being_: Which if so, then a disease, according to his opinion, is made as the World was, that is, out of Nothing; but surely luxurious persons find it otherwise, who eat and drink more then their natural digestive motions can dispose; for those that have infirm bodies, caused by the irregular motions of animate matter, find that a disease proceeds from more then a _non_-being. But, _Madam_, I have neither such an _Archeus_, which can produce, in my mind, an Idea of Consent or approbation of these your _Authors_ opinions, nor such a light that is able to produce a beam of Patience to tarry any longer upon the examination of them; Wherefore I beg your leave to cut off my discourse here, and onely to subscribe my self, as really I am, Madam, _Your humble and_ _faithful Servant._ [1] _Ch._ called _Magnum oporter_. [2] Of the Ideas of Diseases. XII. _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