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 ...

SECT. I.

NO man so fit to receive and retain the impressions of Truth, as He,* 1.1 who hath his Virgin mind totally dispos∣sessed of Praejudice: and no Thesis hath ever, since the Envy of Aristotle was so hot, as to burn the Volumes of Democritus and most of the Elder Philosophers, which might have con∣served its lustre,* 1.2 been more Eclipsed with a praesumption of sundry Incon∣gruities, then this noble one, that A∣toms are the First and Catholique Prin∣ciple of Bodies. Requisite it is there∣fore that this Chapter have, Ianus like, two faces: one to look backward on those Impediments to its general admis∣sion, the Inconsistences charged upon, and sundry Difficulties supposed inse∣parable from it; the other to look forward at the plenary Remonstrance of its Verity.

In obedience to this necessity, therefore, we advertise, first;* 1.3 that it hath proved of no small disadvantage to the promotion of the Doctrine of A∣toms, that the Founders thereof have been accused of laying it down for a main Fundamental, that there are two Principles of all things in the Uni∣verse, BODIE and INANITY; importing the necessary Con∣currence of the Inane Space to the constitution of Bodies complex, as well as of Atoms. This Absurdity hath been unworthily charged upon Epicu∣rus by Plutarch, in these words; Principia esse Epicuro Infinitatem & Ina∣ne: and upon Leucippus and Democritus by Aristotle (1. Metaphys. 4.) in these; Plenum & Inane Elementa dicunt.

To vindicate these Mirrors of Science from so dishonourable an Imputa∣tion, we plead; that though they held the Universe to consist of two Ge∣neral Parts, Atoms and Vacuity: yet did not they, therefore, affirm, that

all things were composed of those two, as Elementary Principles. That which imposed upon their Accusers judgment, was this, that supposing Atoms and the Inane Space to be Ingenite and Incorruptible, they conceived the whole of Nature to arise from them, as from its two universal Parts; but never dreamt so wild an Alogy, as that all Concretions, that are pro∣duced by Generation, and subject to destruction by Corruption, must de∣rive their Consistence from those two, in the capacity of Elements, or Com∣ponentia. For, albeit in some latitude and liberty of sense, they may be conceded Elements, or Principles of the Universe: yet doth it not natu∣rally follow, that therefore they must be equal Principles, or Elements of Generables; since Atoms only fulfill that title, the Inane Space affording only Place and Discrimination. Nor is it probable, that those, who had defined Vacuity by Incorporiety, should lapse into so manifest a Contradi∣ction, as to allow it to be any Cause of Corporiety, or to constitute one moiety of Bodies. Besides, neither can Epicurus in any of those Fragments of his, redeemed from the jaws of oblivion by Laertius, Cicero, Empiri∣cus, Plutarch, &c. nor his faithful Disciple and Paraphrast, Lucretius, in all his Physiology, be found, to have affirmed the Contexture of any Concre∣tion from Inanity, but of all things simply and solely from Atoms. And for Democritus, him doth even Aristotle himself wholly acquit of this Error; for (in 1. Phys.) enumerating the several opinions of the Ancients concern∣ing the Principles, or Elements of all things, He saith of him; Fecit prin∣cipiorum Genus unicum, Figuras verò differentes. All therefore that lyeth against them in this case, is only that they asserted the interspersion or dis∣semination of Inanity among the incontingent particles of Bodies concrete, as of absolute necessity to their peculiar Contemperation: which we con∣ceive our selves obliged to embrace and defend, untill it shall be proved un∣to us, by more then paralogistical arguments, that there is any one Concre∣tion in the world so perfectly solid, as to contain nothing of the Inane Space intermixt▪ which till it can be demonstrated that a Concretion may be so solid, as to be Indissoluble, we have no cause to expect.

