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. II.

BEsides the manifest Allusion of Reason,* 1.1 we have the assent of all Phi∣losophers, who have declared their opinions concerning the Com∣position of a Continuum, to assure a necessity, that it must consist either (1) of Mathematical Points; or (2) of Parts and Mathematical points, uni∣ted; or (3) of a simple Entity, before actual division, indistinct; or (4) of Individuals, i. e. Atoms.

(1) Not of Mathematical Points; because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Punctum,* 1.2 in the sense of Euclid, is Cujus nulla sit pars, in respect it wants all Dimensions, and consequently all Figure: which is the ground of Aristotles Axiom, Punctum puncto additum non potest facere majus. To render the absurdity of this opinion yet more conspicuous, let us remember, that the Authors and Defendants of it have divided themselves into three distinct Factions. (1) Some have admitted in a Continuum, points Finite simpliciter & deter∣minatè; (2) Others allow points also Finite, but not simpliciter, sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 secundum quid; (3) And others contend for points Infinite, simpliciter▪ & absolutè. The First and Second endeavour to stagger the former Axiom of Aristotle, by an illegal transition from Quantity Continued, to Discrete, alledging this instance, that one Unity added to another makes a greater quantity. The Last recur to Plato's Authority, who concedeth two Infi∣nites, •• Greater and Less, commemorated by Aristotle (3. phys. 27.) Now, for a joint redargution of all, we demand, how they can divide a Line con∣sisting of 5 insectiles into two equal segments? For, either they must cast off the intermediate insectile, or annex it to one division: if the first, they split themselves upon that rock, our supposition; if the last, they clash with the 9. proposit. 1. lib. Euclid. To evade the force of this Dilemma, they have invented many subter••uges: but how unsuccessfully, may be enquired of Aristotle (in 6. physicor.) who there convicts them all of either Falsity, or Impossibility; where, having praemised an excellent enunciation of the Analogy between Motion, Time, and Place, He apodictically concludes, that, if a Continuum did consist of points Mathematical, all Motions would be equally swift. Not∣withstanding this, such was the contumacy of Arriaga, that in hopes to elude this insoluble Difficulty, He praetends to discover a new kind of Motion, distinguished by certain Respites, or Pau∣ses intercedent•• thereupon inferring that all things are moved, du∣ring their motion, with equal Celerity, but because the motion of one thing is intercepted with many pauses, and the motion of another with few, therefore doth the motion of this seem swift, and the mo∣tion of that slow; as if the degrees of Celerity and Tardity did re∣spond to the Frequency and Rarity of Respites interceding. If this be true, then must a Pismire move flower then an Eagle only be∣cause this dist••nguisheth its motion by shorter pauses, and that by longer: nor can a Faulcon overtake a Partridge, since our eyes as∣sure, that a P••rtridge strike•• six strooks at least with his wings▪ while its 〈◊〉〈◊〉 strikes one. Mar••gravius (in histor. Animal.

Brasilicus) tells of an Animal, which from the wonderful ta••••igradous in∣cession of it, is named by the Portugals PRIGUIZA, or Lubart: be∣cause though goaded on, it cannot snail over a stage of 10 paces in 48 hours. Had Arriaga beheld this sloth, either He must have disavowed his nicety, or held it an equal lay which should have sooner run over a four mile course, that, or the fleetest Courser in the Hippodrome at Alexandria: because the Pauses, which intercept the constant progression of the one, in the space of 10 paces, cannot be more then those that interrupt the continuity of the others motion, in the space of four miles. These considerations therefore enable us to conclude, that those who constitute a Continuum of points Mathematical, absurdly maintain, (1) That a point added to a point makes an augmentation of quantity; (2) That no Motion is successive, but only Discrete; (3) That all motions are of equal velocity, sunt enim puncta mi∣nimum quod pertransiri possint: and Arriaga's Quiet, imagined to be in motions, is no part of Motion. (4) That a Wheel is dissolved, when cir∣cumrotated upon its Axis; for, since the Exterior Circle must praecede the Interior, at least, by one point, it follows that the same points do not cor∣respond to the same points; which is absurd and incredible. Therefore is not a Continuum composed of Mathematical points.

* 1.3(2) Not of Parts and Mathematical points, united. Because (1) Parts cannot be conceived to be united or terminated, unless by an adaequation of Points to them; (2) Since those points, which are imagined to concur to the conjunction of parts, are even by Suarez the chief Patron of them, (in Metaphys. Disput. de quantitat.) named Entia Modalia; it must thence follow, that Parts, which are Entia Absoluta, cannot consist without them; which is ridicul••••s. (3) Since they allow no Last Part, how can there be a Last, i. e. a Terminative Point? (4) Either something, or nothing is inter∣mediate between one Indivisible and other Indivisibles: if something, then will there be a part without points; if nothing, then must the whole consist of Indivisibles, which is the point at which we aim.

