SOURCE: Walter Charleton, "An Apologie for Epicurus," in Epicurus's Morals: Collected and Faithfully Englished, Peter Davies, 1926, pp.

[Charleton's "Apology" for the mid-seventeenth-century English edition of Epicurus's writings attempts to redeem the philosopher's reputation, especially regarding religious attitude. Like Sarasin, Charleton argues that Epicurus's religious skepticism was appropriate to his pre-Christian context and that his ethical simplicity prefigured Christian morals.]

Sir,

Your beloved EPICURUS, having lately learn'd English, on purpose to converse more familiarly with you; comes now at length to wait upon you, and at your vacant hours to entertain you with grave Discourses touching the Happiness of Man's life, and the right means of attaining it, Wisdom. I have no reason to doubt of his welcome and kind reception by you, considering that he comes not, but upon your frequent, and (I am confident) hearty invitations of him; your own ingenious and commendable desire to be intimately acquainted with his Principles, and Doctrine of Morality, and to hear him speak his own Thoughts purely and sincerely, having been the only occasion and motive to my assistance of him in his Travels from Greece into this Country, and my accommodation of him with such an Equipage, as might be exactly suitable as well to your wishes, as to his own mind. Nay more, I have reason to presume, that a few days conversation will create in you a very great dearness towards him, as well because I am assured you will soon find him what you expect, a sublime Wit, a profound Judgment, and a great Master of Temperance, Sobriety, Continence, Fortitude and all other Virtues, not a Patron of Impiety, Gluttony, Drunkenness, Luxury and all kinds of Intemperance, as the common people (being misinform'd by such learned men as either did not rightly understand, or would not rightly represent his opinions) generally conceive him to be; as because I have perceived him not only to give strong and lively hints to sundry of those sublime speculations, wherewith your thoughts are sometimes delightfully employed; but also solidly to assert many of those Tenents which I have often heard you defend, with the like Reasons, and which indeed nothing but the voluntary and affected Ignorance of Superstition will deny. So that, if the Rule hold, that Similitude of Opinions is an Argument of Similitude in Affections, and Similitude of Affections the ground of Love and Friendship, certainly I am not altogether destitute of support for my conjecture, and consequently that you will soon admit him into your Bosom, and treat him with all the demonstrations of respect due to so excellent a Companion.

But, as there is no Beauty without some moles, no Chrystal without some specks; so is not our EPICURUS without his imperfections, and you will discover in him some things which cannot escape your reprehension; and yet I expect, that your censure of him should be much more moderate and charitable, than that of the ignorant and scarce humane Multitude hath been for many ages together. And therefore I ask leave to state the Nature of his guilt unto you, and afterwards to give you my Judgment thereupon; in the mean time humbly leaving you to the Liberty of your own more judicious sentiments of both the one and the other. For, my design therein, is not to possess your breast with my thoughts concerning the crimes usually charged upon this Philosopher, but to dispossess it of an opinion that I might have the same indignation against him in respect of some unjustifiable positions of his, as not only the common people, but even the greatest number of Scholars, have for many hundred of years, entertain 'd. And what I shall say to that purpose I humbly desire you will be pleas 'd to understand to be intended as an Exercitation, to take off from his memory the greatest part of that unjust Odium, and Infamy which envy and malice on one hand, and Ignorance and Inhumanity on the other, have cast upon it, to the eclipsing even of all his excellent merits from the Commonwealth of Philosophy, and not as a defence of any unreasonable or dangerous Errour, whereof he is found really guilty. Which was more perhaps then was needful for me to advertise you of, who well understand the difference betwixt a Vindication and an Excusation; that it is one thing to mitigate a too severe and rash sentence, and another to justifie the Offender. And therefore without any further Apologizing for my short Apology for EPICURUS, I directly address to my Province.

