Nothing will ever be found fitted to constitute a true substance out of several beings by means of aggregation; for example, if the parts which fit together for a common design are more appropriate to constitute a true substance than those which are in contact, all the officials of the India Company in Holland would constitute a real substance better than would a pile of stones. But such a common design- what is it but a resemblance, or rather an arrangement of actions and passions, which our mind sees in different things? If this unity by contact should be preferred as the most reasonable hypothesis, other difficulties would be found: the parts of solid bodies are perhaps united only by the pressure of surrounding bodies and by their own pressure, and in their substance they may have no more union than a pile of sand

arena sine calce. Why will many rings linked together to constitute a chain compose more of a true substance than if they had openings by means of which they could be separated? It is possible that the links of a chain should not touch one another and should not even be interlinked and yet, nevertheless, unless they were taken in a certain particular way they could not be separated, as in the accompanying figure. (See Illustration)

Would it be said in such a case that the substance of this compound is, as it were, in suspense, and depends upon the future cleverness of him who wishes to separate them? These are all fictions of the mind, and so far as we do not discern what is truly a complete being, or indeed, a substance, we shall have no resting place, and through this distinction of substances alone is there a means of establishing stable and real principles.

In conclusion, nothing should be considered certain without a basis. It is therefore for those who speak of beings and substances without a real unity to prove that there is more reality than that which has just been spoken of; and I am awaiting that concept of a substance or of a being which can include all those things and in accordance with which, parts and perhaps even dreams may some day pretend to reality: at least I hope that precise limits will be given to the citizenship rights which are being granted to beings formed by aggregation.

I have treated this subject at length so that you might understand not only my positions but also the reasons which have compelled me to assume them. I submit them to your judgment whose fairness and exactness I know. I send also an article in The News of the Republic of Letters which you may find will serve as a reply to the Abbe Catelan. I consider him an able man after what you have said, but what he has written against M. Huygens and against me, makes it clear that he goes a little too fast. We shall see what he will do now. I am delighted to learn of the good condition of your health; I desire its continuation with all the zeal and all the passion which makes me, M., etc.

P.S.- I reserve for another time certain subjects which you have touched upon in your letter.

XVIII: Leibniz to Count Ernst von Hessen-Rheinfels

April 30, 1687.

Monseigneur:

I hope that your Serene Highness will receive the book which was delayed so long; I looked for it myself at Wolfenbuttel in order that you might have it again since you were laying the blame on me. I have taken the liberty to add a letter and some documents for M. Arnaud. I have some hope that when he shall have read them, his penetration and his sincerity will, perhaps, enable him to approve entirely of that which at the beginning seemed strange to him, because since he has modified his position after having seen my first explanation, perhaps he will come to approbation after having seen this last one which, in my opinion, clearly does away with all the difficulties that he said still troubled him. However that may be, I shall be content if he decides, at least, that these opinions, even though they may be very false, entail nothing directly contrary to the definitions of the Church and that consequently they are tolerable even in a Roman Catholic. For your Serene Highness knows, better than I can tell, that there are tolerable errors, and that there are even errors whose consequences are believed to destroy the articles of faith, and yet, nevertheless, neither these errors nor those who hold them are condemned because the consequences are not approved of. For example, the Thomists hold that the hypothesis of the Molinists destroys the perfection of God; while, on the other hand, the Molinists think that the predetermination of the former destroys the freedom of man; nevertheless, since the Church has not yet come to any conclusion upon the matter, neither the former nor the latter can be considered as heretics nor their opinions as heresies. I think the same can be said of my proposition, and for many reasons I should like to know if M. Arnaud does not himself now acknowledge their harmlessness. He is very busy and his time is too valuable for me to pretend that he should employ it in discussing a matter regarding the truth or falsehood of an opinion; but it is easy for him to decide upon its tolerability, since it is merely a question of knowing whether they are contrary to certain definitions of the Church.