Ghap. II. A N T I E N T M E T A P H Y S I C S. 15 



find, m ihe yournal de T'revoux^ (Art. 38. for the months of Septem- 

 ber and Odober 1701), a paper written by a Cartefian, in which he 

 maintains, that Motion, however begun, is carried on by Mind ; and 

 the only difference betwixt him and me is, that he maintains that it is 

 the Supreme Mind, which directly and immediately carries on Mo- 

 tion ; whereas, I fay it is an inferior Mind, incorporated with Body, 

 as the Mind of an animal is with its Body. If, therefore. Sir lfaac*s 

 Axiom be true, he has all the merit of the difcovery, and the greateft 

 difcovery, in my opinion, that ever was made in the Philofophy 

 of Nature ; or, if it be an error, I think it is more honourable 

 for Sir Ifaac that it fliould have been his error originally, than that he 

 fhould have copied it from any other. As to my aiTuming the merit 

 of having firfl argued againfl Sir Ifaac's notion upon the fubjedl, I 

 am there alfo miflaken; for I find, in the fame Journal, (in the fame 

 year 1701, for the months of May and June, Article 23.) the very 

 fame arguments ufed againfl a State of Motion, and againfl its 

 being continued by any Power in Matter, that I have ufed, with the 

 addition of fome other, fo ftrong and forcible, that I fhall certainly 

 make ufe of them, if ever I publifh a Second Edition of that part of 

 my Works *. 



Thefe 



* This journal of a Society at Trevoux Is entitled, * Memoires de V Hiftolre des 



* Sciences et des Beaux Arts* In the article 23. above quoted, for May and 

 June 1701, Des Cartes's Law of Motion is laid down in theie words, taken from 

 Rohauli*s Phyficks : * As a Body at reft cannot of itfelf begin Motion, fo a Body 



* in Motion cannot of itfelf ceafe to be moved.' This is a propofition I perleclly 

 agree with ; for Body having no adVive power, but being perfedly inert, can no 

 more flop its own Motion, than begin it or carry it on. if therefore, Sir Ifaac's 

 Axiom could be underftood in that Senfe, I ftiouid not have the leaft objedion 

 to it. But I am afraid it cannot be fo explained ; for it is evident to me, 

 that Sir Ifaac underftood that Body, being once put in Motion, went on of 

 itfelf by a f^is Infita^ or power inherent in Body. Now, fuch a Vii Iiifita 

 is difclaimed by the CartcGans in the moft exprefs terms, (Article 39 for ihe 

 months of September and Oaober 1701,) where it is faid that the Cartefi- 

 ans do not maintain that Motion is continued by any Power in Body. As to the 



notion. 



