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. 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.

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.