LXIII. But have the moderns who exclaim so much against Aristotle, hit upon the truth? By no means. They have reasoned more boldly, but not with better success. They tell us, that the texture, collocation, figure, and motion of the particles, produce all the operations of nature, without the necessity of having recourse for this purpose, to accidental or substantial forms; but by saying this, they expose themselves to the same fault which they reprehend in the Aristotelites, which is that of speaking too generally; for as these last, do not explain or define, of what the substantial form consists which distinguishes one entity from another, neither do the others determine, the texture, co-ordination, and figure of the particles which appertain, and are proper to each composition; in consequence of which, they all involve themselves in innumerable difficulties, which they reciprocally object against each other. The Cartesian system appears chimerical to the Gassendists, and the Maignanists; and these two last parties, although they agree in assigning the Atoms as the principles, and elements of all material things, oppose one another in various particulars, it being a principle with the Maignanists, that the Atoms are different in species, and with the Gassendists, that they differ only in figure; all of which systems, are exposed to be combated by arguments that are terribly strong. SECT. XVI. LXIV. From all that has been said, it may be evidently concluded, that we know nothing of the nature of that principal object of physics, _an ens mobile_, either taken as confined to individuals, or considered with respect to the species, or contemplated in an abstracted sense, as relating to the gradations, of lowest, inferior, or supreme. What one sect affirms, another denies, and the worst is, that, attend to the reasoning of which of them you will, you will find the arguments against the system of each, stronger than the proofs in favour of it. On this account, Lactantius said wisely, that philosophers have swords, but no shields: _Gladium habent, scutum non habent._ They produce penetrating arguments wherewith to assail the opinions of their opponents, but not solid solutions, wherewith to defend their own. What can we do then in such a case? Why nothing but suspend our judgment, till some angel shall decide the contest.