WHEREFORE the WOMB being most extended in its upper Part, call’d the _Bottom_; and both the _Bladder_ and RECTUM below being soft loose _Parts_, it necessarily follows, that the WOMB may freely _ascend_ and _descend_ upon Occasion, as we often find it in the _Cavity_ of the _Belly_; which, however, does not happen to All _Women_ alike. BUT, in short, these _extensive_ and _ascensive Faculties_ of the WOMB, chiefly residing in its _Bottom_; I would have it laid down for a certain _Maxim_ of Truth, that _These_ exert themselves, without any the least _Extenuation_ to the _Uterine Substance_: Which Position leads me directly to consider—— [Illustration] CHAP. XI. _Of the Substantial Density of the WOMB._ TOUCHING the _Thickness_ of the _Pregnant_ WOMB, _Authors_ have differ’d extremely: _Some_ thinking, that as the WOMB grows _Larger_, it grows _Thicker_; and _Others_ the _Reverse_, that as it _extends_, it grows _Thinner_. NOW these _Opinions_ being both diametrically opposite _One_ to the _Other_, as _Both_ (perhaps) may be contrary to _Truth_, I shall freely and ingenuously offer my _Sentiments_ in a few Words; not that I vainly desire to engage myself in any _Controversy_: Save only, because the true _Knowledge_ of this Point, is so Material and Consequential for all _MIDWIVES_, especially in _Cases_ of difficult and preternatural BIRTHS, that I cannot well excuse myself, should I pass it by with _Silence_ in this Place. MR. _MAURICEAU_, in his _Book_ of the _Diseases_ of Women, contradicting the Authority of _Riolanus_, _Bartholinus_, and the whole Body of the most Renown’d and Ingenious _Anatomists_, both _Ancient_ and _Modern_, is at great Pains to make us believe, that the _impregnated_ WOMB is (like the _Bladder_) in this Case; _the more it is extended, the thinner it grows_. BUT as his quoted Authority of _Galen_ and _Carol_. _Stephanus_ cannot be sufficient against so many good _Authors_ of the _contrary Opinion_; so neither will his _Demonstrations_ of WAX, nor _Comparisons with the_ WOMBS of _Animals_, be sufficient to make out his _Argument_, against confirm’d _Experience_, common _Sense_, and current _Reason_. Which Point of _Experience_ I judge this _Author_ to have been deficient in, otherwise he would certainly have given us some _particular Instance_ or other of it, and not had _Recourse_ to _Inconsistencies_ for supporting his new-fashion’d unreceiv’d _Notion_. For what _Comparison_ can there be betwixt an _Animate_ and _Inanimate Body_? Or what _Affinity_ betwixt the _WOMB_ of _Animals_ and that of _Women_, who are form’d after the _Image_ of GOD, and (by a _Prerogative_ above all other _Creatures_) are furnished with a _WOMB_ very _different_ from them?