The Opinions, which, being asserted by him in this Treatise concerning Ethicks, have so much incens 'd the world against him, are principally these three. (1.) That the Souls of men are mortal, and so uncapable of all, either happiness or misery after death. (2.) That Man is not obliged to honour, revere, and worship God, in respect of his beneficience, or out of the hope of any Good or Fear of any evil at his hands, but merely in respect of the transcendent Excellencies of his Nature, Immortality, and Beatitude. (3.) That Selfhomicide is an Act of Heroick Fortitude in case of intolerable or otherwise inevitable Calamity. These, I confess, are Positions to be rather wholly condemned and abominated, than in the least measure patroniz 'd by us Christians, whose understandings (thanks be to the mercy of the Fountain of Wisdom) are illuminated by a brighter light than that of Nature; and yet notwithstanding when I remember, that our Philosopher was a meer Naturalist, born and educated in times of no small Pagan darkness, and consider that neither of these Tenents will be found upon due Examination so destitute of all support of Reason, as rash and unexamining heads have apprehended, I profess I cannot but think it an argument of much more inhumanity than judicious zeal in any man, upon this account alone, to invade him with the crimination of superlative Impiety, Blasphemy, and absolute Atheism. For,

As to the FIRST, viz. That the humane soul doth not survive the funerals of the body, but absolutely perish in the instant of death; as I need not tell you, how uncomfortable an Opinion it is to all Virtuous Persons, and how manifestly repugnant to Christianism, and indeed to the fundamental Reason of all Religions beside (if I may be admitted to use that improper phrase of the vulgar, while I well know that there can be but one Religion truly so called, and that all the rest are more properly called Superstitions) so I need not advertise you how highly difficult it is to refute it, by satisfactory and convincing Arguments desumable from meer Reason. For, to suspect the light of Nature, is scarce strong enough by its own single force, to dispel all those thick mists of difficulties, that hinder our discernment of the full nature of the humane soul, and scarce bright enough clearly to demonstrate the immortality of that noble Essence, so, as to leave no room for diffidence or contradiction; I hope it can be no Heresie in any man, because no disparagement to either his Faith or Reason. You have, Sir, I presume, attentively perused that so worthily commended Discourse of Plato, touching the immortality of Mans soul, and acquainted your self moreover with all those mighty Arguments, alledged by Saint Thomas, Pomponatius (who will hardly be out-done in subtlety, touching the same Theam, by any that comes after him, and yet he was forced to conclude himself a Sceptick, and leave the Question to the decision of some other bolder Pen) Des Cartes, our noble friend Sir Kenelm Digby, and divers other great Clerks, to prove the Soul of Man to be a substance distinct from, and independent upon that of the body, and to have eternal existence a parte post; and yet if I were not assured, that your perswasion of its immortality is founded upon a much more firm basis, than that of the most seemingly apodictical of all their Reasons, I might well doubt of the impregnability thereof. And this I may say somewhat the more freely and boldly, both because I my self having with all possible attention, and equity of mind, examined the validity of most of those Arguments, for the immortality of mens souls, which their Authors have presented as perfect Demonstrations thereof, cannot find any of them to make good that glorious Title, or satisfie expectation to the full; and because I have observed many learned men, Divines, and others, who have long laboured their thoughts in the same Disquisition, to concur with me in opinion, That to believe the Soul of Man to be immortal, upon Principles supernatural, is much more easie, then to demonstrate the same by Reasons purely Natural. Now, if for the most sublime Wits, even of our times (wherein the Metaphysicks have, doubtless, received a very great encrease of clearness, and mens Speculations seem to be highly refined, in regard of sundry lively and fruitful hints, that are inspersed upon the leaves of sacred Writ, concerning as well the Original and Nature of the Soul, as the state of it after death) it be so hard a task to erect a firm perswasion of the immortality of the humane soul, upon a foundation of Natural Reason alone; I appeal to every imprejudicate man, with what justice our EPICURUS is so highly condemned, for being ignorant of that unattainable Truth, when he could steer the course of his judgment and belief by no other Star, but that remote and pale one of the Light of Nature, that bright North-Star of Holy Scripture appearing not at all to the Horizon of Greece, till many Ages after his death.

