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 ...

The Second Book. (Book 2)

CHAP. I. The Existence of Atoms, Evicted.

SECT. I.

* 1.1AMong infinite other hypochondriack Conceits of the Teutonick (rather, Fanatique) Philosophers, they fre∣quently adscribe a Dark and a Light side to God; determining the Es∣sence of Hell in the one, and that of Heaven in the other. Whether the expression be proper and decent e∣nough to be tolerated; requires the arbitration of only a mean and vul∣gar judgment. We shall only af∣firm, that had they accommodated the same to the shadow, or Vice∣gerent General of God, to Nature; their Dialect had been, as more familiar to our capacity, so more worthy our imitation. For, that the INCORPOREAL, and therefore Invisible part of the Universe, the Inane Space, may bear the name of the DARK; and the CORPOREAL and visible part of the LU∣MINOUS side of Nature: seems consentaneous to reason. On the First, hath the eye of our Mind been thus long levelled; taking in by col∣lateral and digressive glances the Essential Proprieties of Place and Time; the one of which is absolutely Identical, the other perfectly Analogous to Inanity: on the other we are now to convert it, and with more then com∣mon attention, therein to speculate the Catholique Principles, Motions and Mutations, or Generation and Corruption of BODIES.

All Bodies, by an universal Distinction,* 1.2 are either (1) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such, from the convention and coalition of which all Concre∣tions result; familiarly called by Physiologists, Principia, Primordia, Componentia, but most commonly, Elementa, and Materia Prima. Or (2) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as consist of the former coacervated, and coa∣lesced: or such as are composed of many single particles Component. The Former were made by Creation, and are superiour to Corruption: the Later are produced by Generation, and reducible by Corruption. The First are Simple and Originary; such as Plato intends (in Phaedro) when he saith, Principii nullam esse originem, quoniam ex ipso principio oriuntur om∣nia: the other, Compound and Secondary; such as Lucretius (lib. 1.) under∣stands by his Concilio quae constant principiorum.

What these First, Simple, Ingenerable, Incorruptible,* 1.3 Universally Compo∣nent Bodies are, or to speak in the Dialect of the Vulgar, What is the Gene∣ral Matter of all Concretions (it is no soloecism in Physiology, to transfer a word abstractly importing a Natural Action upon the thing produ∣ced by that action) hath been by more Disputed, then Deter∣mined, in all Academies. That there must be some one Catholique Material Principle, of which all Concrete Substances are compo∣sed; and into which they are again, at length by Corruption resolved: is unanimously confessed by all. And, consequently, that this Matter is Incorruptible, or the Term wherein all Dissolution ceaseth; hath been in∣dubitated by none, but those, who, upon a confusion of Geometrical with Physical Maxims, run upon the point of that dangerous Absurdity, that the infinite division of a real Continuum is possible. Insomuch therefore, as the Essential reason or Formality of Corporiety doth solely consist in Exten∣sibility, or the Dimensions of Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity real; as our Third Chapter praecedent hath demonstrated, and as the Patriarch of the Schools doth expresly confess (Natur. Auscult. 4. cap. 3.) and inso∣much as nothing can be the Root or beginning of Material or Physical Extension, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Aliquid indissolubile, something so minute and solid, that nothing can be conceived more exiguous and impatible in Nature (for, as the Radix of Mathematick, or Imaginary Continuity, is a Point: so must that of Physical or sensible Continuity be a Body of the smallest Quantity) such as are the ATOMS of Democritus, Epicurus, and other their Sectators; and the Insensible Particles of Cartesius: there∣fore, from manifest necessity, may we determine, that no Principle can just∣ly challenge all the Proprieties, or Attributes of the First Universal Matter, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Indivisible Bodies, or Atoms. Which fundamen∣tal Position clearly to establish by demonstration; is a chief part of our difficult Province: having, for method and prevention of obscurity, first briefly insisted upon their various Appellations, with the Etymological relation of each, traced them up to their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Invention, and evicted their Existence.

(1) As for their various DENOMINATIONS;* 1.4 they natu∣rally reduce themselves to three General Imports, bearing a congruous and emphatick respect to their three most eminent Proprieties. For,

• (1) In relation to their Corporiety, they are called, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bo∣dies, by way of transcendency: because they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

• devoyd of all Incorporiety, i. e. they contain nothing of Inanity, as do all Concretions emergent from them, there being in all Com∣pound Bodies more or less of Inanity disseminate among their particles. For which reason, they are also named, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Plena.
• (2) In regard of their affording Matter to all Concretions, they are de¦nominated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Principles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Elements, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, First Bodies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, First Magnitudes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Matter of all things, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Genitalia semina rerum, the seminaries of all productions: because all material things are com∣posed of them. In which concern also, by a Pythagorical Epi∣thite, they are s••••led, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Unities; because, as all Numbers arise from Unities, so all Compositions from them.
• (3) To denote their Indissolubility, they are most frequently known by the term, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Atoms; either because they are incapable of Section, as Isodor, Plutarch, Servius, Budaeus, Scapula, &c. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ob indissolubilem soliditatem, for their indissoluble solidity. For, all Concrete Bodies, insomuch as they came short of absolute solidity, having somewhat of Inanity intermixt, may be divided, and subdivided until their ultimate resolution into these, their component parts: but Atoms admit of no division below themselves. Wherefore they are usually christ∣ned, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Individual, Insectile, Impartible; as likewise, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Invisible, and by the mind only perceptible, Bodies, i. e. so exile as no man can conceive a real Exility beyond theirs.

* 1.5Hence are we assured, that Two vulgarly passant Derivations of the word, Atome, are ingenuine and extorted. (1) That of Hesychius, with too much semblance of approbation mentioned by the Reviver of the great Democritus, Magnenus, (de Atom. disput. 2. cap. 2.) which would have it a sprigg of that root, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fumus; because (forsooth) from all bodies, in their reversion from mix••ion to dissolution, their Elements disperse by Exhalation: as if this Etymologie were so adaequate and im∣portant, as to compensate the de••ect o•• an omicron, in the second syllable. (2) That embraced not only by many paedantique Grammarians, but even acute Philologers, who interpret the word Atomus to signifie a Defect of Parts; as if an Atom were destitute of all Magnitude, or no other then a mere Mathematical Point: when, indeed, the Nomenclator had his eye fixt only on their Solidity, Ha••dness, or Impatibility, which is such, as excludes all possibility of Fraction, Section, Division. Thus much Epi∣curus himself expresseth, in most persp••cuous and unpervertible terms (apud Plutarch. 1. pla••••t. 3.) thus; Dicitur Atomus, non quòd minima sit, vel i••star puncti, sed quod non possit dividi; cùm sit patiendi incapax, & ina∣nis expers. And Galen (1 de Elem.) recounting their doctrine, who af∣firmed the Principles of all Bodies to be Atoms, s••ith of Epicurus, Fecit Atomos, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He made them Infrangible in respect to their solidity.

(2) Concerning their INVENTION;* 1.6 if we reflect upon them as in Re, before their reception of any constant Denomination; we have the tradition not only of Possidonius the Stoick, related by Empiricus (ad∣vers. Physic. lib. ib.) but also of Strabo, to assure the honour thereof upon one Moschus, a Phoenician, who flourished not long before the ruine of Troy by the Graecians. Allowing this for Authentique, we have some cause to judge Magnenus to have been too favourable to his Grand Master, Democritus, when (in testimon. de Democrito. pag. 3••.) He enricheth his Panegyrick of him with, Effluvia Corporum Atomosque comperit, & in∣vexit omnium primus: ex Laertio quod unum tanti apud me est, ut congestas omnium Philosophorum laudes vel exaequet vel superet. Besides, to do La∣ertius right, He finds Leucippus, not Democritus, to have been the Foun∣der of this incomparable Hypothesis: as his records lye open to testifie (in vita Leucippi.) But, if we reflect upon them only as in Nomine, en∣quiring who was their Godfather, that imposed the most convenient name, Atoms, upon them; we need not any more ancient, or faithful mo∣numents to silence all competition about that honour, then those of Theo∣doret: who rightly sets the Laurel on the deserving front of Epicurus, in this text; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Epicurus, Neoclis filius, dicta illis (mean∣ing Democritus and Metrodorus Chius) Nasta & Adiaereta, appellavit Atomos. We are not ignorant, that Sidonius Apollinaris (carmin. 15.) adscribes the imposition of this name, to Archelaus in these Verses:

Post hos, Archelaus divina, mente paratam Concipit hanc molem, confectam partibus illis, Quos Atomos vocat, ipse leveis &c.

But how unjustly, even S. Augustine (8. de Civit. Dei, cap 3.) sufficiently declares; saying, that Archelaus deduced all things, non ex Atomis, sed ex Particulis dissimilibus. And therefore, though we may not file up the first Discovery of this noble Principle, Atoms (of all others, hitherto ex∣cogitated, the most verisimilous, because most sufficient to the solution of all Natures Phaenomena) among those many benefits, which the Com∣monweal of Philosophy owes to the bounteous Wit of Epicurus: yet hath his sagacity in accommodating them with so perfectly congru∣ous an Appellation, and successful industry in advancing and refi∣ning their Theory, in the General, worthily entituled him to the ho∣mage of a grateful Estimation equal to that, which the merit of their In∣ventor claims.

(3) Concerning their EXISTENCE; that there are such Things,* 1.7 as Atoms, or Insectile Bodies, in Rerum Natura; cannot be long doubted by any judicious man, who shall thus reason with himself.

(1) Nature can produce Nothing out of Nothing; nor reduce any thing to Nothing: is an Axiome, whose tranquility was never yet disturbed, no not by those who hav•• invaded the ••ertitude of even First Notions, and accused Geometry of delusion. If so; there must be some Common Stock, or an Universal Something, Ingenerable, and Incorruptible, of which being praeexistent, all things are Generated, and into which

being indissoluble, all things are, at the period of their duration, again resolved.

* 1.8That Nature doth dissolve Bodies into exceeding minute, or insensible particles; Her self doth undeniably manifest, as well in the Nutrition of Animate (their Aliment being volatilized into so many insensible particles, as those whereof the Body nourished doth consist; otherwise there could be no General Apposition, Accretion, Assimilation) as the Incineration of ••ead Bodies. Which ground Des Cartes rightly apprehended to be so firm and evident, that he thought the existence of his Insensible Particles sufficiently demonstrable from thence. Quis dubitare potest (saith He) quin multa Corpora sint tam minuta, ut ea nullo sensu deprehendamus, si tantum con∣sideret, quidnam singulis horis adjiciatur iis quae lente augentur, vel quid de∣tra••atur ex iis quae sensim minuuntur? Cresci•• enim arbor quotidiè, nec po∣test intelligi majorem illam reddi quam prius fuit, nisi simul intelligatur ali∣quod corpus eidem adjungi. Quis autem unquam sensu deprehenderit, quaenam sint illa corpuscula, quae in una die arbori crescenti accesserunt, &c. (princip Philos. part. 4. articul. 201.)

That she cannot in her Dissolution of Bodies, proceed to Infinity, but must consist in some definite Term,* 1.9 or extreme, the lowest of Physical Quanti∣ty; is demonstrable from hence, that every real Magnitude is uncapable of interminable Division. For, since to an infinite process is required an in∣finite Time; she could never Generate any thing New, because the old would require an infinite time and process to their Dissolution. Convict∣ed by this apodictical Argument, Aristotle (1 Phys. 9.) detesting the odi∣ous Absurdity of (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) running on to Infinity; solemnly con∣cludes (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) that there must be an Extreme Matter, wherein all Exolution is terminated: only herein He recedes from the supposition of Democritus, Epicurus, and other Patrons of the same Doctrine that they terminated all Exolution in the Insectility of Atoms; but He describes no such Extreme, or point of Consistence, his Materia Prima being stated rather Potential, then Actual, and absolutely devoid of all Quantity; then which we know no more open and inexcusable a Contradiction. Again, if the Exolution of Bodies were not Definite, and that Nature knowing no n•• ultra, did progress to Adnihilation: then must it inevitably follow, that the Matter of all things, that have been formerly, is totally Adnihi∣lated; and the matter of all things now Existent, was educed out of No∣thing. Two most intolerable Absurdities; since Adnihilation and Crea∣tion are terms n••t to be found in the Dictionary of Nature, but proper on∣ly to Omnipotence: nor is there any sober man, who doth not understand the Common Material of Thi••gs to be constantly the same, through the whole flux of Time, or the duration of the World; so as that from the Creation thereof by the Fiat of God, no one particle of it can perish, or vanish into Nothing, until the total Dissolution of Nature, by the same Metaphysical power; nor any one particle of new matter be superadded thereto, without miracle. The Energy of Nature is definite and praescri∣bed: nor is she Commissioned with any other Efficacy, then what extends to the moulding of Old Matter into New Figures; and so, the noblest Attri∣bute we can allow her, is that of a Translator.* 1.10

Now, to extract the spirit of all this, since there must be an Extreme, or

ultimate Term of Exolubility, beyond which can be progress; since this Term can be conceived no other but the lowest degree of Physical Quanti∣ty; and since, beyond the In••ectility of Atoms, no Quantity Physical can be granted: what can the genuine Consequent be, but that in Nature there are extremly minute Bodies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Indivisible and Immutable?

(2) For Confirmation; as in the Universe there is, Aliquid Inane,* 1.11 something so purely Inane, as that it is absolutely devoyd of all Corporie∣ty: so also must there be Aliquid Corporeum, somewhat so purely Corpo∣real, or solid, as to be perfectly devoyd of all Inanity; to which peculiar solidity nothing but Atoms, in regard of their Indivisibility, can praetend: therefore is their Existence to be confessed. This Reason Lucretius most elegantly thus urgeth;

Tum porrò▪ si nil esset, quod INANE vacaret, Omne foret solidum; nisi contrà CORPORA caeca Essent, quae loca complerent quaecunque tenerent, Omne quod est spatium, Vacuum constaret Inane, &c. Lib. 1.

