ECLECTICS, a name given to certain ancient philo sophers, who endeavoured to form a system of opinions by selecting from every sect those doctrines which seemed to approach nearest to the truth. Hence their denomination, derived from Ex.),E-icd, " I choose," may be considered as referring either to themselves or their tenets; and may signify either " one that chooses," or " that which may be chosen." They were also deno minated analogetici; but generally called themselves Philalethes, i. e. " lover of truth," or rather never as sumed any distinct name, but wished to be considered as chiefly followers of Plato, whose philosophy they made the foundation of their system. The notion of such a philosophical selection had been adopted by several of the leaders among the Grecian sects, even by Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle; had been sufficiently com mon among the Alexandrian philosophers, from the commencement of their schools; had particularly pre vailed, (as appears from Philo, who was himself an ec lectic,) about the beginning of the Christian era ; and was followed, in a later period, by Plutarch, Pliny, Ga len, and many others. Between the endless contests of the dogmatists, and the dark uncertainty of the scep tics, it was by no means an irrational scheme to sepa rate from every former system its purest and best sup ported tenets, and to form them into a new institute of philosophical and religious truth. The idea was pecu liarly acceptable to those Heathen philosophers, who felt the growing ascendency of Christianity ; and who endeavoured to support the declining influence of their own schools, by incorporating Christian principles into their new system. The first, however, who attempted to establish a distinct sect upon this scheme, appears to have been Potamo of Alexandria, who is supposed by some to have flourished during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius; but, according to others, about the close of the second century. Nothing more is known of his system, but that he endeavoured to reconcile the tenets of Plato with those of other philosophers; and it is ge nerally concluded, that his attempt to found a school upon the eclectic principle proved unsuccessful. The eclectic philosophy received its proper form and esta blishment from Ammonius, another philosopher of Alex andria, who flourished about the beginning of the third century, and who, from his former profession of a porter, was sirnamed Sacca. (See Ammoxtus.) This philosopher, however, and his followers, ought properly to be considered, like their precursor Potamo, as merely modern Platonist ; and there is a gross im propriety in giving them the name of eclectics. Instead of selecting a little from each, he professed to unite all sects in one. He maintained, that the great principles of philosophical and religious truth were to be found equally in all the different systems; that they differed from each other only in their method of expressing their tenets, except a few points of minor importance; and that, by a proper interpretation of their respec tive sentiments, they might easily be united into one body. Ile considered the ancient phOsophy of the East, preserved in his opinion by Plato, as the primitive standard, and actual substance, of all the religious systems in the world ; and affirmed, that to remove the errors which in all nations had been more or less blended with this ancient theology, and thus to restore them to their original purity, was the great de sign of Jesus Christ in descending upon earth. Upon
this principle, as all the sects were fundamentally right, there was no occasion to select any thing from each; and it was even of little consequence which of them was chosen, as the enquirer, by merely removing the supervening errors, was sure to find in any one of them the true doctrine at the bottom. As Ammonius left no writings of his own, and as he taught his more sublime mysteries only to a few select disciples, under a solemn `njunction of secrecy, it is scarcely possible to ascer :ain what he considered as the original and uncorrupt ed system of truth ; and though several of his follow ers afterwards divulged the secrets of his school, their expositions are so full of obscurity, and so mixed with logmas of their own, that the real system of their foun der cannot be separated with any degree of certainty from so confused a mass. The leading object of the whole sect was to obstruct the progress of the Christian religion, by forming such a combination of the prin cipal tenets of the heathen and Christian schools, as might confirm the former in their attachment to the old superstitions, and reconcile the latter to the doctrines of Paganism. Hence, on the one hand they represent ed Jesus Christ as the friend of God, who came not to abolish, but to purify the ancient religions ; incorpora ted into their system many of the peculiar doctrines of revelation, and even adopted, on many occasions, tht• language of the Christian Fathers. On the other hand. they endeavoured to conceal the absurdities of Pagan ism under the veil of allegory; and represented the nu merous train of Heathen divinities, as celestial mink ters emanating from the Supreme Deity, who \vas him self worshiped in the adoration which they received. The philosophy of Plato, already united with that of Pythagoras, formed the basis of the new system ; and with these doctrines they attempted to blend those of Aristotle, of the Stoics, and of almost every system ex cept that of Epicurus, whose mechanical principles of nature could never be made to coalesce with the doc trines of Platonism. Not satisfied with the intuitive contemplation of intelligiblcs, and especially of the first intelligence, which Plato proposed as the summit of human felicity, they aspired after a sort of deification of the human mind ; adopted from the Oriental philosophy the system of emanation, one of an indefinite series of spiritual natures derived from the supreme source; and, besides supposing, that the soul of man, by various stages of purification, might at length reach a mysterious union with the divine nature, they conceived, that, even in this life, it might be prepared, by previous discipline, to en joy, in ecstasy, an intuitive vision of the Deity. Upon such fanciful foundations, they constructed systems of metaphysics, morals, and theology, of which it is im possible to convey any intelligible idea,'and which indeed seem never to have been properly fixed or defined in the minds of their authors. Their great principle, also, of producing an apparent harmony among systems es sentially different, necessarily compelled them to have recourse to vague expressions, fanciful interpretations, and subtle distinctions, till they at length involved themselves and their readers in endless subtleties and impenetrable obscurity.