Madam,
Your faithful Friend
and Servant.
[1] Pag. 7. in the second Impression. Pag. 9. Pag. 22. Pag. 24.
[X.]
MADAM,
I received the Book of your new Author that treats of Natural Philosophy, which I perceive is but lately come forth; but although it be new, yet there are no new opinions in it; for the Author doth follow the opinions of some old Philosophers, and argues after the accustomed Scholastical way, with hard, intricate, and nonsensical words: Wherefore I shall not take so much pains as to read it quite over, but onely pick out here and there some few discourses, which I shall think most convenient for the clearing of my own opinion; in the number of which, is, first, that of Matter, whereof the Author is pleased to proclaim the opinion that holds Matter to be Infinite, not onely absurd, but also impious. Truly, Madam, it is easily said, but hardly proved; and not to trouble you with unnecessary repetitions, I hope you do remember as yet what I have written to you in the beginning concerning the infiniteness of Nature, or natural Matter, where I have proved that it implies no impiety, absurdity, or contradiction at all, to believe that Matter is Infinite; for your Authors argument, concluding from the finiteness of particular Creatures to Nature her self, is of no force; for though no part of Nature is Infinite in bulk, figure, or quantity, nevertheless, all the parts of Infinite Nature are Infinite in number, which infinite number of parts must needs make up one Infinite body in bulk, or quantity; for as a finite body or substance is dividable into finite parts, so an Infinite body, as Nature, or natural Matter, must of necessity be dividable into infinite parts in number, and yet each part must also be finite in its exterior figure, as I have proved in the beginning by the example of a heap of grains of corn. Certainly, Madam, I see no reason, but since, according to your Author, God, as the prime Cause, Agent, and Producer of all things, and the action by which he produced all things, is Infinite; the Matter out of which he produced all particular Creatures may be Infinite also. Neither doth it, to my sense and reason, imply any contradiction or impiety; for it derogates nothing from the Glory and Omnipotency of God, but God is still the God of Nature, and Nature is his Servant, although Infinite, depending wholly upon the will and pleasure of the All-powerful God: Neither do these two Infinites obstruct each other; for Nature is corporeal, and God is a supernatural and spiritual Infinite Being, and although Nature has an Infinite power, yet she has but an Infinite Natural power, whereas Gods Omnipotency is infinitely extended beyond Nature. But your Author is pleased to refute that argument, which concludes from the effect to the cause, and proves Matter to be infinite, because God as the Cause is Infinite, saying, that this Rule doth onely hold in Univocal things, (by which, I suppose, he understands things of the same kind and nature) and not in opposites. Truly, Madam, by this he limits God's power, as if God were not able to work beyond Nature, and Natural Reason or Understanding; and measures Gods actions according to the rules of Logick; which whether it be not more impious, you may judg your self. And as for opposites, God and Nature are not opposites, except you will call opposites those which bear a certain relation to one another, as a Cause, and its Effect; a Parent, and a Child; a Master, and a Servant; and the like. Nay, I wonder how your Author can limit Gods action, when as he confesses himself, that the Creation of the World is an Infinite action. God acted finitely, says he, by an Infinite action; which, in my opinion, is meer non-sense, and as much as to say, a man can act weakly by a strong action, basely by an honest action, cowardly by a stout action. The truth is, God being Infinite, cannot work finitely; for, as his Essence, so his Actions cannot have any limitation, and therefore it is most probable, that God made Nature Infinite; for though each part of Nature is finite in its own figure, yet considered in general, they are Infinite, as well in number, as duration, except God be pleased to destroy them; nay, every particular may in a certain sense be said Infinite, to wit, Infinite in time or duration; for if Nature be Infinite and Eternal, and there be no annihilation or perishing in Nature, but a perpetual successive change and alteration of natural figures, then no part of Nature can perish or be annihilated; and if no part of Nature perishes, then it lasts infinitely in Nature, that is, in the substance of natural Matter; for though the corporeal motions, which make the figures, do change, yet the ground of the figure, which is natural matter, never changes. The same may be said of corporeal motions: for though motions change and vary infinite ways, yet none is lost in Nature, but some motions are repeated again: As for example; the natural motions in an Animal Creature, although they are altered in the dissolution of the figure, yet they may be repeated again by piece-meals in other Creatures; like as a Commonwealth, or united body in society, if it should be dissolved or dispersed, the particulars which did constitute this Commonwealth or society, may joyn to the making of another society; and thus the natural motions of a body do not perish when the figure