body do not see as the eyes nor hear as the ears nor smell as the nose nor taste as the tongue c. all which makes us prefer the rational and sensitive motions that work to those perceptions in the mentioned organs before the motions in the other parts of the body when as yet these are no less rational or sensible then they although the actions of their sensitive and rational perceptions are after another manner for the motions of digestion growth decay c. are as sensible and as rational as those five sensitive organs or the head and the heart liver lungs spleen stomack bowels and the rest know as well their office and functions and are as sensible of their pains diseases constitutions tempers nourishments c. as the eyes ears nostrils tongue c. know their particular actions and perceptions for although no particular part can know the Infinite parts of Nature yet every part may know it self and its own actions as being self-moving And therefore the head or brains cannot ingross all knowledg to themselves but the other parts of the body have as much in the designing and production of a Creature as the brain has in the production of a Thought for Children are not produced by thoughts no more then digestion or nourishment is produced by the eyes or the making of blood by the ears or the several appetites of the body by the five exterior sensitive organs But although all interior as well as exterior parts of the body have their particular knowledges and perceptions different from those of the head and the five sensitive organs and the heads and organs knowledg and perception are differing from them nevertheless they have acquaintance or correspondence with each other for when the stomack has an appetite to food the mouth and hands endeavour to serve it and the legs are willing to run for it The same may be said of other Appetites Also in case of Oppression when one part of the body is oppressed or in distress all the other parts endeavour to relieve that distressed or afflicted part Thus although there is difference between the particular actions knowledges and perceptions of every part which causes an ignorance betwixt them yet by reason there is knowledg and perception in every part by which each part doth not onely know it self and its own actions but has also a perception of some actions of its neighbouring parts it causes a general intelligence and information betwixt the particular parts of a composed figure which information and intelligence as I have mentioned heretofore is more general betwixt the rational then the sensitive parts for though both the sensitive and rational parts are so closely intermixt that they may have knowledg of each other yet the sensitive parts are not so generally knowing of the concerns of a composed figure as the rational by reason the rational are more free and at liberty then the sensitive which are more incumbred with working on and with the inanimate parts of Matter and therefore it may very well be that a man in a deep contemplative study doth not always feel when he is pinched or touched because all the rational motions of his body concur or join to the conception of his musing thoughts so that onely the sensitive motions in that part do work to the perception of touch when as the rational even of the same part may work to the conception of his thoughts Besides it happeneth oft that there is not always an agreement betwixt the rational and sensitive motions even in the same parts for the rational may move regularly and the sensitive irregularly or the sensitive may move regularly and the rational irregularly nay often there are irregularities and disagreements in the same degree of motions as betwixt rational and rational sensitive and sensitive And although it be proper for the rational to inform the sensitive yet the sensitive do often inform the rational onely they cannot give such a general information as the rational for one rational part can inform all other rational parts in a moment of time and by one act And therefore rational knowledg is not onely in the head or brains but in every part or particle of the body Some Learned conceive That all knowledg is in the Mind and none in the senses For the senses say they present onely exterior objects to the mind who sits as a Judg in the kernel or fourth ventricle of the brain or in the orifice of the stomack and judges of them which in my apprehension is a very odd opinion For first they allow that all knowledg and perception comes by the senses and the sensitive spirits who like faithful servants run to and fro as from the sensitive organs to the brain and back to carry news to the mind and yet they do not grant that they have any knowledg at all which shews they are very dull servants and I wonder how they can inform the mind of what they do not know themselves Perchance they 'l say it is after the manner or way of intelligence by Letters and not by word of mouth for those that carry Letters to and fro know nothing of the business that intercedes betwixt the correspondents and so it may be betwixt the mind and the external object I answer First I cannot believe there 's such a correspondence between the object and the mind of the sentient or perceiver for if the mind and the object should be compared to such two