(3) Evident it is to sense, that in the World are two sorts of Bodies,* 1.12 Soft and Hard; now, if we assume the Principles of all things to be exqui∣sitely Hard, or Solid; then do we admit the production of not only Hard, but also of soft Bodies to be possible, because softness may arise to a Con∣cretion of Hard Principles, from the Intermistion of Inanity: but, if we assume soft Principles, then do we exclude all possibility of the production of Hard Bodies, that Solidity, which is the Fundament of Hardness, be∣ing substracted: Therefore is the Concession of Atoms necessary.

(4) Nature is perpetually Constant in all her specifical Operations,* 1.13 as in her Production and Promotion of Animals to the determinate periods of their Increment, Stature, Vigour, and Duration; and, more evidently, in the impression of those marks, whereby each species is discriminated from other. Now, to what Cause can this Her Constancy be, with grea∣ter probability, referred then to this, that her Materials are Certain, Con∣stant, and inobnoxious to Dissolution, and consequently to mutation: and such are Atoms praesumed to be? Ergo, they are Existent.

CHAP. II. No Physical Continuum, infinitely Divisible.

SECT. I.

THe Grand Base on which the whole Fabrick of the Atomists,* 1.14 i. e. our Physiology is supported, confes∣seth it self to be this; that Nature cannot extend her Dissolution of Bodies beyond 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, somewhat that is Firm and Inexsoluble. And the rock on which that adamantine Base is fixt, is soon understood to be this; that the Parts of no Physical Conti∣nuum, or Magnitude, are subdivisi∣ble to Infinity. The Former, we con∣ceive so clearly comprobated by Reasons of evidence and certitude equal to that of the most perfect De∣monstration in Geometry, that to suspect its admission for an impraegna∣ble Verity, by all, who have not, by a sacramental subscription of Ari∣stotles Infallibility, abjured the ingenious Liberty of estimating Philoso∣phical Fundaments more by the moments of Verisimility, then the speci∣ous Commendums of Authority; were no less then implicitely to dispa∣rage the Capacity of our Reader, by supposing Him an incompetent judge of their importance and validity. And that the Other is equally no∣ble in its alliance to Truth, and so secure from subversion by the minds of the acutest Sophistry, that may oppose it; is the necessary Theorem of this praesent Exercitation.

* 1.15To usher in this Verity with the greater splendor, we are required to ad∣vertise

(1) That Philosophers have instituted two distinct Methods, for the regular Division of Magnitude. For, their Divisions are continued by a progression through Parts either (1) PROPORTIONAL; which is when a Physical Continuum is divided into two parts, and each of those parts is subdivided again into two more, and each of those into two more; or when the whole of any magnitude is divided into 10 equal

parts, and each of those into 10 more, and each of those into 10 more, and so forward, observing the same decimal proportions through the whole division: or (2) ALIQUOTAL; i. e. when a Continuum is di∣vided into such parts, as being divers times repeated, are aequated to the whole, or into so many parts as seem convenient to the Divisor, provided they hold equal proportions among themselves, whether they be Miles, Furlongs, Fathoms, Feet, Digits, &c. Which Distinction Aristotle seems to allude unto, when he declares (3. physic. 7.) that the Difference betwixt Magnitude and Number doth consist in this, that by the Division of Num∣bers we arrive at last, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad Minimum, at the Least; but of Magnitude, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad Minus, only to a Less.

(2) That when Democritus, Epicurus,* 1.16 and other Ancients of the same Antistoical Faction, treating of the Division of Magnitude, determine it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; they did chiefly intend that Methodical Division, which is made in partes Proportionales; insomuch as every part made by a second division must be less then that made by a first.

The Demonstration.

If in a Finite Body, the number of Parts, into which it may be divided,* 1.17 be not Finite also; then must the Parts comprehended therein be really Infinite: and, upon Consequence, the whole Composition resulting from their Commix∣ture, be really Infinite; which is repugnant to the supposition.

So perfectly Apodictical, and so inoppugnably victorious,* 1.18 is this single Argument, that there needs no other to the justification of our instant Cause: nor can the most obstinate and refractory Champion of the Pe∣ripateticks, refuse to surrender his assent thereto, without being reduced to a most dishonourable exigent. For, He must allow either that the whole of any Body is something besides, or distinct from the Aggeries, or Mass of Parts, of which it is composed: or, that all the Parts, to∣gether taken, are somewhat greater then the whole amassed by their convention and coalescence. If so; there must be as many parts in a grain of Mustard seed, as in the whole Terrestrial Globe: since in either is supposed an equal Inexhauribility; which is contrary to the First Notion of ••uclid, Totum est majus sua parte. And if any mans skull be so soft, as to admit a durable impression of an opi∣nion so openly self-contradictory, as this, that the Whole is less then its Parts; we judge him a fit Scholer for Chrysippus, who blusht not publiquely to affirm, that one drop of Wine was capable of commistion with every particle of the Ocean, nay, diffusive enough to extend to an union with every particle of the Universe, were it 1000••0 times greater, then now it is. Nor, need we despair to make him swear, that Arcesilas did not jeer the Disciples of Zeno, when he exemplified the inexhaurible division of Magnitude, in a mans Thigh, amputated, pu∣trified, and cast into the Sea; ironically affirming the parts thereof so infinitely subdivisible, that it might be incorporated per mi∣nimas, to every particle of Water therein; and consequently, that not only Antigonus Navy might sail at large through the thigh, but

also that Xerxes thousand two hundred ships might freely maintain a Na∣val fight with 300 Gallies of the Greeks, in the compass of its dispersed parts. We deny not, but Zeno's Argument against Motion, grounded on the supposition of interminable Partibility in Magnitude, is too hard and full of Knots, to be undone by the teeth of common reason: yet who hath been so superlatively stupid, as to prefer the mere plausibility thereof to the contrary Demonstration of his sense, and thereupon infer a belief, that there is no Motion in the World? What Credulity is there so easie, as to entertain a conceit, that one granule of sand (a thing of very small circumscription) doth contain so great a number of parts, as that it may be divided into a thousand millions of Myriads; and each of those parts be subdivided into a thousand millions of Myriads; and each of those be redivided into as many; and each of those into as many: so as that it is impossible, by multiplications of Divisions, ever to arrive at parts so ex∣tremely small, as that none can be smaller; though the subdivisions be repeated every moment, not only in an hour, a day, a month, or a year, but a thousand millions of Myriads of years? Or, What Hypochondri∣ack hath been so wild in Phansie, as to conceive that the vast mass of the World may not be divided into more parts then the Foot of a Handworm, a thing so minute as if made only to experiment the perfection of an Engy∣scope? And yet this must not be granted, if we hearken to the spels of Zeno and the Stoicks; who contend for the Divisibility of every the smallest quantity into infinite parts: since, into how many parts soever the World be divided, as many are assumable in the Foot of a Hand∣worm, the parts of this being no less inexhaustible, nor more terminable by any continued division, then the parts of that, according to the suppo∣sition of Infinitude. And, hereon may we safely conclude, that albeit the Arguments alledged in defence of Infinite Divisibility of every Phy∣sical Continuum, were (as not a few, nor obscure Clerks have reputed them) absolutely indissoluble: yet notwithstanding, since we have the plain Certificate of not only our Reason, but undeluded sense also to evi∣dence the Contrary, ought we to more then suspect them of secret Falla∣cy and Collusion; it being a rule, worthy the reputation of a First No∣tion, that in the examination of those Physical Theorems, whose Verity, or Falsity is determinable by the sincere judicature of the sense, we ought to appeal to no other Criterion, but to acquiesce in the Cer∣tification thereof; especially where is no Refragation, or Dissent of Reason.

Notwithstanding the manifest necessity of this apodictical Truth, yet have there been many Sophisms framed, upon design to evade it: among which we find only Two, whose plausibility and popular approbation seem to praescribe them to our praesent notice.

* 1.19The First is that famous one of Aristotle (de insecabil. lineis) Non crea∣ri propterea infinitum actu ex hujusmodi partibus infinitis, quoniam tales par∣tes non actu, sed potestate duntaxat infinitae sunt; adeo proinde ut creent so∣lùm infinitum potestate, quod idem sit actu finitum: that the division of a finite body into infinite parts doth not make it actually infinite, because the parts are not actually, but only potentially infinite; so as they ren∣der it infinitely divisible only potentially, while it still remains actually Finite.

The Collusion of this Distinction is not deeply concealed. For,* 1.20 every Continuum hath either no parts in actu, or infinite parts in actu. Since, if by parts in actu, we understand those that are actually divided: then hath not any Continuum so much as two or three parts; the supposed Conti∣nuity excluding all Division. And if we intend, that a Continuum hath therefore two parts actually, because it is capable of division into two parts actually: then is it necessary, that we allow a Continuum to have parts actually infinite, because we presume it capable of division into infinite parts actually; which is contradictory to Aristotle. Nor can any of his Defendants excuse the consequence by saying; that the Division is never finishable, or terminable, and that his sense is only this, that no Conti∣nuum can ever be divided into so many parts, as that it may not be again divided into more, and those by redivision into more, and so forward without end. Since, as in a Continuum two parts are not denyed to exist, though it be never divided into those two parts: so likewise are not infi∣nite parts denied to exist therein, though it be never really divisible into infinite parts. Otherwise, we demand, since by those requisite divisions and subdivisions usque ad infinitum, still more and more actuall parts are discovered; can you conceive those parts, which may be discovered to be of any Determinate Number, or not? If you take the Affirm. then will not there be parts enough to maintain the division to infinity: if the Ne∣gat. then must the parts be actually infinite. For, how can a Continuum be superior to final exhaustion, unless in this respect, that it contains infinite parts, i. e. such whose Infinity makes it Inexhaustible. Because, as those parts, which are deduced from a Continuum, must be praeexistent therein before deduction (else whence are they deduceable?) so also must those, which yet remain deduceable, be actually existent therein, otherwise they are not deducible from it. For, Parts are then Infinite, when more and more inexhaustibly, or without end, are conceded Deducible.

The other, with unpardonable confidence insisted on by the Stoicks,* 1.21 is this; Continuum non evadere infinitum; quoniam illud propriè resultat non ex Proportionalibus, sed ex Aliquotis partibus, quas constat esse Definitas, cùm inter extrema Corporis versentur: that [by admitting an infinity of parts in a Finite Continuum] a Continuum doth not become infinite; because that results properly not from Proportional, but Aliquotal parts, which are therefore confess'd to be Definite, because they relate only to the Extremes of a Body.

First, this subterfuge is a mere Lusus Verborum,* 1.22 sounding nought at all in the ears of Reason. For since every thing doth consist of those parts, into which it may be at last resolved; because every Continuum is at last resolved into, therefore must it con••ist of Proportional Parts. Again, since every one of Aliquotal parts is Continuate, each of them may be divided into as many Aliquotal parts, as the whole Continuum was first divided into, and so upwards infinitely: so as at length the Division must revert in∣to Proportional Parts, and the Difficulty remain the same.

SECT. II.

THe impossibility of Dividing a Physical Continuum into parts inter∣minably subdivisible, being thus amply Demonstrated; and the So∣phistry of the most specious Recesses, invented to assist the Contrary opi∣nion, clearly detected: the residue of this Chapter belongs to our Vindi∣cation of the same Thesis from the guilt of those Absurdities and In••on∣gruities, which the Dissenting Faction hath charged upon it.

* 1.23Empiricus, with great Virulency of language inveighing against the Pa∣trons of Atoms, accuseth them of subverting all Local Motion, by sup∣posing that not only Place and Time, but also Natural Quantity indivi∣sible beyond Insectile Parts. To make this the more credible, He Ob∣jects (1) That if we assume a Line, consisting of nine Insectils, and ima∣gine two insectile Bodies to be moved, with equal velocity, from the op∣posite extremes thereof toward the middle; it must be, to their mutual occurse, and convention in the middle, necessary that both possess the me∣dian part of the median, or Fifth Insectile place (there being no cause, why one should possess it more then the other) when yet both the Places and Bodies therein moved, are praesumed Insectile, i. e. without parts. (2) That all Bodies must be moved with equal celerity; for, the pace of the Sun and that of a Snail must be aequivelox, if both move through an insectile space, in an insectile Time. (3) That, if many Concentrical Cir∣cles be described by the circumduction of one Rule, defixed upon one of its extremes, as upon a Centre; since they are all delineated at one and the same time, and some are greater then others: it must follow, that un∣equal portions of Circles are described in the same individual point of Time, and consequently that an Insectile of an Interior Circle must be aequated to a sectile of an Exterior.

* 1.24To these our Modern Anti-Epicureans have superadded many other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Inconcistencies, as dependent on the position of Insectility viz. (1) That a Line of unaequal Insectiles, suppose of 3.5.9. or 11. cannot be divided into two equal halfs: when yet, that any Line whatever may be exactly bipartited, is demonstrable to sense. (2) That a less line cannot be divided into so many parts, as a Greater: though the Contra∣ry be concordant to the maximes of Geometry. (3) That though lines drawn betwixt all the points of the Leggs of an Isoscelis Triangle, paral∣lel to its Base, are less then its Base; yet will they be found greater: be∣cause, supposing the Base to be of five points, and the Leggs of 10; it must follow, that the least Line, or the nearest to the Vertex, doth consist of only two points, the second of 3, the third of 4, the fourth of 5, the fifth of 6, the sixth of 7, the seventh of 8, and the greatest, or nearest to the Base, of 9; then which nothing can be more absurd. (4) That the Dia∣gone of a Quadrate would be commensurable in longitude with the side thereof: one and the same point being the measure common to both; though the Contrary is demonstrated by Euclid. (5) That the same Di∣agone of a Quadrate could not be greater then, but exactly adaequate to

the side thereof: because each of all its points must be possessed by just so many, nor more nor fewer lines, then may be drawn betwixt the points of the opposite sides; which is highly absurd. (6) That, with the danger of no less absurdity, would not a semicircle be greater then its Diametre; since to every point in the semicircle there would respond another in the Diametre, and there would be in both as many points, on which as many perpendicular Lines, deduced from them, might be incident. (7) That, according to the supposition of Insectility, of many Concentrick Circles the Exterior would not be greater then the Interior; insomuch as all the Lines drawn from all the points of it toward the Centre, must pass through as many points of the other. Many other Exceptions lye against our In∣sectility; but being they are of the same Nature with these, rather Ma∣thematical, then Physical, and that one common solution will serve them all: we may not abuse our leasure in their recitation.

