shadow to mark, from time to time, the hour of the day, it would be no more a presumption than an error in him to conclude, that, (whatever other uses the instrument is fit or was designed for) it is a sundial, that was meant to shew the hour of the day.

He afterwards says:

I readily admit, that in physics, we should indeed ground all things upon as solid reasons as may be had; but I see no necessity, that those reasons should be always precisely physical; especially if we be treating, not of any particular phenomenon that is produced according to the course of nature established in the world, already constituted as this of ours is; but of the first and general causes of the world itself; from which causes, I see not why the final causes or uses, that appear manifestly enough to have been designed, should be excluded. And to me, it is not very material, whether or no in physics, or any other discipline, a thing be proved by the peculiar principles of that science or discipline, provided it be firmly proved by the common grounds of reason. And on this occasion, let me observe, that the fundamental tenets of Des Cartes's own philosophy are not by himself proved by arguments strictly physical, but either by metaphysical ones, or the more catholic dictates of reason, or the particular testimonies of experience. For, when for

instance, he truly ascribes to God all the motion that is found in matter, and consequently all the variety of phenomena that occur in the world; he proves not, by an argument precisely physical, that God, who is an immaterial agent, is the efficient cause of.motion in matter; but only by this, that since motion does not belong to the essence and nature of matter, matter must owe the motion it has to some other being; and then it is most agreeable to common reason to infer, that since matter cannot move itself, but it must be moved by some other being, that being must be immaterial, since otherwise some matter must be able to move itself, contrary to the hypothesis.

38. Medicina Hydrostatica; or, Hydrostatics applied to the Materia Medica; shewing low, by the weight that divers bodies used in physic have in water, one one may discover whether they be genuine or adulterate. To which is subjoined, a previous hydrostatical way of estimating ores, 1690.

39. The Christian Virtuoso; shewing that by being addicted to experimental philosophy, D d

VOL. III.

24. Historical Account of a Degradation of Gold, made by an Anti-elixir, 1678.

25. Tracts; the Aerial Noctiluca; and a Process of a factitious self-shining Substance, 1680.

26. A Discourse of Things above Reason, 1681.

27. New Experiments and Observations upon the icy Noctiluca; to which is added, a Chemical Paradox, making it probable, that their principles are transmutable, so that out of one of them, others may be produced, 1682.

28. The second part of the Continuation of new Experiments touching the Spring and Weight of the Air, and a large Appendix,

1682.

29. Letter to Dr. John Beale, relative to making Fresh Water out of Salt, 1683.

30. Memoirs for the Natural History of Human Blood, 1684.

31. Experiments and Considerations about the Porosity of Bodies, in two parts; the first relating to Animals, the second to solid.Bodies, 1684.

32. Short Memoirs for the natural experimental History of Mineral Waters, with directions as to the several Methods of trying

them; including abundance of new and useful Remarks, as well as several curious Experiments, 1685.

33. An Essay of the great Effects of languid and unheeded Motion; with an Appendix, containing an experimental Discourse of some hitherto little regarded Causes of the Insalubrity and Salubrity of the Air, and its Effects, 1685.

34. A Dissertation on the Reconcileableness of Specific Medicines to the Corpuscular Philosophy; to which is added, a Discourse of the Advantages attending the use of simple Medicines. To these philosophical, he added a Theological Discourse of the high Veneration Man's Intellect owes to God, particularly for his Wisdom and Power, 1685.

35. Free Enquiry into the vulgarly received Notion of Nature, 1686.

36. The Martyrdom of Theodora and Dydimia; a work drawn up in his youth, 1687.

37. A Disquisition into the final Causes of natural Things; and whether, if at all, with what caution a Naturalist should admit them; to which is added, an Appendix about vitiated sight, 1688.

I shall present the reader with an extract from this piece. The author proposes at the outset, these four questions: 1. Whether generally or indefinitely speaking, there be any final causes of things corporeal, knowable by naturalists? 2. Whether, if the first question be resolved in the affirmative, we may consider final causes in all sorts of bodies, or only in some peculiarly qualified ones? 3. Whether, or in what sense, the acting for ends, may be ascribed to an intelligent (and even inanimate) body? 4. And, lastly, how far, and with what cautions, arguments may be framed upon the suppositon of final causes?

Sect. 1.

To begin with the first question. Those that would exclude final causes from the consideration of the naturalist, are wont to do it, (for ought I have observed) upon one of these two accounts; either that with Epicurus, they think the world was the production of atoms and chance, without any intervention of a deity; and that, consequently, it is improper and vain to seek for final causes in the effects of chance or that they judge with Des Cartes, that God being an omniscient agent, it is rash and presumptuous for men to think, that they know, or can