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 ...

CHAP. III. Corporiety and Inanity.

SECT. I.

THE Universe, or this adspectable World (hence∣forth Synonymaes) doth,* 1.1 in the general, consist of only two Parts, viz. Something and Nothing, or Body and Inanity. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Naturam rerum esse Corpora & Inane, was the Fundamental position of Epicurus (apud Plutarch. advers. Colot.) which his faithful Disciple Lucretius hath ingenuosly rendred in this Distich:

Omnis, ut est igitur per se, Natura duabus Consistit rebus; quae Corpora sunt, & Inane.

The All of Nature in two Parts doth lye, That is, in Bodies and Inanity.

* 1.2Concerning the nature or essence of a BODIE, we find more then one Notion among Philosophers.

(1) Some understanding the root of Corporiety to be fixt in Tangibility: as Epicurus (apud Empericum advers. Physic.) saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: intell••gi Corpus ex congerie figurae magnitudinis, resistentiae (seu soliditatis ac impenetrabilitatis mutuae & gravitatis; that by Bodie is to be understood a congeries of fi∣gure, magnitude, resistence (or solidity and impenetrability mutual) and gravity.

To which Aristotle seems to allude (in 4. Physic. 7.) where He saith of those who assert a Vacuum, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they conceive all Bodies to be Tangible: and Lucretius, Tangere enim & tangi sine Corpore nulla potest res. Here we are, per transennam, to hint; that the Authors of this Notion, do not restrain the Tangibility of Bodies only to the Sense of Touching proper to Animals; but extend it to a more ge∣neral importance, viz. the Contact of two Bodies reciprocally occurring each to other secundum superficies; or what Epicurus blended under the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Resistence mutual arising from Impenetra∣bility.

(2) Others placing the Essential Propriety of a Body in its Extension into the three Dimensions of Longitude, Latitude, and Profundity. Thus Aristotle (Nat. Auscult. 4. cap. 3.) strictly enquiring into the Quiddity of Place, saith most profoundly; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Sanè Dimensiones tres habet, longitudinem, latitudinem, & altitudinem, quibus omne Cor∣pus definitur. And thus Des Cartes (princip. Philos. Part. 2. Sect. 4.) Naturam materiae, sive Corporis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 universum spectati, non consistere in eo quod sit res dura, vel ponderosa, vel colorata, vel aliquo alio modo sensus afficiens; sed tantum in eo, quòd sit res extensa in longum latum & profundum: that the Essence of matter, or a Body considered in the Ge∣neral doth not consist in its hardness, weight, colour, or any other rela∣tion to the senses; but only in its Extension into the three Dimen∣sions.

And (3) Others, by an excessive acuteness of Wit, dividing the Substance of a Body from the Quantity thereof, and distinguishing Quan∣tity from Extension. Of this immoderately subtle Sect are all those, who conceived that most Bodies might be so rarified and condensed, as that by Rarefaction they may acquire more, and by Condensation less of Extension, then what they have before in their native dimensions. We say immoderately subtle, because whoever shall with due attention of mind profound the nature of Rarefaction and Condensation, must soon perceive; that by those motions a Body doth suffer no more then a meer Mutation of Figure, but its Quantity admits of neither Augmentation, nor Diminution. So as those Bodies may be said to be Rare, betwixt whose parts many Intervals or Interstices, repleted with no Bodies, are in∣terspersed; and those Bodies affirmed to be Dense, whose parts mutu∣ally approaching each to other, either diminish, or totally exclude all the Intervals or intercedent Distances. And when it eveneth, that the Intervals betwixt the distant parts of a Body, are totally excluded by the mutual access, convention and contact of its parts: that Body must become so absolutely, or (rather) superlatively Dense, as to imagine a possibility of greater Density, is manifestly absurd. But yet notwithstanding, is not that Body thus extremly Dense, of less Extension, then when having its parts more remote each from other, it possessed a larger space: in respect, that whatever of Exten∣sion is found in the Pores, or Intervals made by the mutually rece∣ing parts, ought not to be ascribed to the Body rarified, but to those small Inanities that are intercepted among the dissociated particles. For instance; when we observe a Sponge dipt in Liquor to become turgent and swell into a greater bulke; we cannot justly conceive, that the Sponge is made more Extense in all its parts, then when it was dry or compressed: but only, that it hath its pores more dilated or open, and is therefore diffused through a greater space. But we may not digress into a full examen of the nature of Rarefaction and Condensation; especially since the Syntax of our Physical Speculations will lead us hereafter into a full and proper considerati∣on thereof.* 1.3

Of the nature of the other ingredient of the Universe, INANITY, there are several Descriptions:

(1) Epicurus names it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Region, or Space, and a Nature that cannot be touched: thereby intimating the di∣rect Contrariety betwixt the essential notion of Corporiety and Inanity; which Antithesis Lucretius plainly expresseth in that Verse, Tactus copori∣bus cunctis intactus Inani.

(2) Cleomedes describes a Vacuum to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ex sua natura incorporeum: adding for furrher explanation, siquidem est in∣corporeum, tactumque fugit, & neque figuram habet ullam, neque recipit, & ne∣que patitur quicquam, neque agit, sed praebet solummodo liberum per seipsum corporibus motum; it is incorporeal, because it cannot be touched, hath no figure of its own, nor is capable of any from others, neither suffers nor acts any thing, but only affords free space for the motion of other bodies through it.

