in any other. The order of nature, and in particular the law of continuity, equally pull down both alternatives.
  I have also shown that Õcohesion which was not itself the result of ¥impulse or motion would cause traction strictly so-called [e.g. Ô Confession of nature against atheistsÕ p. 112]. For given an inherently rigid body, e.g. an Epicurean atom, part of which stuck out in the form of a hook (since we can imagine atoms of every kind of shape), then pressure on this hook would draw the rest of the atom with it - that is, would draw the part on which there was no pressure and which did not lie in the line of the impulse. Yet our gifted author is himself opposed to these 'philosophic tractions, such as those which used to be ascribed to the fear of a vacuum; he reduces them to impulses, maintaining with the modems that one part of matter operates immediately on another only by pushing against it. I think that they are right about that, since otherwise the process would be unintelligible [¥centripetal force].
  I must admit noticing, though, that our excellent author somewhat retracts what he has said about this, and I cannot refrain from praising his modesty and candour about it, just as I have admired his great penetration of mind in other matters. His retraction occurs on p. 408 of his reply to the second letter of the late Bishop of Worcester, published in 1699. In defending the view he had upheld against this learned prelate, namely that matter might think, he says among other things: 'It is true, I say (Essay 11.viii.11)?Òthat bodies operate by impulse, and nothing else.Ó And so I thought when I writ it, and can yet conceive no other way of their operation. But I am since convinced by the judicious Mr. ¥Newton's incomparable book, that it is too bold a presumption to limit GodÕs power [by our] narrow conceptions. The gravitation of matter towards matter, by ways inconceivable to me, is not only a demonstration that God can, if he pleases, put into bodies powers and ways of operation, above what can be derived from our idea of body, or can be explained by what we know of matter, but also an unquestionable... instance, that he has done so. And therefore in the next edition of my book, I shall take care to have that passage rectified.  I find that in the French version of this book, undoubtedly made from the most recent editions, ¤11 reads as