And first he says, that unless it were so, there could be no motion. For the office and property of bodies is to withstand and hinder motion. If, therefore, the universe were filled with body, motion would everywhere be hindered, so as to have no beginning anywhere; and consequently there would be no motion at all. It is true that in whatsoever is full and at rest in all its parts, it is not possible motion should have beginning. But nothing is drawn from hence for the proving of vacuum. For though it should be granted that there is vacuum, yet if the bodies which are intermingled with it, should all at once and together be at rest, they would never be moved again. For it has been demonstrated above, in chap. IX, art. 7, that nothing can be moved but by that which is contiguous and already moved. But supposing that all things are at rest together, there can be nothing contiguous and moved, and therefore no beginning of motion. Now the denying of the beginning of motion, doth not take away present motion, unless beginning be taken away from body also. For motion may be either co-eternal, or concreated with body. Nor doth it seem more necessary that bodies were first at rest, and afterwards moved, than that they were first moved, and rested, if ever they rested at all, afterwards. Neither doth there appear any cause, why the matter of the world should, for the admission of motion, be intermingled with empty spaces rather than full; I say full, but withal fluid. Nor, lastly, is there any reason why those hard atoms may not also, by the motion of intermingled fluid matter, be congregated and brought together into compounded bodies of such bigness as we see. Wherefore nothing can by this argument be concluded, but that motion was either coeternal, or of the same duration with that which is moved; neither of which conclusions consisteth with the doctrine of Epicurus, who allows neither to the world nor to motion any beginning at all. The necessity, therefore, of vacuum is not hitherto demonstrated. And the cause, as far as I understand from them that have discoursed with me of vacuum, is this, that whilst they contemplate the nature of fluid, they conceive it to consist, as it were, of small grains of hard matter, in such manner as meal is fluid, made so by grinding of the corn; when nevertheless it is possible to conceive fluid to be of its own nature as homogeneous as either an atom, or as vacuum itself. The second of their arguments is taken from weight, and is contained in these verses of Lucretius: Corporis officium est quoniam premere omnia deorsum; Contra autem natura manet sine pondere inanis; Ergo, quod magnum est æque, leviusque videtur, Nimirum plus esse sibi declarat inanis.--I. 363-66.