The MOO N.

By the Moon we must understand that other part of the foul of man, which is not in itself rational, μετέχει μέντοι πῆ λόγε, Aliquo tamen mode rationis particeps. I confefs, reafon may in man have fome influence upon it, but in its own nature it is altogether devoid of it; it is that part of the foul which is ufually called fenfitive, and is common to all other animals as well as unto man; and in him is but the leffer light, and ruleth but the darker part only, and therefore may be moft aptly expreffed by the moon. It is converfant principally about thofe fpecies which are communicated to it, from the outward fenfes; the operations about which are either fimple, or compound: The simple operations are first to receive them as they are communicated from without, and then to retain them for fo long time as it is exercifing itself about them. Secondly, to dijudicate them as they are in themselves, and to discern them as they differ from all other whatfoever. The compound operations are excellently described by a modern author of our own*; who faith, that the liberty of the imagination is threefold, either compofition, or new mixing of objects; tranflation, or new placing of them; creation, or new making them. Now all thefe, or whatsoever else may be

Dr. Reynolds upon the faculties, p. 24.

be comprehended within the compass of the pure fenfitive part of the foul, are but the operations of one faculty, and therefore by one word, aremoft fitly here expreffed. And though the philofophers have ufually distinguished them into more, as into the common fenfe, the fancy, both eftimative, and cogitative; yet really and truly they are but one: for as one fuperior faculty in the superior part of the foul, which is the understanding, could both receive, compound, and collect, as you heard before; what hindereth but the fame may be done in the fame manner in the inferior? And we are not to multiply faculties without neceflity. Befide, the ground of their variety is not to be admit ted. For they fuppofed the operations about their objects to be divers, attributing perception and difcerning to the common fenfe only, dividing and compounding to the fancy.

Now the fancy doth as well perceive and difcern, nay, better too, than the common fense doth; and the common fenfe may be faid to compound, and divide, as the fancy doth: Therefore fome, more quick fighted of late, perceiving this ground not fufficient, that they might be fure to uphold Ariftotle's divifion of the inward fenfes, have found out another way, and fay, that the common fenfe is converfant about a prefent object only, the fancy about that which is abfent; but this feems as weak as the former, and that according to the Peripatetic

Doctrine; forafmuch as the fancy is converfant about an object only while prefent with it; indeed it can detain it a while, until it have done its work about it; fo can the common fenfe alfo; and it can receive it again after it is paffed away, and operate upon it anew, but for this it must be beholden to the memory, and can do nothing upon an object by its own ftrength, but while it hath it present with it. I argue this, only to fhew that they are but one faculty, and therefore by this one word, viz. the Moon, they are both represented: which (as the more fuperior powers of the foul, and all the members of the body,) hath in this state of weaknefs its anfwerable declenfion. I confefs, with Aristotle*, if an old man had a young man's eye, he would fee as well as a young man ; but I deny that which I suppose he meant by it, that is, that he would perceive and difcern as well as a young man, unless he had a young man's internal faculty also. It is one thing, to fee, it is another thing, to know that a man fees, and to distinguish what colour, and what figure he fees. As age brings a weaknefs upon the outward fenfes, fo that they cannot fee, fo alfo upon the inward, that they cannot difcern could they fee; and this is most fignificantly expreffed by old Barzillai, when King David would have had him, to feed him at his own table; I am this day, faith he, fourfcore years old, and can I difcern between good and evil?

Arift. de anima, lib. 3.

evil? Can thy fervant tafte what I eat, or what I drink? Can I hear any more the voice of finging men, and finging women? 2 Sam. xix. 35. He first expreffeth his inward decay, I cannot difcern; and then his outward, I cannot taste, nor hear. It is proper to the outward fense, to taste and hear; but it appertains to the inward, to know whether the objects both of tafting and hearing, and of all the other outward fenfes, be good or evil. And thus old Ifaac was imposed upon, not only in respect of the dulnefs of his outward fenfes, (all five of which are mentioned in that one chapter, where his younger fon is said to come with subtilty, and take away the bleffing, Gen. xxvii.) but chiefly in refpect of the weakness of his inward fenfe, wherein he was moft miftaken; for be discerned him not, ver. 22. And thus you have the leffer light, that rules the night of man darkened, as well as the greater, that rules the day; that which is subfervient to them both, is that which followeth,

The STARS.

By the Stars, I understand, távra nuoveťorra, All thofe fpecies whatsoever, either rational or imaginary, that (like the stars in their orb) stand fixedly treasured up in the memory. Now the ftars do not properly pertain either to day or night, but are diftinct luminaries from the the rulers of the day and night, and subservient

to

to them both; and do communicate both day and night, to all inferior bodies, of their influences, and alfo of their light; for although the greater light of the fun in the day time doth cause them to us to disappear, yet they are ftill fhining, as is fufficiently demonstrated in the eclipfe of the fun, when that greater light is darkened; or in the narrow and long contraction of the vifible fpecies, either by art, in glaffes, or naturally, if a man ftand at the bottom of a deep and narrow well, then will the stars give their light apparently at noon day. In like manner, all the fpecies and reprefentations of things that are paft, whether they are the product of the day or night, that is, as you have heard, either of the understanding, or of the fancy, are treasured up in one fingle faculty of the memory. And that the stars have belonged only to the night, hath not been a more common miftake among the vulgar; than that the memory belongeth only to the imagination, hath been among the learned. And therefore they have much troubled themselves, and confounded others, in finding out another receptacle of the intelligible fpecies, which they call reminiscency or recordation; as though one and the fame faculty were not able to retain the fpecies that are of a diverse nature. The ground of this mistake hath principally risen from this; that they have given more unto the memory, than properly doth belong unto it, in that they