wise, (although your _Author_ denies it, calling those Fools that maintain this opinion)[2] yet it cannot go beyond the rules of its Nature, no more then any Art can go beyond its Rules and Principles: And as for what your _Author_ says, That every thing would approach to that, which is agreeable and pleasant; I think I need no demonstration to prove it; for we may plainly see it in all effects of Nature, that there is Sympathy and Antipathy, and what is this else, but approaching to things agreeable and pleasant, and withdrawing it self from things disagreeable, and hurtful or offensive? But of this subject I shall discourse more hereafter, wherefore I finish here, and rest, Madam, _Your Faithful Friend_ _and Servant._ [1] _Of the Immortality of the Soul, l._ 2., _c._ 1. _a._ 3. [2] _In the Append. to the Antid. c._ 3. _a._ 10. IX. _MADAM,_ Your _Authors_ opinion is,[1] That _Matter being once actually divided as far as possibly it can, it is a perfect contradiction it should be divided any further._ I answer, Though Nature is Infinite, yet her actions are not all dilative nor separative, but some divide and some compose, some dilate and some contract, which causes a mean betwixt Natures actions or motions. Next your _Author_ says, That _as Infinite Greatness has no Figure, so Infinite Littleness hath none also._ I answer, Whatsoever hath a body, has a figure; for it is impossible that _substance_, or _body_, and _figure_, should be separated from each other, but wheresoever is body or substance, there is also figure, and if there be an infinite substance, there must also be an infinite figure, although not a certain determined or circumscribed figure, for such a figure belongs onely to finite particulars; and therefore I am of your _Authors_ mind, That it is a contradiction to say an Infinite Cube or Triangle, for a Cube and a Triangle is a perfect circumscribed figure, having its certain compass and circumference, be it never so great or little; wherefore to say an Infinite Cube, would be as much as to say a Finite Infinite. But as for your _Authors_ example of _Infinite matter, space or duration, divided into three equal parts, all which he says must needs be Infinite, or else the whole will not be so, and then the middle part of them will seem both Finite and Infinite._ I answer, That Matter is not dividable into three equal parts, for three is a finite number and so are three equal parts; but I say that Matter being an Infinite body, is dividable into Infinite parts, and it doth not follow, as your _Author_ says, That one of those infinite parts must be infinite also, for else there would be no difference betwixt the whole and its parts; I say whole for distinctions and better expressions sake, and do not mean such a whole which hath a certain number of parts, and is of a certain and limited figure, although never so great; but an Infinite whole, which expression I must needs use, by reason I speak