glister._] For choler is the natural\nGlister, or one excretion whereby Nature excludeth another; which\ndescending daily into the bowels, extimulates those parts, and excites\nthem unto expulsion. And therefore when this humour aboundeth or\ncorrupteth, there succeeds oft-times a _cholerica passio_, that is, a\nsudden and vehement Purgation upward and downward: and when the passage\nof gall becomes obstructed, the body grows costive, and the excrements\nof the belly white; as it happeneth in the Jaundice.\n\nIf any therefore affirm an Horse hath no gall, that is, no receptacle,\nor part ordained for the separation of Choler, or not that humour at\nall; he hath both sense and reason to oppose him. But if he saith it\nhath no bladder of Gall, and such as is observed in many other Animals,\nwe shall oppose our sense, if we gain-say him. Thus must _Aristotle_ be\nmade out when he denieth this part, by this distinction we may relieve\n_Pliny_ of a contradiction, who in one place affirming an Horse hath no\ngall, delivereth yet in another, that the gall of an Horse was accounted\npoison; and therefore at the sacrifices of Horses in _Rome_, it was\nunlawful for the _Flamen_ [SN: _Priest._] to touch it. But with more\ndifficulty, or hardly at all is that reconcileable which is delivered by\nour Countryman, and received _Veterinarian_; whose words in his\nMaster-piece, and Chapter of diseases from the Gall, are somewhat too\nstrict, and scarce admit a Reconciliation. The fallacie therefore of\nthis conceit is not unlike the former; _A dicto secundum quid ad dictum\nsimpliciter_. Because they have not a bladder of gall, like those we\nusually observe in others, they have no gall at all. Which is a\nParalogism not admittible; a fallacy that dwels not in a cloud, and\nneeds not the Sun to scatter it.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nOf the Dove.\n\n\nThe third assertion is somewhat like the second, that a Dove or Pigeon\nhath no gall; which is affirmed from very great antiquity; for as\n_Pierius_ observeth, from this consideration the Egyptians did make it\nthe Hieroglyphick of Meekness. It hath been averred by many holy\nWriters, commonly delivered by _Postillers_ and _Commentators_, who from\nthe frequent mention of the Dove in the _Canticles_, the precept of our\nSaviour, to be wise as Serpents, and innocent as Doves: and especially\nthe appearance of the Holy Ghost in the similitude of this Animal, have\ntaken occasion to set down many affections of the Dove, and what doth\nmost commend it, is, that it hath no gall. And hereof have made use not\nonly Minor Divines, but _Cyprian_, _Austin_, _Isidore_, _Beda_,\n_Rupertus_, _Jansenius_, and many more.\n\nWhereto notwithstanding we know not how to assent, it being repugnant\nunto the Authority and positive determination of ancient Philosophy. The\naffirmative of _Aristotle_ in his History of Animals is very plain, _Fel\naliis ventri, aliis intestino jungitur_: Some have the gall adjoined to\nthe guts, as the Crow, the Swallow, Sparrow, and the Dove; the same is\nalso attested by _Pliny_, and not without some passion by _Galen_, who\nin his Book _De Atra bile_, accounts him ridiculous that denies it.\n\nIt is not agreeable to the constitution of this Animal, nor can we so\nreasonably conceive there wants a Gall: that is, the hot and fiery\nhumour in a body so hot of temper, which Phlegm or Melancholy could not\neffect. [SN: Salubrium, 31 deg.] Now of what complexion it is,\n_Julius Alexandrinus_ declareth, when he affirmeth that some upon the\nuse thereof, have fallen into Feavers and Quinsies. The temper of their\nDung and intestinal Excretions do also confirm the same; which Topically\napplied become a _Phaenigmus_ or Rubifying Medicine, and are of such\nfiery parts, that as we read in _Galen_, they have of themselves\nconceived fire, and burnt a house about them. And therefore when in the\nfamine of _Samaria_ (wherein the fourth part of a Cab of Pigeons dung\nwas sold for five pieces of silver,) it is delivered by _Josephus_, that\nmen made use hereof in stead of common Salt: although the exposition\nseem strange, it is more probable then many other. For that it\ncontaineth very much Salt, as beside the effects before expressed, is\ndiscernable by taste, and the earth of Columbaries or Dove-houses, so\nmuch desired in the artifice of Salt-petre. And to speak generally, the\nExcrement of Birds hath more of Salt and acrimony, then that of other\npissing animals. Now if because the Dove is of a mild and gentle nature,\nwe cannot conceive it should be of an hot temper; our apprehensions are\nnot distinct in the measure of constitutions, and the several parts\nwhich evidence such conditions. [SN: _Whence the irascible, whence\nthe concupiscible Passions do most arise._] For the Irascible passions\ndo follow the temper of the heart, but the concupiscible distractions\nthe crasis of the liver. Now many have hot livers, which have but cool\nand temperate hearts; and this was probably the temper of _Paris_, a\ncontrary constitution to that of _Ajax_, and both but short of _Medea_,\nwho seemed to exceed in either.\n\nLastly, it is repugnant to experience, for Anatomical enquiry\ndiscovereth in them a gall: and that according to the determination of\n_Aristotle_, not annexed unto the liver, but adhering unto the guts: nor\nis the humour contained in smaller veins, or obscurer capillations, but\nin a vescicle, or little bladder, though some affirm it hath no bag at\nall. And therefore the Hieroglyphick of the AEgyptians, though allowable\nin the sense, is weak in the foundation: who expressing meekness and\nlenity by the portract of a Dove with a tail erected, affirmed it had no\ngall in the inward parts, but only in the rump, and as it were out of\nthe body. And therefore also if they conceived their gods were pleased\nwith the sacrifice of this Animal, as being without gall, the ancient\nHeathens were surely mistaken in the reason, and in the very oblation.\nWhereas in the holocaust or burnt offering of _Moses_, the gall was cast\naway: for as _Ben Maimon_ instructeth [SN: Levit. 1.], the inwards\nwhereto the gall adhereth were taken out with the crop, according unto\nthe Law: which the Priest did not burn, but cast unto the East, that is,\nbehind his back, and readiest place to be carried out of the Sanctuary.\n[SN: _Doves, the Birds of_ Venus, _why?_] And if they also conceived\nthat for this reason they were the Birds of _Venus_, and wanting the\nfurious and discording part, were more acceptable unto the Deity of\nLove, they surely added unto the conceit, which was at first venereal:\nand in this Animal may be sufficiently made out from that conception.\n\nThe ground of this conceit is partly like the former, the obscure\nsituation of the gall, and out of the liver, wherein it is commonly\nenquired. But this is a very injust illation, not well considering with\nwhat variety this part is seated in Birds. In some both at the stomach\nand the liver, as in the Capriceps; in some at the liver only, as in\nCocks, Turkeys, and Pheasants; in others at the guts and liver, as in\nHawks and Kites, in some at the guts alone, as Crows, Doves, and many\nmore. And these perhaps may take up all the ways of situation, not only\nin Birds, but also other Animals; for what is said of the Anchovie, that\nanswerable unto its name, [SN: {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER CHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}] it carrieth the\ngall in the head, is farther to be enquired. And though the discoloured\nparticles in the skin of an Heron be commonly termed Galls, yet is not\nthis Animal deficient in that part, but containeth it in the Liver. And\nthus when it is conceived that the eyes of _Tobias_ were cured by the\ngall of the fish _Callyonimus_, or _Scorpius marinus_, commended to that\neffect by _Dioscorides_, although that part were not in the liver, yet\nthere were no reason to doubt that probability. And whatsoever Animal it\nwas, it may be received without exception, when it's delivered, the\nmarried couple as a testimony of future concord, did cast the gall of\nthe sacrifice behind the Altar.