Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

third, the soul of the world. But it must be remembered that the bitter opposition of the one party to Christianity, and the injudicious arguments of the other in its favour, render the testimony of both on such a subject of little value. With regard to the sentence in the 13th Epistle, in which the writer professes to give a key to expressions which he might make use of respecting the name of the Deity, τῆς μὲν γὰρ σπουδαίας Επιστο λῆς ΘΕΟΣ ἄρχει, ΘΕΟΙ δὲ τῆς ἧττον, it may be suffi cient to observe, that the reason before alluded to, viz. the fear lest his letters should miscarry, would account for the adoption of such an expedient. These words, notwithstanding the testimony of Eusebius in their favour, can furnish no proof either of a double sense in Plato's writings, or of his belief in the unity of the Godhead, for it is undeniable that in his works the terms eòs and Ocoi are used indiscriminately h.

E.

In considering the opinions of the ancient philosophers respecting the absorption of the soul after death into the one Spirit of the universe, it is important to keep in view the distinction of the

8 Præparat. Evangel. lib. xi. cap. 13.

h Socrates uses the terms Godhead and the Gods without distinction in his works generally. Aristipps Briefe, Wieland, book i. p. 114.

several schools, and not to cite passages from M. Antoninus or Seneca as illustrative of the doctrines of all, but as confined in their application to that sect only of which the writers were members.

The truth may briefly be stated thus: Plato, if the testimony of his own writings can be relied on, never entertained the notion that death brought with it the extinction of individual consciousness.

Of Aristotle the opinions are more dubious; yet there is nothing in his works which, if well considered, ought to destroy the positive testimony given in the Ethics of his belief that the dead are affected by the fortunes of their living friends.

Of Pythagorask there is no positive evidence by which we can absolutely determine his notions on the subject.

The most distinguished philosophers among the Stoics differed from each other. Antoninus and Epictetus avowedly maintained the absorption of the human soul at its separation from the body into the Soul of the world, and the extinction of consciousness; and it appears from some passages in the Epistles of Seneca1 that he was of the same

i Ethics, lib. i. c. II.

* Tennemann Geschichte der Philosophie, s. 94. Brucker, Hist. Crit. Phil. p. 1039.,

Brucker, pp. 951, 952, 953. Seneca Consolatio ad Marciam, cap 19. conf. cap. 25. Epist. 54. Mors est, non esse. Id quale sit, jam scio: hoc erit post me quod ante me fuit.

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

[ocr errors]

.

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.

[ocr errors]

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. 1. p. 390. • Brucker, pars ii. lib. i. pp. 470-490. Tennemann. Speculation der Ionier.

• Καὶ πρῶτος τῇ ὕλῃ νοῦν ἐπεστήσεν—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, prooemium, p. 2. · ΝΟΥΝ καὶ θεὸν πρῶτος ἐπαγαγόμενος τῇ κοσμοποιΐα. 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.

[ocr errors]

That he held an incorporeal Deity, distinct from the world,

[ocr errors]

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.

« AnteriorContinuar »