Bible does seem to take for granted, although some, in former times, may have carried it to an extravagant extent. Surely we may still maintain the precious Protestant doctrine, that no one but the Supreme Lord of Hosts is entitled to any the least species of religious adoration, and yet believe in many an order of being, which, although of far higher rank, yet constitute, with man, an immense brotherhood of created intelligences, all intended for the manifestation of the glory of Him, by whom, and for whom, all things were created, whether visible or invisible, whether in the earth or in the heavens. There is some reason to fear that Protestants, under the guise of a hyperspirituality, have gone too far in the opposite direction, to what is really a materializing and physical hypothesis. When we discover a disposition to banish in our minds all intermediate spiritual agencies, and, by magnifying natural causes, to place the Deity at the most remote distance possible, it does really seem as though, if we could or durst, we would dispense with his presence also in the regulation of the universe. In all ages, a tendency to that sadduceeism which barely saves the doctrine of the soul's existence in another state, has been held, and justly held, to be near of kin to infidelity, if not to downright atheism. Far better to believe too much on this subject than too little, even if we cannot agree, with Plato, that there is a presiding spiritual superintendence assigned to each celestial body. XXXV. Three Hypotheses in respect to the Animation of the Heavenly Bodies. PAGE 39, LINE 7. Ὡς ἢ ἐνοῦσα ἐντὸς τῷ περιφερεῖ τού τῷ, κ. τ. λ. We have here three hypotheses. The first would make the sun itself an animated being; the second would regard it as under the direction of an external angel, or Aaíuwv, having a material yet highly athereal body, and making use of a sort of impulsive motion; the third would represent it as under the care of a pure, unimbodied spirit or intellect (λn owμaтos оvoa), either the Universal Numen, or some delegated power specially assigned to that office. If by the last is meant only a particular exercise of the energy of the Universal Soul (which view is perfectly consistent with his present argument against the atheist, although it does not fully agree with some things he says elsewhere), there would be no need of any defence of Plato against the charges to which we have referred. The second, however, as we have seen, may be held by a firm believer in the Christian revelation. The first is only the doctrine of the anima mundi applied to particular parts of the universe. It may be maintained, as Plato did maintain it, in perfect consistency with a pure theism, or a recognition of an Eternal Spirit, not only above the anima mundi, but regarded, also, as its creator and constant guide. There is most abundant proof of this in the Timæus, and, indeed, we have every reason to believe that Plato meant no more by his soul of the world, whether in respect to the universe or to particular parts, than Cudworth intends by his famous. Plastic Nature, to which, in some places, he seems inclined to ascribe a species of obscure animate existence.* In fact, some such hypothesis must be adopted by those who would make nature a distinct thing from the Deity, or a subordinate cause under the Divine reason and wisdom; as all must do who are averse to the doctrine that God does all things by his own immediate agency, or the systematic intervention of angelic or spiritual beings. The only escape from one or the other of these is in that philosophy of occult qualities, which is a mere play upon words, a mere apology for ignorance, and which, when carried to its le * Cudworth's Intellectual System, vol. i., page 346, Engl. ed. gitimate results, is, as we have seen, the most favourable of all hypotheses to atheism. The independent, unoriginated essence (avтóɛoç), which is above nature and above the soul of the world, is called, in the Timæus, 'Aidios Пaτýp, and represented as the genera tor of yuxý, and even of Novç. Elsewhere, and especially in the Republic, Plato is fond of styling him Tò 'Ayalóv, The Good. XXXVI. гñs "Oxnμa, or Vehiculum Mundi. Examination of a Remarkable Passage from Euripides. PAGE 39, LINE 17. Ev äppaoiv ĕxovoa ημív žλtov. This cannot be rendered, having the sun in a chariot or vehicle; for the sense evidently requires that the sun itself be re. garded as the vehiculum of the indwelling spirit. 