_MADAM,_
Concerning your Learned Authors discourse of Density and Rarity, he
defines[1] _Thick to be that, which takes up more parts of a space
given; and thin, which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude: not
that there is more matter in one place then in an other equal place,
but a greater quantity of some named body; wherefore the multitude and
paucity of the parts contained within the same space do constitute
density and rarity._ Whereof my opinion is, That there is no more nor
less space or place then body according to its dilation or contraction,
and that space and place are dilated and contracted with the body,
according to the magnitude of the body, for body, place and magnitude
are the same thing, only place is in regard of the several parts of the
body, and there is as well space betwixt things distant a hairs breadth
from one another, as betwixt things distant a million of miles, but yet
this space is nothing from the body; but it makes, that that body has
not the same place with this body, that is, that this body is not that
body, and that this bodies place is not that bodies place. Next your
_Author_ sayes,[2] _He hath already clearly enough demonstrated, that
there can be no beginning of motion, but from an external and moved
body, and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards cannot be cast
down again, but by external motion._ Truly, _Madam_, I will not speak
of your _Authors_ demonstrations, for it is done most by art, which I
have no knowledg in, but I think I have probably declared, that all
the actions of nature are not forced by one part, driving, pressing,
or shoving another, as a man doth a wheel-barrow, or a whip a horse;
nor by reactions, as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs, or as men with
carts meeting each other in a narrow lane. But to prove there is no
self-motion in nature, he goes on and says; _To attribute to created
bodies the power to move themselves, what is it else, then to say that
there be creatures which have no dependance upon the Creator?_ To which
I answer, That if man (who is but a single part of nature) hath given
him by God the power and a free will of moving himself, why should
not God give it to Nature? Neither can I see, how it can take off the
dependance upon God, more then Eternity; for, if there be an Eternal
Creator, there is also an Eternal Creature, and if an Eternal Master,
an Eternal Servant, which is Nature; and yet Nature is subject to Gods
Command, and depends upon him; and if all Gods Attributes be Infinite,
then his Bounty is Infinite also, which cannot be exercised but by an
Infinite Gift, but a Gift doth not cause a less dependance. I do not
say, That man hath an absolute Free-will, or power to move, according
to his desire; for it is not conceived, that a part can have an
absolute power: nevertheless his motion both of body and mind is a free
and self-motion, and such a self-motion hath every thing in Nature
according to its figure or shape; for motion and figure, being inherent
in matter, matter moves figuratively. Yet do I not say, That there is
no hindrance, obstruction and opposition in nature; but as there is
no particular Creature, that hath an absolute power of self-moving;
so that Creature which hath the advantage of strength, subtilty, or
policy, shape, or figure, and the like, may oppose and over-power
another which is inferior to it, in all this; yet this hinderance and
opposition doth not take away self-motion. But I perceive your _Author_
is much for necessitation, and against free-will, which I leave to
Moral Philosophers and Divines. And as for the ascending of light,
and descending of heavy bodies, there may be many causes, but these
four are perceiveable by our senses, as bulk, or quantity of body,
grossness of substance, density, and shape or figure, which make heavy
bodies descend: But little quantity, purity of substance, rarity, and
figure or shape make light bodies ascend. Wherefore I cannot believe,
that there are[3] _certain little bodies as atoms, and by reason of
their smallness, invisible, differing from one another in consistence,
figure, motion and magnitude, intermingled with the air_, which should
be the cause of the descending of heavy bodies. And concerning air,[4]
_whether it be subject to our senses or not_, I say, that if air be
neither hot, nor cold, it is not subject; but if it be, the sensitive
motions will soon pattern it out, and declare it. I'le conclude with
your _Authors_ question,[5] _What the cause is, that a man doth not
feel the weight of Water in Water?_ and answer, it is the dilating
nature of Water. But of this question and of Water I shall treat more
fully hereafter, and so I rest,
Madam,
_Your faithful Friend_
_and Servant._
[1] _C._ 30. _a._ 1.
[2] _Art._ 2.
[3] _Art._ 3.
[4] _Art._ 14.
[5] _Art._ 6.