\n\nA strict and literal acception of a loose and tropical expression was a\nsecond ground hereof. For while some affirmed it had no gall, intending\nonly thereby no evidence of anger or fury; others have construed it\nanatomically, and denied that part at all. By which illation we may\ninfer, and that from sacred Text, a Pigeon hath no heart; according to\nthat expression, [SN: _Hosea 7._] _Factus est Ephraim sicut Columba\nseducta non habens Cor_. And so from the letter of the Scripture we may\nconclude it is no mild, but a fiery and furious animal, according to\nthat of _Jeremy_, [SN: _Cap. 25._] _Facta est terra in desolationem a\nfacie irae Columbae_: and again, _Revertamur ad terram nativitatis nostrae\na facie gladii Columbae_. [SN: _Cap. 46._] Where notwithstanding the Dove\nis not literally intended; but thereby may be implied the\n_Babylonians_, whose Queen _Semiramis_ was called by that name, and\nwhose successors did bear the Dove in their Standard. So is it\nproverbially said, _Formicae sua bilis inest, habet et musca splenem_;\nwhereas we know Philosophy doubteth these parts, nor hath _Anatomy_ so\nclearly discovered them in those insects.\n\nIf therefore any affirm a Pigeon hath no gall, implying no more thereby\nthen the lenity of this Animal, we shall not controvert his affirmation.\nThus may we make out the assertions of Ancient Writers, and safely\nreceive the expressions of Divines and worthy Fathers. But if by a\ntransition from Rhetorick to Logick, he shall contend, it hath no such\npart or humour, he committeth an open fallacy, and such as was probably\nfirst committed concerning _Spanish_ Mares, whose swiftness tropically\nexpressed from their generation by the wind; might after be grosly\ntaken, and a real truth conceived in that conception.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nOf the Bever.\n\n\nThat a Bever to escape the Hunter, bites off his testicles or stones, is\na Tenet very ancient; and hath had thereby advantage of propagation.\n[SN: _AEsops Apologues, of what antiquity._] For the same we find in the\nHieroglyphicks of the Egyptians in the Apologue of _AEsop_, an Author of\ngreat Antiquity, who lived in the beginning of the _Persian_ Monarchy,\nand in the time of _Cyrus_: the same is touched by _Aristotle_ in his\nEthicks, but seriously delivered by _AElian_, _Pliny_, and _Solinus_: the\nsame we meet with in _Juvenal_, who by an handsome and Metrical\nexpression more welcomly engrafts it in our junior Memories:\n\n          _----imitatus Castora, qui se\n          Eunuchum ipse facit, cupiens evadere damno\n          Testiculorum, adeo medicatum intelligit inguen._\n\nIt hath been propagated by Emblems: and some have been so bad\nGrammarians as to be deceived by the Name, deriving _Castor a\ncastrando_, whereas the proper Latine word is _Fiber_, and _Castor_ but\nborrowed from the Greek, so called _quasi_ {~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}, that is, _Animal\nventricosum_, from his swaggy and prominent belly.\n\nHerein therefore to speak compendiously, we first presume to affirm that\nfrom strict enquiry, we cannot maintain the evulsion or biting off any\nparts, and this is declarable from the best and most professed Writers:\nfor though some have made use hereof in a Moral or Tropical way, yet\nhave the professed Discoursers by silence deserted, or by experience\nrejected this assertion. Thus was it in ancient times discovered, and\nexperimentally refuted by one _Sestius_ a Physitian, as it stands\nrelated by _Pliny_; by _Dioscorides_, who plainly affirms that this\ntradition is false; by the discoveries of Modern Authors, who have\nexpressly discoursed hereon, as _Aldrovandus_, _Mathiolus_, _Gesnerus_,\n_Bellonius_; by _Olaus Magnus_, _Peter Martyr_, and others, who have\ndescribed the manner of their Venations in _America_; they generally\nomitting this way of their escape, and have delivered several other, by\nwhich they are daily taken.\n\nThe original of the conceit was probably Hieroglyphical, which after\nbecame Mythological unto the Greeks, and so set down by _AEsop_; and by\nprocess of tradition, stole into a total verity, which was but partially\ntrue, that is in its covert sense and Morality. Now why they placed\nthis invention upon the Bever (beside the Medicable and Merchantable\ncommodity of _Castoreum_, or parts conceived to be bitten away) might be\nthe sagacity and wisdom of that Animal, which from the works it\nperforms, and especially its Artifice in building, is very strange, and\nsurely not to be matched by any other. Omitted by _Plutarch_, _De\nsolertia Animalium_, but might have much advantaged the drift of that\nDiscourse.\n\nIf therefore any affirm a wise man should demean himself like the Bever,\nwho to escape with his life, contemneth the loss of his genitals, that\nis in case of extremity, not strictly to endeavour the preservation of\nall, but to sit down in the enjoyment of the greater good, though with\nthe detriment and hazard of the lesser; we may hereby apprehend a real\nand useful Truth. In this latitude of belief, we are content to receive\nthe Fable of _Hippomanes_, who redeemed his life with the loss of a\nGolden Ball; and whether true or false, we reject not the Tragoedy of\n_Absyrtus_, and the dispersion of his Members by _Medea_, to perplex the\npursuit of her Father. But if any shall positively affirm this act, and\ncannot believe the Moral, unless he also credit the Fable; he is surely\ngreedy of delusion, and will hardly avoid deception in theories of this\nNature. The Error therefore and Alogy in this opinion, is worse then in\nthe last; that is, not to receive Figures for Realities, but expect a\nverity in Apologues; and believe, as serious affirmations, confessed and\nstudied Fables.\n\nAgain, If this were true, and that the Bever in chase makes some\ndivulsion of parts, as that which we call _Castoreum_; yet are not the\nsame to be termed Testicles or Stones; for these Cods or Follicles are\nfound in both Sexes, though somewhat more protuberant in the Male.\nThere is hereto no derivation of the seminal parts, nor any passage from\nhence, unto the Vessels of Ejaculation: some perforations onely in the\npart it self, through which the humour included doth exudate: as may be\nobserved in such as are fresh, and not much dried with age. And lastly,\nThe Testicles properly so called, are of a lesser magnitude, and seated\ninwardly upon the loins: and therefore it were not only a fruitless\nattempt, but impossible act, to Eunuchate or castrate themselves: and\nmight be an hazardous practice of Art, if at all attempted by others.\n\nNow all this is confirmed from the experimental Testimony of five very\nmemorable Authors: _Bellonius_, _Gesnerus_, _Amatus_, _Rondeletius_, and\n_Mathiolus_: who receiving the hint hereof from _Rondeletius_ in the\nAnatomy of two Bevers, did find all true that had been delivered by him,\nwhose words are these in his learned Book _De Piscibus_: _Fibri in\ninguinibus geminos tumores habent, utrinque vnicum, ovi Auscrini\nmagnitudine, inter hos est mentula in maribus, in faeminis pudendum, hi\ntumores testes non sunt, sed folliculi membrana contecti, in quorum\nmedio sunguli sunt meatus e quibus exudat liquor pinguis et cerosus,\nquem ipse Castor saepe admoto ore lambit et exugit, postea veluti oleo,\ncorporis partes oblinit: Hos tumores testes non esse hinc maxime\ncolligitur, quod ab illus nulla est ad mentulam via neque ductus quo\nhumor in mentulae meatum derivitur, et foras emittatur; praeterea quod\ntestes intus reperiuntur, eosdem tumores Moscho animali inesse puto, e\nquibus odoratum illud plus emanat._ Then which words there can be no\nplainer, nor more evidently discovering the impropriety of this\nappellation. That which is included in the cod or visible bag about the\ngroin, being not the Testicle, or any spermatical part; but rather a\ncollection of some superfluous matter deflowing from the body,\nespecially the parts of nutrition as unto their proper emunctories; and\nas it doth in Musk and Civet Cats, though in a different and offensive\nodour; proceeding partly from its food, that being especially Fish;\nwhereof this humour may be a garous excretion and olidous separation.