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_

_and Servant._