Professor Stewart's History oj the Progress of Philosophy. 5S5 



the material universe are concerned — 

 ,and, in general, in those literary quali- 

 ties and attainments, of whichthe greater 

 bulk of mankind either are, or think 

 themselves, best qualified to form an es- 

 timate. The reputation of Gassendi, 

 accordingly, seems to have been at its 

 height in his own lifetime; that of Des- 

 cartes ninde but little, progress till a con- 

 siderable time after his death. 



The partiality of Gassendi fr)r the Epi- 

 curean physic*, if not onginally imbibed 

 from Bacon, must have been powerfully 

 encouraged by the favourable terms in 

 which he always mentions the Aiomic or 

 Corpuscular theory, in its conformity to 

 that luminous simplicity which every w heie 

 characterizes the operations of nature, 

 this theory certainly possesses a decided 

 superiority over all the other conjectures 

 of the ancient philosophers concerning 

 the material universe; and it reflects no 

 small honour on the sagacity both of 

 Bacon and of Gassendi, to have per- 

 ceived so clearly the strong analogical 

 presumption which this conformity af- 

 forded in its favour, prior to the unex- 

 pected lustre thrown upon ifby the re- 

 searches of the Newtonian school. With 

 all his admiration, however, of the Epi- 

 •urean physics, Bacon no-where shews 

 the slightest leaning towards the meta- 

 physical or ethical doctrines of the same 

 sect; but, on the contrary, considered 

 (and, I apprehend, rightly considered) 

 the atomic theory as incomparably more 

 hostile to atheism, than the hypothesis 

 of four mutable elements, and of one 

 immutable fifth essence. In this last 

 opinion there is every reason to believe 

 that Gassendi fully concurred, more es- 

 pecially as he was a zealous advocate for 

 the investigation of final causes, even in 

 inquiries strictly physical. At the same 

 time, it cannot be denied that, on many 

 questions, both of Metaphysics and of 

 Ethics, this very learned theologian (one 

 cf the most orthodox, professcdh/, of 

 whom the Catholic church has to boast), 

 carried liis veneration for the authority 

 of Epicurus to a degree bordering on 

 weakness and servility; and although, 

 on such occasions, he is at the utmost 

 pains to guard his readers against the 

 dangerous conclusions commonly ascrib- 

 ed to his master, he has nevertheless 

 retained more than enough of his system 

 to give a plausible colour to a very gene- 

 ral suspicion that he secretly adupced 

 more of it than he chose to avow. 



As Gassendi's attachment to the phy- 

 flicnl doctrines of Epicurus predisposed 

 liim to give ati easier reception th^tn ha 



might otherwise have done to his opi« 

 nions in Metaphysics and in Ethics, so 

 his unqualified contempt for the hypo* 

 thesis of the Vortices seems to have 

 created in his mind an undue prejudice 

 against the speculations of Descartes on 

 ail other subjects. His objections to the 

 argument by which Descartts has so 

 triumphantly established the distinction 

 bctvveni Mind and Matter, as separate 

 and heterogeneous objects of human 

 knowledge, must now appear, to everj 

 person capable of t'orming a judgment 

 upon the question, altogether frivolous 

 and puerile ; amounting to nothing more 

 than this, that all our knowledge is re. 

 ceived by the channel of the external 

 senses, — insomuch, that there is not a 

 single object of the understandmg which 

 may not be ultimately analyzed into seru 

 sible images ; and, of consequence, that 

 when Descartes proposed to abstract 

 from these images in studying the mind, 

 he rejected the only materials out of 

 which it is possible for our faculties to 

 rear any superstructure. The sum of 

 the vk'hole matter is (to use his own la))> 

 guage), that-" there is no real distinc* 

 tion between imagination and intelleo 

 tion ;" meaning, by the- former of these 

 words, the power which the mind pos- 

 sesses of representing to itself the mate- 

 rial objects and qualities it has previously 

 perceived. It is evident that this con. 

 elusion coincides exactly with the tenets 

 inculcated in England at 'he sameperiotj 

 by his friend Hobbes, as well as with 

 those revived at a latter period by Di» 

 derot, Home Ti.'jke, and many other 

 writers, both French and English, who, 

 while they were only repeating the ex- 

 ploded dogmas of Epicurus, fancied they 

 were pursuing, with miraculous success, 

 the new path struck out by the genius of 

 Locke. 



MALEBRANCUE. 



About twenty years after the death of 

 Gassendi (who did not long survive Des» 

 cartes), Malebranche entered upon his 

 philosophical career. The earlier part 

 of his life had, by the advice of some of 

 his preceptors, been devoted to the study 

 of ecclesiastical history and of the learned 

 languages; for neither of which pursuits 

 does he seem to liave felt that marked 

 predilection which afforded any promise 

 of future eminence. At length, in the 

 twenty-iifth year of his age, he accident- 

 ally met with Descartes' " Treatise on 

 Man," which opeutd to him at once a 

 new world, and awakened to hiui a conu 

 sciousncsg of powers, till .then unsus- 

 pectetl eitiie; by himself or by others, 

 FunieiiellQ 



