Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus repaired [by] Petrus Gassendus ; augmented [by] Walter Charleton ...

SECT. I.

SOme Texts there are in the Book of Nature,* 1.1 that are best interpreted by the sense of the Vulgar, and become so much the more aenigmatical, by how much the more they are com∣mented upon by the subtile discour∣ses of the Schools: their over-curi∣ous Descants frequently rendring that Notion ambiguous, complex and difficult, which accepted in its own genuine simplicity, stands fair and open to the discernment of the unpraejudicate, at the first conversi∣on of the a••••es of the Mind thereup∣on. Among these we have just cause to account TIME; since if we keep to the popular and familiar use of the word, nothing can be more easily understood: but if we range abroad to those vast Wildernesses, the Dia∣lectical Paraphrases of Philosophers thereupon, and hunt after an adaequate Definition, bea••••ng its peculiar Genus, and essential Difference; nothing can be more obscure and controversial. This the sacred Doctor (Au••ust. 11. Confess. 14.) both ingenuously confessed, and most emphatically expressed, in his, Si nemo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 me quaerat, quid sit Tempus, scio; si quaerenti explicare ve∣lim, nescio: intimating that the Mind may, indeed, at first glance specu∣late the nature of Time by a proper Idea; but so pale and fine a one, as

〈…〉〈…〉 a lively representation thereof. 〈…〉〈…〉 bold to list it among the most despe∣•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 Generalitèr. To which we may annex 〈…〉〈…〉 quoted by Stobaeus (Eccl. Phys. 11.) Tempus esse 〈…〉〈…〉 non re, sed cogitatione constans. As also 〈…〉〈…〉 who not only injoyns, that we discourse of Time in a certain key of thought far different from that wherein we use to consider things, which have a real inhaerence in subjecto; as if Time had no other subject of inhaerence but the Mind, were only a mere Ens Rationis, extrin∣secal Denomination, and could expect no exacter a description, then His Numerus, qui absque ratione numerante est nullus: but adviseth, if any shall demand, what Time is, to afford him no other but Democritus An∣swer; Tempus esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quale spatium diei noctisque apparet.

If we research profoundly into the Original of this Difficulty,* 1.2 of acquir∣ing a clear and perspect theory of the Quiddity of Time, from the Lecture of those prolix Treatises, whose plausible Titles promise satisfaction con∣cerning it: we shall soon find the chief Cause to be this; that most Philo∣sophers have praesupposed Time to be some Corporeal Ens, or at least some certain Accident inexistent in and dependent on Corporeal Subjects; when (in verity) if it be any thing at all it seems to be the Twin-brother of Space, devoyd of all relation to Corporiety, and absolutely independent on the Existence of any Nature whatever. For, to Him, who shall, in abstract and attentive meditation, sequestre Time from all Bodies, from their mo∣tions, successive alternations, and contingent vicissitudes insequent upon those motions; i. e. all Years, Months, Weeks, Dayes, Hours, Minutes, Seconds, and all Accidents or Events contingent therein: it will soon ap∣pear most evident, that Time (in suo esse) owes no respect at all to Moti∣on, its constancy, variety, or measure; since the understanding must de∣prehend Time to continue to be what it ever was and is, whether there be any Motion or Mutation in the World, or not, nay, whether there be any World or not. For, examining what is meant by the term Dura∣tion, and what by the term Motion, in their single importances apart: we discover, that Motion holds no relation to Duration, nor è converso, Duration to Motion, but what is purely Accidental, and Mental, i. e. imagined by man, in order to his commensuration of the one by the other.

Another Cause of this Difficulty,* 1.3 may be the irreconcileable Discrepan∣cy of judgments concerning it, even among the most Venerable of the An∣cients. For (1) Epicurus hath a complex and periphrastical Description of the Essence of Time, when He concludes it to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an Accident of Accidents, or Event of Events, conse∣quent to dayes and nights, and hours to passions and indolency, motion and quiet. The reason of which Empiricus (2. advers. Physic.) by way of explanation, thus renders: Days and Nights are Accidents supervenient up∣on the ambient Aer, the one being caused by the praesence, the other by the absence of the Sun; Hours are also accidents, as being parts of day or night; but Time is coextended to each day, night & hour, & therefore we say, that this day is long, this night short, while our thoughts are constantly pointing

at Time in that respect supervenient; Passions likewise and Indolences, or Dolours and Pleasures, are Accidents not without Time evenient; last∣ly, Motion and Quiet are Accidents contingent in Time, and therefore by it we commensurate the Celerity and Tardity of Motion, the long or short duration of Quiet: therefore is Time the Accident of Accidents. And Lucretius alluding to the same opinion of Epicurus, translates his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Tempus esse incorporeum, into Tempus item per se non est, &c. lib. 1.

