$86 ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. BookIL 



It is no doubt true, that bodies are movent or have a tendency to he 

 moved, towards one another *. A llone, for example, falling from a 

 height, is moved towards the earth ; and, if any thing oppofe it, and 

 prevent it from falling, ftill it has a tendency to be moved that way, 

 which is what we call its iveight. This is the fadt, and all the faft. 

 But, to fuppofe that the earth aitradis the ftone, is mere hypothefis : 

 And it might as well be fuppofed, that, when I move towards any 

 body, I am attraded by that body ; for, we are not to fuppofe that the 

 motions of natural bodies are at random, and without any certain di- 

 redion. This, indeed, is very often the cafe of our motion, but never 

 of any thing guided by nature. But, becaufe the motion is in a de- 

 termined diredion towards a certain objedt, we cannot fay that it is 

 attraded by that objed, unlefs we have a mind to fpeak in a figura- 

 tive and poetical flyle. 



As 



* It is in this way that Sir Ifaac Newton himfelf has explained attra<^ion. Hanc 

 vocem attraElionis ita hie accipi velim, ut in univerfum folummodo vim aliquam 

 fignificare intelligatur, qua corpora ad fe mutuo tendant, cuicunque demum caufae 

 attribuenda fit ilia vis. Principia Philof Schol. generakyfub Jinem. And Dr Clark, 

 in his controverfy with Mr Leibnitz, (5th Reply, p. 355.) has faid, in like manner, 

 that, by attra^ioriy he only means the tendency of bodies towards one another, which 

 he fnys, very truly, is a fa£l or phaenomenon of nature that cannot be difputed. But, if 

 no more is meant, why ufe the word attraSiion, which certainly denotes an active 

 force, by which one body operates upon another ? Why not call it, what it truly is, a 

 tendency to be moved ? And, though we fhould not difpute about words, when the 

 meaning is eflablifhcd, yet I doubt this improper ufe of the word nitration has led, 

 not only the vulgar, but even fome philofophers of the Newtonian fchool, fince the 

 days of Sir Ifaac and Dr Clark, into fome obfcure notion of an aElive poioer in matter. 



But, further, though I admit that there is fuch tendency in a (lone to fall to the 

 earth, becaufe, in fa6t, we know that it does fall to the earth, if nothingprevents it, yet 

 I deny that there is any fuch tendency in the planets to fall into the fun ; and all that 

 we know of the matter is, that they are moved round him in certain orbits. I fay, there- 

 fore, that attraQion, even in the ftnfe of tendency of bodies to be moved towards one 

 another, is-, with rcfpe^l to the celeftial bodies, a mere hypothefis. 