intelligencers they would always have the like perception of each other which we see is not so for oftentimes I have a perception of such or such an object but that object may have no perception of me besides there 's nothing carried from the object to the mind of the sentient by its officers the sensitive spirits as there is betwixt two correspondents for there 's no perception made by an actual emission of parts from the object to the mind for if Perception were made that way not onely some parts of the object but the figure of the whole object would enter through the sensitive organ and presentit self before the mind by reason all objects are not perceived in parts but many in whole and since the exterior figure of the object is onely perceived by the senses then the bare figure would enter into the brain without the body or substance of the object which how it could be I am not able to conceive nay if it were possible truly it would not be hidden from the Minds officers the sensitive spirits except they did carry it veiled or covered but then they would know at least from whence they had it and to whom and how they were to carry it Wherefore it is absurd in my opinion to say that the senses bring all knowledg of exterior objects to the mind and yet have none themselves and that the mind chiefly resides but in one part of the body so that when the
pores of the flesh through which they must enter I cannot readily believe it nay the Motions and Prints would grow so weak and faint in their journey especially if the object be a great way off as they would become of no effect But if their opinion be that Ideas can change and alter then all immaterial substances may do the same and spirits may change and alter into several immaterial figures which in my opinion cannot be for what is supernatural is unalterable and therefore the opinion of Ideas in perception is as irregular as the opinion of senseless atomes in the framing of a Regular World Again Some of our Modern Philosophers are of opinion That the subject wherein Colour and Image are inherent is not the object or thing seen for Image and Colour say they may be there where the thing seen is not As for example The Sun and other visible objects by reflexion in Water or Glass so that there is nothing without us really which we call Image or Colour for the Image or Colour is but an apparition unto us of the motion and agitation which the object works in the brain or spirits and divers times men see directly the same object double as two Candles for one and the like To which I answer That all this doth not prove that the object is not perceived or that an object can be without image or colour or that figure and colour are not the same with the object but it proves that the object enters not the eye but is onely patterned out by the perceptive motions in the optick sense for the reflection of the Sun in Water or Glass is but a copy of the original made by the figurative perceptive motions in the Glass or Water which may pattern out an object as well as we do which copy is patterned out again by our optick perception and so one copy is made by another The truth is Our optick sense could not perceive either the original or copy of an exterior object if it did not make those figures in its own parts and therefore figure and colour are both in the object and the eye and not as they say neither in the object nor in the eye for though I grant that one thing cannot be in two places at once yet there may be several copies made of one original in several parts which are several places at one and the same time which is more probable then that figure and colour should neither be in the object nor in the eye or according to their own words that figure and colour should be there where the thing seen is not which is to separate it from the object a thing against all possibility sense and reason or else that a substanceless and senseless Motion should make a progressive journey from the object to the sentient and there print figure and colour upon the optick sense by a bare agitation or concussion so that the perception or apparition as they call it of an object should onely be according to the stroke the agitation makes as for example the perception of light after such a manner figure after such and colour after another for if Motion be no substance or body and besides void of sense not knowing what it acts I cannot conceive how it should make such different strokes upon both the sensitive organ and the brain and all so orderly that every thing is perceived differently and distinctly Truly this opinion is like Epicurus's of Atomes but how absurd it is to make senseless corpuscles the cause of sense and reason and consequently of perception is obvious to every ones apprehension and needs no demonstration Next as Colour according to their opinion is not inherent any otherwise in the object but by an effect thereof upon us caused by such a motion in the object so neither say they is sound in the thing we hear but in our selves for as a man may see so he may hear double or trebble by multiplication of Ecchoes which are sounds as well as the Original and not being in one and the same place cannot be inherent in the body for the Clapper has no sound in it but motion and maketh motion in