Again, EPICURUS is not the only man amongst the Ancients that is to be accused, for entertaining and divulging erroneous conceptions of the nature and condition of the reasonable soul after death, it being well known, that most of the Grecian Philosophers did indubitate the incorruptibility thereof, either implicitly and upon consequence, or immediately, and in direct terms. This perhaps may seem a Paradox to you, and therefore I ask leave to make it good. The Grecian Scholiarchs may all be divided into two Classes, in reference to this subject; the First consisting of those who Asserted, the other of such as expresly Denied the Immortality of Man's Soul, the former containing the greater, the latter the lesser number. And among all those that are on the Affirmative part, you shall not find one that is not (more or less) tainted with that so common Errour, of the Refusion of all mens Souls after death, into the Anima Mundi, or general Soul of the Universe, which is upon consequence, That, they cease to exist, per se, or to be what they were before, so soon as they are separated from the body, for your further satisfaction of this unfrequent Truth, be pleased to observe, that, as they generally conceived the soul of every individual man, to be a certain particle of the Mundane, or universal soul, immitted into the body at its conception, and therein contained during life, as a drop of water is contained in a Glass Phial; so did they also conceive, that the same soul, upon the breaking of the Glass, or dissolution of the Body, doth flow forth, and again return and unite it self to the universal soul, from whence it was at first desumed. Thus Plutarch (4 Placit. 9.) expresly tells us, that Pythagoras and Plato maintained, that Mans Soul having taken its farewel of the body…in congeniam sibi animam Mundi concedere, doth return to the soul of the world, which is of the same substance and nature with it. Now by this common soul of the world, it is manifest, that they sometimes meant God, in respect they acknowledged him to be the supreme Intelligence, or Mind, which disposeth and ordereth all parts of the body; and sometimes the Heavens, because as Heaven is the most pure and noble part of the Universe, so is the soul the most pure and noble part of Man.

This considered, you have here an opportunity (at least, if a short and pertinent digression may be opportune) of taking notice in what sence we are to understand some remarkable passages in their Writings, touching the humane soul, which are often mentioned, but seldom rightly interpreted.

First, we may hence collect what their true meaning was, when they said, Animam esse divinae aurae Particulam, that the Soul is a particle of Divine breath, or as Cicero speaks (in Cato Major) Ex Divina mente universa delibutos animos habemus: We have our souls derived from the Universal Divine Mind; And again, when they affirmed, that our Souls were taken from Heaven, and to return thither again after their emancipation from the body: All which the Prince of Poets elegantly insinuateth in these Verses;

—Deum namque ire per omnes
Terrasque tractusque maris, cœlumque profundum;
Heine homines, armenta, viros, genus omne ferarum,
Quemque fibi tenues nascentem arcessere vitas,
Scilicet hue reddi deinde ac resoluta referri
Omnia, nee morti esse locum; sed viva evolare
Sideris in numerum, atque alto succedere cœlo.

Secondly, we may hence learn the sence of Empedocles, as well in that saying quoted by Plutarch (de exilio) Præsentem vitam esse exilium, e quo tandem animus sit in pristinam sedem demigraturus, That this present life is a banishment of the soul, from which it is at length to be recall'd to its primitive place; as in that mentioned by Clem. Alexandrinus (Lib. 4. Stromat. 2. hypotypos. 24.) Animos sapientum Deos fieri, That the souls of Wise-men become Gods.

Thirdly, we may hence know how to understand the true sence of Plato's opinion, that all Learning is only Reminiscence. For supposing the Soul of the Universe to be omniscient, and each particle thereof to be of the same nature and faculties with the whole; he thereupon infers, that the soul of each man being a particle of that Universal and omniscient soul, must be likewise omniscient, though in the moment, when it is immers 'd into the body, it becomes dim and beclouded, so that as if it had been made drunk with Lethe, or the Waters of Oblivion, it forgets all its Original knowledge, and must recollect and call to mind the notions of particular things, by the help and mediation of the senses.