That there have been hot and scarce ingenious Altercations among the gravest and leading Philosophers, in all ages;* 1.25 and even about those Ar∣guments, which wear the proper Characters of Truth fairly engraven on their Fronts: can be esteemed no wonder; because the general custom of men to speculate the Fabrick of Nature through the deceivable Glass of Authority, doth amply solve it. But, that so many Examples of Sa∣gacity and Disquisition, as have condemned the Hypothesis of Atoms, should think their Choler against the Patrons of it excusable only by the allegation of these light and impertinent Exceptions: cannot be denyed the reputation of a Wonder, and such a one as no plea, but an ambitious Affectation of extraordinary subtilty in the invention of Sophisms (where∣in Fallacy is so neatly disguised in the amiable habit of right Reason, as to be charming enough to impose upon the incircumspection of common Credulity, and cast disparagement upon the most noble and evident Fun∣damentals.) can palliate. For, certainly, They could not be ignorant, that they corrupted the state of the Quaestion; the Minimum, or Insectile of Atomists, being not Mathematicum, but Physicum, and of a far diffe∣rent nature from that Least of Quantity, which Geometricians imagining only, denominate a Point. And therefore, what Cicero (1. de finib.) said against Epicurus; Non esse ne illud quidem Physici, credere aliquid esse mini∣mum: may be justly converted into, Esse praesertim Physici, naturale quod∣dam minimum asserere; since Nature in her Exolutions cannot progress to infinity. We say, Physici; because it is the Naturalist, whose enquiries are confined to sensible objects, and such as are really Existent in Nature: nor is He at all concerned, to use those Abstractions (as they are termed) from Matter; the Mathematician being the only He, who cannot, with safety to his Principles, admit the Tenet of Insectility, or Term of Divi∣sibility. For to Him only is it requisite, to suppose and speculate Quan∣tity abstract from Corporiety; it being evident, that if He did allow any Magnitude divisible only into Individuals, or that the number of possible parts, or points in a Continuum, were definite: then could he not erect Geometrical, or exquisite Demonstrations. And hence only is it, that He supposeth an Infinitude of points in every the least Continuum, or (in his own phrase) that every Continuum is div••sible into parts infinitely subdi∣visible: not that He doth, or can really understand it so; but that many Convenient Conclusions, and no considerable Incongruities, follow upon the Concession thereof. This considered, we need no other evidence,

that all the former Objections, accumulated upon Epicurus by the maliti∣ous Sophistry of Empiricus and others, concern only the Mathematicians, not the Physiologist, who is a stranger to their supposition of interminable Divisibility.

* 1.26If this Response praevail not, and that we must yet sustain this seem∣ing Dilemma; Either the suppositions of the Mathematicians are True or False: if true, then doth their verity hold, when accommodated to Physical Theorems, by the assumption of any sensible Continuum, or real Magnitude; if false, then are not the Conclusions Necessary, that are deduced from them, but the contray is apparent in their de∣monstrations; Therefore, &c. Our Expedient is, that, though we should concede those suppositions to be False, yet may they afford true and necessary Conclusions: every Novice in Logick well knowing how to extract undeniable Conclusions out of most false propositions, only supposed true, as may be Instanced in this Syllogism. Omnes arbores sunt in coelo (that's false) sed omnia sydera sunt Arbores (that's false) Ergo, omnia sydera sunt in coelo (that's indisputable). Besides, 'tis evident, that of those many Hypotheses celebrated by Astronomers, ei∣ther no one is absolutely true, or all except one, are false: yet Ex∣perience assures, that from all, at least from most of them the Motions of Coelestial Bodies may be described, and respective Calculations insti∣tuted with equal Certude.

Digression.

* 1.27Here, because our Reader cannot but perceive us occasionally fallen into the mouth of that eminent Quaestion; An liceat in materiam physi∣cam, sive sensibilem, transferre Geometricas Demonstrationes? Whether it be convenient to transfer Geometrical Demonstrations to Physical or sensible Quantity? Since they, who accept the Negative, seem to ad∣nihilate the use of Geometry: we need not deprecate his impatience, though we digress so long, as to praesent him the summary of our thoughts concerning it.

First, we conceive it not justifiable, alwayes to expect the eviction of Physical Theorems; by Geometrical Demonstrations. This may be authorized from hence, that Geometricians themselves, when they fall upon the theory of those parts of the Mathematicks, which are Physicoma∣thematical, or of a mi••t and complex Consideration, are frequently neces∣sitated to convert to suppositions, not only different from, but directly and openly repugnant to their own proper and establisht maxims. Thus▪ in Opticks, Euclid concedes a Least Angle; and Vitellio admits a Least Light, such as being once understood to be divided, hath no longer the act of Light, i. e. wholly disappears: which is no less, then in Opticks to al∣low a Term, or point of Consistence to the Division of Quantity, which yet in Geometry they hold capable of an infinite process. We are pro∣vided of a most pertinent Example, for the illustration of the whole mat∣ter. The Geometrician Demonstrateth the Division of a Line into two equal segments, to be a thing not only possible, but most easie: and yet cannot the Physiologist be induced to swallow it, as really performable.

For He considers (1) That the superfice of no body can be so exactly smooth and polite, as to be devoyd of all uneveness or asperity, every common Microscope discovering numerous inaequalities in the surface of even the best cut Diamonds, and the finest Chrystal, Bodies, whose Tra∣lucency sufficiently confesseth them to be exceeding polite: and conse∣quently, that there is assumable thereon no Line so perfectly uniform, as not to be made unequal by many Valleculae and Monticulae, small pits and protuberances frequently interjacent. (2) That the Edge of no Dissecting Instrument can be so acute, as not to draw a line of some Latitude. (3) That should the edge of the acutest Rasor be laid on the foot of a Handworm, which may be effected by the advantage of a good Magnify∣ing Glass, and a steady hand: yet is that composed of many Myriads of Atoms, or insensible particles of the First universal Matter. And thence Concludes that no real Line drawn upon the superfice of any the smoothest Body, can be practically divided into two Halfs, so exactly, as that the se∣ction shall be in that part, which is truly the median to both extremes. Since, that part, which appears, to the sense, to be the median, and is most exiguous; doth yet consist of so many Myriads of particles, as that though the edge of the Rasor be imposed by many Myriads of par∣ticles aside of that, which is truly in the middle, yet will it seem to the eye still to be one and the same. This duely perpended, we have no cause to fear the section of an Atome, though the edge of a knife were imposed directly upon it: Since the edge must be gross and blunt, if compared to the exility of an Atome: so that we may allow it to divide an Assembly, or Heap of Atoms, but never to cut a single one.

Secondly, We judge it expedient in some cases to accommodate sup∣positions Geometrical to Subjects merely Physical; but to this end only, that we may thereby acquire majorem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a greater degree of Acute∣ness, or advance our speculations to more Exactness. Thus the soul of the Mathematicks, Archimed, (de Arenarum num.) supposed the Diametre of a grain of Poppy seed to consist of 10000 particles; not that He conceived that any Art could really discern so vast a multitude of parts in a body of so minute circumscription: but that, by transferring the same reason to ano∣ther body of larger dimensions, He might attain the certitude of his Propo∣sition by so much the nearer, by how much the less he might have erred by neglecting one of those many particles. Thus also is it the custom of Geome∣tricians, in order to their exactness in Calculations, to imagine the Semi-diametre, or Radius of any Circle, divided into many Myriads of Parts; not that so many parts can be really distinguished in any Radius, but that, when comparation is made betwixt the Radius, and other right lines, which in parts Aliquotal, or such as are expressed by whole numbers, do not ex∣actly respond thereunto, particles may be found out so exile, as though one, or the fraction of one of them be neglected yet can no sensible Error ensue thereupon. And this (in a word) seems to be the true and only Cause, why Mathematicians constantly suppose every Continuum to consist of Infinite parts: not that they can, or ought to understand it to be Really so; but that they may conserve to themselves a liberty of insensible Latitude, by subdividing each division of Parts into so many as they please; For, they well know, that the Physiologist is in the right, when He admits no Infinity, but only an Innumerability of parts in natua∣ral Continuum. Lastly, if these Reasons appear not weighty enough to

counterpoise the Contrary Persuasion; we can aggravate them with a Grain of noble Authority. For, no meaner a man then Plato, who seems to have understood Geometry as well as the Aegyptian Theuth, the suppo∣sed Inventor thereof (vide Platon. in Phaedro) and to have honoured it much more in a solemn Panegyrick (9. dialog. de Rep.) sharply reprehends Eudoxus, Archytas, Menaechonus, &c. for their errour in endeavouring to adjust Geometrical speculations to sensible objects: subnecting in positive termes, that (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) thereby the good of Geometry was corrupted. (Lege Marsil. Ficin. in Compend▪ Timaei. cap. 19.)

CHAP. III. Atoms, the First and Vniversal Matter.

SECT. I.

NO man so fit to receive and retain the impressions of Truth, as He,* 1.28 who hath his Virgin mind totally dispos∣sessed of Praejudice: and no Thesis hath ever, since the Envy of Aristotle was so hot, as to burn the Volumes of Democritus and most of the Elder Philosophers, which might have con∣served its lustre,* 1.29 been more Eclipsed with a praesumption of sundry Incon∣gruities, then this noble one, that A∣toms are the First and Catholique Prin∣ciple of Bodies. Requisite it is there∣fore that this Chapter have, Ianus like, two faces: one to look backward on those Impediments to its general admis∣sion, the Inconsistences charged upon, and sundry Difficulties supposed inse∣parable from it; the other to look forward at the plenary Remonstrance of its Verity.

In obedience to this necessity, therefore, we advertise, first;* 1.30 that it hath proved of no small disadvantage to the promotion of the Doctrine of A∣toms, that the Founders thereof have been accused of laying it down for a main Fundamental, that there are two Principles of all things in the Uni∣verse, BODIE and INANITY; importing the necessary Con∣currence of the Inane Space to the constitution of Bodies complex, as well as of Atoms. This Absurdity hath been unworthily charged upon Epicu∣rus by Plutarch, in these words; Principia esse Epicuro Infinitatem & Ina∣ne: and upon Leucippus and Democritus by Aristotle (1. Metaphys. 4.) in these; Plenum & Inane Elementa dicunt.

To vindicate these Mirrors of Science from so dishonourable an Imputa∣tion, we plead; that though they held the Universe to consist of two Ge∣neral Parts, Atoms and Vacuity: yet did not they, therefore, affirm, that

all things were composed of those two, as Elementary Principles. That which imposed upon their Accusers judgment, was this, that supposing Atoms and the Inane Space to be Ingenite and Incorruptible, they conceived the whole of Nature to arise from them, as from its two universal Parts; but never dreamt so wild an Alogy, as that all Concretions, that are pro∣duced by Generation, and subject to destruction by Corruption, must de∣rive their Consistence from those two, in the capacity of Elements, or Com∣ponentia. For, albeit in some latitude and liberty of sense, they may be conceded Elements, or Principles of the Universe: yet doth it not natu∣rally follow, that therefore they must be equal Principles, or Elements of Generables; since Atoms only fulfill that title, the Inane Space affording only Place and Discrimination. Nor is it probable, that those, who had defined Vacuity by Incorporiety, should lapse into so manifest a Contradi∣ction, as to allow it to be any Cause of Corporiety, or to constitute one moiety of Bodies. Besides, neither can Epicurus in any of those Fragments of his, redeemed from the jaws of oblivion by Laertius, Cicero, Empiri∣cus, Plutarch, &c. nor his faithful Disciple and Paraphrast, Lucretius, in all his Physiology, be found, to have affirmed the Contexture of any Concre∣tion from Inanity, but of all things simply and solely from Atoms. And for Democritus, him doth even Aristotle himself wholly acquit of this Error; for (in 1. Phys.) enumerating the several opinions of the Ancients concern∣ing the Principles, or Elements of all things, He saith of him; Fecit prin∣cipiorum Genus unicum, Figuras verò differentes. All therefore that lyeth against them in this case, is only that they asserted the interspersion or dis∣semination of Inanity among the incontingent particles of Bodies concrete, as of absolute necessity to their peculiar Contemperation: which we con∣ceive our selves obliged to embrace and defend, untill it shall be proved un∣to us, by more then paralogistical arguments, that there is any one Concre∣tion in the world so perfectly solid, as to contain nothing of the Inane Space intermixt▪ which till it can be demonstrated that a Concretion may be so solid, as to be Indissoluble, we have no cause to expect.

* 1.31Secondly, That the Patrons of Atoms do not (as the malice of some, and incogitancy of others hath praetended, to cast disparagement upon their Theory) deny the Existence of those four Elements admitted by most Philosophers: but allow them to be Elementa Secundaria, Elements Elementated, i. e. consisting of Atoms, as their First and Highest Princi∣ples. Thus much we may certifie from that of Lucretius (2. lib.) treating of Atoms;

Unde mare, & Terrae possent augescere, & unde Adpareret spatium Coeli * 1.32 domus, alta{que} tecta, Tolleret a terris procul, & consurgeret Aer, &c.

Nor can the most subtle of their Adversaries make this their Tenet bear an action of trespass against right Reason; especially when their Advocate shall urge, the great Dissent of the Ancients concerning both the Number and Original of Elements, the insufficiency of any one Element to the Produ∣ction of Compound Natures, and that the four vulgar Elements cannot justly be honoured with the Attributes of the First Matter.

