36 ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. Book I, 



If it be proved that Matter cannot move itfelf, then there Is an 

 end of the whole philofophy of Materiahfm or Atheifm, which can 



be 



ter they had difcovered, as they thought, the fubjed matter, or Material Caufe, of 

 the Univcrfe, out of wh'ch every thing was made, and into which every thing is' 

 refolved, they were naturnlly led to inquire what produced tlicfc changes in this 

 fubje£i; for, fays he, the fubjecl c.uinot change itfelf ; — Ou yaj ^n loyt i»-»xfifti»i)« Hurt 



Trtm fttrxfijcXXetf lavTo. Xiyu it eio», ivn to |i/Aoii tvTi o p^xXKof a^rion rtv uiT*(!xXXfi*- 



sxxTi^cf uurtif Ctitt JttlH TO fitt JuAov XAl»|V, 06 y^x'KKti XIO^IXITX' «>iA' ITfJO* Tl Tl)5 f£tT«- 

 /8o>.II5 UiTtOI. T« Si TOUTO ^)1T«V, |V1< TO TIJH 'tTf^X' X^^tl ^flTfO, fc( «» BfiH? (p»ty)fCif, tilt D 



There is anotlier authority which has occurred to me while I was writing this ;■ 

 It is from Themiftius, who lived in the time of the Emperor Theodofius the elder, 

 a Peripatetic philofopher, who writes a treatife ?r(^i ^t/;t'i«i explaining what Arifto. 

 tie has faid upon this fubjeft ; and, as he was a Sophift, (fo rhetoricians werccal- 

 led in that age), as well as a philofopher, he writes both with great elegance and 

 great perfpicuity ; on which account I would recommend his writings to the flu- 

 dent of Greek philofophy ; and, for another reafon,^ — becaufe they are better print- 

 ed than thofe of any other commentator upon Ariftotle, Ammonius Hermeias's 

 commentary upon the Categories only excepted. He proves, that no Body can be 

 xvTcr.ifvjTtv, or felf-moved, in this manner : Either, fays he, one part of the body 

 muft move the other, or the whole mult move the whole. If one part move the o- 

 ther, then it is not felf-moved ; at lead, not the whole of It, any more than an 

 animal is felf-moved, whofe mind moves its body. On the other hand, if it be 

 faid that the whole moves the whole, fo that at the fame time, and in the f<ime re- 

 fpefl, it moves and is moved, is both agent and patient ; that is, a thing abfolute- 

 ly inconceivable — ^ri^, ^vp^m ; lib. i. fol. 67. This is pretty much the fame argu- 

 ment as that 1 have ufed ; but 1 was glad to have it confirmed by the authority of 

 fo good a philofopher and writer. He gives us in the fsme place another argu- 

 ment, taken from the nature of being moved and moving, one of which is tn^ytix, 

 and the other ivtxftis merely : It is fubtile, but I think folid and well worth the 

 reading — The cafe truly is, that nothing can move itfelf, not Mind any more than 

 Boiiy ; for Mind cannot, by its nature, be moved •, therefore it cannot move itfelf. 

 In this way Ariftotle has argued in the firft book De Anima, cap. 5. injine. — 'Otj 

 fin «'i/» tupi oioi Tl xirtir^tii Tijv ^}-«;^;ll> <fi»»i»o» 'k xtvrui. ii f% c/aff f£)j xiveitki, oii>io> «{ oua 



i^' '«i<T,i5. And in this wi'.y he has refuted (cap- 3. of ihe fame book), Plato's no- 

 tion of Mind, that it was "i/tix<hjto{. — Sec what I have faid further upon this fub- 

 jcft, vol. I. p. 78. 