Lastly, why Pythagoras and Plato, to this opinion of the Souls Remigration to the Universal Soul, connected that their other so famous one of the Transmigration of Souls from body to body successively. For, having imbibed this latter errour of the Souls transmigration, in their conversation with some Egyptian Priests, as Stobæus informs us (in Eccl. Physic.) they strived to accommodate the same to their own former opinion, of the souls being a particle of the Anima mundi; insomuch as it might thence follow, that the soul being exhal'dfrom its first body, and wandring up and down in quest of its Fountain, the universal soul, might probably enough light upon some other body then in the act of Conception, and being united thereunto, animate it, or being by inspiration attracted into some living creature, unite it self to the soul prœexistent therein, and so become one with it, especially if the body it meet with be of the same, or like conditions and affections with the former, which it bath so lately forsaken. True it is, nevertheless, that they delivered this Doctrine of the Transmigration of souls, very obscurely, and wrapt up in Fables and Allegories, but their design herein was to make men more mansuete and mild in their dispositions, by bringing them to put a greater value upon the lives of Animals (for, according to this Doctrine, who would kill a Beast, when for ought he knew, his Fathers Soul might animate that Beast?) and a greater degree ofhorrour against shedding of Blood, that so having devested them of all savageness and cruelty, they might have a greater detectation against Homicide, and preserving the peace and safety of Societies.

Nor can the Stoicks be exempted from the same Errour, of the Refusion of all souls into the Universal one; insomuch as it was their constant tenent, that the world was animated by a certain fire, which they called Jupiter; that mens souls were particles derived from that fire, and should again be reunited thereunto, some sooner, others later, but all in that general Conflagration of the Universe, when all things shall be (as they dreamt) sublimed into Jove again.

Now if we look narrowly into the business, we shall discover even Aristotle himself to be in some measure guilty of the very same delusion, as well in respect of his Animal Heat, which, discoursing of the Generation of Animals (Lib. 2. Cap. 3.) he affirms to be respondent in some proportion to the Element of Celestial bodies, and wherewith all things in the world are impregnated, as of his Intellectus Agens, which he teacheth to be diffused through the whole world, after the same manner as the light of the Sun is diffus 'd through the air, and so apply 'd and conjoyned to the Intellectus Patiens, or proper soul of every man, as the eternal light is applyed and conjoyned to the eye; and as the eye by the conjunction of eternal light comes to see visible objeccts, so doth the proper passive Intellect of every man, by the illustration of the general active Intellect, come to understand intelligible Objects. Adding thereunto, that the Intellect passive is separable, corruptible, and capable of utter dissolution; but the Active, inseparable, incorruptible, immortal. For, thus much may be collected from several places of his Books de Anima, and thus are those places explained by the best of his Greek interpreters, Alexander, and the best of the Arabians, Averrhoes, whose opinion of the Unity of the Intellect in all the world, is sufficiently known.

And thus much of the Philosophers of the former Classis, who though they seem to affirm, do yet in reality, upon natural consequence, deny the Immortality of the Humane Soul, in that they all concur in that contradictory Errour of the Refusion thereof into the Anima mundi. For, the proper Notion of Immortality, is, the eternal existence of a thing in the self same nature, and per se; and therefore, if a thing be devested of its own proper nature, so, as to become invested with that of another, and to have no existence or subsistence, but what is dependent upon its union with that other, to which it is assimilated and identified; for my part, truly, I cannot understand how it can be said to be immortal without manifest contradiction. And whether it be not as gross an absurdity to say, that the soul of a man shall be for ever the same (i.e.) the soul of a man, and yet that it shall be identified, or made the same with the soul of the world; as to say, that such a thing shall be for ever the same, and not the same, is no hard matter to determine.