(1) The Dissent of the Ancients about the number of Elements cannot be unknown to any,* 1.33 who hath revolved their monuments and taken a list of their several opinions; their own, or their Scholiasts volumes lying open to record, that of those who fixt upon the four Vulgar Elements, Fire, Aer, Earth, Water, for the universal Principles, some constituted on∣ly one single first Principle, from which by Consideration and Rarefaction, the other three did proceed, and from them all Elementated Concretions: among which are Heraclitus, who selected Fire; Anaximenes, who pitch∣ed upon Aer; Thales Milesius, who praeferred Water; and Pherecydes, who was for Earth. Others supposed only Two primary, from which likewise, by Condensation and Rarefaction the other two secondary were produced: as Xenophanes would have Earth and Water; Parmenides contended for Fire and Earth; Oenopides Chius for Fire and Aer; and Hippo Rheginus for Fire and Water. Others advanced one step higher, and there acquies∣ced in Three; as Onomacritus and his Proselytes affirmed Fire, Water, and Earth. And some made out the Quaternian, and superadded also Aer; the Principal of which was Empedocles. Now, to him who remembers, that there can be but one Truth; and thereupon justly inferrs, that of many disagreeing opinions concerning one and the same subject, either all, or all except one must be false; and that it is not easie which to prefer, when they are all made equally plausible by a parity of specious Arguments: it cannot appear either a defect of judgment, or an affectation of singularity in De∣mocritus and Epicurus to have suspected them all of incertitude, and founded their Physiology on an Hypothesis of one single Principle, Atoms, from the various transposition, configuration, motion, and quiescence of whose insen∣sible Particles, all the four generally admitted Elements may be derived, and into which they may, at the term of Exsolubility, revert without the least hazard of Absurdity or Impossibility; as will fall to our ample enun∣ciation in our subsequent Enquiries into the Originals of Qualities, and the Causes of Generation and Corruption.

(2) That one of the four Elements cannot singly suffice to the production of any Compound Nature;* 1.34 needs no other eviction but that Argument of Hip∣pocrates (de Natur. Hominis) Quo pacto, cùm unum existat, generabit ali∣quid, nisi cùm aliquo misceatur? Instance we in Heraclitus Proto-Element, Fire; from which nothing but Fire can be educed: though it run through all the degrees of those fertile Modifications of Densescence and Rarescence▪ (2) To suppose Rarefaction and Condensation, without the more or less of Inanity intercepted; as they do: is to usurp the concession of an Im∣possibility. (3) Tis absurd, to conceive Fire transformable, by Extinction, into any other Element: because a simple substance cannot be subject to essential transmutation. So that, if after its extinction any thing of Fire re∣main, as must till Adnihilation be admitted; its surviving part must be the Common Matter, such as Atoms, which according to the various and re∣spective addition, detraction, transposition, agitation, or quiet of them, now put on the form of Fire, then of Aer, anon of Water, and lastly of Earth; since, in their original simplicity, they have no actual, but a potential De∣termination to the forms of all, indiscriminately. And, what is here urged, to evince the impossibility of Fires being the sole Catholique Element, car∣rieth the same proportion of reason and evidence, (the two pathognomick characters of Verity) to subvert the supposition of any of the other three for the substantial Principle of the rest.

* 1.35(3) That though the four vulgar Elements may be the Father, yet can they not be the Grandfather Principle to all Concretions; is evidencible from hence. (1) They are Contrary each to other, and so not only Asymboli∣cal or Disharmonious, but perfectly Destructive among themselves, at least uncapable of that mutual correspondence requisite to peaceful and durable Coalescence. (2) They are praesumed to coalesce, and their Concretions to consist without Inanity interspersed among their incontiguous particles: which is impossible. (3) Their Defendants themselves concede a degree of Dissolution beyond them: and consequently that they know a Princi∣ple Senior. (4) Their Patrons must grant either that they, by a praevious deperdition of their own nature, are changed into Concretions, which by mutation of Forms escheat again into Elements; in which case Elements can be no more the Principle of Concretions, then Concretions the Princi∣ple of Elements, since their Generations must be vicissitudinary and Cir∣cular, as that of Water and Ice: or, that, conserving their own natures immuta∣ble, they make only confused Heaps, and confer only their visible Bulks to all productions; in which case, nothing can revera be said to be genera∣ted, since all Generations owe their proprieties and peculiar denominations to their Forms. (5) Whoso admits a reciprocal or symbolical Transmuta∣tion of Elements: must also admit one Common, and so a Former Matter, which may successively invest it self in their several Forms; For Contraries, while Contraries, cannot unite in the assumption of the same nature. (6) That Achilles, or Champian Objection, that Vegetables and Animals owe their Nutrition and Increment to the four Elements, is soon conquered by re∣plying; that Elements are not therefore the First Principles, but rather those from whose respective Contexture they borrowed the nature of Elements, and so derived an aptitude, or qualification requisite to the condition of Aliment.

* 1.36Thirdly, that the Principles of Democritus, Epicurus, &c. are toto coelo, by irreconcileable disparities, different from those of Anaxagoras, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, CONSIMILAR Parts, or abstractly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, SI∣MILARITY (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) because they are supposed to be parts in all points consimilar to the Things generated of them, according to the paraphrase of Plutarch (1. placit. 3.) who there explains it by the Example of Aliment. Wherein, whether it be Wine, Water, Bread, Flesh, Fruits, &c. notwithstanding the seeming difference in the outward form, there are actually contained some Sanguineous, some Carnous, other Osseous, other Spermatick Parts, which, upon their seque∣stration, and selection by the Nutritive Faculty are discretely apposed to the sanguineous, carnous, osseous, and spermatick parts praeexistent in the bo∣dy nourisht. And the Disparity doth chiefly consist herein; that They endow their Atoms with only three congenial Qualities, viz. Magni∣tude, Figure, and Gravity: but He investeth his Similarities with as great variety of essential Proprieties, as there is of Qualities, nay Idiosyncrasies in Bodies.

Which to suppose, is to dote: (1) Because if the nature of the whole be one and the same with that of its Parts: then must the Principles, no less then the Concretions consisting of them, be obnoxious to Corruption. (2) Because, if it be assumed, that Like are made of Like, or that Concre∣tions are absolutely Identical to their Elements; it cannot be denyed; that there are La••ghing and Weeping Principles concurrent to the generations

of Laughing and Weeping Compositions. (3) Because from hence, that (concordant to Anaxagoras) all things are actually existent in all things, and that the difference resteth only in the external Apparence, arising from the praedominion of such or such over such or such parts of the Consimilar Prin∣ciples: it necessarily ensues (as Aristotle argueth against Him, 1 Physic. 4.) that in the contusion, section, or detrition of Fruits, Herbs, &c. there must frequently appear Blood, Milk, Sperm, &c. as being thereby enfranchised from the tyranny of those parts, which ruled the rost in the induction of the outward apparence, and emergent out of those Clouds which concealed and disguised them. All which are Absurdities so palpable that a blind man may thereby Distinguish the rough and spurious Hypothesis of Anaxago∣ras, from the smooth and genuine Principle of Democritus and his Sectators.

Fourthly and lastly, that the Difficulties, which many Dissenters,* 1.37 and more eminently their most potent and declared Opponent, Lactantius (in lib. de Ira D••••, cap. 10.) have posted up against the supposition of Atoms for the Catholick Principle of Bodies Concrete, thereby to praevent their further approbation, and admission into the Schools; carry not moments enough of reason to in••••ect and determine the judgment of an aequitable Arbiter to a suspition, much less a positive negation of its verisimility. Of this we de∣sire our Reader to be judge, when he hath made himself competent, by a patient hearing, and upright perpension of the pleas of both parties, here praesented.

(1) Anti-Atomist; Whence had these minute and indivisible Bodies, called Atoms, their original? or, out of what were they educed?

Atomist; This inapposite Demand lyeth open to a double response. As a mere Philosopher I return; that the assumption of Atoms for the First Matter doth expresly praevent the pertinency of this Quaere. Nor would Aristotle, Plato, or any other of the Ethnick Philosophers, who would not hear of a Creation, or production of the First Matter out of Nothing, but contumaciously maintained its Ingeneration and Eternity, have had Gravity enough to suppress the insurrection of their spleen against the absurdity there∣of: since to enquire the Matter of the First Matter, is a Contradiction in ter∣minis. As a proficient in the sacred School of Moses, I may answer; that the fruitful Fiat of God, out of the Tohu, or infinite space of Nothing, called up a sufficient stock of the First Matter, for the fabrication of the World in that most excellent Form, which He had Idea'd in his own omni∣scient intellect from Eternity.

(2) Anti-Atomist; If Atoms be smooth and sphaerical, as their Inventors suppose; it is impossible they should take mutual hold each of other, so as by reciprocal adhaesion and coalition to constitute any Concretion. For, what power can mould an heap of Millet-seed into a durable figure, when the Laevitude or politeness, and roundness of the Grains inexcusably interdict their Coition into a Mass?

Atomist; This Objection discovers the rancour, no less then the praece∣dent Interrogation did the weakness of the proposers. For, they could not be ignorant, that the Defendants of Atoms do not suppose them to be all

smooth and globular, but of all sorts of figures requisite to mutual Applicati∣on, Coalition, Cohaerence. And therefore they could not but expect this solution. That, though polite and orbicular Atoms, cannot by mutual ap∣prehension and revinction each of other, compact themselves into a Mass; yet may they be apprehended and retained by the Hooks, and accommoda∣ted to the Creeks and Angles of other Atoms, of Hamous and Angular figures, and so conspire to the Coagmentation of a Mass, that needs no other Caement besides the mutual dependence of its component particles, to main∣tain its Tenacity and Compingence. This may receive light, from observa∣tion of the successive separation of the dissimilar Parts of Bodies, by Eva∣poration. For, first those Atoms, which are more smooth, or less angular and hamous, easily extricate themselves, and disperse from the Concreted Mass; and then, after many and various Evolutions, circumgyrations, and change of positions, the more rough, hamous, and angular, they expede themselves from reciprocal concatenation, and at last, being wholly disband∣ed, pursue the inclination of their inhaerent Motive Faculty, and disappear. Experience demonstrating, that by how much more Unctuous and Tenaci∣ous any Consistence is, by so much a longer time do the particles thereof require to their Exhalation. Thus is Water much sooner evaporated, then Oyl: and Lead then Silver.

(3) Anti-Atomist; If Atoms be unequal in their superfice, and have an∣gular and hamous processes; then are they capable of having their rugosi∣ties planed by detrition, and their hooks and points taken off by amputa∣tion: contrary to their principle propriety, Indivisibility.

Atomist; the hooks, angles, asperities, and processes of Atoms are as insecable and infrangible as the residue of their bodies, in respect an equal solidity belongs to them, by reason of their defect of Inanity interspersed, the intermixture of Inanity being the Cause of all Divisibility.

Haec, quae sunt rerum primordia, nulla potest vis Stringere, nam solido vincunt ea corpore demum.

(4) Anti-Atomist; That Bodies of small circumscription, such as grains of sand, may be amassed from a syndrome, and coagmentation of Atoms; seems, indeed, to stand in some proportion to probability: but to conceive a possibility, that so vast a Bulk, as the adspectable World bears may arise out of things but one degree above nothing, such insensible materials con∣vened and conglobated; is a symptome of such madness, as Melancho∣ly adust cannot excuse, and for which Physitians are yet to study a cure.

Atomist; To doubt the possibility, nay dispute the probability of it: is cer∣tainly the greater madness. For, since a small stone may be made up of a Coagmentation of grains of Sand; a multitude of small stones, by coacer∣vation, make up a Rock; many Rocks by aggregation, make a Mountain; many Mountains, by coaptation, make up the Globe of Earth; since the Sun, the Heavens, nay the World may arise from the conjunction of parts of dimensions equal to the Terrestrial Globe: what impossibility doth he incurr, who conceives the Universe to be amassed out of Atoms? Doubt∣less, no Bulk can be imagined of such immense Dimensions, as that the

greatest parts thereof may not be divided into less, and those again be subdivided into less; so that, by a successive degradation down the scale of Magnitude, we may not at last arrive at the foot thereof, which cannot be conceived other then Atoms. Should it appear unconceivable to any that a Pismire may perform a perambulation round the terrestrial Globe; we advise him to institute this Climax of Dimensions, and consider, first that the ambite of the Earth is defined by miles, that miles are commensurated by paces, paces consist of feet, feet of digits, digits of grains, &c. and then He may soon be con∣vinced, that the step of a Pismire holds no great disproportion to a grain, and that a grain holds a manifest proportion to a di∣git, a digit to a foot, a foot to a pace, a pace to a perch, a perch to a furlong, a furlong to a mile, and so to the circumference of the whole Earth, yea by multiplication to the convexity of the whole World. If any expect a further illustration of this point, it can cost him no more but the pains of reading the 45. page of our Treatise against Atheism; and of Archimeds book de Are∣narum Numero.

(5) Anti-Atomist; If all peices of Nature derived their origine from Individual Particles; then would there be no need of Semina∣lities to specifie each production, but every thing would arise indis∣criminately from Atoms, accidentally concurring and cohaering: so that Vegetables might spring up, without the praeactivity of seeds, without the assistance of moysture, without the fructifying influ∣ence of the Sun, without the nutrication of the Earth; and all Ani∣mals be generated spontaneously, or without the prolification of distinct sexes.

Atomist; This inference is ingenuine, because unnecessary, since all Atoms are not Consimilar, or of one sort, nor have they an equal aptitude to the Conformation of all Bodies. Hence comes it, that of them are first composed certain Moleculae, small masses, of various figures, which are the seminaries of various productions; and then, from those determinate seminaries do all specifical Generations receive their contexture and Constitution, so praecisely, that they can∣not owe their Configuration to any others. And, therefore, since the Earth, impraegnated with Fertility, by the sacred Magick of the Creators Benediction, contains the seeds of all Vegetables; they can∣not arise but from the Earth, nor subsist or augment without roots, by the mediation of which, other small consimilar Masses of Atoms are continually allected for their nutrition▪ nor without moysture, by the benefit of which, those minute masses are diluted, and so adapted for transportation and final assimilation; nor without the influence of the Sun, by vertue whereof their vegetative Faculty is con∣served, cherished and promoted in its operations. Which Reason is aequivalent also to the Generation, Nutrition and Increment of Animals.

