_MADAM,_
I cannot well apprehend your _Authors_ meaning, when he says,[1] That
_Nature doth rise from its fall_; for if he understands Nature in
general, I cannot imagine how she should fall and rise; for though Man
did fall, yet Nature never did, nor cannot fall, being Infinite: And
therefore in another place,[2] when he saith, that _Nature first being
a beautiful Virgin, was defiled by sin; not by her own, but by Mans
sin, for whose use she was created_; I think it too great a presumption
and arrogancy to say that Infinite Nature was not onely defiled by the
sin of Man, but also to make Man the chief over all Nature, and to
believe Nature was onely made for his sake; when as he is but a small
finite part of Infinite Nature, and almost Nothing in comparison to
it. But I suppose your _Author_ doth not understand Nature in general,
but onely the nature of some Particulars, when he speaks of the fall
and rise of Nature; however, this fall and rise of the nature of
Particulars, is nothing but a change of their natural motions. And so
likewise, I suppose, he understands the nature of Particulars, when
he says in another place,[3] That Nature in diseases is standing,
sitting, and lying; for surely Nature in general has more several
postures then sitting, standing, or lying: As also when he speaks[4] of
the _Vertues and Properties that stick fast in the bosom of Nature_,
which I conceive to be a Metaphorical expression; although I think it
best to avoid Metaphorical, similizing, and improper expressions in
Natural Philosophy, as much as one can; for they do rather obscure
then explain the truth of Nature; nay, your _Author_ himself is of
this opinion,[5] and yet he doth nothing more frequent then bring in
Metaphors and similitudes. But to speak properly, there is not any
thing that sticks fast in the bosom of Nature, for Nature is in a
perpetual motion: Neither can she be _heightened or diminished by Art_;
for Nature will be Nature in despite of her Hand-maid. And as for your
_Authors_ opinion, That _there are no Contraries in Nature_, I am quite
of a contrary mind, that there is a Perpetual war and discord amongst
the parts of Nature, although not in the nature and substance of
Infinite Matter, which is of a simple kind, and knows no contraries in
it self, but lives in Peace, when as the several actions are opposing
and crossing each other; and truly, I do not believe, that there is any
part or Creature of Nature, that hath not met with opposers, let it be
never so small or great. But as War is made by the division of Natures
parts, and variety of natural actions, so Peace is caused by the unity
and simplicity of the nature and essence of onely Matter, which Nature
is peaceable, being always one and the same, and having nothing in it
self to be crossed or opposed by; when as the actions of Nature, or
natural Matter, are continually driving against each other, as being
various and different. Again your _Author_ says, That _a Specifical
being cannot be altered but by Fire, and that Fire is the Death of
other Creatures: also that Alchymy, as it brings many things to a
degree of greater efficacy, and stirs up a new being, so on the other
hand again, it by a privy filching doth enfeeble many things._ I, for
my part, wonder, that Fire, being as your _Author_ says, no substantial
body, but substanceless in its nature, should work such effects; but
however, I believe there are many alterations without Fire, and many
things which cannot be altered by Fire. What your _Authors_ meaning
is of a _new being_, I know not; for, to my reason, there neither is;
nor can be made any new being in Nature, except we do call the change
of motions and figures a new Creation; but then an old suit turned or
dressed up may be called new too. Neither can I conceive his _Filching
or Stealing_: For Nature has or keeps nothing within her self, but
what is her own; and surely she cannot steal from her self; nor can
Art steal from Nature; she may trouble Nature, or rather make variety
in Nature, but not take any thing from her, for Art is the insnarled
motions of Nature: But your _Author_, being a Chymist, is much for
the Art of Fire, although it is impossible for Art to work as Nature
doth; for Art makes of natural Creatures artificial Monsters, and doth
oftner obscure and disturb Natures ordinary actions, then prove any
Truth in Nature. But Nature loving variety doth rather smile at Arts
follies, then that she should be angry with her curiosity: like as
for example, a Poet will smile in expressing the part or action of a
Fool. Wherefore Pure natural Philosophers, shall by natural sense and
reason, trace Natures ways, and observe her actions, more readily then
Chymists can do by Fire and Furnaces; for Fire and Furnaces do often
delude the Reason, blind the Understanding, and make the Judgment
stagger. Nevertheless, your _Author_ is so taken with Fire, that from
thence he imagines a Formal Light, which he believes to be the Tip-top
of Life; but certainly, he had, in my opinion, not so much light as to
observe, that all sorts of light are but Creatures, and not Creators;
for he judges of several Parts of Matter, as if they were several kinds
of Matter, which causes him often to err, although he conceits himself
without any Error. In which conceit I leave him, and rest,
Madam,
_Your faithful Friend_
_and humble Servant._
[1] _Ch._ Nature is ignorant of Contraries.
[2] In the Hist. of _Tartar_.
[3] _Ch._ Disease is an unknown guest.
[4] Nature is ignorant of Contraries.
[5] _Ch._ The Image of the Ferment begets the Mass with Child.