_MADAM,_
Reason and Intellect are two different things to your _Author_;[1]
for _Intellect_, says he, _doth properly belong to the Immortal Soul,
as being a Formal Light, and the very substance of the Soul it self,
wherein the Image of God onely consists; But Reason is an uncertain,
frail faculty of the Mortal Soul, and doth in no ways belong, nor has
any communion with the Intellect of the Mind._ Which seems to me, as
if your _Author_ did make some difference between the Divine, and
the Natural Soul in Man, although he doth not plainly declare it in
the same Terms; for that which I name the Divine Soul, is to him the
Immortal Mind, Intellect, or Understanding, and the Seat of the Image
of God; but the Natural Soul he calls the Frail, Mortal, and Rational
Soul; and as Understanding is the Essence of the Immortal, so Reason
is to him the Essence of the Mortal Soul; which Reason he attributes
not only to Man, but also to Brutes: For _Reason and Discourse_, says
he, _do not obscurely flourish and grow in brute Beasts, for an aged
Fox is more crafty then a younger one by rational discourse_; and
again, _That the Rational Part of the Soul doth belong to brutes, is
without doubt_: Wherein he rightly dissents from those, which onely
do attribute a sensitive Soul to brutes; and Reason to none but Man,
whom therefore they call a Rational Creature, and by this Rational
Faculty do distinguish him from the rest of Animals. And thus I
perceive the difference betwixt your _Authors_ opinion, and theirs,
is, That other Philosophers commonly do make the Rational soul, to be
partly that which I call the supernatural and divine Soul, as onely
belonging to man, and bearing the Image of God, not acknowledging any
other Natural, but a Sensitive soul in the rest of Animals, and a
Vegetative soul in Vegetables; and these three souls, or faculties,
operations, or degrees, (call them what you will, for we shall not
fall out about names,) concurr and joyn together in Man; but the
rest of all Creatures, are void and destitute of Life, as well as of
Soul, and therefore called Unanimate; and thus they make the natural
rational soul, and the divine soul in man to be all one thing, without
any distinguishment; but your _Author_ makes a difference between the
Mortal and Immortal soul in Man; the Immortal he calls the Intellect
or Understanding, and the Mortal soul he calls Reason: but to my
judgment he also attributes to the immortal soul, actions which are
both natural, and supernatural, adscribing that to the divine soul,
which onely belongs to the natural, and taking that from the natural,
which properly belongs to her. Besides, he slights and despises the
Rational soul so, as if she were almost of no value with Man, making
her no substance, but a mental intricate and obscure Being, and so far
from Truth, as if there were no affinity betwixt Truth and Reason,
but that they disagree in their very roots, and that the most refined
Reason may be deceitful. But your _Author_, by his leave, confounds
Reason, and Reasoning, which are two several and distinct things; for
reasoning and arguing differs as much from Reason, as doubtfulness
from certainty of knowledg, or a wavering mind from a constant mind;
for Reasoning is the discoursive, and Reason the understanding part in
Man, and therefore I can find no great difference between Understanding
and Reason: Neither can I be perswaded, that Reason should not remain
with Man after this life, and enter with him into Heaven, although
your _Author_ speaks much against it; for if Man shall be the same
then, which he is now, in body, why not in soul also? 'Tis true, the
Scripture says, he shall have a more glorious body; but it doth not
say, that some parts of the body shall be cast away, or remain behind;
and if not of the body, why of the soul? Why shall Reason, which is
the chief part of the natural Soul, be wanting? Your _Author_ is much
for Intellect or Understanding; but I cannot imagine how Understanding
can be without Reason. Certainly, when he saw the Immortal Soul in
a Vision, to be a formal Light, how could he discern what he saw,
without Reason? How could he distinguish between Light and Darkness,
without Reason? How could he know the Image of the Mind to be the Image
of God, without the distinguishment of Reason? You will say, Truth
informed him, and not Reason. I answer, Reason shews the Truth. You
may reply, Truth requires no distinguishment or judgment. I grant,
that perfect Truth requires not reasoning or arguing, as whether it
be so, or not; but yet it requires reason, as to confirm it to be so,
or not so; for Reason is the confirmation of Truth, and Reasoning is
but the Inquisition into Truth: Wherefore, when our Souls shall be in
the fulness of blessedness, certainly, they shall not be so dull and
stupid, but observe distinctions between God, Angels, and sanctified
Souls; as also, that our glory is above our merit, and that there is
great difference between the Damned, and the Blessed, and that God is
an Eternal and Infinite Being, and onely to be adored, admired, and
loved, and that we enjoy as much as can be enjoyed: All which the Soul
cannot know without the distinguishment of Reason; otherwise we might
say, the Souls in Heaven, love, joy, admire and adore, but know not
what, why, or wherefore; For, shall the blessed Souls present continual
Praises without reason? Have they not reason to praise God for their
happiness, and shall they not remember the Mercies of God, and the
Merits of his Son? For without remembrance of them, they cannot give
a true acknowledgment, although your _Author_ says there is no use of
Memory or remembrance in Heaven: but surely, I believe there is; for if
there were not memory in Heaven, the Penitent Thief upon the Cross his
Prayers had been in vain; for he desired our Saviour to remember him
when he did come into his Kingdom: Wherefore if there be Understanding
in Heaven, there is also Reason; and if there be Reason, there is
Memory also: for all Souls in Heaven, as well as on Earth, have reason
to adore, love, and praise God. But, _Madam_, my study is in natural
Philosophy, not in Theology; and therefore I'le refer you to Divines,
and leave your _Author_ to his own fancy, who by his singular Visions
tells us more news of our Souls, then our Saviour did after his Death
and Resurrection: Resting in the mean time,
Madam,
_Your faithful Friend_
_and Servant._
[1] _Ch._ The hunting or searching out of Sciences. _It._ Of the Image
of the Mind.