4 ESSAYS ann OBSERVATIONS 
of thofe definitions have been approved of.by 
fucceeding authors. Epicurus defines metion 
to be “ a paffage from one place to another:” 
and he might as well have defined it to be 
motion from one place to another; becaufe 
paflage in this fentence means nothing differ- 
‘ent from motion. Sturmeus defines motion 
to be ** fucceffiva ret mote in diverfis locis e x- 
‘© jflentia ;’> which is juftly blamed by Lezb- 
nitz as defcribing the effect of motion, rather ~ 
than the formal nature of it. And yet Lezd- 
‘nitz’s own definition, ‘* motus eff continua lect 
“© mutatio,” is not more fatisfactory. But, of 
all definitions that ever were attempted, rz- 
fiotle’s definition of motion is the moft unin- 
telligible, “ Afus entis in potentia quatenus in 
“< potentia ;”” which Locke condemns as abfo- 
lute jargon ; and which, he fays, would puzzle 
any rational man, to whom it was not already 
known by its famous abfurdity, to guefs what 
word it could ever be fuppofed to be the ex- 
plication of.* 
Bur it is no wonder thefe authors have 
-not given fatisfaction to each other, or to 
their readers, upon this fubject ; for they 
have attempted what is utterly impofiible, 
VIZ 
* Locke concerning human underftanding, B. 3. ch. 4. § 8 
