But for a further proof of my own opinion, did the perception proceed meerly from the motion, impression and resistance of the objects, the hand could not perceive those objects, unless they touched the hand it self, as the stick doth; for it is not probable, that the motions of the stone, water, sand, &c. should leave their bodies and enter into the stick, and so into the hand; for motion must be either something or nothing; if something, the stick and the hand would grow bigger, and the objects touched less, or else the touching and the touched must exchange their motions, which cannot be done so suddenly, especially between solid bodies; But if motion has no body, it is nothing, and how nothing can pass or enter or move some body, I cannot conceive. 'Tis true there is no part that can subsist singly by it self, without dependance upon each other, and so parts do always joyn and touch each other, which I am not against; but onely I say perception is not made by the exterior motions of exterior parts of objects, but by the interior motions of the parts of the body sentient. But I have discoursed hereof before, and so I take my leave, resting, Madam, _Your faithful Friend_ _and Servant._ [1] _Philos. part._ 4. _a._ 189. [2] _Diopt. c._ 1. _a._ 2, 3. & _c._ 4. _a._ 1. XXXVIII. _MADAM,_ I cannot conceive why your _Author_ is so much for little and insensible parts, out of which the Elements and all other bodies are made; for though Nature is divideable, yet she is also composeable; and I think there is no need to dissect every creature into such little parts, to know their nature, but we can do it by another way as well; for we may dissect or divide them into never so little parts, and yet gain never the more knowledg by it. But according to these principles he describing amongst the rest the nature of Water, says,[1] _That those little parts, out of which Water consists, are in figure somewhat long, light and slippery like little Eeles, which are never so closely joyned and entangled, but may easily be separated._ To which I answer, That I observe the nature and figure of water to be flowing, dilating, divideable and circular; for we may see, in Tides, overflowings, and breaking into parts, as in rain, it will always move in a round and circular figure; And I think, if its parts were long and entangled like a knot of Eeles, it could never be so easily contracted and denced into snow or ice. Neither do I think, That _Salt-water hath a mixture of somewhat grosser parts, not so apt to bend_;[2] for to my observation and reason, the nature of salt-water consists herein, that its circle-lines are pointed, which sharp and pointed figure makes it so penetrating; yet may those points be separated from the circle lines of water, as it is seen in the making of Salt. But I am not of your _Authors_ opinion, That those little points do stick so fast in flesh, as little nails, to keep it from putrefaction; for points do not always