Chap. XVIII. ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. 229 



almoft all the nations of Plurope ; and, tho* it be the particular honour 

 of England, that it is better preferved, and more efteemed there than 

 any where elfe, yet, I am afraid, the philofophy,!© which it is the key, 

 js but very little ftudied even in England. But, that the doclrine which I 

 maintain, concerning a Jtwid^ ov hit ernai motive principle in body unor- 

 ganized, as well as organized, is maintained both by Plato and Ari- 

 ftotle, I do pofitively aver ; and-, therefore, this part of my phi- 

 fophy is not new, however it may appear at prefent, but as old, I be- 

 lieve, as any philofophy in the world ; for it is very certain, that both 

 Plato and Ariftotle took their philofophy of nature from the fchool of 

 Pythagoras. And it is as certain, that Pythagoras brought his philo- 

 fophy from Egypt, the parent country of all arts and fciences *. 



That 



"• ThaleSjtlie firft pTiilofopher of Greece, and wTio certainly learned his philofophy in 

 Egypt, was among the number of thofe philofophers who thought, as I do, that mind 

 was mixed with the whole body of the univerfe j and, therefore, he faid, * That aU 



* was full of Gods' K«< !► TA' Ixca ^g TOtj uvTYtV (•4't/;i^vi») ftif^t^xt <px(rtv, oh* KTUi K»t 



OccXvii air,fn TTciVTx TTMjn &i'^y tiniict ', Jriftotlcy De Jnima, lib. i. cap. 8. And Plato, in 

 the EpinomiSi ufes the very fame exprelTion, as a faying of the philofophers before 

 him ; for, fays he, -xayKiicXui; tt xxi 'iKx^i h^utui t# 0£*» mui ttx^tu 5rA£<t, And it was 

 for this reafon, no doubtj that Thales faid, that the loadftone had in it a mind, be- 

 caufe it moved iron, as Ariflotle informs us, Lil>. i. De Jnima, cap. 2. not conceiving 

 how any thing could move another, except by the means of mind. 



Ariftotle, giving an account of the opinions of philofophers before his.'time, concerning 

 mind, fays, that they all agreed that mind was diftinguiflied from body by two things, 

 xtv/i(rti Tj, Kxi ra) xi(r6scyii<rfxiy by movement iiwdi jenfatiori' Then proceeding to explain their 

 opinions more particularly, he fays, f«a-(» sy/«j Kxt f^-xXia-rx kxi TcfuTw; ^v^vi* i*»«« t« Jt«»«yn. 

 Some think that jnind is chief y and principally that which mov€S. But, fays he, 

 imagining that nothing could move another tiling, but what was firft moved itfelf, 

 therefore they thought that mind was one of thofe things which were moved, as well as 



did move. OojSsvtss t» f4» ztvovfttvcy xvro, i^7i i>^iy^iirixi xivitv iTi^o», T*;v Kit^vutfv* t< ti;» 



•^vx,rtv CUT*; vttO.x/Sov iiv«< ; Lib. I. De Anima, cap. 2. This was a grofs material notion, 

 Avhich Ariftotle has fully refuted in the next chapter of this book. It proceeded from 

 dobfierving, that body moved body only in that wny. It was, however, a notion that Plato 



