54 



A TREATISE 



draw a likene^e ? Or to paint a halfe, or a cAnfe } or an t 

 haveany undeiilanding, we cannot choofe but underftand , that 

 thefa not ions are extreamiy different , from whatfoevcr cometh 

 in unto us by the mediation or our f<.nfts: and then if we reflect, 

 how the whole negotiation of our undcrftanding is *, and fey re- 

 fyttts; muft it libt follow ntceffarily,that our loule is of an ex- 

 treame different nature from our fenies, and from our Imaginati- 

 on? Nay, if we look well into this argument, wee fh all fee, 

 that whereas Ariftetle pretendeth, that Nihileft in intetttttu quod 

 *on f rifts fait infenftt ; this Maxime is fofarre from being true, 

 (in rigour of the words ) that the, quite contrary followeth un- 

 deniably out of it ; to wit, thitNihit eft in intellect* quodfuit pritu 

 in fenfa. Which I doe not (*y to contradict Anftotle (for his 

 words are true in the meaning he fpoke them; ) buttofhew,how 



things arc fo much changed by coming into the underftanding and 

 into the foule,that although on the one fide, they be the very fame 

 things, yet on the: other fide there rcmaineth no likenetfe at all 

 between them in themfelves as they are in the underftanding; 

 which isa moft evident proofe, ( when the weight of it is duely 

 confidercd) that the nature- cf our foule, is mainly different from 

 the na'urc of all corporeal) things, that corne into our fenfe. 

 - By this which we now come from declaring, tke admiration, 



'hat corporc- how corporiall things can be in the foule, and how they are fpi- 

 11 things are ritualized by their own being fo, will in part be taken away : for 

 "ritualized in reflecting that all the notions of the foule, are nothing but the ge- 

 ic underftar.- nera j[ j-; O tion of a fubftancHyOi of a thin? joyned with fome parti- 

 me by means __ ., , J * r , , &- r a 



tthc lou'-os cu -* r re }r e "> " tben we conhder, that the reipects may be fo orde- 

 orking in red, t hut one refped may be included in another, we fhall fee, that 

 nd by re- there maybe fome one refpe&, which may include all thofe refpecls 

 jcfts. t fa explicate the nature of fome one thing : and in this cafe, th 



generall notion of a thing coupled with this refpecT:, will contain 

 h b- *^ whatfoever is in the thing : 85 for example , the notion of a 

 ;rafting of ^ n ^ f **>** ** ** * ^"g * CH * witkttt , includeth fas we have for- 

 otions from merly declared) all tnat bclongtth unto a knife. And thus you 

 H particular fee, how that myfticall phrafe,x>f cerporeall things being ipintti- 

 nd individual i a ii Ee d ln the i ou j e> fignifieth no more , but chat the fuuilirudes 

 c r ^ e e ^ s e '. doth which arc of them in the foule, are RtfreKs. 

 lateriality^f ^^ u$ ^^5 collected out of the nature of Apprfhevjion in 

 ^ foule. common, as much as we conceive needfull in this place to provs 



our 