of the body dissolves, but joyn with other motions to the forming and producing of some other figures. But to return to your Author. I perceive his discourse is grounded upon a false supposition, which appears by his way of arguing from the course of the Starrs and Planets, to prove the finiteness of Nature; for by reason the Stars and Planets rowl about, and turn to the same point again, each within a certain compass of time, he concludes Nature or Natural Matter to be finite too. And so he takes a part for the whole, to wit, this visible World for all Nature, when as this World is onely a part of Nature, or Natural Matter, and there may be more, and Infinite worlds besides; Wherefore his conclusion must needs be false, since it is built upon a false ground. Moreover, he is as much against the Eternity of Matter, as he is against Infiniteness; concluding likewise from the parts to the whole; For, says he, since the parts of Nature are subject to a beginning and ending, the whole must be so too. But he is much mistaken, when he attributes a beginning and ending to parts, for there is no such thing as a beginning and ending in Nature, neither in the whole, nor in the parts, by reason there is no new creation or production of Creatures out of new Matter, nor any total destruction or annihilation of any part in Nature, but onely a change, alteration and transmigration of one figure into another; which change and alteration proves rather the contrary, to wit, that Matter is Eternal and Incorruptible; for if particular figures change, they must of necessity change in the Infinite Matter, which it self, and in its nature, is not subject to any change or alteration: besides, though particulars have a finite and limited figure, and do change, yet their species do not; for Mankind never changes, nor ceases to be, though Peter and Paul die, or rather their figures dissolve and divide; for to die is nothing else, but that the parts of that figure divide and unite into some other figures by the change of motion in those parts. Concerning the Inanimate Matter, which of it self is a dead, dull, and idle matter, your Author denies it to be a co-agent or assistant to the animate matter: For, says he, how can dead and idle things act? To which, I answer: That your Author being, or pretending to be a Philosopher, should consider that there is difference betwixt a Principal and Instrumental cause or agent; and although this inanimate, or dull matter, doth not act of it self as a principal agent, yet it can and doth act as an Instrument, according as it is imploy'd by the animate matter: for by reason there is so close a conjunction and commixture of animate and inanimate Matter in Nature, as they do make but one body, it is impossible that the animate part of matter should move without the inanimate; not that the inanimate hath motion in her self, but the animate bears up the inanimate in the action of her own substance, and makes the inanimate work, act, and move with her, by reason of the aforesaid union and commixture. Lastly, your Author speaks much of Minima's, viz. That all things may be resolved into their minima's, and what is beyond them, is nothing, and that there is one maximum, or biggest, which is the world, and what is beyond that, is Infinite. Truly, Madam, I must ingeniously confess, I am not so high learned, as to penetrate into the true sense of these words; for he says, they are both divisible, and indivisible, and yet no atomes, which surpasses my Understanding; for there is no such thing, as biggest and smallest in Nature, or in the Infinite matter; for who can know how far this World goes, or what is beyond it? There may be Infinite Worlds, as I said before, for ought we know; for God and Nature cannot be comprehended, nor their works measured, if we cannot find out the nature of particular things, which are subject to our exterior senses, how shall we be able to judg of things not subject to our senses. But your Author doth speak so presumptuously of Gods Actions, Designs, Decrees, Laws, Attributes, Power, and secret Counsels, and describes the manner, how God created all things, and the mixture of the Elements to an hair, as if he had been Gods Counsellor and assistant in the work of Creation; which whether it be not more impiety, then to say, Matter is Infinite, I'le let others judg. Neither do I think this expression to be against the holy Scripture; for though I speak as a natural Philosopher, and am unwilling to cite the Scripture, which onely treats of things belonging to Faith, and not to Reason; yet I think there is not any passage which plainly denies Matter to be Infinite, and Eternal, unless it be drawn by force to that sense: Solomon says, That there is not any thing new: and in another place it is said, That God is all fulfilling; that is, that the Will of God is the fulfilling of the actions of Nature: also the Scripture says, That Gods ways are unsearchable, and past finding out. Wherefore, it is easier to treat of Nature, then the God of Nature; neither should God be treated of by vain Philosophers, but by holy Divines, which are to deliver and interpret the Word of God without sophistry, and to inform us as much of Gods Works, as he hath been pleased to declare and make known. And this is the safest way, in the opinion of,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend