Part 35

Having made some mention in my former Letter of the Receiving of Food, and discharging of Excrements, as also of Respiration, which consists in the sucking in of air, and sending out of breath in an animal body; you desire to know, _Whether Respiration be common to all animal Creatures?_ Truly, I have not the experience, as to tell you really, whether all animals respire, or not; for my life being, for the most part, solitary and contemplative, but not active, I please my self more with the motions of my thoughts, then of my senses; and therefore I shall give you an answer according to the conceivement of my reason onely, which is, That I believe, all animals require Respiration; not onely those, which live in the air, but those also, which live in waters, and within the earth; but they do not respire all after one and the same manner; for the matter which they imbreath, is not every where the same, nor have they all the same organs, or parts, nor the same motions. As for example: Some Creatures require a more thin and rarer substance for their imbreathing or inspiring, then others, and some a more thick and grosser substance then others, according to their several Natures; for as there are several kinds of Creatures, according to their several habitations or places they live in, so they have each a distinct and several sort of matter or substance for their inspiration. As for example: Some live in the Air, some upon the face of the Earth, some in the bowels Earth, and some in Waters. There is some report of a Salamander, who lives in the Fire; but it being not certainly known, deserves not our speculation. And, as in my opinion, all animal Creatures require Respiration, so I do verily believe, that also all other kinds of Creatures, besides animals, have some certain manner of imbreathing and transpiring, _viz._ Vegetables, Minerals, and Elements, although not after the same way as Animals, yet in a way peculiar and proper to the nature of their own kind. For example: Take away the earth from Vegetables, and they will die, as being, in my opinion, stifled or smothered, in the same manner, as when the Air is taken away from some Animals. Also, take Minerals out of the bowels of the Earth, and though we cannot say, they die, or are dead, because we have not as yet found out the alterative motions of Minerals, as well as of Vegetables, or Animals, yet we know that they are dead from production and increase, for not any Metal increases being out of the Earth. And as for Elements, it is manifest that Fire will die for want of vent; but the rest of the Elements, if we could come to know the matter, manner, and ways of their Vital Breathing, we might kill or revive them as we do Fire. And therefore all Creatures, to my Reason, require a certain matter and manner of inspiration and expiration, which is nothing else but an adjoyning and disjoyning of parts to and from parts; for not any natural part or creature can subsist single, and by it self, but requires assistance from others, as this, and the rest of my opinions in Natural Philosophy, desire the assistance of your favour, or else they will die, to the grief of,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

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._

IX.

_MADAM,_

That Learned _Author_, of whom I made mention in my last, is pleased to say in his Chapter of Time, that Time is the _Twin-brother to Space_; but if Space be as much as Vacuum, then I say, they are Twin-nothings; for there can be no such thing as an empty or immaterial space, but that which man calls space, is onely a distance betwixt several corporeal parts, and time is onely the variation of corporeal motions; for were there no body, there could not be any space, and were there no corporeal motion, there could not be any time. As for Time, considered in General, it is nothing else but the corporeal motions in Nature, and Particular times are the Particular corporeal motions; but Duration is onely a continuance, or continued subsistence of the same parts, caused by the consistent motions of those parts; Neither are Time, Duration, Place, Space, Magnitude, &c. dependents upon corporeal motions, but they are all one and the same thing; Neither was Time before, nor can be after corporeal motion, for none can be without the other, being all one: And as for Eternity, it is one fixed instant, without a flux, or motion. Concerning his argument of Divisibility of Parts, my opinion is, That there is no Part in Nature Individable, no not that so small a part, which the Epicureans name an Atome; neither is Matter separable from Matter, nor Parts from Parts in General, but onely in Particulars; for though parts can be separated from parts, by self-motion, yet upon necessity they must joyn to parts, so as there can never be a single part by it self. But hereof, as also of Place, Space, Time, Motion, Figure, Magnitude, &c. I have sufficiently discoursed in my former Letters, as also in my Book of Philosophy; and as for my opinion of Atoms, their figures and motions, (if any such things there be) I will refer you to my Book of Poems, out of which give me leave to repeat these following lines, containing the ground of my opinion of Atomes:[1]

_All Creatures, howsoe're they may be nam'd, Are of_ long, square, flat, _or_ sharp _Atoms fram'd._

_Thus several figures several tempers make, But what is mixt, doth of the four partake._

_The onely cause, why things do live and die, 'S according as the mixed Atomes lie._

_Thus life, and death, and young, and old, Are as the several Atoms hold: Wit, understanding in the brain Are as the several atomes reign:_ _And dispositions, good, or ill, Are as the several atomes still; And every Passion, which doth rise, Is as each several atome lies. Thus sickness, health, and peace, and war, Are as the several atomes are._

If you desire to know more, you may read my mentioned Book of Poems whose first Edition was printed in the year, 1653. And so taking my leave of you, I rest,

Madam,

_Your faithful Friend_

_and Servant._

[1] _Pag._ 7. in the second Impression. _Pag._ 9. _Pag._ 22. _Pag._ 24.

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._

XI.

_MADAM,_