Kaтà σáρKа (2n), is the only form of expression in that language, which at all corresponds to the Greek kaтd yévɛoiv; and, by keeping this in mind, we find that there is the same contrast, Rom., ix., 5, as in John, i., 1, 2, 14: καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Transfer the Hebraistic idiom to more philosophical Greek, and this contrast would be thus set forth : κατ' οὐσίαν, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος—κατὰ γέ. νεσιν, σὰρξ ἐγένετο. Compare, also, Rev., i., 8, Ἐγώ εἰμι ó v kaì ó v. We are aware of the objections to all this, and have no expectation that it will have much force with those who entertain different views in theology; but some such impression of a reference to Exodus, iii., 14, is very naturally left on the mind of one who believes, on other grounds, in the Divinity and eternal self-existence of the being here styled The Logos. This impression receives strength, also, from the supposition that the language of the Septuagint version of Exodus, iii., 14 (ó v), had already passed into a descriptive appellation, and been ranked among the Old Testament names of the Deity.

Should it be thought that we are too much inclined to represent Paul and John as Platonizing, or as indulging in the use of philosophical language, we would simply refer, in the case of the former, to Acts, xvii., 28 : ’Ev avtṆ Yàp ζῶμεν, καὶ κινούμεθα καί ἐσμεν.— In him we live, and move, and are." The allusion here, as well as in other parts of that chapter, to the language of the Greek schools is too plain to be mistaken; and it does not seem extravagant to suppose, that the Apostle had in mind the Greek and Hebrew names respectively of their Supreme Deity. The etymology of Jehovah is suggested at once by Exodus, iii., 14. It may be called the proper name of God, or, as he styles it himself, his memorial to all generations-The Essentially Existent one (ó v); the Being who has life in himself, and who is the source of existence to everything else. In spiritual substances, life and being are the same.

Q

The two roots in Hebrew expressive of these two ideas, namely, nn and , are so nearly alike, that they may be regarded as from one source, and, in some cases, as nearly synonymous. Hence the appellation so common in the Old Testament, The Living God. To say that this is intended merely to distinguish the God of the Jews from the dead idols of the Heathen, or from their deified dead men, is not to give it half its meaning. None of the Heathen nations, any more than the Romanists of modern times, were ever so besotted as to worship their idols without regarding them, in some measure, as the representatives of living and immortal beings. The epithet, therefore, must have had a higher significance, and seems to refer to this name Jehovah―The Being that not only exists, but exists necessarily who has life in himself, unoriginated and uncaused—that Divine existence which the mind is compelled to admit a priori, as the ground of the belief in all other existences, or as a necessary truth, the contrary of which, when fairly presented, cannot be admitted without bringing darkness over every other truth. Hence the appeal so often found in the Old Testament, "As I live, saith the Lord," is used to denote the highest ground of certainty. Gesenius and other German critics, indulging their propensity ever to undervalue the testimony of the Scriptures, and to lessen our reverence for their antiquity and sacred authority, assign an Egyptian origin to this name, and deduce it from an inscription upon the temple at Sais, as given by Plutarch: Εγώ εἰμι τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ὂν καὶ ἐσόμενον.—“ Ι am that which has been, is, and shall be." This inscription, although, perhaps, itself comparatively modern, may have contained an old Egyptian sentiment; and yet such an admission would not militate at all against the pure Hebrew origin of the name, and its derivation from ideas existing in the patriarchal ages, or in that common early theology which was transmitted pure to the Jew, while it was

66

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 Zɛús, 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 Zɛús, Zñva, from ñv, to live: Ov yàp 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 ¿oμév, we have the radical Greek and Hebrew ideas com. bined in one description, composed of terms severally sig nificant of motion, life, and essence; as though Paul had said, he is our Zeus 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 ɛluí and yiyvouai, see the Theatetus, 153, E.,

155, Α., 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 είναι, 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, B. C.; Timæus, 28, A., B., &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. The Atomic Theory more favourable to Theism than the Doctrine of Occult Qualities.

ωσις.

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, rectilineal 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 ἄλλου 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. évárny. 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. топký μietábaois (localis transilus) ; 2. φυσικὴ μεταβολή (naturalis mutatio), or ἀλλοίωσις ; 3. avšŋois (augmentum); 4. μɛíwois (decrementum); 5. yếveois (generatio); 6. p0opá (corruptio). Compare Aristotle, 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. Η μὲν οὖν κατὰ τόπον, φορά· ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποιόν, ἀλλοίωσις· ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὸ ποσόν, αύξησις kai poíos. “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