(6) Anti-Atomist; If your Proto-Element, Atoms, be the Princi∣ple of our 4 common Elements, according to the various Configurations of it into Moleculae, or small masses; and that those are the Semina∣ries

of all things: then may it be thence inferred, that the Seeds of Fire are invisibly contained in Flints, nay more, in a Sphaerical Glass of Water, exposed to the directly incident rayes of the Sun; our sense convincing, that Fire is usually kindled either way.

Atomist; Allowing the legality of your Illation, we affirm, that in a Flint are concealed not only the Atoms, but Moleculae, or Seeds of Fire, which wanting only retection, or liberty of Exsilition, to their apparence in the forme of fire, acquire it by excussion, and pursuing their own rapid motion undiquaque, discover themselves both by affecting the sight and accension of any easily combustible mat∣ter▪ on which they shall pitch, and into whose pores they shall with exceeding Celerity penetrate. Nor can any man solve this eminent Phaenomenon so well, as by conceiving; that the body of a Flint, being composed of many igneous (i. e. most exile, sphaerical, and a∣gile) Atoms, wedged in among others of different dimensions and fi∣gures; (which contexture is the Cause of its Hardness, Rigidity and Friability) upon percussion by some other body conveniently hard, the insensible Particles thereof suffering extraordinary stress and violence, in regard it hath but little and few Vacuola, or empty spaces intermixt, and so wanting room to recede and disperse, are conglomorated and agitated among themselves with such impetuositie, as determinately causeth the constitution of Fire. It being manifest, that violent motion generateth Heat: and confessed even by Aristotle (1. Meteor. 3.) that Fire is nothing but the Hyperbole or last degree of Heat. Secondly, That the seeds of Fire are not contained either in the sphaerical Glass or the the Water included therein; but in the Beams of the Sun (whose Com∣position is altogether of Igneous Atoms) which being deradiated in dispersed lines, want only Concurse and Coition to their investment in the visible form of Fire; and that the Figure of the Glass natu∣rally induceth, it being the nature of either a Convex, or Concave Glass to transmit many Beams variously incident towards one and the same point, which the virtue of Union advanceth to the force of Ig∣nition.

* 1.38Having thus vindicated our Atoms from the supposed Competition of the Inane Space, in the dignity of being one Principle of Bodies; re∣conciled them ••o the 4 Peripatetick Elements; discriminated them from the Consimilar Particles of Anaxagoras; solved the most considerable of the Difficulties charged upon them; and thereby fully performed our assumption of removing the principal praetexts of Prajudice: we may now, with more both of perspicuity, and hopes of perswasion, advance to the Demonstration of our Thesis, the Title and Argument of this Chapter.

SECT. II.

BEsides the manifest Allusion of Reason,* 1.39 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,* 1.40 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.

* 1.41(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.

* 1.42(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.* 1.43 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,* 1.44 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,* 1.45 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.

CHAP. IV. The Essential Proprieties of Atoms.

SECT. I.

THat our Theory of those Qualities,* 1.46 which being congenial to, and inse∣parable from Atoms, fulfil the ne∣cessary Attributes of the First Uni∣versal Matter, may, according to the Method requisite to perspicuity, immediately succeed to our De∣monstration of their Existence, and the impossible Elementation of Concrete substances from any other general Principles; and that the expectance raised in our Reader by our frequent transitory mention of the Proprieties of Atoms; may be opportunely sated by a profess Enumeration and Enunciation thereof: are the two reasons that justifie our subnection of this to our praecedent Dis∣course.

The PROPRIETIES of our Atoms difference themselves into General and Specifical. The General are (1) Consimilarity of Substance;* 1.47 for all Atoms being equally Corporeal and solid, must be substantially iden∣tical, or of one and the same nature, knowing no disparity of Essence. Thus much Aristotle intimates (1. Physic. 2.) when He infers Democritus hold∣ing, esse principiorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Genus unicum, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Natu∣ram ••nam, that the Principles of all things are of one Kind, or of one Nature. In respect of this, there is no difference among Atoms. (2) Mag∣nitude, or Quantity, which they cannot want, since they are not Mathe∣matical Insectiles, but Material Realities, and Quantity or Extension is the proper and inseparable affection of Matter; and therefore every thing hath so much of Extension, as it hath of Matter. (3) Figure, which is the essen∣tial Adjunct of their Quantity. For, insomuch as Atoms are most minute Bodies, and stand diametrally opposed to Points Imaginary; therefore must they have dimensions real, and consequently a termination of those dimen∣sions in their extreme or superfice, i. e. determinate Figure. Which is the ground of Magnenus 3. Postulate (de Atomis, disput. 2.) Quicquid

magnitudinem habet, finitamque extensionem, si pluribus dimensionibus substet, concedatur illi suam inesse Figuram; and perhaps also of Euclids definition of Figure, Figura est, quae sub aliquo, vel sub aliquibus terminis compre∣henditur. Nor have they only a Plain figure, but a solid one, according to that of Euclid (lib. 2. def. 1.) solidum est, quod longitudinem, latitudinem, & crassitudinem habet. (4) Gravity, or Weight; which is also coessential to them in respect to their solidity, and the principle of their Motion. And therefore Epicurus had very good cause to add his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to De∣mocritus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: which Plutarch (1. placit. 3.) expresly renders thus; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, quia necesse est Cor∣pora moveri ipso impetu Gravitatis. For, having supposed that Motion was es∣sentially competent to Atoms, it must have been no venial defect, not to have assigned them a certain special Faculty, or Virtue for a Cause to that motion praesumed; and such must be their inhaerent Gravity, or the ten∣dency of weight. Now, in respect to either of these three last Proprie∣ties, Atoms may be conceived to admit of difference among themselves; for, in regard of Magnitude, some may be greater then others, of Fi∣gure, some may be sphaerical, others cubical, some smooth, others rough, &c. and of Gravity, some may be more, and others less ponderous, though this can cause no degrees of Velocity or Tardity in their Motion, it being formerly demonstrated, that two bodies of different weights are aequally swift in their descent.

To these 4 Essential Attributes of Atoms, Empiricus hath superadded a Fifth,* 1.48 viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Renitency, or Resistence. But, by his good leave, we cannot understand this to be any distinct Propriety; but as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, something resilient from and dependent on their solidity, which is the formal reason of Resistence: besides, we may confound their Renitency with their Gravity, insomuch as we commonly measure the Gravity of any thing, by the renitency of it to our arms in the act of Elevation. Which may be the reason, why Aphrodisaeus (lib. 1. Quest. cap. 2.) enume∣rating the proprieties of Atoms, takes no notice at all of their Gravity; but blends it under the most sensible effect thereof, Resistence.

* 1.49The specifical are such as belong to Atoms of particular sorts of Figure, as Smoothness, Acuteness, Angularity, and their Contraries, Asperity, Ob∣tuseness, Orbicularity, &c. These, in the dialect of Epicurus, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Cognatae Proprietates. Now all these Proprieties, both Generical, and Spe∣cifical, or Originary and Dependent, are truly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Plutarch (1. adv. Colot.) calls them, Congenial, and inseparable. Other Proprieties there are adscriptive to Atoms, such as their Concurse, Connexion, Position, Order, Number, &c. from which the Qualities of Compound Bodies do emerge; but since they are only Communia Accidentia, Common Accidents, or (as Lucretius) Atomorum Eventa, the fortuitous Events of Atoms consider∣ed as complex and coadunated in the Generation of Concretions, and not in the intire simplicity of their Essence; and consequently seperable from them: therefore may we hope, that our Reader will content himself with our bare mention of them in this place, which is designed for the more ad∣vantagious Consideration of only the Essential and Inseparable.

SECT. II. Concerning the Magnitude of Atoms.

MAgnitude and Atoms,* 1.50 though two terms that make a graceful Con∣sonance to ears acquainted with the most charming harmony of Reason, may yet sound harsh and discordant in those of the Vulgar, which is accustomed to accept Magnitude only Comparatively, or as it stands An∣tithetical to Parvity: and therefore it concerns us to provide against mis∣apprehension by an early advertisement; that in our assumption of Mag∣nitude as the first essential Propriety of Atoms, we intend not that they hold any sensible bulk, but that, contrary to Insectiles, or Points Mathe∣matical, they are Entities Quantitive simply, i. e. Realities endowed with certain corporeal Dimensions, though most minute, and consisting in the lowest degree of physical quantity; so that even those of the largest size, or rate, are much below the perception and discernment of the acutest Op∣ticks, and remain commensurable only by the finer digits of rational Conjecture. And somewhat the more requisite may this Praemonition seem, in respect that no meaner an Author then Theodoret hath, through gross inadvertency, stumbled at the same block of ambiguity. For (in Serm. 4. therap••ut.) He positively affirms, that Democritus, Metrodorus, and Epicurus, by their exile Principles, Atoms, meant no other but those small pulverized fragments of bodies, which the beams of the Sun, trans∣mitted through lattice Windows, or chincks, make visible in the aer: when according to their genuine sense, one of those dusty granules, nay, the smallest of all things discernable by the eyes of Linceus, though advantaged by the most exquisite Engyscope, doth consist of Myriads of Myriads of thousands of true Atoms, which are yet corporeal and possess a determi∣nate extension.

To avert the Wonder impendent on this nice assertion,* 1.51 and tune our thoughts to a key high enough to attain the Verisimility thereof; We are first to let them down to a worthy acknowledgment of the exceeding Grossnesse and Dulnesse of our Senses, when compared to the superlative Subtility, and Acuteness of Nature in most of her Operations: for that once done, we shall no longer boast the perspicacity of our Opticks, nor circumscribe our Intellectuals with the narrow line of our sensible discove∣ries, but learn there to set on our Reason to hunt, where our sense is at a loss. Doubtless, the slender Crany of a Pismire contains more distinct Cellules, then that magnificent Fabrick, the Eschurial, doth rooms; which though imperceptible to the eye of the body, are yet obvious to that of the mind: since no man can imagine how, otherwise, the Faculties of sense and voluntary Motion can be maintained, a perpetuall supply of Animal (or, a•• D••. H••rv•••• will have them, Vital) spirits being indispensably necessary to the continuation of those actions; and therefore there must be Elabora∣tories for the praeparation and confection, Treasuries for the conservation, and various Conduits for the emission, and occasional transvection of them

into the Nerves and Muscles of that industrious and provident Animal. The due resentment of which praegnant Instance, is alone sufficient to de∣monstrate the incomputable degrees of distance betwixt the sensible Capa∣city of man, and the curious Mechanicks of Nature: and make the acutest of us all call for a Table-book to enroll this Aphorism; Ubi humana indu∣stria subtilitasque desinit, inde incipit industria subtilitasque Naturae. The wings of our Arrogance being thus clipt, let us display those of our Dis∣coursive Faculty, and try how near we can come to deprehend the Magnitude, i. e. the Parvity of Atoms, by an ingenious Conjecture.

* 1.52Consider we, first, that an exquisite Artist will make the movement of a Watch, indicating the minute of the hour, the hour of the day, the day of the week, moneth, year, together with the age of the Moon, and time of the Seas reciprocation; and all this in so small a compass, as to be decently worn in the pall of a ring: while a bungling Smith can hardly bring down the model of his grosser wheels and balance so low, as freely to perform their motions in the hollow of a Tower. If so; well may we allow the finer fingers of that grand Exemplar to all Artificers, Nature, to distinguish a greater multiplicity of parts in one Grain of Millet seed, then ruder man can in that great Mountain, Caucasus; nay, in the whole Ter∣restrial Globe.

* 1.53Consider we, with Magnenus, that one grain of Frankinsense being fired, doth so largely diffuse it self in fume, as to fill a space in the aer, more then seven hundred millions of times greater then it possessed before com∣bustion. For, to the utmost dispersion of its fume, the space might easily have received of grains of Frankinsense, equal in dimensions to the seed of a Lupine,

according to its Altitude	720
according to its Latitude	900
in the Longitude	1200
in the Superfice of the whole figure	5184000
in the Superfice of the end only	648000
in the Area, or whole enclosure	777600000

Since, therefore, our nostrils ascertation, that in all that space of Aer, there is no one particle which is not impraegnated with the fragrant exhala∣tions of that combust grain of Frankinsense, which, while it was entire might be by a steddy hand, a sharp incision knife, and a good magnifying Glass, or by that shorter way of trituration, divided at least into a thousand sensible particles: it must follow, in spite of Contradiction, that the sensible odo∣rous particles of it do fulfil the number of 777600000000. And, inso∣much as each of these sensible Particles, is mixt, it being lawful and com∣mendable according to the subtile speculations of Archimed (in Arenar.) to assume that the smallest of them is composed of a Million of Elemental Atoms: therefore by the same rule, must there have been in the whole Grain of Elemental Atoms 777600000000000000, at least. If so; we have but one step lower to Insectility, and so may guess at the Exiguity of a single Atome.

