judicious di&longs;covering of a mo&longs;t lovely <emph type="italics"/>Statua<emph.end type="italics"/> in a piece of Marble, <lb/>
<arrow.to.target n="marg221"></arrow.to.target> <lb/>
hath &longs;ublimated the wit of <emph type="italics"/>Buonarruotti<emph.end type="italics"/> far above the vulgar wits <lb/>
of other men? </s><s>And yet this work is onely the imitation of a <lb/>
meer aptitude and di&longs;po&longs;ition of exteriour and &longs;uperficial mem&shy; <lb/>
bers of an immoveable man; but what is it in compari&longs;on of a <lb/>
man made by nature, compo&longs;ed of as many exteriour and inte&shy; <lb/>
riour members, of &longs;o many mu&longs;cles, tendons, nerves, bones, <lb/>
which &longs;erve to &longs;o many and &longs;undry motions? </s><s>but what &longs;hall we <lb/>
&longs;ay of the &longs;en&longs;es, and of the powers of the &longs;oul, and la&longs;tly, of <lb/>
the under&longs;tanding? </s><s>May we not &longs;ay, and that with rea&longs;on, that <lb/>
the &longs;tructure of a Statue fals far &longs;hort of the formation of a living <lb/>
man, yea more of a contemptible worm?</s></p>

<p type="margin"><s><margin.target id="marg221"></margin.target>Buonarruotti, <emph type="italics"/>a <lb/>
&longs;tatuary of admi&shy; <lb/>
rable ingenuity.<emph.end type="italics"/></s></p>

<p type="main"><s>SAGR. </s><s>And what difference think you, was there betwixt the <lb/>
Dove of <emph type="italics"/>Architas,<emph.end type="italics"/> and one made by Nature?</s></p>

<p type="main"><s>SIMPL. </s><s>Either I am none of the&longs;e knowing men, or el&longs;e <lb/>
there is a manife&longs;t contradiction in this your di&longs;cour&longs;e. </s><s>You ac&shy; <lb/>
count under&longs;tanding among&longs;t the greate&longs;t (if you make it not the <lb/>
chief of the) <emph type="italics"/>Encomiums<emph.end type="italics"/> a&longs;cribed to man made by Nature, and <lb/>
a little before you &longs;aid with <emph type="italics"/>Socrates,<emph.end type="italics"/> that he had no knowledg at <lb/>
all; therefore you mu&longs;t &longs;ay, that neither did Nature under&longs;tand <lb/>
how to make an under&longs;tanding that under&longs;tandeth.</s></p>

<p type="main"><s>SALV. </s><s>You argue very cunningly, but to reply to your obje&shy; <lb/>
ction I mu&longs;t have recour&longs;e to a Philo&longs;ophical di&longs;tinction, and &longs;ay <lb/>
that the under&longs;tanding is to be taken too ways, that is <emph type="italics"/>inten&longs;iv&egrave;,<emph.end type="italics"/> or <lb/>
<arrow.to.target n="marg222"></arrow.to.target> <lb/>
<emph type="italics"/>exten&longs;iv&egrave;<emph.end type="italics"/>; and that <emph type="italics"/>exten&longs;ive,<emph.end type="italics"/> that is, as to the multitude of intel&shy; <lb/>
ligibles, which are infinite, the under&longs;tanding of man is as no&shy; <lb/>
thing, though he &longs;hould under&longs;tand a thou&longs;and propo&longs;itions; for <lb/>
that a thou&longs;and, in re&longs;pect of infinity is but as a cypher: but taking <lb/>
the under&longs;tanding <emph type="italics"/>inten&longs;ive,<emph.end type="italics"/> (in as much as that term imports) in&shy; <lb/>
ten&longs;ively, that is, perfectly &longs;ome propo&longs;itions, I &longs;ay, that humane wi&longs;&shy; <lb/>
dom under&longs;tandeth &longs;ome propo&longs;itions &longs;o perfectly, and is as ab&longs;o&shy; <lb/>
lutely certain thereof, as Nature her &longs;elf; and &longs;uch are the pure <lb/>
Mathematical &longs;ciences, to wit, Geometry and Arithmetick: in which <lb/>
Divine Wi&longs;dom knows infinite more propo&longs;itions, becau&longs;e it knows <lb/>
them all; but I believe that the knowledge of tho&longs;e few compre&shy; <lb/>
hended by humane under&longs;tanding, equalleth the divine, as to the <lb/>
certainty <emph type="italics"/>objectiv&egrave;,<emph.end type="italics"/> for that it arriveth to comprehend the nece&longs;&shy; <lb/>
&longs;ity thereof, than which there can be no greater certainty.</s></p>

<p type="margin"><s><margin.target id="marg222"></margin.target><emph type="italics"/>Man under&longs;tand&shy; <lb/>
eth very well<emph.end type="italics"/> in&shy; <lb/>
ten&longs;iv&egrave;, <emph type="italics"/>but little<emph.end type="italics"/> <lb/>

<p type="main"><s>SIMPL. </s><s>This &longs;eemeth to me a very bold and ra&longs;h expre&longs;&longs;ion.</s></p>

<p type="main"><s>SALV. </s><s>The&longs;e are common notions, and far from all umbrage <lb/>
of temerity, or boldne&longs;s, and detract not in the lea&longs;t from the Ma&shy; <lb/>
je&longs;ty of divine wi&longs;dom; as it nothing dimini&longs;heth the omnipotence <lb/>
thereof to &longs;ay, that God cannot make what is once done, to be un&shy; <lb/>
done: but I doubt, <emph type="italics"/>Simplicius,<emph.end type="italics"/> that your &longs;cruple ari&longs;eth from an o&shy; <lb/>
pinion you have, that my words are &longs;omewhat equivocal; there&shy;