(2) Zeno, Chrysippus, Apollodorus, Posidonius, and their Sectator Phi∣lo,* 1.4 define Time to be, Motus coelestis, sive mundani intervallum, understand∣ing as well all particular Conversions, as the Generality of Motion from the beginning to the end of the World. Whereupon Philo would inferr, that Time was coaevous to the World, i. e. before the World there was no Time, nor should be any after: though the Stoicks unanimously defend the Infinity of Time, in regard they affirmed an infinitie of Worlds succes∣sive, the second springing up, Phaenix-like, from the ashes of the first, the the third from the second, &c. (3) Pythagoras, according to the Re∣cords of Plutarch (in quaestion. Platonic.) to one interrogating him concer∣ning the Essence of Time, calls it Animam Coeli, the soul of Heaven. To which Plotinus (En. 3. lib. 7. cap. 10.) seems to have alluded, when interpreting Plato's saying, that Time was the Image of Eternity (in Ti∣maeo) He make ••ternity to be the very soul of the World, as considered in se, in its own simple essence; and Time to be the same soul of the world, considered, prout varias mutationes suscipit, as it admits various mu∣tations.

(4) And Aristotle, as every Paedagogue hath heard, after a long and anxious scrutiny,* 1.5 positively and magisterially determines Time to be, Numerum Motus (coelestis ac primi) secundum prius & posterius, the Number of the first Coelestial Motion, according to former and later, i. e. insomuch as in Motion we may observe parts Antecedent and Consequent by a perpetual succession. At the first word of this emi∣nent Definition, some superficial Criticks have sawcely nibbled, urg∣ing (forsooth) that it sounds soloecistical, because Number is Quan∣tity Discrete, but Time Continued; and therefore that the Word Mea∣sure ought to be its substitute: but alas! had they read His whole discourse of the nature of Time, they could not have been ignorant, that Aristotle intended nothing less, then that Time should be repu∣ted a Quantity Discrete; when both in his praecedent and subsequent lines He expresly teacheth, that Motion is continued, in respect of Mag∣nitude, and Time in respect of Motion. Had They Excepted against the whole, indeed, their Quarrel had bin justifiable, and our selves might safely have espoused it; because, if Time be the Measure of Coelestial Motion, then must it follow, that if there were a Plurality of Worlds, or Prima Mo∣bilia's; there would also be a Plurality of Times, because a Plurality of Motions. To those of His Disciples, who reply, that in case there were many First Moveables, and consequently many distinct Motions; yet would there be but one Measure of them all: we rejoyn, if it be supposed that some of the many Motions are swifter then others, then of necessity must they have many Prior and Posterior Parts; and if so,

how can all those, more or less discrepant in velocity and tardity, fall un∣der one and the same measure? or, what sober man can admit, that there would be but one Time, where must be many distinct subjects of Mo∣tion, and so of Time? Nor can it more avail them to distinguish Time INTERNAL from EXTERNAL, assigning to each particular Primum Mobile a proper or Internal Time within its ambite, and one General or External Time to them all in common: because it is a manifest Adynaton, that there should be a General Time, without a General Motion, whose parts being prior and posterior, in respect of perpetual succession, must be the common Norma, or Rule of observation to all the rest; nor, indeed, can we admit, that a Flux of ten hours at once, or together, is possible, where ten Spheres are in one hour moved. And, therefore, though Aristotle seems to have had some Hint of the true nature of Time, in his Objection against those, who opinioned it to be Coelestial Motion: yet he lost it again, when He defined it to be the Measure of Coelestial Motion. For, Reason atte∣steth the contrary, it being evident that the Coelestial Motion is rather the Measure of Time: insomuch as the measure ought to be more known then the thing measured; and Time is a certain Flux no less independent upon Motion then Quiet. Which those Worthies well understood, who con∣fest Time to be IMAGINARY, such as flowed infinitely in duration be∣fore the Creation, and shall continue its flux infinitely after the Dissoluti∣on of the World.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. The Hoti of Time more easily concei∣vable by the Simple Notion of the Vulgar, then by the complex Defini∣tions of Philos••∣phers.
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. The Generall praesumption that Time is Corporeal, or an Accident de∣pendent on Corporeal Subjects; the chief Cause of that Difficulty
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. The variety of opinions, concer¦ning it: ano∣ther Cause of the Difficulty: and Epicurus Description of its Essence, re∣cited and ex∣plained.
• * 1.4

  Art. 4. Time de••ined to be 〈…〉〈…〉 by Z••∣no, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, &c. and there∣upon affirmed, by Philo, to be only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the VVo••ld.
• * 1.5

  Art. 5. Aristotles so much magni∣fied Definition of Time, to be the Measure of Motion Coele∣stial, &c. per∣pended and found too light.