\n\nMost therefore of the Moderns before _Rondeletius_, and all the Ancients\nexcepting _Sestius_, have misunderstood this part, conceiving\n_Castoreum_ the Testicles of the _Bever_; as _Dioscorides_, _Galen_,\n_AEgineta_, _AEtius_, and others have pleased to name it. The Egyptians\nalso failed in the ground of their Hieroglyphick, when they expressed\nthe punishment of Adultery by the Bever depriving himself of his\ntesticles, which was amongst them the penalty of such incontinency. Nor\nis _AEtius_ perhaps, too strictly to be observed, when he prescribeth the\nstones of the Otter, or River-dog, as succedaneous unto _Castoreum_. But\nmost inexcusable of all is _Pliny_, who having before him in one place\nthe experiment of _Sestius_ against it, sets down in another, that the\n_Bevers_ of _Pontus_ bite off their testicles: and in the same place\naffirmeth the like of the _Hyena_. Which was indeed well joined with the\nBever, as having also a bag in those parts; if thereby we understand the\n_Hyena odorata_, or Civet Cat, as is delivered and graphically described\nby _Castellus_. [SN: Castellus de Hyena odorifera.]\n\nNow the ground of this mistake might be the resemblance and situation of\nthese tumours about those parts, wherein we observe the testicles in\nother animals. Which notwithstanding is no well founded illation, for\nthe testicles are defined by their office, and not determined by place\nor situation; they having one office in all, but different seats in\nmany. For beside that, no Serpent, or Fishes oviparous, that neither\nbiped nor quadruped oviparous have testicles exteriourly, or prominent\nin the groin; some also that are viviparous contain these parts within,\nas beside this Animal, the Elephant and the Hedg-hog.\n\nIf any therefore shall term these testicles, intending metaphorically,\nand in no strict acception; his language is tolerable, and offends our\nears no more then the Tropical names of Plants: when we read in Herbals,\nof Dogs, Fox, and Goat-stones. But if he insisteth thereon, and\nmaintaineth a propriety in this language: our discourse hath overthrown\nhis assertion, nor will Logic permit his illation; that is, from things\nalike, to conclude a thing the same; and from an accidental convenience,\nthat is a similitude in place or figure, to infer a specifical congruity\nor substantial concurrence in Nature.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nOf the Badger.\n\n\nThat a Brock or Badger hath the legs on one side shorter then of the\nother, though an opinion perhaps not very ancient, is yet very general;\nreceived not only by Theorists and unexperienced believers, but assented\nunto by most who have the opportunity to behold and hunt them daily.\nWhich notwithstanding upon enquiry I find repugnant unto the three\nDeterminators of Truth, Authority, Sense, and Reason. For first,\n_Albertus Magnus_ speaks dubiously, confessing he could not confirm the\nverity hereof; but _Aldrovandus_ plainly affirmeth, there can be no\nsuch inequality observed. And for my own part, upon indifferent enquiry,\nI cannot discover this difference, although the regardable side be\ndefined, and the brevity by most imputed unto the left.\n\nAgain, It seems no easie affront unto Reason, and generally repugnant\nunto the course of Nature; for if we survey the total set of Animals, we\nmay in their legs, or Organs of progression, observe an equality of\nlength, and parity of Numeration; that is, not any to have an odd legg,\nor the supporters and movers of one side not exactly answered by the\nother. Although the hinder may be unequal unto the fore and middle legs,\nas in Frogs, Locusts, and Grasshoppers; or both unto the middle, as in\nsome Beetles and Spiders, as is determined by _Aristotle_, _De incessu\nAnimalium_. [SN: De incessu Animalium.] Perfect and viviparous\nquadrupeds, so standing in their position of proneness, that the\nopposite joints of Neighbour-legs consist in the same plane; and a line\ndescending from their Navel intersects at right angles the axis of the\nEarth. It happeneth often I confess that a Lobster hath the Chely or\ngreat claw of one side longer then the other; but this is not properly\ntheir leg, but a part of apprehension, and whereby they hold or seiz\nupon their prey; for the legs and proper parts of progression are\ninverted backward, and stand in a position opposite unto these.\n\nLastly, The Monstrosity is ill contrived, and with some disadvantage;\nthe shortness being affixed unto the legs of one side, which might have\nbeen more tolerably placed upon the thwart or Diagonial Movers. [SN:\n_Diagonion, a line drawn from the cross angles._] For the progression of\nquadrupeds being performed _per Diametrum_, that is the cross legs\nmoving or resting together, so that two are always in motion, and two\nin station at the same time; the brevity had been more tolerable in the\ncross legs. For then the Motion and station had been performed by equal\nlegs; whereas herein they are both performed by unequal Organs, and the\nimperfection becomes discoverable at every hand.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nOf the Bear.\n\n\nThat a Bear brings forth her young informous and unshapen, which she\nfashioneth after by licking them over, is an opinion not only vulgar,\nand common with us at present: but hath been of old delivered by ancient\nWriters. Upon this foundation it was an Hieroglyphick with the\nEgyptians: _Aristotle_ seems to countenance it; _Solinus_, _Pliny_, and\n_AElian_ directly affirm it, and _Ovid_ smoothly delivereth it:\n\n          _Nec catulus partu quem reddidit ursa recenti_\n          _Sed male viva caro est, lambendo mater in artus_\n          _Ducit, et in formam qualem cupit ipsa reducit._\n\nWhich notwithstanding is not only repugnant unto the sense of every one\nthat shall enquire into it, but the exact and deliberate experiment of\nthree Authentick Philosophers. The first of _Mathiolus_ in his Comment\non _Dioscorides_, whose words are to this effect. In the Valley of\n_Anania_ about _Trent_, in a Bear which the Hunters eventerated or\nopened, I beheld the young ones with all their parts distinct: and not\nwithout shape, as many conceive; giving more credit unto _Aristotle_ and\n_Pliny_, then experience and their proper senses. Of the same assurance\nwas _Julius Scaliger_ in his Exercitations, _Ursam foetus informes\npotius ejicere, quam parere, si vera dicunt, quos postea linctu\neffingat: Quid hujusce fabulae authoribus fidei habendum ex hac historia\ncognosces; In nostris Alpibus venatores faetum Ursam cepere, dissecta ea\nfaetus plane formatus intus inventus est_. And lastly, Aldrovandus who\nfrom the testimony of his own eyes affirmeth, that in the Cabinet of the\nSenate of _Bononia_, there was preserved in a Glass a Cub taken out of a\nBear perfectly formed, and compleat in every part.\n\nIt is moreover injurious unto Reason, and much impugneth the course and\nprovidence of Nature, to conceive a birth should be ordained before\nthere is a formation. For the conformation of parts is necessarily\nrequired, not onely unto the pre-requisites and previous conditions of\nbirth, as Motion and Animation: but also unto the parturition or very\nbirth it self: Wherein not only the Dam, but the younglings play their\nparts; and the cause and act of exclusion proceedeth from them both. For\nthe exclusion of Animals is not meerly passive like that of Eggs, nor\nthe total action of delivery to be imputed unto the Mother: but the\nfirst attempt beginneth from the Infant: which at the accomplished\nperiod attempteth to change his Mansion: and strugling to come forth,\ndilacerates and breaks those parts which restrained him before.