ATOMICAL PHILOSOPHY. 



59 



Atomical larging and enforcing the atomical doctrine, that hts 

 Philosophy. warm admirer Lucretius claims for him the honour 

 ' ' ' of the whole invention. The poet appears particu- 

 larly grateful for the emancipation of the human mind 

 from the influence of religion, which was completely 

 effected according to the system of his master : 



Humana ante oculos fade cum vitajacerct 

 In ten-is tppreua grata sub religione, 

 Primum Grains homo mortales tollere contra 

 Est oculos ausus. 



Epicurus adopted the doctrines of the ancient ato- 

 mists, to explain the organization and qualities of bo- 

 dies ; and in so far as he adheres to their principles, 

 he advances many ingenious things in his speculations. 

 But he deserts the paths of true science, and of sober 

 thinking, when he attempts to account for the pro- 

 duction of all things without the operation of an in- 

 telligent cause. According to him, atoms are the 

 elements; from which all things are compounded, and 

 into which they are ultimately resolved. Not Only 

 are they the materials, out of which bodies are made ; 

 but that energy or principle of motion, which essen- 

 tially belongs to them, is the sole agent in all the ope- 

 rations of nature. Having assumed this principle, he 

 then proceeds to show, that all the changes in the 

 figure and properties of bodies consist in local motion. 

 Heat is the influx of certain small, round corpuscles, 

 which insinuate themselves into the pores of bodies in 

 continual succession, till by their perpetual action, 

 the parts are separated, and at length the body dis- 

 solved. Cold is the influx of certain irregular atoms, 

 whose motion is slower than those which occasion heat. 

 Production and dissolution are nothing more than a 

 change of the position of atoms, or an increase or di- 

 minution of the particles of which bodies are com- 

 posed. 



But the original formation of the world is the prin- 

 cipal thing to be accounted for ; and this Epicurus, 

 with most other cosmogonists, makes a very easy pro- 

 cess. Accordingly he tells us, without any hesita- 

 tion, and without the semblance of proof, that a finite 

 number of atoms, tumbling through the vacuum, were, 

 in consequence of their innate motion, collected into 

 one indigested mass. A small difficulty, however, 

 occurs here ; if these atoms fell perpendicularly, how 

 did they ever happen to unite ? They could not over- 

 take each other : for in a vacuum all bodies fall with 

 equal velocity, whatever may be the difference of their 

 specific gravity in other circumstances. The same 

 objection holds, supposing them to fall obliquely : 

 neither will it do to say that they fell tumultuously, 

 in all different directions : because the principle of 

 gravity, with which they arc supposed to be endued, 

 must act uniformly ; and if there be any deflection of 

 the atoms from one regular course, it must proceed 

 from some external cause, which is altogether con- 

 trary to Epicurus's system, which ascribes every thing 

 to the energy and activity of atoms. These difficul- 

 ties were not unobserved ; but they were easily ob- 

 viated, so long as hypothesis could be substituted for 

 argument. Accordingly, an expedient was devised, 

 to remove these objections: and it ma asserted, that 

 the atoms suffered a slight deflection in their course, 



at different times and different places, by which means Atomical 

 they effected a junction. At the same time, this de- Philosophy. 

 flection was so small, as not to constitute obliquity ; ~~~~Y~ mm ' 

 for Lucretius loudly protests against such heresy as 

 this, and declares it to be contrary to common sense, 

 that bodies should descend by their own weight, in an 

 oblique direction. Nevertheless, to answer his pur- 

 pose, he is forced to assign to the atoms a declination 

 from the perpendicular descent, whilst he denies that 

 this declination can constitute oblique motion. They 

 may understand this who can. This, however, is a 

 favourite mode of solving difficulties with Epicurus. 

 For, when talking of the form of the gods (another 

 knotty subject) he maintains that they have non cor- 

 pus, sed quasi corpus ; non sanguinem, sed quasi san- 

 guincm, ( Cic. de nat. Deor. 1. i. ) ; so with regard to the 

 primordial atoms, he seems to say, that they have non 

 clinamen, sed quasi clinamen. With respect to these 

 mysteries, we can for once cordially adopt the senti- 

 ments of an Epicurean ; htec et invent a sunt acutius, 

 et dicta subtilius ab Epicuro, quam ut quivis ea ]mssit 

 agnoscere. 



Passing over these few obstacles in the outset, let 

 us suppose the atoms brought together, by whatever 

 means, so as to form a chaos. Then, according to 

 Epicurus, those atoms which were lightest, mounted 

 up and formed the air, the heavens, and the stars ; 

 whilst the more sluggish subsided, and formed the 

 earth in which we live. Thus, these atoms are the 

 handiest things in the world: at one time they descend 

 necessarily, by the power of gravity, to form a chaos ; 

 and they obey no less readily the necessity of the 

 system-maker, and mount at the word of command 

 to form the lights of heaven. 



But it surely cannot be necessary to pursue this 

 nonsense farther, nor to attempt a serious refutation 

 of what carries in its face such glaring* absurdity. 

 The radical error of Epicurus, and of many others of 

 the ancient philosophers, consisted in supposing mo- 

 tion to be essential to matter, and matter to be eter- 

 nal. No fact in physical science is better ascertained, 

 than the absolute inertia of matter, and its indifference 

 as to motion or rest : and it is an axiom of natural 

 philosophy, that matter will continue for ever in an 

 uniform state of motion or rest, unless affected by ex- 

 ternal causes. Were motion essential to matter, we 

 could not conceive matter to exist without it. Ab- 

 stract from matter any of its general allowed proper- 

 ties, such as solidity, extension, divisibility, &c. and 

 you destroy the idea of it altogether : for it is impos- 

 sible to form a conception of substance without these 

 qualities. But abstract motion from it, and your con- 

 ception of it will be as complete as ever. It is ex- 

 pected the reader will distinguish between motion and 

 mobility, the latter being one of the general properties 

 of matter. And, with regard to the opinion that 

 matter is eternal, though it was adopted by all the 

 ancients, and also by some among the moderns, yet 

 we have no hesitation in affirming, that it is equally 

 ill-founded with that which we have been refuting. 

 For if matter is eternal, then it is also self-existent, 

 infinite, and immutable, and excludes the very possi- 

 bility of Deity, which even an atheist would scarcely 

 venture to affirm. It is evident, however, that there 



