to move, and seperated from the Noun Causes, the which is a great presumption in my favour, seeing that the writing and the Text saith, Figures are not the Cause of moving simply upwards or downwards, but of quicker or slower Motion: and, saith not, Figures are not simply the Causes of moving upwards or downwards, and when the words of a Text receive, transposed, a sence different from that which they found, taken in the order wherein the Author disposeth them, it is not convenient to inverte them. And who will affirm that Aristotle desiring to write a Proposition, would dispose the words in such sort, that they should import a different, nay, a contrary sence? contrary, I say, because understood as they are written; they say, that Figures are not the Causes of Motion, but inverted, they say, that Figures are the Causes of Motion, &c.
Moreover, if the intent of Aristotle had been to say, that Figures are not simply the Causes of moving upwards or downwards, but only Causes Secundum quid, he would not have adjoyned those words, but they are Causes of the more swift or slow Motion; yea, the subjoining this would have been not only superfluous but false, for that the whole tenour of the Proposition would import thus much. Figures are not the absolute Causes of moving upwards or downwards, but are the absolute Cause of the swift or slow Motion; which is not true: because the primary Causes of greater or lesser Velocity, are by Aristotle in the 4th of his Physicks, Text. 71. attributed to the greater or lesser Gravity of Moveables, compared among themselves, and to the greater or lesser Resistance of the Medium's, depending on their greater or less Crassitude: and these are inserted by Aristotle as the primary Causes; and these two only are in that place nominated: and Figure comes afterwards to be considered, Text. 74. rather as an Instrumentall Cause of the force of the Gravity, the which divides either with the Figure, or with the Impetus; and, indeed, Figure by it self without the force of Gravity or Levity, would opperate nothing.
I adde, that if Aristotle had an opinion that Figure had been in some sort the Cause of moving or not moving, the inquisition which he makes immediately in a doubtfull manner, whence it comes, that a Plate of Lead flotes, would have been impertinent; for if but just before he had said, that Figure was in a certain sort the Cause of moving or not moving, he needed not to call in Question, by what Cause the Plate of Lead swims, and then ascribing the Cause to its Figure; and framing a discourse in this manner. Figure is a Cause Secundum quid of not sinking: but, now, if it be doubted, for what Cause a thin Plate of Lead goes not to the bottom; it shall be answered, that that proceeds from its Figure: a discoursewhich