\n\nBeside (what few take notice of) Men hereby do in an high measure\nvilifie the works of God, imputing that unto the tongue of a Beast,\nwhich is the strangest Artifice in all the acts of Nature; that is the\nformation of the infant in the Womb, not only in Mankind, but all\nviviparous Animals. [SN: _Formation in the Matrix, the admirable work of\nNature._] Wherein the plastick or formative faculty, from matter\nappearing Homogeneous, and of a similary substance, erecteth Bones,\nMembranes, Veins, and Arteries: and out of these contriveth every part\nin number, place, and figure, according to the law of its species. Which\nis so far from being fashioned by any outward agent, that once omitted\nor perverted by a slip of the inward _Phidias_, it is not reducible by\nany other whatsoever. And therefore _Mire me plasmaverunt manus tuae_,\nthough it originally respected the generation of Man, yet is it\nappliable unto that of other Animals; who entring the Womb in bare and\nsimple Materials, return with distinction of parts, and the perfect\nbreath of life. He that shall consider these alterations without, must\nneeds conceive there have been strange operations within; which to\nbehold, it were a spectacle almost worth ones beeing, a sight beyond\nall; except that Man had been created first, and might have seen the\nshew of five dayes after.\n\nNow as the opinion is repugnant both unto sense and Reason, so hath it\nprobably been occasioned from some slight ground in either. Thus in\nregard the Cub comes forth involved in the Chorion, a thick and tough\nMembrane obscuring the formation, and which the Dam doth after bite and\ntear asunder; the beholder at first sight conceives it a rude and\ninformous lump of flesh, and imputes the ensuing shape unto the Mouthing\nof the Dam; which addeth nothing thereunto, but only draws the curtain,\nand takes away the vail which concealed the Piece before. And thus have\nsome endeavoured to enforce the same from Reason; that is, the small and\nslender time of the Bears gestation, or going with her young; which\nlasting but few days (a Month some say) the exclusion becomes\nprecipitous, and the young ones consequently informous; according to\nthat of _Solinus_, _Trigesimus dies uterum liberat ursae; unde evenit ut\npraecipitata faecunditas informes creet partus_. But this will overthrow\nthe general Method of Nature in the works of generation. For therein the\nconformation is not only antecedent, but proportional unto the\nexclusion; and if the period of the birth be short, the term of\nconformation will be as sudden also. There may I confess from this\nnarrow time of gestation ensue a Minority or smalness in the exclusion;\nbut this however inferreth no informity, and it still receiveth the Name\nof a natural and legitimate birth; whereas if we affirm a total\ninformity, it cannot admit so forward a term as an Abortment, for that\nsupposeth conformation. So we must call this constant and intended act\nof Nature, a slip or effluxion [SN: {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER EPSILON WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}.], that is an exclusion\nbefore conformation: before the birth can bear the name of the Parent,\nor be so much as properly called an _Embryon_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nOf the Basilisk\n\n\nMany Opinions are passant concerning the Basilisk or little King of\nSerpents, commonly called the Cockatrice: some affirming, others\ndenying, most doubting the relations made hereof. What therefore in\nthese incertainties we may more safely determine: that such an Animal\nthere is, if we evade not the testimony of Scripture and humane Writers,\nwe cannot safely deny. So it is said _Psalm_ 91. _Super Aspidem et\nBasiliscum ambulabis_, wherein the Vulgar Translation retaineth the Word\nof the Septuagint, using in other places the Latine expression\n_Regulus_, as _Proverbs_ 23. _Mordebit ut coluber, et sicut Regulus\nvenena diffundet_: and _Jeremy_ 8. _Ecce ego mittam vobis serpentes\nRegulos, etc._ That is, as ours translate it, _Behold I will send\nSerpents, Cockatrices among you which will not be charmed, and they\nshall bite you_. And as for humane Authors, or such as have discoursed\nof Animals, or Poisons, it is to be found almost in all: in\n_Dioscorides_, _Galen_, _Pliny_, _Solinus_, _AElian_, _AEtius_, _Avicen_,\n_Ardoynus_, _Grevinus_, and many more. In _Aristotle_ I confess we find\nno mention thereof, but _Scaliger_ in his Comment and enumeration of\nSerpents, hath made supply; and in his Exercitations delivereth that a\nBasilisk was found in _Rome_, in the days of _Leo_ the fourth. The like\nis reported by _Sigonius_; and some are so far from denying one, that\nthey have made several kinds thereof: for such is the _Catoblepas_ of\n_Pliny_ conceived to be by some, and the _Dryinus_ of _AEtius_ by others.\n\nBut although we deny not the existence of the Basilisk, yet whether we\ndo not commonly mistake in the conception hereof, and call that a\nBasilisk which is none at all, is surely to be questioned. For certainly\nthat which from the conceit of its generation we vulgarly call a\nCockatrice, and wherein (but under a different name) we intend a formal\nIdentity and adequate conception with the Basilisk; is not the Basilisk\nof the Ancients, whereof such wonders are delivered. For this of ours is\ngenerally described with legs, wings, a Serpentine and winding tail, and\na crist or comb somewhat like a Cock. But the Basilisk of elder times\nwas a proper kind of Serpent, not above three palms long, as some\naccount; and differenced from other Serpents by advancing his head, and\nsome white marks or coronary spots upon the crown, as all authentick\nWriters have delivered.\n\nNor is this Cockatrice only unlike the Basilisk, but of no real shape in\nNature; and rather an Hieroglyphical fansie, to express different\nintentions, set forth in different fashions. Sometimes with the head of\na Man, sometime with the head of an Hawk, as _Pierius_ hath delivered;\nand as with addition of legs the Heralds and Painters still describe it.\nNor was it only of old a symbolical and allowable invention, but is now\nbecome a manual contrivance of Art, and artificial imposure; whereof\nbesides others, _Scaliger_ hath taken notice: _Basilici formam mentiti\nsunt vulgo Gallinacco similem, et pedibus binis; neque enim absimiles\nsunt caeteris serpentibus, nisi macula quasi in vertice candida, unde\nilli nomen Regium_; that is, men commonly counterfeit the form of a\nBasilisk with another like a Cock, and with two feet; whereas they\ndiffer not from other serpents, but in a white speck upon their Crown.\nNow although in some manner it might be counterfeited in _Indian_ Cocks,\nand flying Serpents, yet is it commonly contrived out of the skins of\nThornbacks, Scaits, or Maids, as _Aldrovand_ hath observed, [SN: _By way\nof figure._] and also graphically described in his excellent Book of\nFishes; and for satisfaction of my own curiosity I have caused some to\nbe thus contrived out of the same Fishes.\n\nNor is onely the existency of this animal considerable, but many things\ndelivered thereof, particularly its poison and its generation.\nConcerning the first, according to the doctrine of the Ancients, men\nstill affirm, that it killeth at a distance, that it poisoneth by the\neye, and by priority of vision. [SN: _Destructive._] Now that\ndeleterious it may be at some distance, and destructive without corporal\ncontaction, what uncertainty soever there be in the effect, there is no\nhigh improbability in the relation. For if Plagues or pestilential Atoms\nhave been conveyed in the Air from different Regions, if men at a\ndistance have infected each other, if the shadows of some trees be\nnoxious, if _Torpedoes_ deliver their opium at a distance, and stupifie\nbeyond themselves; we cannot reasonably deny, that (beside our gross and\nrestrained poisons requiring contiguity unto their actions) there may\nproceed from subtiller seeds, more agile emanations, which contemn those\nLaws, and invade at distance unexpected.