* 1.4Secondly, That the Patrons of Atoms do not (as the malice of some, and incogitancy of others hath praetended, to cast disparagement upon their Theory) deny the Existence of those four Elements admitted by most Philosophers: but allow them to be Elementa Secundaria, Elements Elementated, i. e. consisting of Atoms, as their First and Highest Princi∣ples. Thus much we may certifie from that of Lucretius (2. lib.) treating of Atoms;

Unde mare, & Terrae possent augescere, & unde Adpareret spatium Coeli * 1.5 domus, alta{que} tecta, Tolleret a terris procul, & consurgeret Aer, &c.

Nor can the most subtle of their Adversaries make this their Tenet bear an action of trespass against right Reason; especially when their Advocate shall urge, the great Dissent of the Ancients concerning both the Number and Original of Elements, the insufficiency of any one Element to the Produ∣ction of Compound Natures, and that the four vulgar Elements cannot justly be honoured with the Attributes of the First Matter.

(1) The Dissent of the Ancients about the number of Elements cannot be unknown to any,* 1.6 who hath revolved their monuments and taken a list of their several opinions; their own, or their Scholiasts volumes lying open to record, that of those who fixt upon the four Vulgar Elements, Fire, Aer, Earth, Water, for the universal Principles, some constituted on∣ly one single first Principle, from which by Consideration and Rarefaction, the other three did proceed, and from them all Elementated Concretions: among which are Heraclitus, who selected Fire; Anaximenes, who pitch∣ed upon Aer; Thales Milesius, who praeferred Water; and Pherecydes, who was for Earth. Others supposed only Two primary, from which likewise, by Condensation and Rarefaction the other two secondary were produced: as Xenophanes would have Earth and Water; Parmenides contended for Fire and Earth; Oenopides Chius for Fire and Aer; and Hippo Rheginus for Fire and Water. Others advanced one step higher, and there acquies∣ced in Three; as Onomacritus and his Proselytes affirmed Fire, Water, and Earth. And some made out the Quaternian, and superadded also Aer; the Principal of which was Empedocles. Now, to him who remembers, that there can be but one Truth; and thereupon justly inferrs, that of many disagreeing opinions concerning one and the same subject, either all, or all except one must be false; and that it is not easie which to prefer, when they are all made equally plausible by a parity of specious Arguments: it cannot appear either a defect of judgment, or an affectation of singularity in De∣mocritus and Epicurus to have suspected them all of incertitude, and founded their Physiology on an Hypothesis of one single Principle, Atoms, from the various transposition, configuration, motion, and quiescence of whose insen∣sible Particles, all the four generally admitted Elements may be derived, and into which they may, at the term of Exsolubility, revert without the least hazard of Absurdity or Impossibility; as will fall to our ample enun∣ciation in our subsequent Enquiries into the Originals of Qualities, and the Causes of Generation and Corruption.

(2) That one of the four Elements cannot singly suffice to the production of any Compound Nature;* 1.7 needs no other eviction but that Argument of Hip∣pocrates (de Natur. Hominis) Quo pacto, cùm unum existat, generabit ali∣quid, nisi cùm aliquo misceatur? Instance we in Heraclitus Proto-Element, Fire; from which nothing but Fire can be educed: though it run through all the degrees of those fertile Modifications of Densescence and Rarescence▪ (2) To suppose Rarefaction and Condensation, without the more or less of Inanity intercepted; as they do: is to usurp the concession of an Im∣possibility. (3) Tis absurd, to conceive Fire transformable, by Extinction, into any other Element: because a simple substance cannot be subject to essential transmutation. So that, if after its extinction any thing of Fire re∣main, as must till Adnihilation be admitted; its surviving part must be the Common Matter, such as Atoms, which according to the various and re∣spective addition, detraction, transposition, agitation, or quiet of them, now put on the form of Fire, then of Aer, anon of Water, and lastly of Earth; since, in their original simplicity, they have no actual, but a potential De∣termination to the forms of all, indiscriminately. And, what is here urged, to evince the impossibility of Fires being the sole Catholique Element, car∣rieth the same proportion of reason and evidence, (the two pathognomick characters of Verity) to subvert the supposition of any of the other three for the substantial Principle of the rest.

