Now as that they have eyes is manifest unto sense, so that they have sight not incongruous unto reason; if we call not in question the providence of this provision, that is, to assign the Organs, and yet deny the Office, to grant them eyes and withhold all manner of vision. For as the inference is fair, affirmatively deduced from the action to the Organ, that they have eyes because they see; so is it also from the organ to the action, that they have eyes, therefore some sight designed, if we take the intention of Nature in every species, and except the casual impediments, or morbosities in individuals. But as their eyes are more imperfect then others, so do we conceive of their sight or act of vision, for they will run against things, and hudling forwards fall from high places. So that they are not blind, nor yet distinctly see; there is in them no Cecity, yet more then a Cecutiency; they have sight enough to discern the light, though not perhaps to distinguish of objects or colours; so are they not exactly blind, for light is one object of vision. And this (as _Scaliger_ observeth) might be as full a sight as Nature first intended, for living in darkness under the earth, they had no further need of eyes then to avoid the light; and to be sensible when ever they lost that darkness of earth, which was their natural confinement. And therefore however Translators do render the word of _Aristotle_ or _Galen_, that is, _imperfectos oblæsos_ or _inchoatos_, it is not much considerable; for their eyes are sufficiently begun to finish this action, and competently perfect for this imperfect Vision. And lastly, although they had neither eyes nor sight, yet could they not be termed blind. For blindness being a privative term unto sight, this appellation is not admittible in propriety of speech, and will overthrow the doctrine of privations; which presuppose positive forms or habits, and are not indefinite negations, denying in all subjects, but such alone wherein the positive habits are in their proper Nature, and placed without repugnancy. So do we improperly say a Mole is blind, if we deny it the Organs or a capacity of vision from its created Nature; so when the text of _John_ had said, that person was blind from his nativity, whose cecity our Saviour cured, it was not warrantable in _Nonnus_ to say he had no eyes at all, as in the judgment of _Heinsius_, he describeth in his paraphrase; and as some ancient Fathers affirm, that by this miracle they were created in him. And so though the sense may be accepted, that Proverb must be candidly interpreted, which maketh fishes Mute; and calls them silent which have no voice in Nature.