An exclusion of scepticks from all title to dispute being an answer to The vanity of dogmatizing / by Thomas White.

Sixth Plea Displaies the Pastick vertue, Continuity, Adhesion of Parts, and the Myste∣ries of Rolling.

1▪ IN his fifth Chapter he falls upon the obscurity of the formation of natural Bodies, especeially living ones: Yet, not so smartly but that what he says may, with ease enough be repuls'd. I say, then, that there are two Methods, by which the formation of living Creatures may be rendred intelligible; without any farther difficulty than what may, without a Miracle,

be refunded into the Wisdome of our Maker. Con∣ceive the first, thus: Let's say the seed of a Plant or Ani∣mal conteins invisible parts of all the Animals Mem∣bers: These, lets say, supply'd with moisture, en∣crease, with some slight Mutation, whereof the reason may be easily rendred (for example, that some parts dryer and harder, others are more throughly water'd and grow soft); and what great matter will be appre∣hended in the formation of living things? The other Method is, that, observing the progress in Chymicks, which must of necessity hold the very same in Nature if self, we'd see that things concocted with a Gentle fire result into three more remarkable parts: A kind of thin and, as it were, fiery one, though conden∣sablein to the Species of Water; another Oily and an∣swerable to Air; a third expressing the Nature of Salt and, as it were, hardned water; with all which ther's mingled and lyes at the bottom a fourth, that's dry and of an Earthy quality, however they call it. The same we ought to expect from Nature; since the acting of Heat upon Moisture is the End of both For∣naces. This laid for a ground, suppose, in a proper vessel, a Drop of prepared Liquor, so kept warm and preserv'd that it may be encreas'd, too; is it not plain that, by the very action, some parts will become dryer, others more subtil and liquid? And that the dryer will grow into different figures? Especially into certain hollow Vessels; if, by the beats of the boyling

moisture, they be extended and thrust out in length? And that all of them will cling together, where they begin first to divide? And see you not now the figure of the Animal and its respectively homogeneous parts form'd? And that their connexion and variety, and its other heterogeneous parts follow the variety of ei∣ther the Fire or Liquor.

2. He that shall comprehend these things well, will not lament that the Plastick vertue is an empty name and a word without a thing. But, if he be in∣genious and conveniently at leisure, he'l either, in spring time close-observe the breeding Plants in Gar∣dens or the Fields; or at home pluck up Seeds buried in Pots, just while they are taking life; and daily rake into the bowels of Berries and Seeds: and I dare promise him so manifestly connected steps of ad∣vance, that, after many experiments, he shall fore-tel, meerly out of what he sees the day before, what will be the next days issue. Those things which appear wonderful confusedly in the whole, taken asunder discover and fairly offer themselves to view. If one observe the spreading of figures or Colours, he shall find the principles of these founded in the nature of Juice; the reasons of those chalk'd out by some man∣ner of their production: for both Fruits and even slips are, by art, variable into any kind of forms. Much more the figures of different salts or concret Juices spring, not from any intrinsecal nature, but

from their usual generation and the diffidulty or facil∣ness of their place and Motions. Nor let any be scar'd by the talk of Artists, that admire and amplifie those things whose causes they understand not: or of our Authour, amaz'd at the constancy of natural ope∣rations; why our Hens should never be colour'd like Peacocks-tails or Parrats. For, in different Regions, great varieties spring from the diversity of Food and Air: And, for what is out of our reach about these things, we must be beholden to time.

3. In the same Chapter he raises two other Questi∣ons, which he thinks absolutely inexplicable: to me, on the other side, they seem to have scarce any difficul∣ty in them. The later in Him is concerning the Compo∣sition of Bulk or Continuum: A question both debated by the Antients and desperate to the Modern's. The former, though the later in Nature, is concerning the sticking together of parts, or, why one Body is more di∣visible, another less. The former question supposes ano∣ther, whether there be parts actually in a Continuum, whereof the affirmative side, though they wrangle in words, yet is commonly taken by the Modern's, as it were a self-or-sensibly-known truth; but, by the whole School of the antient Peripateticks and that of the Tho∣mists following them, hist out, as demonstratively con∣victed. The issue of the matter is that, about the Composition of Bulk, the Moderns, after a world of laborious trifling, confess Philosophy at a stand: The

Peripateticks deride them as groping in the dark. For, if there be no parts til they are made by division; they are manifestly out of their wits that seek how those should be united which are-not at all? The arguments of those that assert actual parts cite even sense; con∣cerning which ther's nothing certainer than that it cannot discern any part in a Bulk; since the term of each part is invisible, whereas sence requires a notable quantity to judge of. Their other Arguments com∣monly assume our manner of speaking, and end in Logical trifles, how we ought to speak, not what the thing it self has really in it. Now, this no-very-dif∣ficult contest being decided, all the controversie concerning the composition of Bulk is over.

