PART II.
But to hasten to a Conclusion of this Argument, which is already drawn out to too great a Length: We have sought, in vain, for an Idea of Power or necessary Connexion in all the Sources, from which we could suppose it to be deriv'd. It appears, that, insingle
tion continues for ever in its present State, till put from it by some new Cause: And that a Body impell'd takes as much Motion from the impelling Body as it acquires itself. These are Facts. When we call this a vis inertiæ, we only mark these Facts, without pretending to have any Idea of the inert Power; in the same Manner as when we talk of Gravity, we mean certain Effects without comprehending that active Power. It was never the Meaning of Sir Isaac Newton to rob Matter of all Force or Energy; tho' some of his Followers have endeavour'd to establish that Theory upon his Authority. On the contrary that great Philosopher had recourse to an etherial active Matter to explain his universal Attraction; tho' he was so cautious and modest as to allow, that it was a mere Hypothesis, not to be insisted on, without more Experiments. I must confess, that there is something in the Fate of Opinions a little extraordinary. Des-Cartes insinuated that Doctrine of the universal and sole Efficacy of the Deity, without insisting on it. Malebranche and other Cartesians made it the Foundation of all their Philosophy. It had, however, no Authority in England. Locke, Clarke, and Cudworth, never so much as take notice of it, but suppose all along, that Matter has a real, tho' subordinate and deriv'd Power. By what Means has it become so prevalent among our modern Metaphysicians?