\n\nThat this venenation shooteth from the eye, and that this way a Basilisk\nmay empoison, although thus much be not agreed upon by Authors, some\nimputing it unto the breath, others unto the bite, it is not a thing\nimpossible. For eyes receive offensive impressions from their objects,\nand may have influences destructive to each other. [SN: _Effluxion of\ncorporeal species._] For the visible species of things strike not our\nsenses immaterially, but streaming in corporal raies, do carry with them\nthe qualities of the object from whence they flow, and the medium\nthrough which they pass. [SN: _How the Basilisk kills at distance._]\nThus through a green or red Glass all things we behold appear of the\nsame colours; thus sore eyes affect those which are sound, and\nthemselves also by reflection, as will happen to an inflamed eye that\nbeholds it self long in a Glass; thus is fascination made out, and thus\nalso it is not impossible, what is affirmed of this animal, the visible\nrayes of their eyes carrying forth the subtilest portion of their\npoison, which received by the eye of man or beast, infecteth first the\nbrain, and is from thence communicated unto the heart.\n\nBut lastly, That this destruction should be the effect of the first\nbeholder, or depend upon priority of aspection, is a point not easily to\nbe granted, and very hardly to be made out upon the principles of\n_Aristotle_, _Alhazen_, _Vitello_, and others, who hold that sight is\nmade by Reception, and not by extramission; by receiving the raies of\nthe object into the eye, and not by sending any out. For hereby although\nhe behold a man first, the Basilisk should rather be destroyed, in\nregard he first receiveth the rayes of his Antipathy, and venomous\nemissions which objectively move his sense; but how powerful soever his\nown poison be, it invadeth not the sense of man, in regard he beholdeth\nhim not. And therefore this conceit was probably begot by such as held\nthe opinion of sight by extramission; as did _Pythagoras_, _Plato_,\n_Empedocles_, _Hipparrchus_, _Galen_, _Macrobius_, _Proclus_,\n_Simplicius_, with most of the Ancients, and is the postulate of\n_Euclide_ in his Opticks, but now sufficiently convicted from\nobservations of the Dark Chamber.\n\n[Sidenote: _The generation of the Cocks egg._]\n\nAs for the generation of the Basilisk, that it proceedeth from a Cocks\negg hatched under a Toad or Serpent, it is a conceit as monstrous as the\nbrood it self. For if we should grant that Cocks growing old, and unable\nfor emission, amass within themselves some seminal matter, which may\nafter conglobate into the form of an egg, yet will this substance be\nunfruitful. As wanting one principle of generation, and a commixture of\nboth sexes, which is required unto production, as may be observed in the\neggs of Hens not trodden; and as we have made trial in some which are\ntermed Cocks eggs. [SN: Ovum Centeninum, _or the last egg which is a\nvery little one._] It is not indeed impossible that from the sperm of a\nCock, Hen, or other Animal, being once in putrescence, either from\nincubation or otherwise, some generation may ensue, not univocal and of\nthe same species, but some imperfect or monstrous production, even as in\nthe body of man from putrid humours, and peculiar ways of corruption,\nthere have succeeded strange and unseconded shapes of worms; whereof we\nhave beheld some our selves, and read of others in medical observations.\nAnd so may strange and venomous Serpents be several ways engendered; but\nthat this generation should be regular, and alway produce a Basilisk, is\nbeyond our affirmation, and we have good reason to doubt.\n\nAgain, It is unreasonable to ascribe the equivocacy of this form unto\nthe hatching of a Toad, or imagine that diversifies the production. For\nIncubation alters not the species, nor if we observe it, so much as\nconcurs either to the sex or colour: as appears in the eggs of Ducks or\nPartridges hatched under a Hen, there being required unto their\nexclusion only a gentle and continued heat: and that not particular or\nconfined unto the species or parent. So have I known the seed of\nSilk-worms hatched on the bodies of women: and _Pliny_ reports that\n_Livia_ the wife of _Augustus_ hatched an egg in her bosome. Nor is only\nan animal heat required hereto, but an elemental and artificial warmth\nwill suffice: for as _Diodorus_ delivereth, the AEgyptians were wont to\nhatch their eggs in Ovens, and many eye-witnesses confirm that practice\nunto this day. And therefore this generation of the Basilisk, seems like\nthat of _Castor_ and _Helena_; he that can credit the one, may easily\nbelieve the other: that is, that these two were hatched out of the egg\nwhich _Jupiter_ in the form of a Swan, begat on his Mistress _Leda_.\n\nThe occasion of this conceit might be an AEgyptian tradition concerning\nthe Bird _Ibis_: which after became transferred unto Cocks. For an\nopinion it was of that Nation, that the _Ibis_ feeding upon Serpents,\nthat venomous food so inquinated their oval conceptions, or eggs within\ntheir bodies, that they sometimes came forth in Serpentine shapes, and\ntherefore they always brake their eggs, nor would they endure the Bird\nto sit upon them. But how causeless their fear was herein, the daily\nincubation of Ducks, Pea-hens, and many other testifie, and the Stork\nmight have informed them; which Bird they honoured and cherished, to\ndestroy their Serpents.\n\nThat which much promoted it, was a misapprehension of holy Scripture\nupon the Latine translation in _Esa._ 51, _Ova aspidum ruperunt et telas\nArenearum texuerunt, qui comedent de ovis corum morietur, et quod\nconfotum est, erumpet in Regulum_. From whence notwithstanding, beside\nthe generation of Serpents from eggs, there can be nothing concluded;\nand what kind of Serpents are meant, not easie to be determined, for\nTranslations are here very different: _Tremellius_ rendering the Asp\nHaemorrhous, and the Regulus or Basilisk a Viper, and our translation for\nthe Asp sets down a Cockatrice in the Text, and an Adder in the margin.\n\nAnother place of _Esay_ doth also seem to countenance it, Chap. 14. _Ne\nlaeteris Philistaea quoniam diminuta est virga percussoris tui, de radice\nenim colubri egredietur Regulus, et semen ejus absorbens volucrem_,\nwhich ours somewhat favourably rendereth: _Out of the Serpents Root\nshall come forth a Cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying\nSerpent_. But _Tremellius_, _e radice Serpentis prodit Haemorrhous, et\nfructus illius praester volans_; wherein the words are different, but the\nsense is still the same; for therein are figuratively intended _Uzziah_\nand _Ezechias_; for though the Philistines had escaped the minor Serpent\n_Uzziah_, yet from his stock a fiercer Snake should arise, that would\nmore terribly sting them, and that was _Ezeckias_.\n\nBut the greatest promotion it hath received from a misunderstanding of\nthe Hieroglyphical intention. For being conceived to be the Lord and\nKing of Serpents, to aw all others, nor to be destroyed _by any_; the\nAEgyptians hereby implied Eternity, and the awful power of the supreme\nDeitie: and therefore described a crowned Asp or Basilisk upon the heads\nof their gods. As may be observed in the Bembine Table, and other\nAEgyptian Monuments.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nOf the Wolf.\n\n\nSuch a Story as the Basilisk is that of the Wolf concerning priority of\nvision, that a man becomes hoarse or dumb, if a Wolf have the advantage\nfirst to eye him. And this is a plain language affirmed by _Plyny_: _In\nItalia ut creditur, Luporum visus est noxius, vocemque homini, quem\nprius contemplatur adimere_; so is it made out what is delivered by\n_Theocritus_, and after him by _Virgil_:\n\n          _----Vox quoque Moerim\n          Jam fugit ipsa, Lupi Moerim videre priores._\n\nThus is the Proverb to be understood, when during the discourse, if the\nparty or subject interveneth, and there ensueth a sudden silence, it is\nusually said, _Lupus est in fabula_. Which conceit being already\nconvicted, not only by _Scaliger_, _Riolanus_, and others; but daily\nconfutable almost every where out of _England_, we shall not further\nrefute.