As for those of the latter, who in downright terms denyed the Immortality of the soul, they subdivide themselves into two different Sects, some having contended for the total destruction, or absolute annihilation, and others for only the exsolution and dispersion of it into the matter or principles of which it was composed.

To the former of these Sects we may justly annumerate all such, who conceived the soul of man to be only a certain harmony, not of Musical sounds, but a contemperation of parts, humours, and qualities; and consequently, that as of Musical Harmony, nothing can remain after the sounds are vanished, so of the soul nothing can remain, after death bath once destroyed that harmonious Contemperation of parts, humours, and qualities, from whence it did result. And this purely was the opinion of not only those ancienter Greeks, Dicaearchus, Aristoxenus, Andræas, and Asclepiades, all which are thereof strongly accused by Plato (in Phaed.) and Aristotle (Lib. I. de Anima. Cap. 5.) but also our Master Galen, who was positive and plain in his definition of the soul, to be a certain Temperament of Elementary Qualities. In the same list may we also inscribe the names of all those, who imagining the soul to be nothing else but a certain Act, or Form, or Quality inseparable (i.e.) a certain special Modification o/Matter, have accordingly concluded, that as the Figure, or special Mode of a thing must inevitably vanish, immediately upon the immutation or change of the thing figurate, so must the soul, being only a special Mode of the Matter, necessarily vanish immediately upon the immutation of that Mode by death. Which Origen, Justine, Theodoret, and some other Fathers, understanding to have been the Tenent of Aristotle, have written sharp investives against him, as an assertor of the souls mortality, and this so justly, that if his Zealous Disciple, honest Mr. Alexander Rosse, were alive again, he would never be able to discredit that their charge.

To the latter we are to refer all such, as held the soul to be Corporeal. For, as they would have it to be composed of material principles, so would they also have it to be, by death, again resolved into the same material principles; so that in their sence, the extinction of the Soul is no other, but the dissipation thereof into those very corporeal particles, of which it was composed. And this seems to be the true meaning of Demonax in Lucian, when being interrogated whether he thought the Soul to be immortal, he answered, mihi videtur, sed ut omnia; it seems to me to be immortal, but no otherwise than all things are immortal, i.e. as to the matter only, or component Principles of it, which are incapable of Annihilation. In this Catalogue we may worthily place Marcus Antoninus, in regard of his saying (Lib. 4.) Animas hominum dispergi in auras, that mens souls are dispersed into Aer: and Seneca, for his Animam hominis magno pondère extriti permeare non posse, & statim dispergi, quia non fuerit illi exitus liber; as also Democritus and Epicurus, who equally contested, that the soul was nothing but very Atoms, in such a special order, in such a special position, &c. contemperated, and Death nothing but a discomposure of that determinate Contecture, and a Resolution of the soul into separated Atoms again; and therefore are they always conjoined by the good Lactantius (Lib. 3. cap. 7. & lib. 9. cap. 8. & 13.) as confederates in the Doctrine of the Dissolution of Souls.

And thus, Sir, you may at once plainly perceive the justice of my Attainder of the most, and most eminent of the antient Grecian Philosophers, with the guilt of having been (either obliquely or directly) Impugners of the Souls Immortality; and the great Injustice of their Sentence, who more particularly condemn Epicurus for the same Errour, when so many others were equally culpable with him therein.

