? o A Treatife cf B C D I E S. Chip. 3. 



.Ann-lift aV offubfbncc with quantitic, may peradventure give littlcf:ni$fa 



i-i Phvficall bo- . r i r -j l ,[ i I U U 



die, a Mera. cbcn unto filch as are not u ted to raile their thougnts above 

 phvficaiicom- Phyficall and naturall fpeculations ; who are apt to conceive 



pofition. . .* . r '. /- i i r i / 



there is no other competition or relolunon, but lech as our icn- 

 Ses fhew us in compounding and dividing of bodies according 

 to quantntive parts. Now this obligeth us to fhew that fuch a 

 kind of composition and division as this, mufi ncceff:rily be al- 

 lowed o even in thatcourfe of doSrinc which fecins moft con- 

 trary to owrs. To which purpofe, let us fuppofe that the pofici- 

 on of Dcmccritus or of Hpicurus is true; to wu, chat the origi- 

 nail compofition of all bodies, is out of very little ones of vari- 

 ous figures ; all of them indivifible, not Mathematically, but 

 Phyfically : and that this infinite number of indivifibles, doth 

 float in an immenfe ocean of vacuum or imaginary ipace. In 

 this pofition, let any man who conceiveth their grounds may 

 be maintained, explicate how one of thefe little bodies is mo- 

 ved. For taking two parts of vacuum, in which this body fix> 

 ceflivcly is; it is cleare^that really, and not onciy in my under- 

 ftanding, it is a difference in the faid body to be now here now 

 there: wherefore when the body is gone thither, the notion of 

 being here is no more in the body; and confequently is divided 

 from the body. And therefore when the body was here , there 

 was a compoluion between the body and its being here; which 

 feeing it cannot be betwixt two parts of Quantity, rnuft of ne- 

 cefsity be fuch a kind of composition, as we put between quan- 

 tity and fubftance. And certainly, let men wrack their brains 

 never fo much, they will never be able to fhew how motion is 

 made, without fbme fuch composition and divifion, upon what 

 grounds ibever they proceed. 



And if then they tell us, that they underftand not how there 

 can be a divisibility between fubftance and quantity; we may 

 reply, that to fuch a divisibility two things are required; firft, 

 that the notions of fubftance and quantity be different; Second- 

 ly, that the one of them maybe changed without the other. 

 As for the firSr., it is moft evident we make an ablblute diftin&i- 

 on between their two notions; both when we Say that Socrates 

 \vas bigger a man then a boy; and when we conceive that 

 milk or water whiles it boyleth , or wine whiles it vvorketh, 

 fo as chey run over the veflcls they are in arc greater, and 



poiTciTe 



