Note 5 — Chapter II

Boyle has some ingenious speculations on this point:—

“That there is local motion in many parts of matter is manifest to sense, but how matter came by this motion was of old, and is still, hotly disputed of: for the ancient Corpuscularian philosophers (whose doctrine in most other points, though not in all, we are the most inclinable to), not acknowledging an author of the universe, were thereby reduced to make motion congenite to matter, and consequently coeval with it. But since local motion, or an endeavour at it, is not included in the nature of matter, which is as much matter when it rests as when it moves; and since we see that the same portion of matter may from motion be reduced to rest, and after it hath continued at rest, so long as other bodies do not put it out of that state, may by external agents be set a moving again; I, who am not wont to think a man the worse naturalist for not being an atheist, shall not scruple to say with an eminent philosopher of old, whom I find to have proposed among the Greeks that opinion (for the main) that the excellent Des Cartes has revived amongst us, that the origin of motion in matter is from God; and not only so, but that thinking it very unfit to be believed, that matter barely put into motion, and then left to itself, should casually constitute this beautiful and orderly world; I think also further, that the wise Author of things did, by establishing the laws of motion among bodies, and by guiding the first motions of the small parts of matter, bring them to convene after the manner requisite to compose the world; and especially did contrive those curious and elaborate engines, the bodies of living creatures, endowing most of them with the power of propagating their species.”—Considerations and Experiments touching the Origin of Forms and Qualities: Boyle’s Works, vol. ii. p. 460. Edinburgh. 1744.