4. About the other question there's even as wise work. The followers of Democritus strive to resolve it into hooks and corner'd hold-fasts: Not seeing, that nothing can be imagin'd so one, or an Atom, as that it self is not compos'd of many parts, concerning which it must be ask'd how they come to stick so fast together? But, this difficulty they, at least, slip over, asserting that these in minutest Bodies, by force of Na∣ture, resist whatever divisive power, not so the Com∣pounds of them: That is, the greatest and invincible coherence of parts they carelesly ascribe to the force and quality of Nature, and are narrowly inquisitive about a less. The first resolution, therefore, 'tis plain, is refunded into Nature it self, and the division of Body

or Bulk into Rare and Dense, or having More and Less of Quantity in equality of Bulk. Which Differences most Demonstrably dividing the Notion of Quan∣titative and constituting more Species of it in things; there remains no greater Difficulty in the Adhesion of the parts of the same Continuum, than whether there be any such thing or not: For, if there be any, by its very being a Continuum, of necessicity it must be whereof parts may be made, not wherein parts are; else (as we have press'd above) the same thing would be one and many, divided and not-divided, in the same Notion. Therefore 'tis that substance, from its very Quantity, whence it has its refolvableness into parts, has also its easier or harder resolvableness, which they call its parts more or less sticking to one another. But, as soon as ever the speculation is strein'd up to In∣tellectual Notions, these Naturalists's stomack turns: as if Philosophy enjoyn'd us not to know our own thoughts, and made it unlawful to understand what we speak.

5. His Sixth Chapter is all dedicated to the Motion of Wheels; nor, if we believe an Author that wants for no wit, is it any ways solvable. But, before he attaques that fatal Difficulty, he objects a certain previous one to us, which the Antients object to Ari∣stotle; but he, I confess, in a clearer form. For, he considers a Wheel mov'd about its Center, and plain∣ly concludes that no part of it moves; but the whole is mov'd, and the several parts together change place.

But, what inconvenience this conclusion drags along with it, I am utterly ignorant: For, though he strives to reduce at large, that one part first quits the place before another is in it; yet evidently the words, not the thing, breeds all the contest: For, what hinders that, altogether and at-once, both the quitter should first not-be and the succeeder first be in the same place? Another solution might be given, did the Argument exact it: But, as I said, the quarrel is about the words and manner of speaking, not the thing. The Author subjoyns a second difficulty, how, in a Wheel turn'd a∣bout, the parts nearer the Center, in the same time, come to run over so little a space; whereas they are connected with the remoter, which fetch so large a Compass? And, after he has acknowledged it to arise from hence, because they are not carry'd alike swiftly; he infers that, if the swiftness of the Motions be un∣equal, the straight line drawn from the Center to the Circumference must be crook'd: Whereas 'tis most evident, the right line would be crook'd, if the nearer and distanter parts from the Center were carry'd with equal velocity.

6. At length the Author loftily enters upon his boasted experiment, professing before hand, hee'l stop the mouth of the boldest obstinancy. Thus he pro∣poses it. Let one Axle-tree have three Wheels on it, one at each end, both alike, and a third in the Middle far less. Let the bigger rest upon the floor, the lesse••

upon some table. Let them all be drawn in a pro∣gressive Motion, till, having fetch'd a full compass, they mark the floor and the table with the very same points, in which, at first, they rested on them. The three scor'd lines will be found equal; whereas the middle one is scor'd out by the contact of a Circle far less than the other two, yet 'tis as long as them: Which, with no likely-hood, can be deny'd impossi∣ble; since, 'tis clear, things that touch, as far as they do so, are, necessarily equal. This is the knot; this the evident repugnancy. But, alas! let's observe that Motion is call'd in to help tye the knot the harder; and that the motion is of two kinds, a Right and a Cir∣cular, compounding a third progressive motion of the Wheel. Observe we farther, that the Right (or streight) Motion of the three Wheels is equal; and that the Circular Motion of the great Wheels is equal to the Right Motion; but the Circular motion of the Middle little Wheel is less than the Right Motion: And, which follows, that the greater Wheels are mov'd with the same celerity according to both moti∣ons; but the lesser is mov'd stronglyer in the Right, than in the Circular. Now, the compounded Motion is not that which is scor'd upon the floor or table, which, 'tis clear, is a simple and purely Right one; but a cer∣tain crooked Motion in the Air, making, with the sco∣red Motion, a certain Area (whose quantity, Torri∣cellus has demonstrated): as is manifest beyond dis∣pute

to whoever but takes any one point of the Circle or Wheel; and withall, that the progressive Motion of the bigger Wheels is greater than that of the lesser Wheel. These things thus explicated, there appears nothing in this objection more intricate, than in this simple Proposition, that of two bodies, which are car∣ryed according to one line with equal velocity, one may, at the same time, be carried swiftlyer than the other, according to another line: which is so evident, that any one, that's a Mathematician, cannot doubt of it.

7. Yet still Galilaeus presses closer that, in the cir∣cumvolution, the several points of the lesser Circle or Wheel are just fitted, in an immediate succession, to the several points of the space in which 'tis carried: And, therefore, that it cannot be understood how the Right can be longer than the Crooked. But, that which deceived Galilaeus was his not having discussed Aristotle himself, but bin overcredulous to his Modern Interpreters, or rather Corrupters. For, Aristotle has taught us that a Moveable, in actual Motion, alwaies possesses a bigger (and not-equal) place to it self; which is most evident: For, since no part of Motion can be but in Time; and, in every part of time, the thing moved quits some place and gets some new; 'tis plain, there cannot be found any so little motion, wherein the Body moved, has not possessed both the place in which it had rested, and some part of a New one.

This supposed, though the Moveable were conceived indivisible; yet certain it would be that, in whatever determinate part of time, or by however little a part of Motion, it would score out not a space equal to it self, but some line; and, in the conditions of our present dispute every point of the lesser Wheel will draw a line proportionate to a part of the Circle of the greater Wheel. And, since really there are no either instants in Time, or indivisibles in Motion, or Points in a Circular Line: 'Tis evident, this Argu∣ment has no force; but in vertue of that false apprehen∣sion which we have convinced in the 'fore-alledged defence of Geometry.