* 1.8(3) That though the four vulgar Elements may be the Father, yet can they not be the Grandfather Principle to all Concretions; is evidencible from hence. (1) They are Contrary each to other, and so not only Asymboli∣cal or Disharmonious, but perfectly Destructive among themselves, at least uncapable of that mutual correspondence requisite to peaceful and durable Coalescence. (2) They are praesumed to coalesce, and their Concretions to consist without Inanity interspersed among their incontiguous particles: which is impossible. (3) Their Defendants themselves concede a degree of Dissolution beyond them: and consequently that they know a Princi∣ple Senior. (4) Their Patrons must grant either that they, by a praevious deperdition of their own nature, are changed into Concretions, which by mutation of Forms escheat again into Elements; in which case Elements can be no more the Principle of Concretions, then Concretions the Princi∣ple of Elements, since their Generations must be vicissitudinary and Cir∣cular, as that of Water and Ice: or, that, conserving their own natures immuta∣ble, they make only confused Heaps, and confer only their visible Bulks to all productions; in which case, nothing can revera be said to be genera∣ted, since all Generations owe their proprieties and peculiar denominations to their Forms. (5) Whoso admits a reciprocal or symbolical Transmuta∣tion of Elements: must also admit one Common, and so a Former Matter, which may successively invest it self in their several Forms; For Contraries, while Contraries, cannot unite in the assumption of the same nature. (6) That Achilles, or Champian Objection, that Vegetables and Animals owe their Nutrition and Increment to the four Elements, is soon conquered by re∣plying; that Elements are not therefore the First Principles, but rather those from whose respective Contexture they borrowed the nature of Elements, and so derived an aptitude, or qualification requisite to the condition of Aliment.

* 1.9Thirdly, that the Principles of Democritus, Epicurus, &c. are toto coelo, by irreconcileable disparities, different from those of Anaxagoras, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, CONSIMILAR Parts, or abstractly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, SI∣MILARITY (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) because they are supposed to be parts in all points consimilar to the Things generated of them, according to the paraphrase of Plutarch (1. placit. 3.) who there explains it by the Example of Aliment. Wherein, whether it be Wine, Water, Bread, Flesh, Fruits, &c. notwithstanding the seeming difference in the outward form, there are actually contained some Sanguineous, some Carnous, other Osseous, other Spermatick Parts, which, upon their seque∣stration, and selection by the Nutritive Faculty are discretely apposed to the sanguineous, carnous, osseous, and spermatick parts praeexistent in the bo∣dy nourisht. And the Disparity doth chiefly consist herein; that They endow their Atoms with only three congenial Qualities, viz. Magni∣tude, Figure, and Gravity: but He investeth his Similarities with as great variety of essential Proprieties, as there is of Qualities, nay Idiosyncrasies in Bodies.

Which to suppose, is to dote: (1) Because if the nature of the whole be one and the same with that of its Parts: then must the Principles, no less then the Concretions consisting of them, be obnoxious to Corruption. (2) Because, if it be assumed, that Like are made of Like, or that Concre∣tions are absolutely Identical to their Elements; it cannot be denyed; that there are La••ghing and Weeping Principles concurrent to the generations

of Laughing and Weeping Compositions. (3) Because from hence, that (concordant to Anaxagoras) all things are actually existent in all things, and that the difference resteth only in the external Apparence, arising from the praedominion of such or such over such or such parts of the Consimilar Prin∣ciples: it necessarily ensues (as Aristotle argueth against Him, 1 Physic. 4.) that in the contusion, section, or detrition of Fruits, Herbs, &c. there must frequently appear Blood, Milk, Sperm, &c. as being thereby enfranchised from the tyranny of those parts, which ruled the rost in the induction of the outward apparence, and emergent out of those Clouds which concealed and disguised them. All which are Absurdities so palpable that a blind man may thereby Distinguish the rough and spurious Hypothesis of Anaxago∣ras, from the smooth and genuine Principle of Democritus and his Sectators.

