II. the world, that many of the phenomena of the universe CHAP. are far more intelligibly explained by matter and motion than by substantial forms and real qualities, few free and unprejudiced minds do now scruple. But because these little particles of matter may give a tolerable account of many appearances of nature, that therefore there should be nothing else but matter and motion in the world, and that the origin of the universe should be from no wiser principle than the casual concourse of these atoms, is one of the evidences of the proneness of men's minds to be intoxicated with those opinions they are once in love with; when they are not content to allow an hypothesis its due place and subserviency to God and providence, but think these atoms have no force at all in them, unless they can extrude a Deity quite out of the world; for it is most evident that it was not so much the truth, as the serviceableness of this hypothesis, which hath given it entertainment among men of atheistical spirits. Epicurus himself, in his Epistle to Pythocles, urgeth that as a considerable circumstance in his opinion, that he brought no God down upon the stage to put things in order, καὶ ἡ θεῖα φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμή προσαγέσθω, which Diog. Laer. his paraphrast Lucretius hath thus rendered: Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam Naturam rerum. If this opinion then be true, the history of the creation quite falls to the ground; on which account we are obliged more particularly to consider the reason of it. The hypothesis then of Epicurus is, that before the world was brought into that form and order it is now in, there was an infinite empty space, in which were an innumerable company of solid particles, or atoms of different sizes and shapes, which by their weight were in continual motion; and that by the various 1. x. p. 290. Lucret. de Nat. v. 199. Euseb. Præp. Evang. BOOK occursions of these, all the bodies of the universe were III. -framed into that order they now are in. Which is fully expressed by Dionysius in Eusebius, and very agreeably to the sense of Epicurus, in his Epistles to 1. xiv. c. 23. Herodotus and Pythocles, and to what Plutarch rede Placitis ports of the sense of Epicurus, though he names him Phil. 1. i. not, (if at least that book be his, which Muretus deMuret. An-nies.) The words of Dionysius are these, concerning nec. de the Epicureans, οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἀτόμους προσείποντες ἄφθαρτά ed. Par. Plutarch. C. 4. not. in Se Provid. Lucret. i. 1023. ed. Oxon. τινα καὶ σμικρότατα σώματα, πλῆθος ἀνάριθμα, καί τι χωρίου Sed quia multimodis, multis, mutata, per omne Omne genus motus et cœtus experiundo, Qualibus hæc rebus consistit summa creata. And more particularly afterwards: Sed quia multa modis multis primordia rerum CHAP. Id. v. 423. Thus we see the substance of the Epicurean hypothesis, that there was an infinite number of atoms, which by their frequent occursions did at last meet with those of the same nature with them, and these being conjoined together, made up those bodies which we see; so that all the account we are able to give, according to this hypothesis, of all the phenomena of the universe, is from the fortuitous concourse of the atoms in the first forming of the world, and the different contexture of them in bodies. And this was delivered by the ancient Epicureans, not with any doubt or hesitation, but with the greatest confidence imaginable. So Tully observes of Velleius the Epicurean, beginning his discourse, fidenter sane, ut solent isti, nihil tam Cicero de verens quam ne dubitare aliqua de re videretur; tan-1.. quam modo ex Deorum concilio, et ex Epicuri intermundiis descendisset: confidence was the peculiar genius of that sect, which we shall see in them to be accompanied with very little reason. For those two things which make any principles in philosophy to be rejected, this atomical hypothesis is unavoidably charged with; and those are, If the principles be taken up without sufficient ground in reason for them; and if they cannot give any sufficient account of the phenomena of the world. I shall therefore make it appear, that this hypothesis, as to the Nat. Deor. XII. III. BOOK origin of the universe, is, first, merely precarious, and built on no sufficient grounds of reason; secondly, that it cannot give any satisfactory account of the origin of things. 1. That it is a precarious hypothesis, and hath no evidence of reason on which it should be taken up; and that will be proved by two things. 1. It is such an hypothesis as the Epicureans themselves could have no certainty of, according to their own principles. 2. That the main principles of the hypothesis itself are repugnant to those catholic laws of nature which are observed in the universe. 1. The Epicureans, according to their own principles, could have no certainty of the truth of this hypothesis. And that, 1. Because they could have no certain evidence of its truth. 2. Because their way of proving it was insufficient. 1. That they could have no certain evidence of the truth of it, I prove from those criteria, which Epicurus lays down as the only certain rules of judging the truth of things by; and those were, sense, anticipation, and passion. Let sense be never so infallible a rule of judgment, yet it is impossible there should be any evidence to sense of the truth of this hypothesis ; and let him extend his τὸ προσμενόμενον as long as he please, which was his great help for correcting the errors of sense, viz. as it was in the Roman court, when the case was not clear, ampliandum est: so Epicurus would have the object represented every way it could be before he passed his judgment; yet this prudent caution would do him no good for this hypothesis, unless he were so wise as to stay till this world were crumbled into atoms again, that by that he might judge of the origin of it. There is but one way left to find out the truth of things inevident to sense, (as by II. Epicurus's own confession all these atoms are, which CHAP. are now the component particles of bodies; much more those which by their fortuitous concourse gave being to the world,) and that is, if something evident to sense doth apparently prove it, which is his way of proving a vacuity in nature from motion: but though that be easily answered by principles different from those of Epicurus, and more rational, yet that very way of probation fails him in this present hypothesis. For what is there evident to sense which proves a fortuitous concourse of atoms for the production of things? Nay, if we grant him that the composition of bodies is nothing else but the contexture of these insensible particles, yet this is far from being an evidence to sense, that these particles, without any wise and directing Providence, should make up such bodies as we see in the world. And here, when we speak of the evidence of sense, we may well ask, as the Stoic in Tully doth, whether ever Epicurus found a poem made by the casual throwing of letters together; and if a concourse of atoms did produce the world, cur porticum, cur Cicero de templum, cur domum, cur urbem non potest? why i. ii. did it never produce a cloister, a temple, a house, a city? which are far easier things than the world. I know Epicurus will soon reply, That things are otherwise in the world now than when it was first produced. I grant it, and from thence prove, that because no such thing ever happens in the world now, as a merely casual concourse of atoms to produce any thing, Epicurus could have no evidence from sense at all to find out the truth of his hypothesis by. And as little relief can he find from his second criterium, viz. anticipation; for by his own acknowledgment all anticipation depends on the senses, and men have it only Epicuri. one of these four ways. 1. By incursion, as the species c. 7. can. 7. Nat. Deor. V.Gassend. de Logica Op. tom. i. |