±6 A Vis iKertiA fe

Thus two contrary tendencies (supposing theycould be both planted in the fame individu-al subject, as matter) would have the fameeffect upon each other, as two contrary quan-tities, a positive and a negative; or as twoforces impressed upon the fame body in op-posite directions; to wit, to cancel each other

ftructive supposition, for to be indesinently changingits state supposes really no change of state at all in the bo-dy j because no precedent state could then be of any pos-sible finite duration: otherwise, if it were permitted tobecome of any finite length, and deserve the name of aprecedent state, there would not be an indesinent changeeffected; or the body would have a tendency to preserveits state for some time, contrary to the hypothesis. Tosuppose an infinitely quick change of state, from rest tomotion, and from motion to rest, is to suppose absolutetest only. For when motion was but nascent, rest wouldbe again induced, because the incessant tendency to changeincessantly takes effect: and before rejl were fettled, mo-tion, for the same reason, ought to begin. So that, aswas said, this notion destroys itself. How remarkableis this co-incidence, when the only supposition that couldserve a sceptick’s turn, of necessity defeats itself! For ifthis tendency to change its state is the stronger of the two,it must overcome the other at all times, and infer thecontradiction shewn, in spite of all evasions: and the Con-clusion is, that such a supirhr tendency cannot be plantedin matter,

mutually.