Consider we the delicate Contexture of Atoms,* 1.54 in the body of that smallest of Animals, a Handworm. First, if we speculate the outside of that organical tenement of life, a good Engyscope will praesent our eye with not only an oval-head, and therein a mouth, or prominent snout, armed with an appendent proboscis, or trunk consisting of ma∣ny villous filaments contorted into a cone, wherewith it perforates the skin, and sucks up the bloud of our hands; but also many thighs, leggs, feet, toes, laterally ranged on each side; many hairy tufts on the tail, and many asperities, protuberances, and rugosities in the skin. Then our Reason if we contemplate the inside thereof, will discover a great variety of Organs necessary to the several functions of an Animal. For Nutrition, there must be Gullet, Stomach, Intestines, Liver, Heart, Veins; or at least parts in their offices and uses perfectly ana∣logous thereto: For Vitality, there must be Lungs, and Heart for the praeparation and confection, and Arteries for the general diffusion of Spirits; for Locomotion voluntary and sensation, there must be Brain, Spinal Marrow, Nerves, Tendons, Muscles, Ligaments, Articulations; and for the support and firmitude of all these, there must be some more solid stamina, or a kind of Bones and Cartilagineous contextures; in a word, there must be all members requisite to entitle it to Animation, with a double skin for the investiment of the whole Machine. Now, if we at∣tentively compute, how many particles go to the composure of each of those organical parts, and how many Myriads of Atoms go to the con∣texture of each of those particles (for even the Spirits inservient to the motion of one of its toes, are compositions consisting of many thousands of Atoms), as we shall think it no wonder, that the exile and industrious fingers of Nature have distinguished, sequestred, selected, convened, accommodated, coadunated, and with as much aptitude as decorum dis∣posed such an incomprehensible multitude of Parts, in the structure of so minute an Animal; so may we, in some latitude of analogy, conje∣cture the extreme Parvity of Her common Material, Atoms. On this ingenious pin hung the thoughts of Pliny, when (in lib. 11. cap. 1 & 2.) He exclaimed, Nusquam alibi Naturae artificium spectabili∣us est, qu••m in Insectis: in magnis siquidem corporibus, aut cer••è majoribus, facilis officina sequaci materia fuit. In his verò tam parvis, atque tam nullis; que ratio, aut quanta vis, tanquam inextricabilis perfectio? ubi tot sensus collocavit in Culice? & sunt alia dictu mi∣nora. Sed ubi visum in ea praetendit? ubi Gustatum applicavit? ubi odoratum inseruit? ubi truculentam illam, & proportione maximam vo∣cem ingeneravit? Qua subtilitate pennas adnexuit, praelongavit pedum crura, disposuit jejunam caveam, uti alvum, avidam sanguinis, & potissimum humani sitim accendit? Telum verò perfodiendo tergori, quo spiculavit ingenio? atque cùm prae exilitate pene non videatur ita reciproca generavit arte, ut fodiendo acuminatum, pariter sorbendoque fi∣stulosum esset, &c.

Here had we haulted a while, and wondered, how Pliny could,* 1.55 without the assistance of a Magnifying Glass (an Invention, whose Antiquity will hardly rise above the last revolution of Saturn) deprehend so vast a mul∣tiplicity of Parts in the machine of an Insect, of so small circumscrip∣tion, that to commensurate the Base of the visive Cone, by which its slender image is transmitted to the pupil of the eye, would trouble a good

Master in Opticks, and drive him to the Minimus Angulus of Euclid: but that it soon came into our thoughts, that He speculated the same by the sub∣tiler Dioptrick of Reason; which indeed is the best Engyscope of the Mind, and renders many things perspicuous to the Understanding, whose exceeding Exility is their sufficient Darkness.

* 1.56To put more weights into the Scale of Conjecture, let us moreover ob∣serve; how great a quantity of Water may be tinged with one grain of Ver∣million; how many sheets of Paper may be crimsoned with that tincture; how innumerable are the points, by the apex of a needle, designable on each of those sheets: and when 'tis manifest that many particles of Vermillion are found in each of those points; who can longer doubt, that the parti∣cles comprehended in the compass of that grain are indefinable by the ex∣actest Arithmetique.

* 1.57Again, (for we could be content, to let the Almund tree bud, before we take off our cogitations from this pleasant Argument) consider we, how small a portion of oyl is consumed by the flame of a Lamp, in a quarter of an hour; and yet there is no moment passeth, wherein the stock of flame is not wasted and as fast repaired, which if it could be conserved alive all at once, would fill not only whole rooms, but even ample Cities: and if so, what need we any further eviction of the extreme Exiguity of those Parts, of which all Concretions are material'd?

* 1.58Had the Ancients, indeed, been scrupulous in this point; their want of that useful Organ, the Engyscope, might in some part have excused their incredulity: but for us, who enjoy the advantages thereof, and may, as often as the Sun shines out, behold the most laevigated Gra∣nule of dissolved Pearl, therein praesented in the dimensions of a Cher∣ry stone, together with its various faces, planes, asperities, and angles, (such as before inspection we did not imagine) most clear and distinct, longer to dispute the possible Parvity of Component Principles, is a gross disparagement to the Certitude of Sense, when it is exalted above de∣ception, and all possible impediments to its sincere judicature are prae∣vented.

Conclude we therefore, since the Diametre of a granule of Dust, when speculated through a good Engyscope, is almost Centuple to the diametre of the same, when lookt on meerly by the eye, on a sheet of Venice Paper: we may safely affirm, with Archimed (in arenario.) that it is conflated of ten hundred thousand millions of insensible Particles; which is enough to verifie our praesent Assumption.

SECT. III. Concerning the Figures of Atoms.

IN all the sufficiently prolix Discourses of the Ancient Assertors of A∣toms, concerning their FIGURE,* 1.59 and the no sparing Commen∣taries of the Moderns thereupon; whatever seems either worthy our seri∣ous animadversions, or in anywise pertinent to our Designation: may be, without perversion, or amission of importance, well comprized under one of these 3 Canons. (1) That Atoms are, in their simple essence, variously figurate; (2) That the distinct species of their Figures are Indefinite, or Incomprehensible, though not simply, or absolutely Infinite; (3) That the Number of Atoms retaining unto, or comprehended under each peculiar spe∣cies of Figure, is not only indefinite, but simply Infinite.

Concerning the FIRST; we advertise,* 1.60 that no man is to conceive them to have supposed the Figure of Atoms deprehensible by the Sight, or Touch, no more then their Magnitude, the termination whereof doth essence their figure, according to that definition of Euclid, lately alledged; but such, as being inferrible from manifold reasons, is obvious to the per∣ception of the Mind. Which Plutarch (1. placit. 2.) personating Epicu∣rus, expresly declares in his, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Atomos pro∣prias habere, sed ratione, seu mente contemplabiles Figuras. To avouch the verity hereof, we need no other argument but this; insomuch as every Atome hath some determinate Quantity, or Extension, and that all Quantity must be terminated in some certain Figure: therefore is it necessary, that however exile the dimensions of an Atome are, yet must the superfice thereof be or plane, or sphaerical, or angular, or Cubical, &c. i. e. of some figure either regular, or irregular.

Doth any incline to believe,* 1.61 that the extreme Exility of Atoms may necessitate their general Roundness; and the rather because he perceives all those dusty fragments of bodies, visible in the aer by Sunshine, (which are the Atoms of the Vulgar) to be clad in that figure: We advise him to collect a multitude of them, on a clean sheet of the finest white Paper, and then speculate any the smallest granules among them with a perfect En∣gyscope. For, in so doing He will acquire autoptical satisfaction, that none of them are exactly orbicular and perpolite, but all of various angular figures, pyramidal, pentahedrical, cubical, trapezian, heptahedrical, octahe∣drical, dodecahedrical, icosahedrical, &c. nay of so many irregular and dissi∣milar apparences, as must refute his error with a delightful Wonder. Though, in troth, it can be no wonder to him that considers the Defect of any Cause, that should break off the angles from those fragments vo∣latile, after their detrition from hard bodies, and so tornate them into smooth sphaerules: observation ascertaining, that when hard bodies are broken into large pieces, those pieces are alwayes angular, and ex∣tremely discrepant in the parts of their superfice; and Reason

thence inferring, that lesser pieces must confess the like irregularity and dis∣parity of figures among themselves. True it is, they enter the eye in a per∣fect sphear, because of the exiguity of their Angles; for every small, or re∣mote Icosahedrical body, nay even Oblong and Cylindrical, posited at ex∣cessive distance, the extremities of their images being, in their long trajecti∣on through the aer, confracted, retused, and so entering the Retina tumica in a lesser angle; alwayes appear orbicular. Thus, if we speculate any star, which is not of a spherical figure, as Saturn, which both Kircher and Hevelius, having beheld it with their excellent Telescopes, describe in this apparence

[illustration]

it will deradiate its species in a pyramid,* 1.62 which hath so many distinct faces, as are comprehended in the Section, made from the po∣sition of the eye, in right lines drawn to the circumference thereof; and yet in the decurse of the angle, they all become so retused, as that the image of the Starr is received by the eye in a figure perfectly sphaerical. And, as the excessive Remotion, so likewise doth the immo∣derate Exiguity of objects cause our sense not to discern their genuine Fi∣gure and so to delude the common judicatory Faculty, by giving in dissimilar images: as is demonstrable from the reason, whereby Magnifying Glasses meliorate the sight, i. e. their enlarging the basis of the Radius Visorius, according to the theory of Kircherus (in Magia Catoptrica.) and Schei∣nerus (in Fundam. Optic lib. 3. part. 2.). Thus, if he credit the single information of his eye, who doth not judge a Handworm to be exactly round? and yet let him but behold it through an Engyscope, and he shall at first inspection discern the several di••arications of its Members, Leggs, Feet, Tail, and other parts, no less diverse in propor∣tion, then those observed in multipedous Insects, of farr greater bulk.

* 1.63To guard this Assertion of the variety of Figures in Atoms, with other Arguments of its Verisimility; let us Consider, that all Indi∣viduals, as well Animate, as Inanimate, are distinguishable each from other of the same species, by some peculiar signature of disparity visible in the superficial parts of their Bodies: and Reason will there∣upon whisper us in the ear, that they are also different in their Con∣figurations; and that the Cause of that sensible Dissimilitude, must be a peculiar, or idiosyncritical Contexture of their insensible Compo∣nent particles. For Animals, we may instance in the noblest spe∣cies. Among the Myriads of swarms of men, who can find any two Persons, so absolute Twinns in the aer of their faces, the lines of their hands, the stature of their bodies, proportion of their mem∣bers, &c. as that Nature hath left no impression, whereby not only their familiar friends, but even strangers comparing them toge∣ther, may distinguish one from the other? For Inanimates; doth it not deserve our admiration, that in a whole Bushel of Corn, no two Grains can be found so exquisitely respondent in similitude, as that a curious eye shall not discover some disparity betwixt them: and yet we appeal to strict observation, for the verity thereof. If our leasure and patience will bear it, let us conferr many Leaves, col∣lected at one time from the same Tree; and try whether among them all we can meet with any two perfectly consimilar in magnitude, co∣lour, superfice, divarications of filaments, equality of stemms, and other external proportions. If not; we must assent to a variety of

Configurations in their parts, and consequently admit no less, but in∣deed a farr greater variety of Figures in the particles of those parts, their Atoms.

To these it concerns us to annex one singular Experiment, easie,* 1.64 delight∣ful, and satisfactory. Exposing a vessel of Salt water, to the Sun, or other convenient heat, so as the aqueous parts thereof may be gent∣ly evaporated; we may observe all the Salt therein contained, to reside in the bottome, conformed into Cubical Masses. And, if we do the like with Alum Water, the Alum will concrete in Octohedrical figures. Nay, the Cubes generated of Salt, will be so much the lar∣ger, by how much the more and deeper the Water, wherein it was dis∣solved; and è contra, so much the smaller, by how much shallower the Water: so that from a large vessel will arise saline Cubes in di∣mensions equal to those of a Gamesters Die; but from a small we shall receive Cubes, by five parts of six, lesser, and if we drop a small quantity of brine upon a plane piece of Glass, the Cubical Concre∣tions thereon fixing, will be so minute, as to require the help of an Engyscope to their discernment. Now, as to that part of this Ex∣periment, which more directly points at our praesent scope; we may perceive the greater Cubes to be a meer Congeries or assembly of small ones, and those small ones to be coagmentated of others yet smaller, or certainly composed of exiguous Masses bearing the figure of Isoscele Triangles, from four of which convened and mutually accom∣modated, every Cube doth result. Hence is it obvious to Conje∣cture, that those small Cubes, discernable only by an Engyscope, are contexed of other smaller, and those again of smaller, until by a succes∣sive degradation they arrive at the exility of Atoms, at least of those Mo∣leculae, which are the Seminaries of Salt, and, according to evident pro∣bability, of either exactly Quadrate, or Isoscele Triangular figures. Now, insomuch as the same, allowing the difference of Figure, is conjectural also concerning Alum, Sugar, Nitre, Vitriol, &c. Saline Concretions: why may we not extend it also to all other Compositions, especially such as have their Configurations certain and determinate, according to their specifical Nature.

Again, whoso substracts a diversity of Figures from Atoms:* 1.65 doth im∣plicitely destroy the variety of sensibles. For, what doth cause the Odoratory Nerves of man to discriminate a Rose from Wormwood? but the different Configurations of those Moleculae, Flores Elementorum, or Seminaries of Qualities, which being conflated of exceeding fine and small congregations of Atoms, do constitute the odorable species; and so make different impressions upon them. What makes a Dog, by the meer sa∣gacity of his nose, find out his Master, in the dark, in a whole host of men? but this; that those subtle Effluvia, or Expirations, emitted insensibly from the body of his Master, are of a different Contexture from those of all others, and so make a different impression upon the mamillary processes, or smelling Nerves of the Dog. The like may also, with equal reason, be demanded concerning those wayes of Discrimination, whereby all Ani∣mals agnize their own from others young; and Beasts of prey, in their difficult venations, single out the embossed and chased, though blended together with numerous Herds of the same species.

Nor doth the Verisimility hereof hold only in objects of the sight and smelling; but diffuseth to those of the Hearing, Tasting, and Touching: as may be soon inferred by him, who shall do us the right, and himself the pleasure to descend to particulars. These things jointly considered, we are yet to seek, what may interdict our Conception of great Diversity of Figures in the Principles of Concretions, Atoms.

Concerning the SECOND, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.66 esse Figuras Atomorum incomprehensibiles, non infi∣nitas, that the figures of Atoms are so various, as to be incomprehensible, though not simply infinite: this can be nor Problem, nor Paradox. For, though the species of Regular Figures be many, of Irregular more, and of those that are producible from both regular and irregular, according to all the possible wayes of their Commixture and Transposition, so amusing∣ly various; as that the mind of man, though acquainted with all the my∣steries of Arithmetique and Algebra, cannot attain to a definite compute, nor praecise d••••••ription of them all: yet do they not run up to absolute Infinity, so as that there can be no extreme and terminating species. That the variety of Figures competent to Atoms, ought to be held only Incom∣prehensible; these Reasons evince (1) Since Atoms are circumscribed and limitate in Magnitude, that Configurations in diversity infinite should arise from that finite magnitude, is clearly impossible. For, every distinct figu∣ration praesupposeth a distinct position of parts; and the parts of finite Mag∣nitude may be transposed so many several wayes, as no further way of trans∣position can remain possible: otherwise there would be new and new parts inexhaustibly, and so magnitude would become infinite. (2) If the Diver∣sity of figures were infinite, then could not the Qualities arising to concre∣tions from the various Contexture of their parts, be certain and determinate: since, allowing an inexhaustible novelty of Configurations, their insensible particles might be so variegated, as that a better then the best, and a worse then the worst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Configurations might be produced; which is no obscure absurdity. (3) All things are determined by Contrary Qualities, which are so extreme, that they admit many mediate or Inclusive degrees, but none Exclusive, or without their boundaries. (4) That only a Finite va∣riety is sufficient to that incomprehensible diversity of figures, observed in nature.

