Dr. E. J. Mills on the First Principles of Chemistry. 15 



(the Theses) and those which are more or less ostensibly cur- 

 rent (the Antitheses). 



Theses. 



i. The first principle of science 

 is motion. 



ii. The first principle of che- 

 mistry is action. 



iii. Such action is determinate, 

 continuous, and takes place 

 between wholes ; it cannot 

 be regarded as finite. 



v. Acting substance is homoge- 

 neous, and consists of di- 

 rected motion. 



v. Symbols of substances should 

 be homogeneous, and re- 

 present wholes ; equations 

 of action must be conti- 

 nuous. 



vi. a. The equivalent ("berg- 

 mannic ") of a substance is 

 that weight of it which per- 

 forms the unit of work. 

 j3. If there be "valencies," 

 their series must advance 

 by a common factor. 



Antitheses. 



i. The first principle of science 

 is matter. 



ii. The first principle of che- 

 mistry is neutrality, indif- 

 ference, or saturation, 

 iii. Chemical action is indetermi- 

 nate or partially determi- 

 nate ; it occurs in succes- 

 sive stages, between very 

 small and indivisible parts ; 

 and it is completed almost 

 instantly. 



iv. Acting substance consists of 

 moving or stationary atoms. 



v. The symbols of most sub- 

 stances should represent 

 composition ; the equations 

 of action are identical with 

 those which show the mere 

 final distribution of weight. 



vi. a. The equivalent of a sub- 

 stance is that weight of it 

 which takes the place of a 

 unit weight of hydrogen. 



/3. There are "valencies," and 

 their series proceed by a 

 common difference. 



(12) What, then, is to be the practical result of this discus- 

 sion ? Some interest may perhaps attach to the mere exhibi- 

 tion of a chemical system so different from that which now 

 prevails, and sundered therefrom by so broad an interval ; but 

 the result would then hang lifeless, with no more purpose than 

 a picture on a wall. Neither has it been my object so to con- 

 vince the reader as to awaken in him some sudden enthusiasm 

 for a new, or rather for the old, cause. I call upon him to 

 consider for himself which system, the atomic or dynamic, he 

 deliberately prefers ; to ask himself which of these, either in 

 its largest generalizations or minutest details, best corresponds 

 to his reasoned views of nature ; and, finally, to decide (for it 

 is worth deciding) to which he could assign those elements of 

 rectitude, of justice, and of well-being which, as a member of 

 a social order, he values most. For, in the long run, no part 



