76 ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. Book IL 



rations of every kind are produced : So that It is, in every refped, a 

 caiife and principle y excepting only the meaneft and loweft cau/e, viz. 

 the material. 



I have, however, feveral objedlons to this definition. In the 

 j^r/? place, I. think it Is not comprehenfive enough, as it leaves out the 

 higheft and moft excellent kind of fJiitid^ that which is abflradled from 

 all f?iaUer, not in idea only, but in reality, and, by confequence, the 

 Supreme Mind, For this Is not only implied, and indeed exprefled, in 

 the definition, but Arlftotle has told us, that he fo meant It, and com- 

 mends the * opinion of thofe philofophers who thought that mind was 

 ' neither bod/y nor without one ; for, fays he, it Is not bodyy but fome- 

 * thing belonging to boclj ; and therefore It exifts in bodyy and in fuch 

 ' or fuch a bodjf not in any bodji as fome of the antlents thought *.' 

 By this we are not to underftand that Ariftotle believed that no mi?id 

 exifted feparately from matter ; for he has aflerted the contrary In moft 

 exprefs terms, and has made Theology, or the dodrine of fnind 

 feparate from matter, the conclufion both of his phyfics and me- 

 taphyfics : — Or, that even the Intelledual part of our ffiind did not 

 exift feparately from body : Though I obferve, that one of his inter- 

 preters, Alexander Aphrodifienfis, was of that opinion ; againft whom 

 Johannes Philoponus difputes, and fhows the contrary from many 

 paflages which he has coUedcd *f ; but one, I think. Is fufhcient, 

 which is to be found In the 3d book, chap. 4. De Anima, where he 

 fays exprefsly, ' That the aBlmal, or fenfitlve part, cannot be without 

 ^ body ; huiihc intelle^ is, by Its nature, fcparated from body J.' Ari- 

 llotle, therefore, is as far from being a materialift as any phllofopher; 

 l)jut we are to confider that this book, De Anima, Is a part of Ariftotle's 

 Natural Phllofophy; and a feqnei to his books of General Phyfics §. In 



them, 



* De Anima, lib. 2. cap. 2. in fine. 



f See his introduQion to his Commentary upon the books De Anima, and what he 

 has faid in his Commentary upon the 5th chapter of the firft book. 



;J; T« f^iv yxp ctir6r,Ti)ctt ovk uviv c-ufjtecioi, o ot icvi ;^<yp*e~roj. 



§ In the introduction to thtfe books De Anima, he fays, tox.n h kui -rg^ci ttM^nav 



