corrupted by every other nation. To the same early source must we look for the notion on which was grounded the etymology of the Greek Zeus, and which presents so strong a contrast with the corruptions of the subsequent mythology. Although it may not be precisely the same with the primitive idea of the Hebrew term, there certainly seems some approach to it. There is no need of travelling, as some have done, to the Sanscrit for the origin of this term. It seems as purely Greek as Oɛòs and Aaíμwv, and nothing can be more simple, or less liable to the charge of being forced, than the etymology which Plato gives us in the Cratylus. He derives Ζεύς, Ζῆνα, from ζῇν, to live : Οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις πᾶσιν ὅστις ἐστὶν αἴτιος μᾶλλον τοῦ ζῆν ἢ ὁ ἄρχων τε καὶ βασιλεὺς τῶν πάντων.—“ For to us, and to all other beings, there is no one who is more properly the cause of life than the ruler and king of all things." At all events, it is sufficient for our present argument, that this was the received and probably well-known philosophical etymology in Paul's time, and we have every reason, therefore, to suppose that he alludes to it in this famous passage of his sermon at Athens. In the words wμev and έouév, we have the radical Greek and Hebrew ideas combined in one description, composed of terms severally sig. nificant of motion, life, and essence; as though Paul had said, he is our Zɛuç and our Jehovah: "For in him we live and are, as some of your own poets have said," &c. We are no more required, by this view, to suppose that the Apostle meant to exercise any false liberality towards the corrupt polytheism or idolatry of Athens, than that his most evident allusion to the language of their schools was designed as any sanction to the follies and monstrosities of some parts of their philosophy and poetry.

For some of the more striking of the many passages in Plato's dialogues, in which there is this marked antithesis between ɛiuí and yiyvoual, see the Theætetus, 153, E.,

155, A., 157, D.: λέγε τοίνυν εἴ σοι ἀρέσκει τὸ μή τι εἶ. ναι, ἀλλὰ γίγνεσθαι ἀεὶ ἀγαθὸν καὶ καλόν, &c.; Republic, 525, C. : φιλοσόφῳ δὲ, διὰ τὸ τῆς ΟΥΣΙΑΣ ἁπτέον εἶναι, ΓΕΝΕΣΕΩΣ ἐξαναδύντι : 526, Ρ., 527, Α., 527, Β., τῆς ἀεὶ ὌΝΤΟΣ γνῶσίς ἐστι ἡ γεωμετρική, ἀλλ' οὐ τοῦ ποτέ τι ΓΙΓΝΟΜΕΝΟΥ, 508, E., P.; Parmenides, 138, Ε., 141, C., 154, C., D., 161, 162, Α., Β. ; Philebus, 53, C., where he defines physical pleasure, or the pleasure of sense, as ever γένεσις, but never οὐσία : ὡς ἀεὶ γένεσίς ἐστιν, οὐσία δὲ οὐκ ἔστι τοπαράπαν ἡδονῆς; Phædrus, 247, C., D., E.; Hippias, Maj., 294, Β. C. ; 'Timæus, 28, Α., Β., &c., 29, 37, C., D., E.; together with passages from the Sophista, too numerous for citation, and the Phædon, everywhere.

XXV.

Ancient Divisions of Motion. According to Plato. According to Aristotle. Distinction between Γένεσις and 'Αλλοί. ωσις. The Atomic Theory more favourable to Theism than the Doctrine of Occult Qualities.

PAGE 25, LINE 22. Ἔστω τοίνυν ἡ μὲν ἕτερα δυναμένη κινεῖν κίνησις, ἑαυτὴν δὲ ἀδυνατοῦσα ἀεὶ μία τις. He speaks now of the two orders of motion, taking the word κίνησις in its most extensive sense, as including all the species before alluded to, namely, circular, reclilineal or τοπική, separation, concretion, augment, diminution, generation, and corruption; or, generally, all that is expressed by the word μεταβολή, or change, internal or external, according to that definition of Aristotle, πᾶσα κίνησις ἐξ ἄλλον εἰς ἄλλο ἐστὶ μεταβολή, καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθορὰ ὡσαύτως, Arist., Metaph., x. (xi.), 12. From this it may be seen how much more extensive it is than the corresponding English term. The two kinds of motion here spoken of are not so much to be regarded as species distinct from the others, but rather as

two general ideas, each embracing all the specific varieties mentioned. Plato here, however, must be regarded as unusually careless in his specifications, since, according to the fair import of the language, these two must be considered as species reckoned with the rest, and yet it is evident that this was far from being his intention.

PAGE 26, Line 2. ¿várηv. It is not obvious, at first, why this is called the ninth, since there are but six mentioned just before it. It would, however, be the ninth according to the following enumeration, taking opposites together:

The last two, however, as we have remarked, are not strictly species, but genera, including, respectively, all the rest; and so, in what follows, the writer proceeds to regard them.

Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh., Hypotyp., iii., 8, § 64, enumerates but six species: 1. TоTIKŃ μerábaois (localis transilus) ; 2. φυσικὴ μεταβολή (naturalis mutatio), or ἀλλοίωσις ; 3. avžnois (augmentum); 4. μɛiwois (decrementum); 5. yếvεois (generatio); 6. p0opá (corruptio). Compare Aris. totle, Phys. Auscult., vii., 2, where he enumerates three genera, which he afterward divides into a great variety of species, many of which have hardly any other differences than their names: Ἐπεὶ δὲ τρεῖς εἰσι κινήσεις, ἥ τε κατὰ τόπον, καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποιὸν, καὶ κατὰ τὸ ποσόν, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰ κινούμενα τρία. Ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τόπον, φορά· ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποιόν, ἀλλοίωσις· ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποσόν, αὔξησις Kai poíolç. "Since, then, there are three causes of motion, namely, in respect to space, in respect to quality, and in respect to quantity, there must be three corresponding motions or movements. The first of these is called popá, the

second, ἀλλοίωσις (or change), the third, increment and diminution." The scholiast on the passage of Plato before us has a much better division; first, into corporeal and psychical, and then into the subdivisions of space, quality, quantity, and essence, on the one hand, and into the last two enumerated by Plato, and here called the ninth and tenth, on the other: Τῆς κινήσεως ἡ μὲν σωματική, κατὰ τόπον, κατὰ ποιότητα, κατὰ ποσότητα, κατ ̓ οὐσίαν· ἡ δὲ ψυχική, ἢ ἄλλο κινοῦσα ὑπ ̓ ἄλλον δὲ κινουμένη, ἢ ἑαυτήν τε κινοῦσα καὶ ἕτερα δυναμένη. Compare, also, Aristotle, Phys. Auscult., v., 3, viii., 7; De Generat. et Corrup., i., 1, 4.

In this last-cited treatise Aristotle endeavours to present the distinction between γένεσις and ἀλλοίωσις. His general statement is clear enough : ̓Αλλοίωσις μέν ἐστιν, ὅταν ὑπομένοντος τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, αἰσθητοῦ ὄντος, μεταβάλλῃ ἐν τοῖς αὑτοῦ πάθεσιν· οἷον τὸ σῶμα ὑγιαίνει καὶ πάλιν κάμνει, ὑπομένον γε ταὐτό· καὶ ὁ χαλκὸς στρογγύλος, ὁτὲ δὲ γωνιοειδῆς, ὁ αὐτός γε ὤν. ὅταν δὲ ὅλον μεταβάλλῃ, μὴ ὑπομένοντος αἰσθητοῦ τινος, ὡς ὑποκειμένου τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ οἷον ἐξ ὕδατος ἀὴρ, ἢ ἐξ ἀέρος ὕδωρ, τοῦ μὲν ἤδη γέ. νεσις τὸ τοιοῦτον, τοῦ δὲ φθορά, μάλιστα δὲ ἂν ἡ μεταβολὴ γίνεται ἐξ ἀναισθήτου εἰς αἰσθητόν. “Alloiosis takes place when the subject (some object of sense) remains the same, while there is a change in its passions. As, for example, the body is healthy, and again is sick, yet remains the same body; or the brass is at one time round, and at another angular, yet still the same. But when there is an entire change, the subject no longer remaining the same, but it being as though from water air, or from air water should arise, such a change is, in respect to the one thing, a generation, and, in respect to the other, a φθορά, or corruption,” &c.

In applying this, however, it will be found to be only a matter of degrees, unless it is determined what constitutes totality, or an entire change, as also what is meant by ποι

óτηs, property, or quality. This must be viewed in reference to two theories, one of which, or the atomic, considers all πоιóτητaç, or qualities of bodies, as arising from the site, figure, motion, and order of the atoms of which they are composed (ὡς Δημόκριτος καὶ Λεύκιππός φασι, θέσει καὶ TážEL TOÚTWV ¿š ŵv eioi, Arist., De Gen. et Cor., i., 1), and the affections they produce in us; according to which, all change of quality is ultimately to be resolved into topical motion, producing a change in the situation, order, and numerical combination of the particles; such as modern chemistry shows when, the constituent atoms remaining the same in kind, a new substance arises from the difference in their arrangement and proportion; so that, for example, what once was common atmospheric air becomes nitric acid, &c. The other was the theory of occult qualities, in which Aristotle was a believer. This maintained that the figure, site, motions, and order of parts or particles remaining the same, or being identically the same in two respective bodies, they might differ greatly in their properties; and there being nothing in the matter in respect to locality, number, proportion, magnitude, motion, or any sensible phenomena, to which this difference could be assigned, it was styled oc. cult. Hence, in one place, Aristotle endeavours to show that two bodies might both be absolutely full, or a plenum, and yet one might have a property of heaviness or weight, the other of lightness; one might have a property of hardness and the other of softness, and that the one might even be compressible while the other was incompressible ; since the phenomena of thinness (μavóτηs) or density (TUKvóTηs) were no proof of a vacuum, or the contrary.

In this view, ἀλλοίωσις and γένεσις can only be regarded as differing in degree, κατὰ τὸ ποσόν, unless γένεσις is taken for the change катà тÒ Tоlóν, or a change of the occult quality itself, which was entirely independent of the disposition and motions of the parts of the matter. On the