Fourthly and lastly, that the Difficulties, which many Dissenters,* 1.10 and more eminently their most potent and declared Opponent, Lactantius (in lib. de Ira D••••, cap. 10.) have posted up against the supposition of Atoms for the Catholick Principle of Bodies Concrete, thereby to praevent their further approbation, and admission into the Schools; carry not moments enough of reason to in••••ect and determine the judgment of an aequitable Arbiter to a suspition, much less a positive negation of its verisimility. Of this we de∣sire our Reader to be judge, when he hath made himself competent, by a patient hearing, and upright perpension of the pleas of both parties, here praesented.

(1) Anti-Atomist; Whence had these minute and indivisible Bodies, called Atoms, their original? or, out of what were they educed?

Atomist; This inapposite Demand lyeth open to a double response. As a mere Philosopher I return; that the assumption of Atoms for the First Matter doth expresly praevent the pertinency of this Quaere. Nor would Aristotle, Plato, or any other of the Ethnick Philosophers, who would not hear of a Creation, or production of the First Matter out of Nothing, but contumaciously maintained its Ingeneration and Eternity, have had Gravity enough to suppress the insurrection of their spleen against the absurdity there∣of: since to enquire the Matter of the First Matter, is a Contradiction in ter∣minis. As a proficient in the sacred School of Moses, I may answer; that the fruitful Fiat of God, out of the Tohu, or infinite space of Nothing, called up a sufficient stock of the First Matter, for the fabrication of the World in that most excellent Form, which He had Idea'd in his own omni∣scient intellect from Eternity.

(2) Anti-Atomist; If Atoms be smooth and sphaerical, as their Inventors suppose; it is impossible they should take mutual hold each of other, so as by reciprocal adhaesion and coalition to constitute any Concretion. For, what power can mould an heap of Millet-seed into a durable figure, when the Laevitude or politeness, and roundness of the Grains inexcusably interdict their Coition into a Mass?

Atomist; This Objection discovers the rancour, no less then the praece∣dent Interrogation did the weakness of the proposers. For, they could not be ignorant, that the Defendants of Atoms do not suppose them to be all

smooth and globular, but of all sorts of figures requisite to mutual Applicati∣on, Coalition, Cohaerence. And therefore they could not but expect this solution. That, though polite and orbicular Atoms, cannot by mutual ap∣prehension and revinction each of other, compact themselves into a Mass; yet may they be apprehended and retained by the Hooks, and accommoda∣ted to the Creeks and Angles of other Atoms, of Hamous and Angular figures, and so conspire to the Coagmentation of a Mass, that needs no other Caement besides the mutual dependence of its component particles, to main∣tain its Tenacity and Compingence. This may receive light, from observa∣tion of the successive separation of the dissimilar Parts of Bodies, by Eva∣poration. For, first those Atoms, which are more smooth, or less angular and hamous, easily extricate themselves, and disperse from the Concreted Mass; and then, after many and various Evolutions, circumgyrations, and change of positions, the more rough, hamous, and angular, they expede themselves from reciprocal concatenation, and at last, being wholly disband∣ed, pursue the inclination of their inhaerent Motive Faculty, and disappear. Experience demonstrating, that by how much more Unctuous and Tenaci∣ous any Consistence is, by so much a longer time do the particles thereof require to their Exhalation. Thus is Water much sooner evaporated, then Oyl: and Lead then Silver.

(3) Anti-Atomist; If Atoms be unequal in their superfice, and have an∣gular and hamous processes; then are they capable of having their rugosi∣ties planed by detrition, and their hooks and points taken off by amputa∣tion: contrary to their principle propriety, Indivisibility.

Atomist; the hooks, angles, asperities, and processes of Atoms are as insecable and infrangible as the residue of their bodies, in respect an equal solidity belongs to them, by reason of their defect of Inanity interspersed, the intermixture of Inanity being the Cause of all Divisibility.

Haec, quae sunt rerum primordia, nulla potest vis Stringere, nam solido vincunt ea corpore demum.

