Part I. — ( b ) Objections to the Theory. 
12. The Atomic Theory is so useful, practically, that even those 
who theoretically express their disbelief, themselves continually 
make use of and profit by its guidance. It is, in fact to the che- 
mist, in his studies, what Bradshaw is to the traveller by railway, 
a sometimes perplexing, but on the whole an absolutely neces- 
sary, companion to his journey. It is quite true that “though 
we- admit the Atomic Theory, we have no positive proof of its 
truth, nor are we likely to obtain such proof.” No one has 
ever been “ able to adduce an atom itself as the best proof of its 
own existence.” The obvious answer to such objections is, that 
such proof is not consistent with the limited powers of our organs 
of sense. (Note D.) But there are more formidable intellectual 
difficulties in the way when we consider the subject either from 
a mathematical or from a metaphysical point of view. Dr. Mills, 
a recent writer on the Atomic Theory, reasons thus:— “If we 
must assume at all, let us assume as little as possible. The 
system of Boscovich is, in these respects, superior to the 
Atomic ; it assumes much less, and does not contradict the 
facts of nature. In it matter and the atom disappear , and we 
find that substances are constituted of centres of force, attrac- 
tive and repulsive.” 
13. This system is, however, much older than Boscovich, 
since the Indian philosophy from an unknown antiquity has 
advocated similar views. According to cosmogonies of the 
Greeks, Eros (or attraction ) was the oldest of the gods.* It is 
curious that Dr. Priestley, whilst attempting to show that 
mind is not spiritual, was led by the tenor of his argument to 
push Boscovich’s doctrine so far as almost to deny the mate- 
riality of body, for he contends that we have no proof of sub- 
stance being anything more than powers of attraction and re- 
pulsion, thus denying to it solidity, impenetrability, and the 
like. “ Since matter,” he concludes, ‘‘has in fact no properties 
but those of attraction and repulsion, it ought to rise in our 
esteem as making a nearer approach to the nature of spiritual 
and immaterial beings, as we are tempted to call those who are 
opposed to gross matter.” 
14. Dr. Mills is of opinion that the logical mind will find (if his 
argument be sound) that the Atomic Theory has no experimental 
basis, is untrue to nature generally, and consists in the main of 
a materialistic fallacy derived from appetite more than from 
* See Smith’s Dictionary of Biography and Mythology , sub voce. 