'Ev here is equivalent to in loco—ἐν ἅρμασιν ὡς ἅρματα-in loco currus-for a vehicle.* By a similar phraseology, the body is elsewhere styled öxnua, vehiculum; as in the Timæus, 41, C.: ¿ubibáoɑs wç eiç öxnua. In that place, however, Plato has reference, not to the animating souls of the heav. enly bodies, but to human souls, placed, or, as he says, sown there previous to their more intimate connexion with matter in their earthly existence, that they might learn those universal truths which were to be recalled to recollection in their subsequent stage of being.† In the Troades of Euripides the same term is applied, in a manner directly the opposite of this, to signify, not the corporeal vehiculum, but the animating, moving power. On account of its deep, intrinsic interest, we give the passage in full, and dwell upon it at some length: * So, also, Laws, xi., 913, C. : ἐν οὐσίᾳ κεκτῆσθαι. + Compare Origen contra Celsum, ii., 60. From this came those doctrines which Origen held respecting the pre-existence of souls. 'Ω γῆς ὄχημα, κἀπὶ γῆς ἔχων ἕδραν O Thou who guid'st the rolling of the earth, Euripides, Troades, 890. We do not know which to admire most, the philosophy or the poetical beauty of these remarkable lines. The expression, kami yns exwv ědpav, relieves them, in our view, from all liability to the charge of pantheism. These words, in the connexion in which they appear, are only applicable to what Plato styles νxý vπεркooμía; a soul which, although pervading, is also, at the same time, above, and distinct from, the world or universe which it moves; for yñ here is evidently to be taken in this large sense. The last line, also, can only be referred to a moral power, not only far above pantheism, but also that view which delights in contemplating a God of mere intelligence. It indicates a special moral providence, looking to ends and varied by events, yet at the same time general, administered by unbroken and harmonious laws, pervading all nature, silent in their operation, traversing a noiseless path (d' áópov Baívwv KελεV0ov); the universal moving power of earth (mundi vehiculum); influencing and controlling all things, and yet in its secret springs unsearchable (δυστόπαστος εἰδέ vai); ruling in the earthquake, the fire, and the tempest, yet, in itself, not the earthquake, nor the storm, but the still small voice of mind, specially and for special ends controlling matter. So Plutarch, writing of the Divine Logos, or Reason, in the government of the world, uses almost the very words of Euripides, if he did not rather intend a quotation: pwvñs γὰρ Ο ΘΕΙΟΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ ἀπροσδεής ἐστι καὶ δι' ἀψόφου βαίνων κελεύθου τὰ θνητὰ ἄγει κατὰ δίκην. Plutarch, De Tà Iside et Osiri. We may compare with this a passage from Seneca, Nat. Q., lib. ii., 14: Deum illum maximum potentissimumque, qui ipse vehit omnia (mundi vehiculum), qui ubique et omnibus præsto est. Compare, also, a passage of one of the lost tragedies of Euripides, as it is quoted by Eusebius, Præp. Evang., xiii., page 681: Σὲ τὸν αὐτοφυῆ, τὸν ἐν αἰθερίῳ Thou self-sprung Being that dost all infold, And in thine arms heaven's whirling fabric hold. The idea expressed by such phrases as those on which we have been just commenting, may have been more ancient than Plato or Euripides, and may have given rise to the mythological representation of the chariot and horses of the sun. It is more likely, however, that the poetical representation may have suggested the language here employed. We have also in the Phædrus (246, A.) this same comparison, by which man, in his compound being, is likened to a chariot and horses, with their charioteer, representing respectively his animal and his rational nature. XXXVII. Second Grand Division of the Argument. Doctrine of a Special Providence. Mistake of Cudworth. PAGE 42, LINE 10. Τὸν δὲ ἡγούμενον μὲν θεοὺς εἶναι, μὴ φροντίζειν δὲ, κ. τ. λ. We come now to the second grand division of the subject, and one, the treatment of which will probably be more satisfactory to the reader, pre |