(4) Anti-Atomist; That Bodies of small circumscription, such as grains of sand, may be amassed from a syndrome, and coagmentation of Atoms; seems, indeed, to stand in some proportion to probability: but to conceive a possibility, that so vast a Bulk, as the adspectable World bears may arise out of things but one degree above nothing, such insensible materials con∣vened and conglobated; is a symptome of such madness, as Melancho∣ly adust cannot excuse, and for which Physitians are yet to study a cure.

Atomist; To doubt the possibility, nay dispute the probability of it: is cer∣tainly the greater madness. For, since a small stone may be made up of a Coagmentation of grains of Sand; a multitude of small stones, by coacer∣vation, make up a Rock; many Rocks by aggregation, make a Mountain; many Mountains, by coaptation, make up the Globe of Earth; since the Sun, the Heavens, nay the World may arise from the conjunction of parts of dimensions equal to the Terrestrial Globe: what impossibility doth he incurr, who conceives the Universe to be amassed out of Atoms? Doubt∣less, no Bulk can be imagined of such immense Dimensions, as that the

greatest parts thereof may not be divided into less, and those again be subdivided into less; so that, by a successive degradation down the scale of Magnitude, we may not at last arrive at the foot thereof, which cannot be conceived other then Atoms. Should it appear unconceivable to any that a Pismire may perform a perambulation round the terrestrial Globe; we advise him to institute this Climax of Dimensions, and consider, first that the ambite of the Earth is defined by miles, that miles are commensurated by paces, paces consist of feet, feet of digits, digits of grains, &c. and then He may soon be con∣vinced, that the step of a Pismire holds no great disproportion to a grain, and that a grain holds a manifest proportion to a di∣git, a digit to a foot, a foot to a pace, a pace to a perch, a perch to a furlong, a furlong to a mile, and so to the circumference of the whole Earth, yea by multiplication to the convexity of the whole World. If any expect a further illustration of this point, it can cost him no more but the pains of reading the 45. page of our Treatise against Atheism; and of Archimeds book de Are∣narum Numero.

(5) Anti-Atomist; If all peices of Nature derived their origine from Individual Particles; then would there be no need of Semina∣lities to specifie each production, but every thing would arise indis∣criminately from Atoms, accidentally concurring and cohaering: so that Vegetables might spring up, without the praeactivity of seeds, without the assistance of moysture, without the fructifying influ∣ence of the Sun, without the nutrication of the Earth; and all Ani∣mals be generated spontaneously, or without the prolification of distinct sexes.

Atomist; This inference is ingenuine, because unnecessary, since all Atoms are not Consimilar, or of one sort, nor have they an equal aptitude to the Conformation of all Bodies. Hence comes it, that of them are first composed certain Moleculae, small masses, of various figures, which are the seminaries of various productions; and then, from those determinate seminaries do all specifical Generations receive their contexture and Constitution, so praecisely, that they can∣not owe their Configuration to any others. And, therefore, since the Earth, impraegnated with Fertility, by the sacred Magick of the Creators Benediction, contains the seeds of all Vegetables; they can∣not arise but from the Earth, nor subsist or augment without roots, by the mediation of which, other small consimilar Masses of Atoms are continually allected for their nutrition▪ nor without moysture, by the benefit of which, those minute masses are diluted, and so adapted for transportation and final assimilation; nor without the influence of the Sun, by vertue whereof their vegetative Faculty is con∣served, cherished and promoted in its operations. Which Reason is aequivalent also to the Generation, Nutrition and Increment of Animals.

(6) Anti-Atomist; If your Proto-Element, Atoms, be the Princi∣ple of our 4 common Elements, according to the various Configurations of it into Moleculae, or small masses; and that those are the Semina∣ries

of all things: then may it be thence inferred, that the Seeds of Fire are invisibly contained in Flints, nay more, in a Sphaerical Glass of Water, exposed to the directly incident rayes of the Sun; our sense convincing, that Fire is usually kindled either way.

