opinion; though at other times he dilates most admirably on the happiness to be enjoyed after death in the society of the gods. The prevailing doctrine of the sect seems to have been, that the souls of the virtuous and philosophical would become inhabitants of the stars, and exist till the periodical conflagration of the universem; but that those of the wicked would endure only for a certain interval, and then be dispersed into the air. Cleanthes, however, and some others, maintained that all equally, the bad as well as the good, would survive till this revolution of things.

The Epicureans disbelieved altogether that the soul survived the body.

The middle and new Academy and the sceptics cannot be said to have had any belief, for they had no fixed opinions at all.

At the risk of appearing tedious, I shall venture a few more observations on the different senses in which the doctrine of the Anima Mundi was held

Quæris, quo jaceas post obitum loco
Quo non nata jacent.

Seneca tragicus.

m Τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν γεννητήν τε φθαρτὴν λέγουσιν· οὐκ εὐθὺς δὲ τοῦ σώματος ἀπαλλαγεῖσαν φθείρεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐπιμένειν τινὰς χρόνους καθ ̓ ἑαυ τήν· τὴν μὲν τῶν σπουδαίων μέχρι τῆς εἰς πῦρ ἀναλύσεως τῶν πάντων. Euseb. Præp. Evang. lib. xv. cap. 20. Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. lib. i. 32.

Κλεάνθης μὲν οὖν πάσας (ψυχὰς) ἐπιδιαμένειν μέχρις ἐκπυρώσεως. Diog. Laërtius, lib. vii. p. 291. edit. 1570..

G

by the different sects. The notion appears to have prevailed at an early period in Asia and Egypt, and it was from this latter country, probably, that it was introduced into Greece, and became subject to various modifications as it passed through the several schools.

n The opinions of Orpheus, before Greek philosophy was yet formed into a system, according to the most favourable supposition, were, that God was originally connected with matter, but that he expelled it from him, and that what was before one nature was divided into two; yet at the same time he does not appear to have altogether emancipated the Deity of his belief from the mass of matter which he pervaded and guided. The notions of the Ionic school afterwards were probably not very different from this, till the time of Anaxagoras, who entertained nobler and more elevated views of the divine Mind than his predecessors P.

n The opinions attributed to Orpheus seem to have been, that the world was an emanation from God; and Brucker also thinks that he held this efflux of matter to be a part of God this has however been disputed: : "Deum ante mundi"tum conditum cum chao infinite copulatum fuisse et ita con"junctum ut omnia continuerit. Expulisse vero Deum ex "sinu suo materiam." Brucker, pars ii. lib. i. cap. I. p. 390. • Brucker, pars ii. lib. i. pp. 470–490. Tennemann. Speculation der Ionier.

• Καὶ πρῶτος τῇ ὕλῃ νοῦν ἐπεστήσει πάντα χρήματα ἦν ὁμοῦ εἶτα

He taught that the essence of God had never been united with matter, and was now totally distinct from it; at the same time that he pervaded all things, and set them in order; a belief not very far removed from the Christian doctrine of the omnipresence.

According to Cudworth, Pythagoras held nearly the same sentiments as those above ascribed to Orpheus: but Brucker combats this opinion, and degrades his philosophy to pure atheism or Spinozism 9. The fact is, that the treatises from which

ΝΟΥΣ ἐλθὼν αὐτὰ διεκόσμησε· παρὸ καὶ νοῦς ἐπεκλήθη. Diog. Laërt. in Anaxag. p. 51. edit. 1570. Idem, procomium, p. 2.

ΝΟΥΝ καὶ θεὸν πρῶτος ἐπαγαγόμενος τῇ κοσμοποιΐᾳ. Themistius, quoted by Cudworth, p. 380.

Νοῦς ΜΕΜΙΚΤΑΙ οὐδενὶ χρήματι· ἀλλὰ μόνος αὐτός ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἐστίν. Anaxagoras in Simplicio. Comment. Aristot. Phys. lib. i. p. 33. Τῆς δὲ κινήσεως καὶ τῆς γενέσεως αἴτιον ἐπέστησε τὸν ΝΟΥΝ ὁ ̓ΑναEayopas. Simplicius, p. 12.

Ὡς ἄρα ΝΟΥΣ ἐστὶν ὁ διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος. Socrates speaking of Anaxagoras, Plato, Phædo, Bekker, p. 85..

Aperta simplexque mens. Cicero de Natura Deorum lib. i. c. 11. Academ. Quæstionum lib. iv. c. 37.