the inward parts of the Bell neither has the Bell motion but sound and imparts motion to the air the air again imparts motion to the ear and nerves until it comes to the brain which has motion not sound from the brain it rebounds back into the nerves outward and then it becoms an apparition without which we call sound But Good Lord what a confusion would all this produce if it were thus What need is there of imparting Motion when Nature can do it a much easier way I wonder how rational men can believe that motion can be imparted without matter Next that all this can be done in an instant Again that it is the organ of the sentient that makes colour sound and the like and that they are not really inherent in the object it self For were there no men to perceive such or such a colour figure or sound can we rationally think that object would have no colour figure nor sound at all I will not say That there is no pressure or reaction but they do not make sense or reason several parts may produce several effects by their several compositions but yet this does not prove that there can be no perception but by pressure upon the organ and consequently the brain and that the thing perceived is not really existent in the object but a bare apparition to the sentient the Clapper gives no Motion to the Bell but both the Clapper and the Bell have each their own Motion by which they act in striking each other and the conjunction of such or such parts makes a real sound were there no Ear to hear it Again Concerning the sense of Touch the heat say they we feel from the Fire is in us for it is quite different from that in the fire our heat is pleasure or pain according as it is great or moderate but in the Coal there is no such thing I answer They are so far in the right that the heat we feel is made by the perceptive motions of and in our own parts and not by the fires parts acting upon us but yet if the fire were not really such a thing as it is that is a hot and burning body our sense would not so readily figure it out as it does which proves it is a real copy of a real object and not a meer fantasme or bare imparted motion from the object to the sentient made by pressure and reaction for if so the fire would waste in a moment of time by imparting so much motion to so many sentients besides the several strokes which the several imparted motions make upon the sentient and the reaction from the sentient to the exterior parts would cause such a strong and confused agitation in the sentient that it would
of variety then men of arguments which variety is the cause there are so many extravagant and irregular opinions in the world and I observe that most of the great and famous especially our modern Authors endeavour to deduce the knowledg of causes from their effects and not effects from their causes and think to find out Nature by Art not Art by Nature whereas in my opinion Reason must first consider the cause and then Sense may better perceive the effects Reason must judg Sense execute for Reason is the prime part of Nature as being the corporeal soul or mind of Nature But some are so much in love with Art as they endeavour to prove not onely Nature but also Divinity which is the knowledg of God by Art thus preferring Art before Nature when as Art is but Natures foolish changeling Child and the reason is that some parts of Nature as some Men not knowing all other parts believe there is no reason and but little sense in any part of Nature but themselves nay that it is irreligious to say that there is not considering that God is able to give Sense and Reason to Infinite Nature as well as to a finite part But those are rather irreligious that believe Gods power is confined or that it is not Infinite 8. Of Animal Spirits I am not of the opinion of those that place the cause of all Sense and Motion in the animal Spirits which they call the Purest and most aethereal particles of all bodies in the World whatsoever and the very top and perfection of all Natures operations For Animal Spirits in my opinion are no more then other effects of Nature onely they are not so gross as some but are parts of a most pure refined and rare sort of Inanimate Matter which being intermixed with the parts of Animate Matter and enlivened by them become very subtil and active I will not say that they are of the highest and last degree of Inanimate Matter nearest to the Animate as they do say they have the neerest alliance to spiritualities which in my opinion is as much as to say they are almost nothing or of the first degree of sensitive matter there being no such thing as first and last in Nature but that they are onely such pure and rare parts of Inanimate Matter as are not subject to the exterior perception of humane sense for example as the matter of respiration or the like for as there are Infinite parts of Inanimate Matter so there are also infinite degrees of strength weakness purity impurity hardness softness density rarity swiftness slowness knowledg ignorance c. as also several sorts and degrees of complexions statures constitutions humors wits understanding judgment life death and the like all which degrees although they be in and of the infinite body of Nature yet properly they belong to particular Creatures and have onely a regard to the several