As to the SECOND, viz. That man is not obliged to honour, revere, and worship God upon the motive of his Beneficence, or upon the account of either Good or Evil expected from him; but only out of a sentiment of the superlative Excellencies of his Nature, and chiefly of his Immortality and Beatitude. I might well plead for him, that living in a time, when there was scarce any Religion, but sottish Idolatry, when there were more Gods then Nations, yea, then Temples; and when all Devotion was absurd and ridiculous Superstition: He seems rather to be honour 'd, for that he came so neer to the knowledge of the true God, then condemned for coming no neerer; rather to be admir'd for having so clear and genuine an apprehension of some of the Divine Attributes, then reproached for not comprehending them all. Especially, when I should not infringe the Law of charity, to doubt, that among us Christians, and even such as think themselves not a little vers 'd in Théologie, there may be some, who, if they were put to give but an Adumbration of that mysterious piece, the Divine Nature, would discover themselves to have as imperfect an Idcea thereof, as EPICURUS had. But this excuse would be too general for his particular vindication, from the imputed crime of perfect Atheism, and therefore we shall fix only on such Reasons as are more properly accommodate to that purpose.

First, I dare say, his Piety, in deriding the incompetency of those Conceptions, that men in his time commonly entertained of the supreme Essence (for they ascribed generally unto it, all the self same passions and affections, which they perceived to be in themselves, and so copied out an imperfect Divinity, by the infinitely disproportionate Original of Humanity) was much greater than his Impiety could be, in teaching, that the Diety was of so transcendently excellent a nature, as to be wholly unconcern 'd in any thing but it self and far above all sentiments whatever, besides those of its own eternal and compleat Felicity; and consequently, that it was to be reverenc'd and worshiped solely and purely for its own sake, without the least mixture of self-Reflection. For, as by the one, he judiciously attempted to subvert the false and unreasonable Religion, or (rather) Superstition, in the worship of Bacchus, and other the Imaginary Deities, wherewith his Country swarmed in his days (there being no better way to alienate mens minds from the Veneration of False Gods, than to acquaint them with notions comprehending the Essential and Incommunicable attributes of the true God) so by the other, he seems to have laid a very firm foundation for the true Religion, in that he would have the Right or Justice of all Divine worship to be founded wholly and entirely upon the Excellency of the Divine Nature. How far therefore he was from being a Professor and Seminary of downright Atheism, as some (whose Zeal may well be thought to have been much greater than their knowledge, as to that particular) have represented him to the World; every man, who hath but so much reason, as to understand, that Polytheism is the greatest Atheism, may easily judge.

In the next place, I can hardly allow him to deserve the odious Epithete of, Most highly Impious, which most men brand him withall, upon the account of this latter Doctrine only, because I meet with not a few, nor contemptible Reasons, that incline my judgment to more moderation. In particular, you well know, Sir, how highly unreasonable it is, for any man to expect, from EPICURUS, the knowledge of the true and legitimate worship of God, when that was by God himself prescribed only to the ancient Hebrews, and professed only by their Posterity, and no other Nation in the World; if so, why should more be expected from Him, than from Plato, Zeno, Socrates, Aristotle, or any other of the elder Grecian Philosophers, they being all equally benighted with Paganism? why should he be so severely sentenc 'd, and all the rest pass unquestioned, one and the same charge of invincible ignorance of the true Religion lying against each of them? Besides, Humane Justice will hardly permit, that any man should suffer meerly for wanting that, which, without supernatural means, was impossible for him to obtain; and he that will adventure to determine, whether or no, at the Tribunal of Divine Justice, any one shall be condemned simply upon that score, must have dived very deep into that fathomless gulf of Prœdestination.

You likewise know, that our Christian Doctors assign only Two causes, or Fundamental Considerations, why men should worship God: The one they teach to be the transcendent Excellency of the Nature of God, which singly, and without any respect to our own Utility or Advantage, doth justly claim the highest veneration of our minds. The other, they admit to be the benefits, we either have received, or (which is the stronger motive of the two) hope to receive at his hands. Hereupon, if any man be induced to revere and worship the Divine Majesty solely and simply upon the former motive, they say that he bears a Filial respect and affection to God; and if only by the latter, a meer servile or mercenary. Now though the servile or mercenary love of God, be not altogether to be disliked, in regard it is a kind of gratitude due to him as a Benefactor; yet I conceive no man will gainsay, but the filial and free love is much the nobler and more acceptable, insomuch as it hath no other than the noblest of Objects, God Himself And sure I am (however) that the most Learned, most Pious, and most Religious of our School Divines, have been earnest in their advisoes to us, to extract all selfness from our love of God, and (as much as our frailties will admit of) to fix all our affections entirely upon Him, as he is infinitely Good, and Amiable in Himself.

