ariſe from the particular natures of thoſe bodies. But whence it is that bodies derive thoſe natures they don't tell us; and therefore they tell us nothing. And being entirely employed in giving names to things, and not in ſearching into things themſelves, we may ſay that they have invented a philoſophical way of ſpeaking, but not that they have made known to us true philoſophy.
Others therefore by laying aſide that uſeleſs heap of words, thought to employ their pains to better purpoſe. Theſe ſuppoſed all matter homogeneous, and that the variety of forms which is ſeen in bodies ariſes from ſome very plain and ſimple affections of the component particles. And by going on from ſimple things to thoſe which are more compounded they certainly proceed right; if they attribute no other properties to thoſe primary affections of the particles than Nature has done. But when they take a liberty of imagining at pleaſure unknown figures and magnitudes, and uncertain ſituations and motion of the parts; and moreover of ſuppoſing occult fluids, freely pervading the pores of bodies, endued with an all-performing ſubtilty, and agitated, with occult motions; they now run out into dreams and chimera's, and neglect the true conſtitution of things; which certainly is not to be expected from fallacious conjectures, when we can ſcarce reach it by the moſt certain obſervations. Thoſe who fetch from by hypotheſes the foundation on which they build their ſpeculations, may form indeed an ingenious romance, but a romance it will ſtill be.
There is left then the third claſs, which proſeſs experimental philoſophy. Theſe indeed derive the cauſes of all things from the moſt ſimple principles
