_MADAM,_
I perceive by your last, that you cannot well apprehend my meaning,
when I say that the print or figure of a Body Printed or Carved, is
not made by the motions of the body Printing or Carving it, but by the
motions of the body or substance Printed or Carved; for say you, Doth
a piece of Wood carve it self, or a black Patch of a Lady cut its own
figure by its own motions? Before I answer you, _Madam_, give me leave
to ask you this question, whether it be the motion of the hand, or the
Instrument, or both, that print or carve such or such a body? Perchance
you will say, that the motion of the hand moves the Instrument, and the
Instrument moves the Wood which is to be carved: Then I ask, whether
the motion that moves the Instrument, be the Instruments, or the Hands?
Perchance you will say the Hands; but I answer, how can it be the Hands
motion, if it be in the Instrument? You will say, perhaps, the motion
of the hand is transferred out of the hand into the instrument, and so
from the instrument into the carved figure; but give me leave to ask
you, was this motion of the hand, that was transferred, Corporeal or
Incorporeal? If you say, Corporeal, then the hand must become less and
weak, but if Incorporeal, I ask you, how a bodiless motion can have
force and strength to carve and cut? But put an Impossible proposition,
as that there is an Immaterial motion, and that this Incorporeal motion
could be transferred out of one body into another; then I ask you, when
the hand and instrument cease to move, what is become of the motion?
Perhaps you will say, the motion perishes or is annihilated, and when
the hand and the instrument do move again, to the carving or cutting of
the figure, then a new Incorporeal Motion is created; Truly then there
will be a perpetual creation and annihilation of Incorporeal motions,
that is, of that which naturally is nothing; for an Incorporeal being
is as much as a natural No-thing, for Natural reason cannot know nor
have naturally any perception or Idea of an Incorporeal being: besides,
if the motion be Incorporeal, then it must needs be a supernatural
Spirit, for there is not any thing else Immaterial but they, and then
it will be either an Angel or a Devil, or the Immortal Soul of man; but
if you say it is the supernatural Soul, truly I cannot be perswaded
that the supernatural Soul should not have any other imployment then
to carve or cut prints, or figures, or move in the hands, or heels,
or legs, or arms of a Man; for other animals have the same kind of
Motions, and then they might have a Supernatural Soul as well as Man,
which moves in them. But if you say, that these transferrable motions
are material, then every action whereby the hand moves to the making
or moving of some other body, would lessen the number of the motions
in the hand, and weaken it, so that in the writing of one letter,
the hand would not be able to write a second letter, at least not
a third. But I pray, _Madam_, consider rationally, that though the
Artificer or Workman be the occasion of the motions of the carved
body, yet the motions of the body that is carved, are they which put
themselves into such or such a figure, or give themselves such or such
a print as the Artificer intended; for a Watch, although the Artist
or Watch-maker be the occasional cause that the Watch moves in such
or such an artificial figure, as the figure of a Watch, yet it is the
Watches own motion by which it moves; for when you carry the Watch
about you, certainly the Watch-makers hand is not then with it as to
move it; or if the motion of the Watch-makers hand be transferred into
the Watch, then certainly the Watch-maker cannot make another Watch,
unless there be a new creation of new motions made in his hands; so
that God and Nature would be as much troubled and concerned in the
making of Watches, as in the making of a new World; for God created
this World in six days, and rested the seventh day, but this would be a
perpetual Creation; Wherefore I say that some things may be Occasional
causes of other things, but not the Prime or Principal causes; and this
distinction is very well to be considered, for there are no frequenter
mistakes then to confound these two different causes, which make so
many confusions in natural Philosophy; and this is the Opinion of,
Madam,
_Your Faithful Friend_
_and Servant._