Moreover, you may remember, Sir, that Cicero in his Book touching the nature of the Gods, hath these very words, Quid est cur Deos ab hominibus colendos dicas, cum dii ipsi non modo homines non colant, sed omnino nihil curent? Et quæ porro Pietas ei debetur, a quo nihil acceperis? Aut quid omnino, cujus nullum meritum sit, ei deberi potest? By which it is evident, that he would exclude all other inducements to Religion, besides a meer mercenary and servile respect: And yet I dare say, that you do not remember, that ever you heard him accounted Impious for that opinion. Why therefore should EPICURUS have such hard measure, as to be stigmatiz 'd with the name of Atheist, Impious wretch, Secretary of Hell, Enemy to all Religion, &c? and all for asserting, that man ought to be induc'd to a reverence and veneration of the Divine Majesty, only by the Sentiments of a Filial Piety (not supernatural Piety, arising from Grace justifying, and by which we are made the Sons of God, but a pure Natural one) such as Right Reason had suggested unto him? Certainly, of the two opinions, Epicurus's will appear much more venial, to an Equitable Arbiter. Sundry other arguments there are, which might be advantagiously alledged on our Authors behalf, in this case. But, considering that these few already urged, are of importance enough, to evince the temerity of his Accusers judgment, and that the prolixity of this discourse, hath long since, given you just occasion to question, by what right I call it a Letter; I perceive my self obliged in good manners, no longer to exercise your patience, then while I briefly express my sentiments of the LAST Article of his Charge.

Which is, His asserting of Self-Homicide, in case of intolerable, and otherwise inevitable Calamity. This, as a Christian, I hold to be a bloody and detestable opinion, because expresly repugnant to the Law of God; and yet in the person of a meer Philosopher, I might, without being unreasonably Paradoxical, adventure to dispute, whether it be so highly repugnant to the Law of Nature, as men have generally conceived. For,

First, if all the precepts of the Law of Nature concenter in this one point; Fly Evil, pursue Good; as those who have most laboured to conduct our understanding out of that intricate Labyrinth, the ambiguous Sence of the word, Law of Nature, have unanimously determined; certainly, that man assumes no very easie task, who undertakes to prove, that in case of insupportable distress, and where all other hopes [fail] of evading, or ending that misery (than which there can be no greater Evil) for a man to free himself from that extremity of Evil, and seek the Good of ease and quiet, by taking away his own life, which chiefly makes him subject to, and only sensible of that misery, is an infringement of the Law of Nature.

Again, if we understand Self-preservation (which all men allow to be the foundation of Natural Law in General) to be no other, but an innate Love, or Natural affection to Life, as a Good, when Life ceaseth to be a Good, and degenerates into an Evil, as commonly it doth to men, in cruel torments of the body, or high discontent of mind, (the more desperate affliction of the two by much) and when all the Stars of hope and comfort are set in the West of black desperation, why should not the force or obligation of that Law also, cease at the same time? Or rather, why should not self-homicid, in such cases, be an absolute accomplishment of the Law of Self-preservation, it being manifest, that we are by the tenour of that Law, obliged to use such means, as conduce to our preservation from the greatest Evil; and as manifest, that to free ones self from misery, which cannot otherwise be avoided, but by breaking asunder the Ligaments of Life, is a pursuance of the only means we can discover, to be conducible to our end: that is, to preservation from more sufferings, and to Indolency, which in Death we propose to our selves as a Good?