parts of Nature which being Infinite in number are also of Infinite degrees according to the Infinite changes of self-motion and the propriety and nature of each figure wherefore that opinion which makes Animal Spirits the prime or principal motion of all things and the chief Agent in Natures three Kingdoms Mineral Animal and Vegetable reduces Infinite Nature to a finite Principle whereas any one that enjoys but so much of humane sense and reason as to have the least perception or insight into Natural things may easily conceive that the Infinite effects of Nature cannot proceed from a finite particular cause nay I am firmly perswaded that they who believe any finite part to be the cause and Principle of Infinite self-moving Nature do in my opinion not onely sin against Nature but against God the Author of Nature who out of his Infinite bounty gave Nature the Power of self-motion But if any one desire to know what then the true cause and Principle of all Natures Creatures and Figures be I answer In my opinion it is not a Spirit or Immaterial substance but Matter but yet not the Inanimate part of Matter but the Animate which being of two degrees rational and sensitive both of them are the Infinite Life and Soul of the Infinite body of Nature and this Animate Matter is also the cause of all infinite works changes figures and parts of Nature as I have declar'd above more at large Now as great a difference as there is between Animate and Inanimate Body and Soul Part and Whole Finite and Infinite so great a difference there is also between the Animal Spirits and the Prime Agent or Movent of Nature which is Animate Matter or which is all one thing corporeal self-motion and as it would be paradoxical to make Inanimate Matter to be the cause of Animate or a part to be the cause of the whole whose part it is or a finite to be the cause of Infinite so paradoxical would it also be to make Animal Spirits the top and perfection of all Natures operations nay so far are they from being the Prime Movent of other bodies as they are but moved themselves for to repeat what I mentioned in the beginning Animal Spirits are onely some sorts of rare and pure Inanimate Matter which being thorowly intermixt with the animate parts of Matter are more active then some sorts of more dense and grosser parts of Inanimate Matter I say some for I do believe that some of the most solid bodies are as active as the most rare and fluid parts of Matter if not exteriously yet interiously and therefore we cannot say that rare and fluid parts are more active then fixt and solid or that fixt and solid are less active then fluid bodies because all parts are self-moving But if I was to argue with those that are so much for Animal Spirits I would ask them first whether Animal Spirits be self-moving If they say they are I am of their opinion and do infer thence that if animal spirits which are but a small part of Nature have self-motion much more has Nature her self But if not I would ask what gives them that motion they have If they say Nature then Nature must be self-moving Perchance they 'l say God moves Nature 'T is true God is the first Author of Motion as well as he is of Nature but I cannot believe that God should be the Prime actual Movent of all natural Creatures and put all things into local motion like as one wheel in a Clock turns all the rest for Gods Power is sufficient enough to rule and govern all things by an absolute Will and Command or by a Let it be done and to impart self-motion to Nature to move according to his order and decree although in a natural way Next I would ask whether any dead Creature have such Animal Spirits If they affirm it I am of their mind if not then I would ask what causes in dead bodies that dissolution which we see Thirdly I would ask whether those animal spirits
heel is touched the sensitive spirits who watch in that place do run up to the head and bring news to the mind Truly if the senses have no knowledg of themselves How comes it that a man born blind cannot tell what the light of the Sun is or the light of a Candle or the light of a Glow-worms tail For though some objects of one sense may be guessed by the perception of another sense as we may guess by touch the perception of an object that belongs to sight c. yet we cannot perfectly know it except we saw it by reason the perception of sight belongs onely to the optick sense But some may ask if a man be so blind that he cannot make use of his optick sense what is become of the sensitive motions in that same part of his body to wit the optick sensorium I answer The motions of that part are not lost because the man is blind and cannot see for a privation or absence of a thing doth not prove that it is quite lost but the same motions which formerly did work to the perception of sight are onely changed and work now to some other action then the perception of sight so that it is onely a change or alteration of motions in the same parts and not an annihilation for there 's no such thing as an annihilation in Nature but all the variety in Nature is made by change of motions Wherefore to conclude the opinion of sense and reason or a sensitive and rational knowledg in all parts of Nature is in my judgment more probable and rational then the Opinion which confines