(3) Empiricus (2. advers Physic.) descanting upon Epicurus description of Inanity, saith; Natura eadem corpore destituta, appellatur Inane; occu∣pata verò à corpore, Locus dicitur, pervadentibus ipsam corporibus evadit Re∣gio: the same Nature devoid of all body, is called a Vacuum, if possessed by a body, 'tis called a Place, and when bodies pervade it, it becomes a Region.

And (4) Aristotle (3. Physic. 7.) defines a Vacuum to be Locus in quo nihil est, a Place wherein no body is contained.

* 1.4Now if we faithfully extract the importance of all these several Descriptions of Inanity, we shall find them to concurr in this com∣mon Notion. As according to vulgar sense, a Vessel is said to be empty, when it being capable of any, doth yet actually contain no bo∣dy: so, ••ccording to the sense of Physiology, that Place, that Region, or that Space, which being capable of bodies, doth yet actually re∣ceive or contain none, is said to be a Vacuum or Emptiness. Such would any Vessel be if upon remove of that body, whereby its capacity was filled, no other body, the Aer, nor ought else, should succeed to possess it: or such would that Space be, which this Book, that Man, or any other Body whatever doth now actually replenish, if after the remove of that Tenent, neither the circumstant Aer, nor ought else should succeed in possession, but it should be left on every side as it were limited by the same concave superficies of the circum∣ambient, wherein the body, while a Tenent, was circumscribed and in∣cluded.

Of the Existence of Bodies in the World, no man can doubt, but He who dares indubitate the testimony of that first and grand Criteri∣on,* 1.5 SENSE, is regard that all Natural Concretions fall under the perception of some one of the Senses: and to stagger the Certitude of Sense, is to cause an Earthquake in the Mind, and upon conse∣quence to subvert the Fundamentals of all Physical Science. Nor is Physiology, indeed, more then the larger Descant of Reason upon the short Text of Sense: or all our Metaphysical speculations (those only excluded, which concern the Existence and Attributes of the Supreme Being, the Rational Soul of man, and Spirits: the Cognition of the two former being desumed from proleptical or congenial impressi∣ons

implantate in, or coessential to our mind; and the belief of the last be∣ing founded upon Revelation supernatural) other then Commentaries upon the Hints given by some one of our External senses. Which Consideration caused Epicurus to erect these two Canons, as the Base of Logical Judicature.

(1) Opinio illa vera est, cui vel suffragatur, vel non refraga∣tur sensus evidentia. (2) Opinio illa falsa est, cui vel refragatur vel non suffraga∣tur sensus evidentia.

That Opinion is true, to which the Evidence of Sense doth either assent, or not dissent: and that false, to which the evidence of Sense doth either not assent, or dissent.

By the suffragation or Assent of the Evidence of Sense, is meant an Assu∣rance that our Apprehension or Judgment of any Object occuring to our sense, is exactly concordant to the reality thereof; or, that the Object is truly such, as we, upon the perception of it by our sense, did judge or opinion it to be. Thus Plato walking far off towards us, and we seeing him conjecture or opinion, as confidently as the great distance will admit, that it is Plato, whom we see coming toward us: but when, by his nearer approach, the great impediment of Certitude, Distance is removed; then doth the evidence of sense make an Attestation or suffra∣gation of the verity of our opinion, and confirm it to be Plato, whom we saw.

The Non-refragation of Sense, intends the Consequution of some Ine∣vident thing, which we suppose or praesume to be, with reflection upon something sensibly evident, or apparent. As when we affirm that the••e is a Vacuum; which taken singly, or speculated▪ in its own obscure na∣ture, is wholly inevident, but may be demonstrated by another thing sufficiently evident, viz. Motion: for if no Vacuum, no Motion; since the Body to be moved must want a Place, wherein to be received, if all Places be already full and crouded. Hence comes it that the thing Evident doth not Refragari to the Inevident. And thus the Suffraga∣tion and Nonrefragation of the Evidence of sense, ought to be under∣stood as one Criterion, whereby any Position may be evicted to be true.

Hither also may be referred that Tetrastick of Lucretius, (lib. 1.)

Corpus enim per se communis deliquat ess•• Sensus: quo nisi prima fides fundata valebit, Haud erit, occultis de rebus, quò referentes Confirmare Animi quicquam ratione queamus.

That Bodies in the World existent are, Our Senses undeniably declare: Whose Certitude once quaestion'd; we can find No judge to solve nice scruples of the Mind.

It remains therefore only that we prove (1) That there is a Vacuum in Nature. (2) That there is in the Universe no Third Nature besides that of Body and Inanity.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. Body and Inani∣ty, the two ge∣neral Parts of the Universe.
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. Three the most memorable De∣finitions of Corporiety ex∣tant among Physiologists, recounted and examined.
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. Four Descrip∣tions of the nature of Ina∣nity, by Epicu∣rus, Cleomedes, Empiricus, Aristotle.
• * 1.4

  Art. 4. Their impor∣tance extra••t∣ed: and what is the f••rmal or proper notion of a Vacuum.
• * 1.5

  Art. 5. The Existence of Bodies in the World, mani∣fest by Sense: whose Evidence is perfect De∣monstration.