But lest we seem to give any encouragement to that, which God, the Church, and the Civil Power so highly condemn; let us grant, that Self-murther, in whatsoever case, is a violation of the Law of Nature, and yet we shall have one consideration left, that seems strong enough to refract the violence of their malice, who exclaim against EPICURUS, as the grand abettor of selfassasination; and that is, that he was not single, nor most vehement in the justification of it. For, if we look upon the Doctrine of other Philosophers, we shall soon perceive, that the Stoicks generally, 'not only approved thereof, but strictly enjoyned men to embrace death voluntarily, and from their own hands; That Cicero doth (Lib. de Legibus) implicitly allow of it in these words, Eum damnandum esse censeo qui seipsum interficit, si neque ex decreto Civitatis fecerit, neq; ullo Fortunas casu intolerabili inevitabæliq; coactus, neque obrutus ullâ pauperis, miseræq; vitæ ignominia; and expresly confirms it (in 2. Tusculan.) in these, Earn in vita servandam Legem quas in Grascorum conviviis obtinet, Aut bibat, aut abeat; quoniam ut oportet aliquis fruatur pariter cum aliis voluptate potandi, aut ne sobrius in violentiam vinolentorum incidat, ante discedat; sic injurias Fortunas quas ferre nequeas, defugiendo relinquas. And if their Practice, we shall assoon find many of them to have laid violent hands upon themselves, and that in cases of far less moment, than that of insupportable and inevitable Calamity, to which only EPICURUS'S precept is limited; while He, leaving others to become examples of that Rule, with admirable patience, and invincible magnanimity, endured the tortures of the Stone in the Bladder, and other most excruciating Diseases, for many years together, and awaited, till extreme old age gently put out the Taper of his life. Thus Zeno, a man of the most spotless fame of any Philosopher among the Antients, having by a fall bruised one of his fingers against the ground, and interpreting that to be a summons of him to the earth, went presently home and hanged himself, and was therefore by Diogenes Laertius honoured with this Elogie; Mira felicitate vir, qui incolumis, integer, sine morbo e vivis excessit. Thus Demosthenes, you know, to prevent his being beholding to any man but himself, either for his life or death, drank mortal poyson out of his own Quill, which had given him immortality long before. Thus also Democles, to prevent his pollution, by the unnatural heat of a certain lustful Greek Tyrant, who attempted to force him, leaped into a Furnace ofboyling Water. And thus Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and Empedocles, all brake open the Gates of Death, and forced themselves into the other World. To these you may please to adde the memorable Examples of that Prince of Roman wisdom (as Lactantius calls him) Cato, who with his own hands and Sword, opened a flood-gate in his Bowels, to let his life flow forth, having all the night before prepared himself to fall boldly, with the Lecture o/Plato's Discourse, of the Immortality of the soul; and of the famous Cleombrotus, who, upon no other incitement, but Plato's reasons in the same Discourse, threw himself from a precipice, as if he went instantly to experiment the truth of what he had newly read; and though Aristotle would not admit, that he did it upon any other account, but that of Pusillanimity and Fear, yet Saint Augustine (De Civit. Dei, Lib. I. cap. 22.) ascribes it altogether unto Greatness of mind, his words being these; When no Calamity urged him, no Crime, either true or imputed, nothing but greatness of mind moved him to embrace death, and dissolve the sweet bonds of life. And Lactantius, who was severe enough in his censure, both of the Act, and the Book that occasion 'd it, says of him; Praecipitem se dedit nullam aliam ob causam nisi quod Platoni credidit.

Sir,

By this time you are satisfied, both of the injuries done to the memory of the Temperate, Good, and Pious EPICURUS, and of my willingness and devoir to redress them. And my dull and unequal Apology for him being now ended, I should begin another for my self, in that I have rather disturbed, than either delighted or informed you. But this being much the greater difficulty of the two, I think it safer for me, to put my self upon your mercy for an absolute forgiveness, than to trust to my own wit, to make excuses for my failings herein, especially, since your patience cannot but be already overcome by the tediousness of

Your very Humble Servant,

W. Charleton.