( 2010) 
III. A Difcourfe of LOCAL MOTION ^EftgltJht ont of ^vttiQh. 
Londov^\6'jo.in 12 0. 
^^'^His Difcourfe ur.dertaketh to dcmonftratethe Z,^»j/ 
Jl of MoHon^^nA whball to prove^tliat of the Seven Rules 
delivered by Dcj- Cartes on this Subjcft.he hath niiftakeny7:r* 
In the doing of whichjthe Author particularly infiftson^con- 
fidering the communication of Motion in Perajfions-^ decla- 
ring 5 that, though this Subjeft hath been handled by 
very Eminent menj yet hetaktth it otherwife in hand than 
they have done 5 forafmuch as without making any particu- 
hrHjpothe//SyhG maketh it his bufinefi to fearch into the very 
Sources of Nature^ the Caufes of all the EHe(!}s we find in 
Motions^and undertakes to give the demonftrations of them. 
He is not ignorant of what hath been lately publifh^t by fome 
famous Mathematicians of the Royal Academies of London 
and P^r^'.Neither doth he corteft with thofe perfons about 
thatjwhich they pretend to^of having found the fecret of the 
Laws of 'Motion.Ut only faiih.that 'tis now three years that 
he gave abroad what he delivers in this Difcourfe 5 and that, 
hisRu^es being compared with their9,there may pofTibly be 
found conformity enough to make men believe,that he hath 
lighted together with them upon the truth, but that yet 
there willalfobe found difference enough, to make men 
judge^that he hath not learnt itfrom them^Befides (Jaithhe^ 
they have done no more than meerly propofed their 
Rules without proving them 5 whereas be undertaketh to 
demonfirate all thofe^he advanceth Adding, that though 
M.HugensYidith given us hopes of publithing (hortly a Book, 
wherein he will prove all hisRules^vet he dares affirm, that 
the Hfigenian Method will be quite different from his, foraf 
muchas he (M.///irg^«/ ) h^th already explained himfelffuf- 
ficiently,tG give us to underfrand^that his demonftrations are 
grounded upon particular Hypothefes, 
Thechief Head explained in this Difcourfe; are^ That 
