and Servant.
[1] Of the Immortality of the Soul, l. 2., c. 1. a. 3.
[2] In the Append. to the Antid. c. 3. a. 10.
[IX.]
MADAM,
Your Authors opinion is,[1] That Matter being once actually divided as far as possibly it can, it is a perfect contradiction it should be divided any further. I answer, Though Nature is Infinite, yet her actions are not all dilative nor separative, but some divide and some compose, some dilate and some contract, which causes a mean betwixt Natures actions or motions. Next your Author says, That as Infinite Greatness has no Figure, so Infinite Littleness hath none also. I answer, Whatsoever hath a body, has a figure; for it is impossible that substance, or body, and figure, should be separated from each other, but wheresoever is body or substance, there is also figure, and if there be an infinite substance, there must also be an infinite figure, although not a certain determined or circumscribed figure, for such a figure belongs onely to finite particulars; and therefore I am of your Authors mind, That it is a contradiction to say an Infinite Cube or Triangle, for a Cube and a Triangle is a perfect circumscribed figure, having its certain compass and circumference, be it never so great or little; wherefore to say an Infinite Cube, would be as much as to say a Finite Infinite. But as for your Authors example of Infinite matter, space or duration, divided into three equal parts, all which he says must needs be Infinite, or else the whole will not be so, and then the middle part of them will seem both Finite and Infinite. I answer, That Matter is not dividable into three equal parts, for three is a finite number and so are three equal parts; but I say that Matter being an Infinite body, is dividable into Infinite parts, and it doth not follow, as your Author says, That one of those infinite parts must be infinite also, for else there would be no difference betwixt the whole and its parts; I say whole for distinctions and better expressions sake, and do not mean such a whole which hath a certain number of parts, and is of a certain and limited figure, although never so great; but an Infinite whole, which expression I must needs use, by reason I speak of Infinite parts; and that each one of these Infinite parts in number may be finite in substance or figure, is no contradiction, but very probable and rational; nay, I think it rather absurd to say that each part is infinite; for then there would be no difference betwixt parts and whole, as I said before. Onely this is to be observed, that the Infinite whole is Infinite in substance or bulk, but the parts are Infinite in number, and not in bulk, for each part is circumscribed, and finite in its exterior figure and substance. But mistake me not, when I speak of circumscribed and finite single parts; for I do not mean, that each part doth subsist single and by it self, there being no such thing as an absolute single part in Nature, but Infinite Matter being by self-motion divided into an infinite number of parts, all these parts have so near a relation to each other, and to the infinite whole, that one cannot subsist without the other; for the Infinite parts in number do make the Infinite whole, and the Infinite whole consists in the Infinite number of parts; wherefore it is onely their figures which make a difference betwixt them; for each part having its proper figure different from the other, which is circumscribed and limited, it is called a finite single part; and such a part cannot be said Infinitely dividable, for infinite composition and division belong onely to the Infinite body of Nature, which being infinite in substance may also be infinitely divided, but not a finite and single part: Besides, Infinite composition doth hinder the Infinite division, and Infinite division hinders the Infinite composition; so that one part cannot be either infinitely composed, or infinitely divided; and it is one thing to be dividable, and another to be divided. And thus, when your Author mentions in another place,[2] That if a body be divisible into Infinite Parts, it hath an Infinite number of extended parts: If by extension he mean corporeal dimension, I am of his opinion; for there is no part, be it never so little in Nature, but is material; and if material, it has a body; and if a body, it must needs have a bodily dimension; and so every part will be an extended part: but since there is no part but is finite in its self, it cannot be divisible into infinite parts; neither can any part be infinitely dilated or contracted; for as composition and division do hinder and obstruct each other from running into Infinite, so doth dilation hinder the Infinite contraction, and contraction the Infinite dilation, which, as I said before, causes a mean betwixt Nature's actions; nevertheless, there are Infinite dilations and contractions in Nature, because there are Infinite contracted and dilated parts, and so are infinite divisions because there are infinite divided parts; but contraction, dilation, extension, composition, division, and the like, are onely Nature's several actions; and as there can be no single part in Nature that is Infinite, so there can neither be any single Infinite action. But as for Matter, Motion and Figure, those are Individable and inseparable, and make but one body or substance; for it is as impossible to divide them, as impossible it is to your Author to separate the essential proprieties, which he gives, from an Immortal Spirit; And as Matter, Motion and Figure are inseparable; so is likewise Matter, Space, Place and Duration; For Parts, Motion, Figure, Place and Duration, are but one Infinite body; onely the Infinite parts are the Infinite divisions of the Infinite body, and the Infinite body is a composition of the Infinite parts; but figure, place and body are all one, and so is time, and duration, except you will call time the division of duration, and duration the composition of time; but infinite time, and infinite duration is all one in Nature: and thus Nature's Principal motions and actions are dividing, composing, and disposing or ordering, according to her Natural wisdom, by the Omnipotent God's leave and permission. Concerning the Sun, which your Author speaks of in the same place, and denies him to be a Spectator of our particular affairs upon Earth; saying, there is no such divine Principle in him, whereby he can do it. I will speak nothing again it, nor for it; but I may say, that the Sun hath such a Principle as other Creatures have, which is, that he has sensitive and rational corporeal motions, as well as animals or other Creatures, although not in the same manner, nor the same organs; and if he have sensitive and rational motions, he may also have sensitive and rational knowledg or perception, as well as man, or other animals and parts of Nature have, for ought any body knows; for it is plain to humane sense and reason, that all Creatures must needs have rational and sensitive knowledg, because they have all sensitive and rational matter and motions. But leaving the Sun for Astronomers to contemplate upon, I take my leave, and rest,
Madam,
Your faithful Friend,
and Servant.