\n\nThe ground or occasional original hereof, was probably the amazement and\nsudden silence the unexpected appearance of Wolves do often put upon\nTravellers; not by a supposed vapour, or venomous emanation, but a\nvehement fear which naturally produceth obmutescence; and sometimes\nirrecoverable silence. Thus Birds are silent in presence of an Hawk, and\n_Pliny_ saith that Dogs are mute in the shadow of an Hiaena. But thus\ncould not the mouths of worthy Martyrs be silenced, who being exposed\nnot onely unto the eyes, but the merciless teeth of Wolves, gave loud\nexpressions of their faith, and their holy clamours were heard as high\nas Heaven.\n\nThat which much promoted it beside the common Proverb, was an expression\nin _Theocritus_, a very ancient Poet, {~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER PHI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER XI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER LAMDA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~} {~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER IOTA WITH PSILI AND OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER DELTA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}\n_Edere non poteris vocem, Lycus est tibi visus_; which _Lycus_ was Rival\nunto another, and suddenly appearing stopped the mouth of his Corrival:\nnow _Lycus_ signifying also a Wolf, occasioned this apprehension; men\ntaking that appellatively, which was to be understood properly, and\ntranslating the genuine acception. Which is a fallacy of AEquivocation,\nand in some opinions begat the like conceit concerning _Romulus_ and\n_Remus_, that they were fostered by a Wolf, the name of the Nurse being\n_Lupa_; and founded the fable of _Europa_, and her carriage over Sea by\na Bull, because the Ship or Pilots name was _Taurus_. And thus have some\nbeen startled at the Proverb, _Bos in lingua_, confusedly apprehending\nhow a man should be said to have an Oxe in his tongue, that would not\nspeak his mind; which was no more then that a piece of money had\nsilenced him: for by the Oxe was onely implied a piece of coin stamped\nwith that figure, first currant with the _Athenians_, and after among\nthe _Romans_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nOf the Deer.\n\n\nThe common Opinion concerning the long life of Animals, is very ancient,\nespecially of Crows, Choughs and Deer; in moderate accounts exceeding\nthe age of man, in some the days of _Nestor_, and in others surmounting\nthe years of _Artephius_ or _Methuselah_. From whence Antiquity hath\nraised proverbial expressions, and the real conception of their\nduration, hath been the Hyperbolical expression of many others. From all\nthe rest we shall single out the Deer, upon concession a long-lived\nAnimal, and in longaevity by many conceived to attain unto hundreds;\nwherein permitting every man his own belief, we shall our selves crave\nliberty to doubt, and our reasons are these ensuing.\n\nThe first is that of _Aristotle_, drawn from the increment and gestation\nof this Animal, that is, its sudden arrivance unto growth and maturity,\nand the small time of its remainder in the Womb. His words in the\ntranslation of _Scaliger_ are these, _De ejus vitae longitudine\nfabulantur; neque enim aut gestatio aut incrementum hinnulorum ejusmodi\nsunt ut praestent argumentum longaevi animalis_; that is, Fables are\nraised concerning the vivacity of Deer; for neither are their gestation\nor increment, such as may afford an argument of long life. And these,\nsaith _Scaliger_, are good Mediums conjunctively taken, that is, not one\nwithout the other. For of Animals viviparous such as live long, go long\nwith young, and attain but slowly to their maturity and stature. So the\nHorse that liveth above thirty, arriveth unto his stature about six\nyears, and remaineth above ten moneths in the womb: so the Camel that\nliveth unto fifty, goeth with young no less then ten moneths, and\nceaseth not to grow before seven; and so the Elephant that liveth an\nhundred, beareth its young above a year, and arriveth unto perfection at\ntwenty. On the contrary, the Sheep and Goat, which live but eight or ten\nyears, go but five moneths, and attain to their perfection at two years;\nand the like proportion is observable in Cats, Hares, and Conies. And so\nthe Deer that endureth the womb but eight moneths, and is compleat at\nsix years, from the course of Nature, we cannot expect to live an\nhundred; nor in any proportional allowance much more then thirty. As\nhaving already passed two general motions observable in all animations,\nthat is, its beginning and encrease; and having but two more to run\nthorow, that is, its state and declination; which are proportionally set\nout by Nature in every kind: and naturally proceeding admit of inference\nfrom each other.\n\nThe other ground that brings its long life into question, is the\nimmoderate salacity, and almost unparallel'd excess of venery, which\nevery _September_ may be observed in this Animal: and is supposed to\nshorten the lives of Cocks, Partridges, and Sparrows. Certainly a\nconfessed and undeniable enemy unto longaevity, and that not only as a\nsign in the complexional desire and impetuosity, but also as a cause in\nthe frequent act, or iterated performance thereof. For though we consent\nnot with that Philosopher, who thinks a spermatical emission unto the\nweight of one drachm, is aequivalent unto the effusion of sixty ounces of\nbloud; yet considering the exolution and languor ensuing that act in\nsome, the extenuation and marcour in others, and the visible\nacceleration it maketh of age in most: we cannot but think it much\nabridgeth our days. Although we also concede that this exclusion is\nnatural, that Nature it self will find a way hereto without either act\nor object: And although it be placed among the six Non-naturals, that\nis, such as neither naturally constitutive, nor meerly destructive, do\npreserve or destroy according unto circumstance: yet do we sensibly\nobserve an impotency or total privation thereof, prolongeth life: and\nthey live longest in every kind that exercise it not at all. [SN:\n_Eunuchs and gelded creatures generally longer lived._] And this is true\nnot only in Eunuchs by Nature, but Spadoes by Art: for castrated Animals\nin every species are longer lived then they which retain their\nvirilities. For the generation of bodies is not meerly effected as some\nconceive, of souls, that is, by Irradiation, or answerably unto the\npropagation of light, without its proper diminution: but therein a\ntransmission is made materially from some parts, with the Idea of every\none: and the propagation of one, is in a strict acception, some\nminoration of another. [SN: _From the parts of generation._] And\ntherefore also that axiom in Philosophy, that the generation of one\nthing, is the corruption of another: although it be substantially true\nconcerning the form and matter, is also dispositively verified in the\nefficient or producer.\n\nAs for more sensible arguments, and such as relate unto experiment: from\nthese we have also reason to doubt its age, and presumed vivacity: for\nwhere long life is natural, the marks of age are late: and when they\nappear, the journey unto death cannot be long. Now the age of Deer (as\n_Aristotle_ not long ago observed) is best conjectured, by view of the\nhorns and teeth. From the horns there is a particular and annual account\nunto six years: they arising first plain, and so successively branching:\nafter which the judgment of their years by particular marks becomes\nuncertain. But when they grow old, they grow less branched, and first\ndo lose their {~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER MU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER UPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ETA WITH PERISPOMENI~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~} or _propugnacula_; that is, their brow-antlers,\nor lowest furcations next the head, which _Aristotle_ saith the young\nones use in fight: and the old as needless, have them not at all. The\nsame may be also collected from the loss of their Teeth, whereof in old\nage they have few or none before in either jaw. Now these are infallible\nmarks of age, and when they appear, we must confess a declination: which\nnotwithstanding (as men inform us in _England_, where observations may\nwell be made), will happen between twenty and thirty. As for the bone,\nor rather induration of the Roots of the arterial vein and great artery,\nwhich is thought to be found only in the heart of an old Deer, and\ntherefore becomes more precious in its Rarity; it is often found in Deer\nmuch under thirty, and we have known some affirm they have found it in\none of half that age. And therefore in that account of _Pliny_, of a\nDeer with a Collar about his neck, put on by _Alexander_ the Great, and\ntaken alive an hundred years after, with other relations of this nature,\nwe much suspect imposture or mistake. And if we grant their verity, they\nare but single relations, and very rare contingencies in individuals,\nnot affording a regular deduction upon the species. For though _Ulysses_\nhis Dog lived unto twenty, and the _Athenian_ Mule unto fourscore, yet\ndo we not measure their days by those years, or usually say, they live\nthus long. Nor can the three hundred years of _John_ of times [SN:\n_Psalm_ 90.], or _Nestor_, overthrow the assertion of _Moses_, or afford\na reasonable encouragement beyond his septuagenary determination.