VIII.

_MADAM,_

Th'other day I met with the Work of that Learned _Author_ Dr. _Ch._

which treats of Natural Philosophy; and amongst the rest, in the

Chapter of Place, I found that he blames _Aristotle_ for saying, there

are none but corporeal dimensions, Length, Breadth, and Depth in

Nature, making besides these corporeal, other incorporeal dimensions

which he attributes to _Vacuum_. Truly, _Madam_, an incorporeal

dimension or extension, seems, in my opinion, a meer contradiction; for

I cannot conceive how nothing can have a dimension or extension, having

nothing to be extended or measured. His words are these: _Imagine we

therefore, that God should please to annihilate the whole stock or

mass of Elements, and all concretions resulting therefrom, that is,

all corporeal substances now contained within the ambit or concave

of the lowest Heaven, or Lunar sphear; and having thus imagined, can

we conceive that all the vast space or region circumscribed by the

concave superfice of the Lunar sphere, would not remain the same in all

its dimensions, after as before the reduction of all bodies included

therein to nothing?_ To which, I answer: That, in my opinion, he makes

Nature Supernatural; for although God's Power may make Vacuum, yet

Nature cannot; for God's and Nature's Power are not to be compared,

neither is God's invisible Power perceptible by Natures parts; but

according to Natural Perception, it is impossible to conceive a Vacuum,

for we cannot imagine a Vacuum, but we must think of a body, as your

_Author_ of the Circle of the Moon; neither could he think of space

but from one side of the Circle to the other, so that in his mind he

brings two sides together, and yet will have them distant; but the

motions of his thoughts being subtiler and swifter then his senses,

skip from side to side without touching the middle parts, like as a

Squirrel from bough to bough, or an Ape from one table to another;

without touching the ground, onely cutting the air. Next, he says,

That an absolute Vacuum, is neither an Accident, nor a Body, nor yet

Nothing, but Something, because it has a being; which opinion seems to

me like that of the divine Soul; but I suppose Vacuum is not the divine

Soul, nor the divine Soul, Vacuum; or else it could not be sensible

of the blessed happiness in Heaven, or the Torments in Hell. Again

he says, _Let us screw our supposition one pin higher, and farther

imagine, that God, after the annihilation of this vast machine, the

Universe, should create another in all respects equal to this, and

in the same part of space wherein this now consists: First, we must

conceive, that as the spaces were immense before God created the world,

so also must they eternally persist of infinite extent, if he shall

please at any time to destroy it; next, that these immense spaces are

absolutely immoveable._ By this opinion, it seems, that Gods Power

cannot so easily make or annihilate Vacuum, as a substance; because he

believes it to be before all Matter, and to remain after all Matter,

which is to be eternal; but I cannot conceive, why Matter, or fulness

of body, should not as well be Infinite and Eternal, as his Conceived

Vacuum; for if Vacuum can have an eternal and infinite being, why may

not fulness of body, or Matter? But he calls Vacuum Immovable, which

in my opinion is to make it a God; for God is onely Immoveable and

Unalterable, and this is more Glorious then to be dependant upon God;

wherefore to believe Matter to be Eternal, but yet dependent upon

God, is a more humble opinion, then his opinion of Vacuum; for if

Vacuum be not created, and shall not be annihilated, but is Uncreated,

Immaterial, Immoveable, Infinite, and Eternal, it is a God; but if it

be created, God being not a Creator of Nothing, nor an annihilator of

Nothing, but of Something, he cannot be a Creator of Vacuum; for Vacuum

is a pure Nothing. But leaving Nothing to those that can make something

of it, I will add no more, but rest,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

Philosophical Letters: or, modest Reflections upon some Opinions in Natural Philosophy · 第 143 / 169 题