_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._
[1] _In the Preface before the Imm. of the Soul._
[2] _Antid. Book._ 2. _c._ 4.