Qua sententia proxime ad Christianorum dogma accesserit, qui Deum docent per res omnes commeare ut cum nulla tamen ullo modo misceatur. Brucker, pars ii. lib. ii. cap. 1. p. 507.

9 Qualis ille Deus Pythagoricus, nempe ignis mundi subtilissimus. Brucker, p. 1077.

That he held an incorporeal Deity, distinct from the world, is a thing not questioned by any Cudworth, p. 21.

Vide Aristot. de Anima, ἔφασάν τινες αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα, οἱ δὲ τὸ ταῦτα κινοῦν, lib. i. cap. 2.

a knowledge of the Pythagorean principles is to be derived differ from each other. Timæus the Locrian supports the view taken by Cudworth, but Ocellus Lucanus asserts that the world was neither created nor arranged ', having had no origin, and destined to have no end: and in another passage he seems to consider it as the Deity and the Cause of all things. The Eleatic school identified God with the world. $ Plato refined upon the doctrines of Pythagoras, and taught the more elevated philosophy of Anaxagoras, in separating the supreme Deity from matter: and though he makes a divinity of the law of nature, by assigning a divine Intelligence or Soul to the world, who guides and directs it to artificial ends, he

* Δοκεῖ γὰρ μοι τὸ πᾶν ἀνώλεθρον εἶναι καὶ ἀγένητον ἀεί τε γὰρ ἦν καὶ ἔσται. Ocellus Lucanus, Gale, Opusc. Mythol. cap. 1. p. 506. edit. 1688.

Ὁ δέ γε ΚΟΣΜΟΣ, αἴτιός ἐστι τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῦ εἶναι καὶ τοῦ σώζε σθαι, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοτελῆ εἶναι. p. 51ο.

Conf. p. 531. Τὰς ορέξεις ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ διδομένας—καθ ̓ ἕκαστον, ἀναπλήρωσεν Ο ΘΕΟΣ. Vide also Justin Martyr, Brucker, 1975.

s Timæus, passim.

Alcinous, as interpreter of Plato's doctrines, gives the following description of the Deity: Πατὴρ δέ ἐστι τῷ αἴτιος εἶναι πάντων καὶ κοσμεῖν τὸν οὐράνιον νοῦν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ κόσμου πρὸς ἑαυ τὸν καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἑαυτοῦ νοήσεις. κατὰ γὰρ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ΒΟΥΛΗΣΙΝ ἐμπέπληκε πάντα ἑαυτοῦ, τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ κόσμου ἐπεγείρας καὶ εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστρέψας τοῦ νοῦ αὐτῆς αἴτιος ὑπάρχων. ὃς κοσμηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς διακοσμεί σύμπασαν φύσιν ἐν τῷδε τῷ κόσμῳ. Alcinous, cap. Io.

never confounds this secondary god with the one first Cause and Creator of all things.

In the works of Aristotle, few as the indications are which they afford of his opinions on the subject, it is not impossible to discover that he does not confound the Deity with the universet. the Politics he clearly marks the distinction between the two ideas, and in his metaphysical works, the same distinction may be traced.

In

Among the followers of Plato in the Academy, no important deviation from his system is to be perceived ". The statements of Xenocrates and Polemo are far from being irreconcileable with the principles inculcated by the founder of the school.

Into the doctrines of the middle and new Academy it is unnecessary to enter, because, as

Aristot. Pol. lib. vii. cap. 3. Σχολὴ γὰρ ἂν Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔχοι καλῶς και ΠΑΣ Ο ΚΟΣΜΟΣ οἷς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐξωτερίκαι πράξεις παρὰ τὰς οἰKelas Tàs auTây. Vid. also Metaphys. lib. xiv. cap. 7. in which the Deity is said to be ἀΐδιος, ἀκινήτος, κεχωρισμένος τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἀμερὴς καὶ ἀδιαίρετος. De Coelo, lib. ii. cap. 1. In which Aristotle argues, that if the Deity were confounded with the universe, he would have the fate of Ixion.

u Brucker, pp. 738. 742. Cudworth, Intellect. Syst. cap. 4. sect. 24. p. 418. Speusippus autem et Xenocrates qui primi Platonis rationem auctoritatemque susceperant et post hos Polemo, et Crates unaque Crantor in Academia congregati diligenter ea quæ a superioribus acceperant, tuebantur. Cicero, Academ. Quæst. lib. i. cap. 9.