That the variety of Figures allowable to Atoms, is Incomprehensible; may be thus familiarized. Thinke we, what great multiplicity of words may be composed of only a few Letters variously transposed. For, if we assume only Two Letters, of them we can create only two words; if three, 6; if four, 24; if five, 120▪ if six, 720; if seven, 5040; if eight, 40320; if nine, 362880▪ if ten, 3628800: so that before we fulfil the 24 Letters, the number of words componible of them, according to all the possible ways of positions, will swell above our computation. This done, let us no more but exchange Letters for Figures, and assuming only Round, Oblong, Oval, Eliptick, Lenticular, Plane, Gibbous, Turbinate, Hamous, Polite, Hispid, Conical, Obtuse, Tetrahedical, Pentahedrical, Hexahedrical, Heptahedri∣cal, Dodecahedrical, Icosahedrical, Striate or skrewed, Triangular, Cylin∣drical Atoms: cast up to what an inassignable number the Figures produci∣ble from them, according to the several wayes of their Composition and transposition, may amount. Doubtless, we shall discover so great variety, as

to elude our comprehension. If so, how much more incomprehensible must that Diversity be, which is possible from the assumption, and complica∣tion of all the Regular and Irregular figures, that a good Geometrician can conceive, and which it is justifiable for us to allow existent in Nature?

But as for the LAST; viz. that the number of Atoms,* 1.67 retaining to each distinct species of Figures, ariseth to Infinity, i. e. that there are infinite Oval, infinite Pyramidal, infinite Sphaerical, &c. Atoms: from this we must declare our Dissent. Because, how great a number soever be assigned to Atoms, yet must the same be Defined by the Capacity of the World, i. e. of the Universe, as hath been formerly intimated. And, therefore, the common Objection, that if so, the summe of things existent in the World, would be Finite; is what we most willing∣ly admit, there being no necessity of their Infinity, and a copious syndrome of reasons, that press the Contrary. And as it is unnecessary to Nature: so likewise to her Commentator, the Physiologist; to whom it sufficeth, having exploded this delirium of Infinity, to suppose (1) that the material Principles of the Universe are essentially Figurate, (2) that the species of their figures are incomprehensible, as to their Variety, (3) that the Number of indivisible Particles comprehended under each difference of Figures, is al∣so incomprehensible, but not inexhaustible, as Epicurus inconsiderately imagined.

SECT. IV. Concerning the Motions of Atoms.

TO give the more light to this dark Theorem,* 1.68 we are to praepossess our Reader with Two introductory Observables; (1) that our praesent insistence upon only the MOTION of Ato••s, doth not suppose our omission of their GRAVITY; but duely include the full consideration thereof: since their Motion is the proper Effect of their Gravity, and that which doth chiefly bring it within the sphaere of our Apprehension. (2) That the genuine Atomist doth worthily disavow all Motion, but what Plutarch in the name of Epicurus, hath defined to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Migratio de loco in locum, the translation of a thing from one place to another. The suspicion of a Chasme in our Discourse, and the Ambiguity imminent from the Aequivocality of the term, Motion, thus maturely praevented: we may more smoothly progress to our short Animadversions on the Concepti∣ons of the Ancients, touching the Last General Propriety of Atoms,* 1.69 their Congenial and intestine Motion.

Herein we are to recognize their opinions, that concern (1) the Mul∣tiplicity, (2) the Perpetuity of motions essentially competent to A∣toms.

As to the FIRST; they have, according to a General Distinction, as∣signed to Atoms a Two-fold Motion; (1) Natural, whereby an Atom, accord∣ing

to the tendency of its essential weight, is carried directly downward: (2) Accidental, whereby one Atom justling or arienating against another, is diverted from its perpendicular descendence, and repercussed another way. The Former, they called Perpendicular, the other, Reflex. The Natural or Perpendicular Epicurus hath doubled again into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad per∣pendiculum, or as Cicero (de fato) interprets it, ad Lineam: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad Declinationem. The Accidental, or Reflex hath also, according to the tradition of Plutarch, (1. placit. 12.) been by him sub∣divided into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex plaga, seu ictu; and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex con∣cussione, or rather, ex Palpitatione. So that, according to this speci∣al Distinction, there must be four different sorts of motions assigna∣ble to Atoms.

* 1.70For the Perpendicular Motion, we advertise; that Epicurus therein had no respect to any Centre either of the World, or the Earth; for He conceded none such possible in the Universe, which He affirmed of infinite extent: but to two contrary Regions allowable therein, the one Upward, from whence, without any terminus à quo, Atoms flowed; the other Dow••ward, toward which, without any terminus ad quem, in a direct line they tended. So that, according to this wild dream, any coast from whence Atoms stream, may be called Above, and any to which they direct their course, Below; insomuch as He conceited the superfice of the Earth, on which our feet find the Centre of Gravity in standing or progression, to be one continued plane, and the whole Ho∣rizon above it likewise a continued plane running on in extent not only to the Firmament, but the intire immensity of the Infinite Space. Accord∣ing to which D••lirament, if several weights should fall down from the fir∣mament, one upon Europe, another upon Asia, a third upon Africa, a fourth upon America; and their motion be supposed to continue beyond the exteriors of the terrestrial Globe: they could not meet in the Centre thereof, but would transfix the four quarters in lines exquisitely parallel, and still descend at equal distance each from other, untill the determination of their motion in the infinite Space, by the occurse and resistence of other greater Weigh••••.

* 1.71For the Declinatory Motion; we observe, that Epicurus was by a kind of seeming necessity constrained to the Fiction thereof; since otherwise He had left his fundamental Hypothesis manifestly imperfect, his Principles destitute of a Cause for their Convention, Conflictation, Cohaerence, and consequently no possibility of the emergency of Con∣cretions from them. And, therefore, to what Cicero (in ••. de fin.) objects against him, viz. that he acquiesced in a supposition meerly praecarious, since he could assign no Cause for this motion of Declination, but usurped the indecent liberty of endowing his Atoms with what Faculties he thought ad∣vantagious to the explanation of Natures Phaenomena in Generation and Corruption: we may modestly respond, by way of excuse not justification, that such is the ••••becillity of Human understanding, as that every Author of a physiological ••abrick, or mundane Systeme, is no less obnoxious to the same objection, of praesuming to consign Provinces (for the phrase of Cicero, is dare provincias principiis) to his Principles, then Epicurus. For, in Concretion•• or Complex Natures, to determine on a reason for this or that sensible Affection, is no desperate difficulty; since the condition

of praeassumed Principles may afford it: but, concerning the originary Causes of those Affections inhaerent in and congenial to the Principles of those Concretions, all we can say, to decline a downright confession of our ignorance, is no more then this, that such is the necessity of their pe∣culiar Nature; the proper and germane 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remaining in the dark to us, and so our Curiosity put to the shift of simple Conjecture, unless we level our thoughts above Principles, and acknowledge no term of acquiescence. And even the acute and perspicacious Cicero, notwith∣standing his reprehension of it in Epicurus, is forced to avow the inevita∣bility of this Exigent, in express words, thus; Ne omnes à Physicis irri∣deamur, si dicamus quicquam fieri si••e Causa distinguendum est, & ita dicen∣aum; ipsius Individui hanc esse naturam, i•• pondere & gravitate moveatur, eamque ipsam esse Caussam, cur ita feratur, &c. Nor is this Crime of consigning provinces to his Principles, proper only to Epicurus; but com∣mon also to the Stoick, Peripatetick, &c. since none of them hath ad∣ventured upon a reason of the Heat of Fire, the Cold of Water, the Gra∣vity of Earth, &c. Doubtless, had Cicero been interrogated, Why all the Starrs are not carried on in a motion parallel to the Aequator, but some steer their course obliquely; why all the Planets travel not through the Ecliptick, or at least in a motion parallel thereto, but some approach it obliquely: the best answer He could have thought upon, must have been only this, ita Natu••ae leges ••erehant; which how much beseeming the perspicacity of a Physiologist more then to have excogitated Funda∣mentals of his own, endowed with inhaerent Faculties to cause those diverse tendencies, we referr to the easie arbitration of our Rea∣der.

Concerning the Accidental, or Reflex Mot••on,* 1.72 all that is worthy our serious notice, is only this; that when Epicurus subdivideth this Genus into two species, namely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex plaga, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex concussione, and affirmeth that all those Atoms which are (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) moved upward, pursue both sorts of this Reflex ten∣dency; we are not to understand him in this sense, that both these kinds of Reflex motion are opposite to the Perpendicular, since it is obvious to every man, that Atoms respective to their Direct, or Oblique incidence in the different points of their superfice, may make, or rather suffer or direct, or oblique resilitions, and Epicurus expresly distinguisheth the Motion from Collision or Arietation into that which pointeth upward, and that which pointeth sidewayes; but in this, that he might constitute a certain Generical Difference, whereby both the species of Reflex motion might be known from both the species of the Perpendicular. For the further illustration of this obscure Distinction, and to praevent that considerable Demand, which is consequent thereto, viz. Whether all the possible sorts of Re••••ex Motion are only two, the one directly Upward, the other directly Lateral: we advertise, that Epicurus seems to have allu∣ded to the most sensible of simple Differences in the Pulse of Ani∣mals. For, as Physitians, when the Pulsifick Faculty distends the Ar∣tery so amply, and allows so great a space to the performance of both those successive contrary motions, the Diastole and Systole, as that the touch doth apprehend each stroke fully and distinctly, denominate that kind of Pulse, 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and on the contrary, when the vibrations of the Artery are contracted into a very little space as well of the

ambient, as of time, so as they are narrow and confusedly praesented to the touch, they call it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: so likewise Epicurus terms that kind of Rebound, or Resilition, which by a strong and direct incurse and arietation of one Atom against another, is made to a considerable distance, or continued through a notable interval of space, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and, on the contrary, that which is terminated in a short or narrow interval (which comes to pass, when the resilient Atom soon falls foul upon a second, and is thereby revi∣berated upon a third, which repercusseth it upon a fourth, whereby it is again bandied against a fifth, and so successively agitated, until it endure a perfect Palpitation) he styles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Upon this our Master Galen may be thought to have cast an eye, when he said (lib. de facult. nat.) it was the opinion of Epicurus, Omnes attractiones per resilitiones atque implexiones Atomorum fieri that all Attractions were caused by the Resilitions and Implexions of Atoms. Which eminent passage in Galen, not only assisted, but inter∣preted by another of Plato (Magnetem non per Attractionem, sed Impulsio∣nem agere, in Timaeo) of the same import; hath given the hint to Des Car∣tes, Regius, Sir K. Digby, and some other of our late Enquirers, of supposing the Attractive, rather Impulsive Virtue of the Loadstone, and all other bo∣dies Electrical, to consist in the Recess, or Return of those continued Effluvia, or invisible filaments of streated Atoms, which are uncessantly exhaled from their pores. Nor doth He much strain these words of Gilbert [Effluvia illa tenuiora concipiunt & amplectuntur corpora, quibus Uniuntur, & Ele∣ctris, tanquam extensis brachiis, & ad fontem prope invalescentibus effluviis, deducuntur] who hath charged them with the like signification.

* 1.73As to the SECOND, viz. the Perpetuity of these Motions adscri∣bed to Atoms; we think it not a little material to give you to understand, at least to recognize that the conceptions of Epicurus concerning this par∣ticular, are cozen Germans to Chimaera s, and but one degree removed from the monstrous absurdities of Lunacy. For, He dreamt, and then be∣lieved, that all Atoms were from all Eternity endowed, by the charter, of their uncreate and independent Essence, with that ingenite Vigour, or in∣ternal Energy, called Gravity, whereby they are variously agitated in the infinite space, without respect to any Centre, or General term of Consi∣stence: so as they could never discontinue that natural motion, unless they met and encountred other Atoms, and were by their shock or impulse de∣flected into another course. That the Dissilient or deflected Atoms, whe∣ther rebounding upwards directly, or ad latus obliquely, or in any line inter∣cedent betwixt those two different regions, would also inde••inently pursue that begun motion, unless they were impeded and diverted again by the oc∣curse and arietation of some others floating in the same part of space. And, that because the Revibrations, or Resilitions of Atoms regarding several points of the immense space, like Bees variously interweaving in a swarm, must be perpetual: therefore also must they never quiesce, but be as vari∣ously and constantly exagitated eve•• in the most solid or adamantine of Concretions, though the sense cannot deprehend the least inquietude or intestine tumultuation therein; and the rather in respect of those Gro∣tesques or minute Inanities densely intermixed among their insensible par∣ticles.* 1.74

To explicate this Riddle, we must praesent some certain adumbration of this intestine aestuation or commotion of Atoms in Concretions; and

this may most conveniently be done in melted Mettals, as particularly in Lead yet floating in the Fusory vessel. To apparence nothing more quiet and calm: yet really no quicksand more internally tumultuated. For, the insensible particles of Fire having penetrated the body of the crucible, or melting pan, and so permeating the pores of the Lead therein contained; because they cannot return back upon the subjacent fire, in regard they are uncessantly impelled by other ingeneous particles continually succeeding on their heels, therefore are they still protruded on, untill they disunite all the particles of the Lead, and by the pernicity and continuation of this their ebullition, hinder them from mutual revinction and coalescence: and there∣by make the Lead a fluid, of a compact substance, and so keep it, as long as the succussion of igneous particles is maintained from the fire underneath. During this act of Fusion, think we, with what violence or pernicity the Atoms of Fire are agitated up and down, from one side to another, in the small inanities interspersed among the particles of the Lead; otherwise they could not dissolve the compact tenour thereof, and change their posi∣tions so as to introduce manifest Fluidity: and, since every particle of the Lead, suffers as many various concussions, repercussions, and repeated vi∣brations, as every particle of Fire; how great must be the Commotion on both sides, notwithstanding the seeming quiet in the surface of the Lead?

