A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

Answ. (1.) To this I answer: That as we must suppose Matter to be infinitely divisible, 'tis very unlikely that any two of all these Particles are exactly equal and alike; so unlikely, that it is a Thousand to one, yea, an infinite Number to one, but it is otherwise: And that altho' we should allow a great ⟨p. 243⟩Similarity between the different Particles of Water and Fire, as to their general Nature and Figure; and however small we suppose those Particles to be, 'tis infinitely unlikely, that any two of them should be exactly equal in Dimensions and Quantity of Matter.— If we should suppose a great many Globes of the same Nature with the Globe of the Earth, it would be very strange, if there were any two of them that had exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust and Water in them. But infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should have just the same Quantity of Matter. For a Particle of Light (according to the Doctrine of the infinite Divisibility of Matter) is composed of infinitely more assignable Parts, than there are Particles of Dust and Water in the Globe of the Earth. And as it is infinitely unlikely, that any two of these Particles should be equal; so it is, that they should be alike in other Respects: To instance in the Configuration of their Surfaces. If there were very many Globes, of the Nature of the Earth, it would be very unlikely that any two should have exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, in their Surfaces, and all posited exactly alike, one with Respect to another, without any Difference, in any Part discernible either by the naked Eye or Microscope; but infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should be perfectly of the same Figure. For there are infinitely more assignable real Parts on the Surface of a Particle of Light, than there are Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, on the Surface of the terrestrial Globe.

Answ. (1.) To this I answer: That as we must suppose Matter to be infinitely divisible, 'tis very unlikely that any two of all these Particles are exactly equal and alike; so unlikely, that it is a Thousand to one, yea, an infinite Number to one, but it is otherwise: And that altho' we should allow a great ⟨p. 243⟩Similarity between the different Particles of Water and Fire, as to their general Nature and Figure; and however small we suppose those Particles to be, 'tis infinitely unlikely, that any two of them should be exactly equal in Dimensions and Quantity of Matter.— If we should suppose a great many Globes of the same Nature with the Globe of the Earth, it would be very strange, if there were any two of them that had exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust and Water in them. But infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should have just the same Quantity of Matter. For a Particle of Light (according to the Doctrine of the infinite Divisibility of Matter) is composed of infinitely more assignable Parts, than there are Particles of Dust and Water in the Globe of the Earth. And as it is infinitely unlikely, that any two of these Particles should be equal; so it is, that they should be alike in other Respects: To instance in the Configuration of their Surfaces. If there were very many Globes, of the Nature of the Earth, it would be very unlikely that any two should have exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, in their Surfaces, and all posited exactly alike, one with Respect to another, without any Difference, in any Part discernable either by the naked Eye or Microscope; but infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should be perfectly of the same Figure. For there are infinitely more assignable real Parts on the Surface of a Particle of Light, than there are Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, on the Surface of the terrestrial Globe.