* 1.4(3) Not of a simple Entity before Division, Indistinct; as not a few of our Modern Metaphysicians have dreamt, among whom Albertinus was a Grand Master. Who, that He might palliate the Difficulty of the Di∣stinction of Par••, that threatned an easie subversion of his phantastick posi∣tion; would needs have that all Distinction doth depend ab Extrinseco, i. e. ariseth only from mental Designation, or actual Division. But, O the Va∣nity of affected subtilty! all that He, or his whole faction hath erected up∣on this foundation of Sand, may be blown down with one blast of this single Argument. Those things which can exist being actually separate; are really distin••t: but Parts can exist being actually separate; therefore are they really distinct, even before division. For Division doth not give them their peculiar Entity and Individuation, which is essential to them and the root of Distinction. The Major is the general and only Rule of Distincti∣ons, which who•••• denyes cannot distinguish Plato from Aristotle, nor Alber∣tinus from Thersites. The Minor holds its verity of sense, for the part A, is existent without the part B, though being before conjoyned, they both conspired to the constitution of one Continuum. And that the Propriety of Entity, is the Base of Distinguibility, is verified by that serene Axiome, Per idem res dis••inguitur ab omni alta, per quod constituitur in suo esse. There∣fore cannot a Continuum consist of a simple Entity before division

indistinct: but of Individuals, or Atoms, which is our scope and Con∣clusion.

Our second Argument flowes from the nature of Union.* 1.5 For the de∣cent introduction of which, we are to recognize, that a Modal Ens cannot subsist without conjunction to an Absolute; as, to exemplifie, Intellection cannot be without the Intellect, though on the reverse, the Intellect may be without the act of Intellection: so likewise cannot Union be conceived with∣out Parts, though on the contrary, Parts may be without Union. And hence we thus argue:

That only which is made independent••r à subjecto, or holds its essence ex proprio, is the Term of Creation; but Union is not independent à subjecto: therefore is not Union the Term of Creation. Since therefore the Term of Creation in the First Matter is devoid of Union; it must consist of In∣dividuals, for Division proceeds from the solution of Union. This derives Confirmation from hence; that the subject from whence another is dedu∣ced, must be praecedent in nature to that which is derived: now the Parts of the First Matter are the Subject from whence Union is derived; Ergo, are the Parts of the First Matter in nature praecedent to all Uni∣on; and consequently they are Individuals, i. e. Atoms.

If it be objected,* 1.6 that the understanding cannot apprehend the First Matter to consist without some implicite Union we appeal to that Canon, Quod non est de essentia rei, non ingreditur ejus conceptum: For, Union not being of the essence of the parts of the First Matter, ought not to fall under the comprisal of that Idea, by which we speculate them. And, upon con∣sequence, if they are conceived without implicite Union: certainly they are conceived as Individuals, or Atoms. The Major is justified by that com∣mon Principle; Ex ••o quod res est, vel non est, dici potest vel esse, vel non esse; conceptus enim mensura est rei Entitas, mensura autem vocis est con∣ceptus. And the Certitude of the Minor results from that Metaphysical Canon, Nullus modus actualis est de Essentia rei.

Upon these Two Arguments might we have accumulated sundry others of the like importance,* 1.7 such as are chiefly insisted upon by the Modern Redeemers of Democritus and his noble Principles from that obscurity and contempt, which the Envy of Time and the Peripatetick had introduced, Sennertus (in Hyponemat. de Atomis.) and Magnenus (in cap. 2. disput. 2. de Atomis.) and, in imitation of their ample model, have explicated the my∣stery of our Thesis, from the Syncritical and Diacritical Experiments of Chymistry, (whereby all Bodies are sensibly dissolved into those Moleculae, or First Conventions of Atoms, which carry their specifical seminaries; and the Heterogeneous parts of diverse Concretions, after dissolution, coag∣mentated into one mass, and united per minimas) but most eminently from that natural miracle, the Tree of Hermes, made by an artificial Resuscitation of an entire Herb from the Atoms of it in a Glass, honestly effected by a Polonian Physitian in the praesence of Gaffarel, as himself records (in Curi∣ositat. inaudit.) asserted by Quercetan (in defens contra Anonym. cap. 23) and to the life described by Hierem. Cornarius, famous for his long profession of Philosophy and Medicine at Brandenburgh, in an Epistle to the great Li∣bavius, which he therefore made an Appendix to his acute dissertation

de Resuscitatione Formarum ex cineribus plantarum (syntagm. Arcan. Chymic. lib. 1. cap. 22.) But having upon an upright and mature perpension of their weight, found it such, as warrants our adscription of them to the golden number of those Reasons, that are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (as Aristotle speaks of other Arguments concerning the same subject, in de Generat. & Corrupt. cap. 2.) such as urge and compel the mind to an assent, and bid defiance to all solution: we judged our praesent Fundamental sufficiently firm, though erected upon no other but those two pillars; especially when we remembred that supererogation is a kind of Deficiency.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. The 4 no••able opinions con∣cerning the C••mposition of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. A Physical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cannot cons•••••• of Points M••∣thema••••••••l▪
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. N••t of Parts and Points Mathematical, united.
• * 1.4

  Art. 4. No•• of a sim∣ple E••tity be∣fore divisi••n 〈…〉〈…〉 of Indivisibles
• * 1.5

  Art. 5. A second A∣podictical rea∣son, de••umed f••om the na∣ture of Union, evincing that Atoms are the First and Ca∣tholick Prin∣ciple of Con∣cretions.
• * 1.6

  Art. 6. An ob••ection praevented.
• * 1.7

  Art. 7. The reason of the Authors superc••ssion of all other Ar∣guments of the like im∣portance.