\n\nThe ground and authority of this conceit was first Hierogliphical, the\n_AEgyptians_ expressing longaevity by this Animal; but upon what\nuncertainties, and also convincible falsities they often erected such\nEmblems, we have elsewhere delivered. And if that were true which\n_Aristotle_ delivers of his time [SN: Histor. animal. lib. 8.], and\n_Pliny_ was not afraid to take up long after, the _AEgyptians_ could make\nbut weak observations herein; for though it be said that _AEneas_ feasted\nhis followers with Venison, yet _Aristotle_ affirms that neither Deer\nnor Boar were to be found in _Africa_. And how far they miscounted the\nlives and duration of Animals, is evident from their conceit of the\nCrow, which they presume to live five hundred years; and from the lives\nof Hawks, which (as _AElian_ delivereth) the _AEgyptians_ do reckon no\nless then at seven hundred.\n\nThe second which led the conceit unto the _Grecians_, and probably\ndescended from the Egyptians was Poetical; and that was a passage of\n_Hesiod_, thus rendered by _Ausonius_.\n\n          _Ter binos deciesque novem super exit in annos,\n          Justa senescentum quos implet vita virorum.\n          Hos novies superat vivendo gorrula cornix,\n          Et quater egreditur cornicis saecula cervus,\n          Alipidem cervum ter vincit corvus.----_\n\n          To ninety six the life of man ascendeth,\n          Nine times as long that of the Chough extendeth,\n          Four times beyond the life of Deer doth go,\n          And thrice is that surpassed by the Crow.\n\nSo that according to this account, allowing ninety six for the age of\nMan, the life of a Deer amounts unto three thousand four hundred fifty\nsix. A conceit so hard to be made out, that many have deserted the\ncommon and literal construction. So _Theon_ in _Aratus_ would have the\nnumber of nine not taken strictly, but for many years. In other\nopinions the compute so far exceedeth the truth, that they have thought\nit more probable to take the word _Genea_, that is, a generation\nconsisting of many years, but for one year, or a single revolution of\nthe Sun; which is the remarkable measure of time, and within the compass\nwhereof we receive our perfection in the womb. So that by this\nconstruction, the years of a Deer should be but thirty six, as is\ndiscoursed at large in that Tract of _Plutarch_, concerning the\ncessation of Oracles; and whereto in his discourse of the Crow,\n_Aldrovandus_ also inclineth. Others not able to make it out, have\nrejected the whole account, as may be observed from the words of\n_Pliny_, _Hesiodus qui primus aliquid de longaevitate vitae prodidit,\nfabulose (reor) multa de hominum aevo referens, cornici novem nostras\nattribuit aetates, quadruplum ejus cervis, id triplicatum corvis, et\nreliqua fabulosius de Phoenice et nymphis_. And this how slender\nsoever, was probably the strongest ground Antiquity had for this\nlongaevity of Animals; that made _Theophrastus_ expostulate with Nature\nconcerning the long life of Crows; that begat that Epithete of Deer [SN:\n{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER EPSILON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER TAU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER KAPPA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON WITH OXIA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER RHO~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER NU~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER OMICRON~}{~GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA~}.] in _Oppianus_, and that expression of _Juvenal_,\n\n          _----Longa et cervina senectus._\n\nThe third ground was Philosophical, and founded upon a probable Reason\nin Nature, that is, the defect of a Gall, which part (in the opinion of\n_Aristotle_ and _Pliny_) this Animal wanted, and was conceived a cause\nand reason of their long life: according (say they) as it happeneth unto\nsome few men, who have not this part at all. But this assertion is first\ndefective in the verity concerning the Animal alledged: for though it be\ntrue, a Deer hath no Gall in the Liver like many other Animals, yet\nhath it that part in the Guts, as is discoverable by taste and colour:\nand therefore _Pliny_ doth well correct himself, when having affirmed\nbefore it had no Gall, he after saith, some hold it to be in the guts;\nand that for their bitterness, dogs will refuse to eat them. The\nassertion is also deficient in the verity of the Induction or\nconnumeration of other Animals conjoined herewith, as having also no\nGall; that is, as _Pliny_ accounteth, _Equi_, _Muli_, etc. Horses,\nMules, Asses, Deer, Goats, Boars, Camels, Dolphins, have no Gall. In\nDolphins and Porpoces I confess I could find no Gall. But concerning\nHorses, what truth there is herein we have declared before; as for Goats\nwe find not them without it; what Gall the Camel hath, _Aristotle_\ndeclareth: that Hogs also have it, we can affirm; and that not in any\nobscure place, but in the Liver, even as it is seated in man.\n\nThat therefore the Deer is no short-lived Animal, we will acknowledge:\nthat comparatively, and in some sense long-lived we will concede; and\nthus much we shall grant if we commonly account its days by thirty six\nor forty: for thereby it will exceed all other cornigerous Animals. But\nthat it attaineth unto hundreds, or the years delivered by Authors,\nsince we have no authentick experience for it, since we have reason and\ncommon experience against it, since the grounds are false and fabulous\nwhich do establish it: we know no ground to assent.\n\nConcerning Deer there also passeth another opinion, that the Males\nthereof do yearly lose their pizzel. For men observing the decidence of\ntheir horns, do fall upon the like conceit of this part, that it\nannually rotteth away, and successively reneweth again. Now the ground\nhereof was surely the observation of this {~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH DASIA~}{~GREEK CAPITAL LETTER ALPHA WITH PSILI~}\npart in Deer after immoderate\nvenery, and about the end of their Rut, which sometimes becomes so\nrelaxed and pendulous, it cannot be quite retracted: and being often\nbeset with flies, it is conceived to rot, and at last to fall from the\nbody. But herein experience will contradict us: for Deer which either\ndie or are killed at that time, or any other, are always found to have\nthat part entire. And reason will also correct us: for spermatical\nparts, or such as are framed from the seminal principles of parents,\nalthough homogeneous or similary, will not admit a Regeneration, much\nless will they receive an integral restauration, which being organical\nand instrumental members, consist of many of those. Now this part, or\nAnimal of _Plato_, containeth not only sanguineous and reparable\nparticles: but is made up of veins, nerves, arteries, and in some\nAnimals, of bones: whose reparation is beyond its own fertility, and a\nfruit not to be expected from the fructifying part it self. Which\nfaculty were it communicated unto Animals, whose originals are double,\nas well as unto Plants, whose seed is within themselves: we might abate\nthe Art of _Taliacotius_, and the new in-arching of Noses. And therefore\nthe fancies of Poets have been so modest, as not to set down such\nrenovations, even from the powers of their deities: for the mutilated\nshoulder of _Pelops_ was pieced out with Ivory, and that the limbs of\n_Hippolitus_ were set together, not regenerated by _AEsculapius_, is the\nutmost assertion of Poetry.