the opposite of what it seeks to prove, since the purpose of denying the unity of a body is to establish that it is composed of indivisible parts, each of which is one. Yet denying the unity of the indivisible atom entails denying its existence. If the indivisible atom does not exist, a body cannot be composed of indivisible atoms, and must therefore be one. Thus, this argument, advanced to deny the unity of a body, entails its unity while also denying the unity of the indivisible atom. All this is contradictory.

More astonishing still is your statement: after it has been established that unity entails an infinite regress, which is impossible, you then say, “Even assuming it were possible, it must ultimately terminate in a unity inhering in the essence without the mediation of another unity.” If unity entails an impossible infinite regress, how can assuming that regress to be possible demonstrate to you that something may possess unity without the mediation of another unity?

Equally astonishing is your statement, “It must ultimately terminate in a unity inhering in the essence without the mediation of another unity; otherwise, the essence would not possess unity—which is what was to be proved.” But this is not what was to be proved. What you have supposed, despite declaring it impossible, implies that the essence possesses unity without that unity depending upon another unity of the essence. No one has disputed this with you, nor does it negate the unity of a body, for