But, because our sense, as well as our Reason; may have some satisfaction,* 1.75 touching the perpetual Commotion of Atoms, even in Compositions; we offer to Exemplifie the same either in the Spirit of Halinitre, or that which Chymists usually extract from Crude Mercury, Tin, and Sublimate codissol∣ved in a convenient menstruum: For, either of these Liquors being close kept in a luted glass, you may plainly perceive the minute moleculae, or se∣minarie conventions of Atoms, of which it doth consist, to be uncessantly moved every way, upward, downward, transverse, oblique, &c. in a kind of fierce aestuation, as if goaded on by their inhaerent Motor, or internal impulsive Faculty, they attempted speedy emergency at all points, most like a multitude of Flyes imprisoned in a glass Vial.

Now,* 1.76 the Argument that seems to have induced Epicurus to concede this perpetual Inquietude of Atoms, was the inevitable mutation of all Concrete Substances, caused by the continual Access and Recess of their in∣sensible particles. For, indeed, no Concretion is so compact and solid, as not to contain within it self the possible Causes of its utter Dissolution; yea, though it were so immured in Adamant, as to be thought secure from the hostile invasion of any Extrinsecal Agent whatever. And the ruine of solid bodies (i. e. such whose parts are of the most compact Contexture allowable to Concretions,) cannot be so reasonably adscribed to any Cause, as this; that they are compacted of such Principles, as are inde••inently mo∣tive, and in perpetual endeavour of Emergency or Exsilition: so that ne∣ver desisting from internal evolutions, circumgyrations, and other changes of position; they at length infringe that manner of reciprocal Coaptation, Cohaesion, and Revinction, which determined their solidity,* 1.77 and thereby dissolving the Compositum, they wholly emancipate themselves, obey their restless tendency at randome, and disappear.

This faeculent Doctrine of Epicurus, we had occasion to examine and refine all the dross either of Absurdity, or Atheism, in our Chapter con∣cerning

the Creation of the World ex nihilo, in our Book against Atheism. However, we may not dismiss our Reader without this short Animadversi∣on. The Positions to be exploded are (1) That Atoms were Eternally exi∣stent in the infinite space, (2) that their Motive Faculty was eternally in∣haerent in them, and not derived by impression from any External Principle, (3) that their congenial Gravity affects no Centre, (4) that their Declinato∣ry motion from a perpendicular, is connatural to them with that of perpendicu∣lar descent, from Gravity. Those which we may with good advantage sub∣stitute in their stead, are (1) That Atoms were produced ex nihilo, or created by God, as the sufficient Materials of the World, in that part of Eternity, which seemed opportune to his infinite Wisdom; (2) that, at their Creation, God invigorated or impraegnated them with an Internal Energy, or Faculty Motive, which may be conceived the First Cause of all Natural Actions, or Mo∣tions, (for they are indistinguishable) performed in the World; (3) that their gravity cannot subsist without a Centre; (4) that their internal Motive Virtue necessitates their perpetual Commotion among themselves, from the moment of its infusion, to the expiration of Natures lease. For, by virtue of these Correctives, the poisonous part of Epicurus opinion, may be converted into one of the most potent Antidotes against our Ignorance: the Quantity of Atoms sufficing to the Materiation of all Concretions; and their various Figures and Motions to the Origination of all their Qualities and Affecti∣ons, as our immediately subsequent Discourse doth professedly assert.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. The right of the Authors Transition from the Incor∣poreal to the Corporeal part of Nature: and a series of his subsequent speculations▪
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. Bodies general∣ly distinguish∣ed into Prin∣ciples and Pro∣ductions, with their Schola∣stick Denomi∣nations and proprieties.
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. The right of Atoms to the Attributes of the First Mat∣ter.
• * 1.4

  Art. 4. Their sundry Appellations al∣lusive to their three eminent proprieties.
• * 1.5

  Art. 5. Two vulgarly pass••nt Deri∣vations of the word, Atom, exploded.
• * 1.6

  Art. 6. Who their In∣ven••or: and who their No∣menclator.
• * 1.7

  Art. 7. Their Existence demo••strated.
• * 1.8

  Art. 8. Th•••• Nature, in her dissolu∣tion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, doth des••end to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 parti∣c••es.
• * 1.9

  Art. 9. That ••he 〈…〉〈…〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.10

  Art. 10. 〈…〉〈…〉 the Term of Ex••olu••ility.
• * 1.11

  Art. 11. A second Ar∣gument of their Existence, drawn from that of their Antitheton, Inanity.
• * 1.12

  Art. 12. A third, hint∣ed from the impossibility of the Produ∣ction of Hard Bodies, from any other Principle.
• * 1.13

  Art. 13. A Fourth, from the Constancy of Nature in the specification and Determi∣nate Periods of her Gene∣rations.
• * 1.14

  Art. 1. The Cognati∣on of this The∣orem, to the Argument of the immedi∣ately praece∣dent Chapter.
• * 1.15

  Art. 2. Mag••i••ude di∣vi••••••le by a continued progress through parts either 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.16

  Art. 3. The use of that Distincti∣on in the prae∣sent.
• * 1.17

  Art. 4. The veri••y of the Thesis, de∣monstrated.
• * 1.18

  Art. 5. Two detesta∣ble Absurdities, inseparable from the posi∣tion of Infinite parts in a Con∣tinuum.
• * 1.19

  Art. 6. Aristotles sub∣••erfuge of In∣finitude Poten∣tial▪
• * 1.20

  Art. 7. Found openly Collusive.
• * 1.21

  Art. 8. A second sub∣terfuge of the Stoick;
• * 1.22

  Art. 9. Manifestly dis∣sentaneo••s to Reaso••.
• * 1.23

  Art. 1. The Absurdi∣ties, by Empi∣ricus, charged upon the sup∣position of on∣ly Finite parts in a Continu∣um.
• * 1.24

  Art. 2. The sundry Inc••ngruities & Inconsistenc••s, by the Modern Anti-Democri∣tans, imputed to the suppos••∣tion of Insecti∣lity.
• * 1.25

  Art. 3. The full Dero∣gation of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all together, by o••e single Resp••nse; that the minimum of Atomists is not Mathema∣tical, but Ph••∣sical, contrary to their prae∣sumption.
• * 1.26

  Art. 4. A seeming D••∣lemma of the Adversary, ex∣peditely eva∣ded.
• * 1.27

  Art. 5. A Digression, stating and determining that notable Quaestion, Whether Geo∣met••ical De∣m••nstrations may be conveni∣niently trans••f••••red to Physi∣cal or sensible Quantity?
• * 1.28

  Art. 1. The introdu∣ction, hinting the two gene∣ral assumpti∣ons of the Chapter.
• * 1.29

  Superbissimo furore ambitio∣sus nominis Aristoteles, in Philos••phorum Principes est deba••cha••us, uno ••ue incendio congestas trigin∣tae sex seculis tot sapientiae divi∣tias absumpsit; & si quae voluit superesse funeri, ea omnium ••udi∣b••i••, dicteriisque lacessenda tradidit p••steris, dum in optimorum bona invectus, ab••cissis perditisque sapientiae statu••rum capitibus, suum imp suit singulis: ut Magn••nas, in Democrit. Script. Elench. ex Plinio in p••ae••at. ad D. Vespanianum Imp.
• * 1.30

  Art. 2. Demo••itus & Epicurus vin∣dicated from the absurd ad∣mission of Ina∣nity to be one Principle of Generables.
• * 1.31

  Art. 3. Atoms not in∣consistent with, because the Principles of the four vulgar Ele∣ments.
• * 1.32

  Accipitur pro Igne••seu Aethe∣re, quem dictum Anaxagoras censuit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ab ••∣rendo.
• * 1.33

  Art. 4. The dissent of the Anci∣ents, about the number of E∣lements.
• * 1.34

  Art. 5. No one of the four Elements sufficient to the producti∣on of either any of the o∣ther three, or of any Com∣pound nature.
• * 1.35

  Art. 6. The four Ele∣ments, not the Prot••princi∣ple of Concre∣tions.
• * 1.36

  Art. 7. A••oms discri∣minated from the H••m••••ome∣rical Princi∣ples of Anaxa∣goras.
• * 1.37

  Art. 8. The principal Difficulties ur∣ged against the Hypothesis of Atoms, singu∣larly solved▪
• * 1.38

  Art. 9. A recapitula∣tion of the praemises, i••∣troductory to the verificati∣on of the prae∣sent thesis.
• * 1.39

  Art. 1. The 4 no••able opinions con∣cerning the C••mposition of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.40

  Art. 2. A Physical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cannot cons•••••• of Points M••∣thema••••••••l▪
• * 1.41

  Art. 3. N••t of Parts and Points Mathematical, united.
• * 1.42

  Art. 4. No•• of a sim∣ple E••tity be∣fore divisi••n 〈…〉〈…〉 of Indivisibles
• * 1.43

  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.
• * 1.44

  Art. 6. An ob••ection praevented.
• * 1.45

  Art. 7. The reason of the Authors superc••ssion of all other Ar∣guments of the like im∣portance.
• * 1.46

  Art. 1. The two links connecting this to the praecedent Chapter.
• * 1.47

  Art. 2. The General Proprieties of Atoms: and the Inseparabi∣lity of each, demonstrated.
• * 1.48

  Art. 3. The Resistence of Atoms, no distinct pro∣priety; but pertinent to their Solidity or Gravity.
• * 1.49

  Art. 4. The specifical Proprieties of Atoms.
• * 1.50

  Art. 1. By the Magni∣tu••e, is meant the Parvity of Atoms.
• * 1.51

  Art. 2. A considerati∣on of the Grossene••s of our senses, and the extreme 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Na∣tu••e, in her o∣perations, pr••∣paratory to our Conjectural apprehension of the Exigu••∣ty of Her Ma∣terials, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.52

  Art. 3. The incom∣prehensible subtility of Nature, argued from the Art••∣fice of an ex∣quisite Wat••h, contrived in a very narrow room.
• * 1.53

  Art. 4. The vast mul∣titude of sensi∣ble particles, & the vaster of Elemental A∣toms, contain∣ed in one grain of Frankinsense; exactly calcu∣lated.
• * 1.54

  Art. 5. The Dioptri∣cal speculation of a Handworm, discovering the great variety of Or∣ganical Parts therein, and the innumera∣bility of their Component Par∣ticles.
• * 1.55

  Art. 6. A short Digres∣sive Descant upon the Text of Pliny, touching the multiplicity of parts in a Flea; hinting the possible perspicacity of Reason.
• * 1.56

  Art. 7. The Exility of Atoms, conje∣ctural from the great dif∣fusion of one Grain of Ver∣million dissol∣ved in Water.
• * 1.57

  Art. 8. The same, in∣f••rrible from the smal quan∣tity of oil de∣praedated by the Flame of a Lamp, in a quarter of an hour.
• * 1.58

  Art. 9. The Microscope of great use, in the discern∣ment of the minute parti∣cles of Bodies: and so advan∣tageous to our Conjecture, of the exility of Atoms.
• * 1.59

  Art. 1. An Epitome of all that di∣rectly con∣cerns the Fi∣gures of A∣toms in 3 Ge∣neral Canons.
• * 1.60

  Art. 2. The First Ca∣non, explained and certified.
• * 1.61

  Art. 3. The Exility ••f Atoms, doth no•• necessitate their General Roundness; con∣trary to the common con∣ceit.
• * 1.62

  (In Ph••tism•• C••rporum coel••∣stium; & ••e••e∣nographia.)
• * 1.63

  Art. 4. The Di••e••sity of Figures in Atoms. evi••t¦ed fr••m the sensible Dissi∣militude of in∣dividuals, as well Animate, a•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.64

  Art. 5. A singular Ex∣periment, an∣toptically▪ de∣monstrating the various Configurations of the minute Particles of Concretions.
• * 1.65

  Art. 6. A variety of Figures in A∣toms, necessa∣ry to the vari∣ety of all Se••∣sibles.
• * 1.66

  Art. 7. The second Ca∣non, explained and Certified.
• * 1.67

  Art. 8. The Third Ca∣n••n, explain∣ed, & re••uted.
• * 1.68

  Art. 1. Two introdu∣ctory Obser∣vables.
• * 1.69

  Art. 2. The Motion of Atoms, ac∣cording to the General Di∣stinction of the Ancients, Two-fold; viz. Natural, and Accidental: & each of these redivided into two different Species.
• * 1.70

  Art. 3. The summary of Epi••urus Figment, of the Perpendi∣cular Mo••ion of Atoms, without a common Cen∣tre.
• * 1.71

  Art. 4. His Declinat••••y natural Moti∣on of Atoms, excused; not justified.
• * 1.72

  Art. 5. The genuine sense of ••pi••a∣rus, in his di∣stinction o•• the Reflex Mo∣t••on of Atoms, into ec Plaga, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Concu••••••••∣ne.
• * 1.73

  Art. 6. The several Conceptions of Epicurus, a∣bout the per∣petual Motions of Atoms.
• * 1.74

  Art. 7. Th•• perpetual In••u••e••ude of Atoms, even in compact Concretions, ad••••••••rated in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lea••.
• * 1.75

  Art. 8. The same more sensibly exemplified, in the spirit extracted from Mercury, Tin, and Subli∣mate.
• * 1.76

  Art. 9. The Mutab••lity of all Concre∣tions, a good Argument of the perpetual intestine Com∣motion of A∣toms, in the most adaman∣tine Composi∣tions.
• * 1.77

  Art. 10. What we are to explode, and what retain, in the opinion of Epicurus, touching the Motion of Atoms.