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nOf the King-fisher.\n\n\nThat a King-fisher hanged by the bill, sheweth in what quarter the wind\nis by an occult and secret propriety, converting the breast to that\npoint of the Horizon from whence the wind doth blow, is a received\nopinion, and very strange; introducing natural Weather-cocks, and\nextending Magnetical positions as far as Animal Natures. A conceit\nsupported chiefly by present practice, yet not made out by Reason or\nExperience.\n\n[Sidenote: _Whence it is, that some creatures presage the weather._]\n\nUnto Reason it seemeth very repugnant, that a carcass or body\ndisanimated, should be so affected with every wind, as to carry a\nconformable respect and constant habitude thereto. For although in\nsundry Animals we deny not a kind of natural Meteorology or innate\npresention both of wind and weather, yet that proceeding from sense\nreceiving impressions from the first mutation of the air, they cannot in\nreason retain that apprehension after death, as being affections which\ndepend on life, and depart upon disanimation. And therefore with more\nfavourable Reason may we draw the same effect or sympathie upon the\nHedg-hog, whose presention of winds is so exact, that it stoppeth the\nNorth or Southern hole of its nest, according to the prenotion of these\nwinds ensuing: which some men observing, have been able to make\npredictions which way the wind would turn, and been esteemed hereby wise\nmen in point of weather. Now this proceeding from sense in the creature\nalive, it were not reasonable to hang up an Hedg-hogs head, and to\nexpect a conformable motion unto its living conversion. And though in\nsundry Plants their vertues do live after death, and we know that\nScammony, Rhubarb and Senna will purge without any vital assistance; yet\nin Animals and sensible creatures, many actions are mixt, and depend\nupon their living form, as well as that of mistion; and though they\nwholly seem to retain unto the body, depart upon disunion. Thus\nGlow-worms alive, project a lustre in the dark, which fulgour\nnotwithstanding ceaseth after death; and thus the Torpedo which being\nalive stupifies at a distance, applied after death, produceth no such\neffect; which had they retained in places where they abound, they might\nhave supplied Opium, and served as frontals in Phrensies.\n\nAs for experiment, we cannot make it out by any we have attempted; for\nif a single King-fisher be hanged up with untwisted silk in an open\nroom, and where the air is free, it observes not a constant respect unto\nthe mouth of the wind, but variously converting, doth seldom breast it\nright. If two be suspended in the same room, they will not regularly\nconform their breasts, but oft-times respect the opposite points of\nHeaven. And if we conceive that for exact exploration, they should be\nsuspended where the air is quiet and unmoved, that clear of impediments,\nthey may more freely convert upon their natural verticity; we have also\nmade this way of inquisition, suspending them in large and capacious\nglasses closely stopped; wherein nevertheless we observed a casual\nstation, and that they rested irregularly upon conversion. Wheresoever\nthey rested, remaining inconverted, and possessing one point of the\nCompass, whilst the wind perhaps had passed the two and thirty.\n\n[Sidenote: _Commonly mistaken for the true Halcion, ours being rather\nthe Ispida._]\n\nThe ground of this popular practice might be the common opinion\nconcerning the vertue prognostick of these Birds; as also the natural\nregard they have unto the winds, and they unto them again; more\nespecially remarkable in the time of their nidulation, and bringing\nforth their young. For at that time, which happeneth about the brumal\nSolstice, it hath been observed even unto a proverb, that the Sea is\ncalm, and the winds do cease, till the young ones are excluded; and\nforsake their nest which floateth upon the Sea, and by the roughness of\nwinds might otherwise be overwhelmed. But how far hereby to magnifie\ntheir prediction we have no certain rule; for whether out of any\nparticular prenotion they chuse to sit at this time, or whether it be\nthus contrived by concurrence of causes and providence of Nature,\nsecuring every species in their production, is not yet determined.\nSurely many things fall out by the design of the general motor, and\nundreamt of contrivance of Nature, which are not imputable unto the\nintention or knowledge of the particular Actor. So though the seminality\nof Ivy be almost in every earth, yet that it ariseth and groweth not,\nbut where it may be supported; we cannot ascribe the same unto the\ndistinction of the seed, or conceive any science therein which suspends\nand conditionates its eruption. So if, as _Pliny_ and _Plutarch_ report,\nthe Crocodiles of _AEgypt_ so aptly lay their Eggs, that the Natives\nthereby are able to know how high the floud will attain; it will be hard\nto make out, how they should divine the extent of the inundation\ndepending on causes so many miles remote; that is, the measure of\nshowers in _AEthiopia_; and whereof, as _Athanasius_ in the life of\n_Anthony_ delivers, the Devil himself upon demand could make no clear\nprediction. So are there likewise many things in Nature, which are the\nfore runners or signs of future effects, whereto they neither concur in\ncausality or prenotion, but are secretly ordered by the providence of\ncauses, and concurrence of actions collateral to their signations.\n\nIt was also a custome of old to keep these Birds in chests, upon opinion\nthat they prevented Moths; whether it were not first hanged up in Rooms\nto such effects, is not beyond all doubt. Or whether we mistake not the\nposture of suspension, hanging it by the bill, whereas we should do it\nby the back; that by the bill it might point out the quarters of the\nwind; for so hath _Kircherus_ described the Orbis and the Sea Swallow.\nBut the eldest custome of hanging up these birds was founded upon a\ntradition that they would renew their feathers every year as though they\nwere alive: In expectation whereof four hundred years ago _Albertus\nMagnus_ was deceived.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nPrinted by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n          at the Edinburgh University Press\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's End Notes\n\nSpelling has been left as it stands in the printed original from which\nthis text was prepared. Archaicisms are therefore retained, including\nany variant spellings. The word 'then', for instance, is frequently\nused in lieu of the modern 'than'.\n\nIn the Latin citations in the Annotator's notes, the semicolon is used\nas an abbreviation for 'que', as \"ingeniumq;\". Though the semicolon\nis printed closer to the preceding letter than in normal usage, no\nattempt is made here to render it differently.\n\nOn occasion, the modern 'itself' and 'myself' are broken across a line\nend without hyphenation (e.g., \"it / self\" on p. 335).\n\nObvious printing errors, including missing characters, that have been\ncorrected, are noted here:\n\nErrors corrected:\n\np. xxii             | _...l. 1, des Ess._ c. 14.    | 'c' is italicized\n                                                    | elsewhere.\np.  76     [ti]tle  | missing letters supplied      |\n                         from context.              |","title":"The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":125294}