Atomist; Allowing the legality of your Illation, we affirm, that in a Flint are concealed not only the Atoms, but Moleculae, or Seeds of Fire, which wanting only retection, or liberty of Exsilition, to their apparence in the forme of fire, acquire it by excussion, and pursuing their own rapid motion undiquaque, discover themselves both by affecting the sight and accension of any easily combustible mat∣ter▪ on which they shall pitch, and into whose pores they shall with exceeding Celerity penetrate. Nor can any man solve this eminent Phaenomenon so well, as by conceiving; that the body of a Flint, being composed of many igneous (i. e. most exile, sphaerical, and a∣gile) Atoms, wedged in among others of different dimensions and fi∣gures; (which contexture is the Cause of its Hardness, Rigidity and Friability) upon percussion by some other body conveniently hard, the insensible Particles thereof suffering extraordinary stress and violence, in regard it hath but little and few Vacuola, or empty spaces intermixt, and so wanting room to recede and disperse, are conglomorated and agitated among themselves with such impetuositie, as determinately causeth the constitution of Fire. It being manifest, that violent motion generateth Heat: and confessed even by Aristotle (1. Meteor. 3.) that Fire is nothing but the Hyperbole or last degree of Heat. Secondly, That the seeds of Fire are not contained either in the sphaerical Glass or the the Water included therein; but in the Beams of the Sun (whose Com∣position is altogether of Igneous Atoms) which being deradiated in dispersed lines, want only Concurse and Coition to their investment in the visible form of Fire; and that the Figure of the Glass natu∣rally induceth, it being the nature of either a Convex, or Concave Glass to transmit many Beams variously incident towards one and the same point, which the virtue of Union advanceth to the force of Ig∣nition.

* 1.11Having thus vindicated our Atoms from the supposed Competition of the Inane Space, in the dignity of being one Principle of Bodies; re∣conciled them ••o the 4 Peripatetick Elements; discriminated them from the Consimilar Particles of Anaxagoras; solved the most considerable of the Difficulties charged upon them; and thereby fully performed our assumption of removing the principal praetexts of Prajudice: we may now, with more both of perspicuity, and hopes of perswasion, advance to the Demonstration of our Thesis, the Title and Argument of this Chapter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. The introdu∣ction, hinting the two gene∣ral assumpti∣ons of the Chapter.
• * 1.2

  Superbissimo furore ambitio∣sus nominis Aristoteles, in Philos••phorum Principes est deba••cha••us, uno ••ue incendio congestas trigin∣tae sex seculis tot sapientiae divi∣tias absumpsit; & si quae voluit superesse funeri, ea omnium ••udi∣b••i••, dicteriisque lacessenda tradidit p••steris, dum in optimorum bona invectus, ab••cissis perditisque sapientiae statu••rum capitibus, suum imp suit singulis: ut Magn••nas, in Democrit. Script. Elench. ex Plinio in p••ae••at. ad D. Vespanianum Imp.
• * 1.3

  Art. 2. Demo••itus & Epicurus vin∣dicated from the absurd ad∣mission of Ina∣nity to be one Principle of Generables.
• * 1.4

  Art. 3. Atoms not in∣consistent with, because the Principles of the four vulgar Ele∣ments.
• * 1.5

  Accipitur pro Igne••seu Aethe∣re, quem dictum Anaxagoras censuit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ab ••∣rendo.
• * 1.6

  Art. 4. The dissent of the Anci∣ents, about the number of E∣lements.
• * 1.7

  Art. 5. No one of the four Elements sufficient to the producti∣on of either any of the o∣ther three, or of any Com∣pound nature.
• * 1.8

  Art. 6. The four Ele∣ments, not the Prot••princi∣ple of Concre∣tions.
• * 1.9

  Art. 7. A••oms discri∣minated from the H••m••••ome∣rical Princi∣ples of Anaxa∣goras.
• * 1.10

  Art. 8. The principal Difficulties ur∣ged against the Hypothesis of Atoms, singu∣larly solved▪
• * 1.11

  Art. 9. A recapitula∣tion of the praemises, i••∣troductory to the verificati∣on of the prae∣sent thesis.