For I find a certain rhapsody of natural
theology, and of divers parts of logic; and of that part of natural
philosophy which concerneth the principles, and of that other part
of natural philosophy which concerneth the soul or spirit--all these
strangely commixed and confused; but being examined, it seemeth to
me rather a depredation of other sciences, advanced and exalted unto
some height of terms, than anything solid or substantive of itself.
Nevertheless I cannot be ignorant of the distinction which is
current, that the same things are handled but in several respects.
As for example, that logic considereth of many things as they are in
notion, and this philosophy as they are in nature--the one in
appearance, the other in existence; but I find this difference
better made than pursued. For if they had considered quantity,
similitude, diversity, and the rest of those extern characters of
things, as philosophers, and in nature, their inquiries must of
force have been of a far other kind than they are. For doth any of
them, in handling quantity, speak of the force of union, how and how
far it multiplieth virtue? Doth any give the reason why some things
in nature are so common, and in so great mass, and others so rare,
and in so small quantity? Doth any, in handling similitude and
diversity, assign the cause why iron should not move to iron, which
is more like, but move to the loadstone, which is less like? Why in
all diversities of things there should be certain participles in
nature which are almost ambiguous to which kind they should be
referred? But there is a mere and deep silence touching the nature
and operation of those common adjuncts of things, as in nature; and
only a resuming and repeating of the force and use of them in speech
or argument.
Pages:
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170