Spirit and Body are things of contrary Natures. In fine, I cannot conceive, how a Spirit should fill up a place or space, having no body, nor how it can have the effects of a body, being none it self; for the effects flow from the cause; and as the cause is, so are its effects: And so confessing my ignorance, I can say no more, but rest, Madam, _Your Faithful Friend_ _and Servant._ [1] _Antid. lib._ 2. _ch._ 2. XXII. _MADAM,_ Your _Author_ having assigned Indivisibility to the Soul or Spirit that moves and actuates matter, I desire to know, how one Indivisible Spirit can be in so many dividable parts? For there being Infinite parts in Nature, they must either have one Infinite Spirit to move them, which must be dilated infinitely, or this Spirit must move severally in every part of Nature: If the first, then I cannot conceive, but all motion must be uniform, or after one and the same manner; nay, I cannot understand, how there can be any dilation and contraction, or rather any motion of the same spirit, by reason if it dilate, then, (being equally spread out in all the parts of Matter,) it must dilate beyond Matter; and if it contract, it must leave some parts of matter void, and without motion. But if the Spirit moves every part severally, then he is divisible; neither can I think, that there are so many Spirits as there are Parts in Nature; for your _Author_ says, there is but one Spirit of Nature; I will give an easie and plain example: When a Worm is cut into two or three parts, we see there is sensitive life and motion in every part, for every part will strive and endeavour to meet and joyn again to make up the whole body; now if there were but one indivisible Life, Spirit, and Motion, I would fain know, how these severed parts could move all by one Spirit. Wherefore, Matter, in my opinion, has self-motion in it self, which is the onely soul and life of Nature, and is dividable as well as composable, and full of variety of action; for it is as easie for several parts to act in separation, as in composition, and as easie in composition as in separation; Neither is every part bound to one kind or sort of Motions; for we see in exterior local motions, that one man can put his body into several shapes and postures, much more can Nature. But is it not strange, _Madam_, that a man accounts it absurd, ridiculous, and a prejudice to Gods Omnipotency, to attribute self-motion to Matter, or a material Creature, when it is not absurd, ridiculous, or any prejudice to God, to attribute it to an Immaterial Creature? What reason of absurdity lies herein? Surely I can conceive none, except it be absurd and ridiculous to make that, which no man can know or conceive what it is, _viz._ an immaterial natural Spirit, (which is as much as to say, a natural No-thing) to have motion, and not onely motion, but self-motion; nay, not onely self-motion, but to move, actuate, rule, govern, and guide Matter, or corporeal Nature, and to