Concerning your Learned Authors discourse of Density and Rarity, he defines[1] _Thick to be that, which takes up more parts of a space given; and thin, which containes fewer parts of the same magnitude: not that there is more matter in one place then in an other equal place, but a greater quantity of some named body; wherefore the multitude and paucity of the parts contained within the same space do constitute density and rarity._ Whereof my opinion is, That there is no more nor less space or place then body according to its dilation or contraction, and that space and place are dilated and contracted with the body, according to the magnitude of the body, for body, place and magnitude are the same thing, only place is in regard of the several parts of the body, and there is as well space betwixt things distant a hairs breadth from one another, as betwixt things distant a million of miles, but yet this space is nothing from the body; but it makes, that that body has not the same place with this body, that is, that this body is not that body, and that this bodies place is not that bodies place. Next your _Author_ sayes,[2] _He hath already clearly enough demonstrated, that there can be no beginning of motion, but from an external and moved body, and that heavy bodies being once cast upwards cannot be cast down again, but by external motion._ Truly, _Madam_, I will not speak of your _Authors_ demonstrations, for it is done most by art, which I have no knowledg in, but I think I have probably declared, that all the actions of nature are not forced by one part, driving, pressing, or shoving another, as a man doth a wheel-barrow, or a whip a horse; nor by reactions, as if men were at foot-ball or cuffs, or as men with carts meeting each other in a narrow lane. But to prove there is no self-motion in nature, he goes on and says; _To attribute to created bodies the power to move themselves, what is it else, then to say that there be creatures which have no dependance upon the Creator?_ To which I answer, That if man (who is but a single part of nature) hath given him by God the power and a free will of moving himself, why should not God give it to Nature? Neither can I see, how it can take off the dependance upon God, more then Eternity; for, if there be an Eternal Creator, there is also an Eternal Creature, and if an Eternal Master, an Eternal Servant, which is Nature; and yet Nature is subject to Gods Command, and depends upon him; and if all Gods Attributes be Infinite, then his Bounty is Infinite also, which cannot be exercised but by an Infinite Gift, but a Gift doth not cause a less dependance. I do not say, That man hath an absolute Free-will, or power to move, according to his desire; for it is not conceived, that a part can have an absolute power: nevertheless his motion both of body and mind is a free and self-motion, and such a self-motion hath every thing in Nature according to its figure or shape; for motion and figure, being inherent