all knowledg of Nature to a mans Brains or Head and allows none neither to the Senses nor to any part of Nature 37. Several Questions and Answers concerning Knowledg and Perception I Am not ignorant that endless questions and objections may be raised upon one subject and to answer them would be an infinite labour But since I desire to be perspicuous in delivering my opinions and to remove all those scruples which seem to obstruct the sense thereof I have chosen rather to be guilty of prolixity and repetitions then to be obscure by too much brevity And therefore I will add to my former discourse of knowledg and perception the resolution of these following questions which I hope will render it more intelligible Q. 1. What difference is there between Self-knowledg and Perception I answer There is as much difference betwixt them as betwixt a whole and its parts or a cause and its effects For though Self-motion be the occasional cause of particular perceptions by reason it is the cause of all particular actions of Nature and of the variety of figures yet self-knowledg is the ground or fundamental cause of Perception for were there not selfknowledg there could not be perception by reason perceptions are nothing else but particular exterior knowledges or knowledges of exterior parts and actions occasioned by the various compositions and divisions of parts so that self-moving Matter has a perceptive self-knowledg and consisting of infinite Parts those parts have particular self-knowledges and perceptions according to the variety of the corporeal figurative motions which as they are particular cannot be infinite in themselves for although a whole may know its parts yet the parts cannot possibly know the whole because an infinite may know a finite but a finite cannot know an infinite Nevertheless when many parts are regularly composed those parts by a conjunction or union of their particular self-knowledges and perceptions of each other may know more and so judg more probably of infinite as I have declared above but as for single parts there is no such thing in Nature no more then there can be an Infinite part Q. 2. Whether the Inanimate Part of Matter may not have self-knowledg as well as the Animate I answer That in my opinion and according to the conceptions of my sense and reason the Inanimate part of matter has self-knowledg as well as the Animate but not Perception for it is onely the animate part of matter that is perceptive and this animate matter being of a two-fold degree sensitive and rational the rational not being incumbred with the inanimate parts has a more clear and freer perception then the sensitive which is well to be observed for though the rational sensitive and inanimate parts of matter make but one infinite self-moving body of Nature yet there are infinite particular self-knowledges for Nature is divided into infinite parts and all parts of Nature are self-knowing But as all are not animate so all are not perceptive for Perception though it proceeds from self-knowledg as its ground or principle yet it is also an effect of self-motion for were there no self-motion there would be no perception and because Nature is self-moving all her parts are so too and as all her parts are moving so they have all compositions and divisions and as all are subject to compositions and divisions so all have variety of self-knowledg so that no part can be ignorant And by reason self-knowledg is the ground and Principle of Perception it knows all the effects by the variety of their changes therefore the Inanimate part of Matter may for any thing I know or perceive be as knowing as the other parts of Nature for although it be the grossest part and so the dullest wanting self-motion yet by the various divisions and compositions which the animate parts do make the inanimate may be as knowing as the animate But some may say If Inanimate Matter were knowing of it self then it would also be sensible of it self I answer Self-knowledg is so far sensible of it self that it knows it self and therefore the inanimate part of Matter being self-knowing may be sensible of its own self-knowledg but yet it is not such a sense as self-moving matter has that is a perceptive sense for the difference of animate and inanimate Matter consists herein that one is self-moving and consequently perceptive but the other not and as animate matter is self-moving as well as self-knowing so it is the chief and architectonical part of Nature which causes all the variety that is in Nature for without animate Matter there could be no composition and division and so no variety and without inanimate Matter there could not be such solid compositions of parts as there are for the animate part of Matter cannot be so gross as the inanimate and therefore without these degrees there would be no variety of figures nor no composition of solid figures as Animals Vegetables Minerals c. so that those effects which our sense and reason perceives could not be without the degrees of animate and inanimate Matter neither could there be perception without animate Matter by which all the various effects of Nature are perceived for though one Creature cannot perceive all the effects yet the infinite parts of Nature by their infinite actions perceive infinitely Again Some may