1. The
Vanity,
and manifold
defects
of
Pagan
Philosophy may be demonstrated from its
Causes:
For the Effect cannot be more perfect, or noble than it's Cause: If the Springhead be poisoned, the Streams must needs have the same
tincture
and
taint.
What were the main springs of
Pagan
Philosophy, but some broken
Judaic Traditions
adulterated, and poisoned with their own ignorant
Inventions, Curiositie, Pride, Presumption, Confidence, Contentious Disputes, Opinionativenesse, Dogmatisings, Carnal Policy, Idololatrick Inclinations,
and
fabulous Imitations?
were not these the great
Prolisick principles
of all
Pagan
Philosophy? And may we expect a wholesome
Issue,
or
Progenie,
from such envenomed
Parents?
2. The various
defects
of
Pagan
Philosophy, may be measured by its
Matter,
and
Parts.
How full of
contentions
is
Logic
;
especially as delivered by
Zeno,
and
Aristotle
's Commentators the
Arabians?
what gross mistakes are there in (the greatest among
Pagan
Philosophers)
Aristotle
in his
Physicks?
Not to mention any lower, and lesser ones against
Reason
only, which some quarrel him for; as namely, touching the first Principles of Bodies; his making I know not what
Chimerical first Matter
a Principle of
real,
and even
Privation
itself of
positive
Bodilie Beings, and the like: I shall instance only in that his great Signal Contradiction to
Faith,
and
Reason
together,
the Eternity of the World
; to Faith,
Heb.
11.3. and very many other
Scriptures
: and to Reason; since that very same Argument of his (drawn from that grand absurdity of the
Part
being
equal
to the
Whole
) whereby he disproves the possibility of its
Infinitie
in
Extension,
would give as clear baffle
to the possibility of it's
Infinitie
in
Duration
also. Besides, how extremely defectuous are the
Pagan Ethics,
both as to
Matter, End, Rule,
and
Principles?
Are not also their
Economics, Politicks,
and
Mathematics,
greatly
defective,
and vain? But that, which gives us a more
black Idea
of the Vanity of the
Grecians
Philosophy, is their
Metaphysics,
or
Natural Theology.
It's true,
Pythagoras,
and
Plato,
had clear Traditions of the
Deity,
and Divine
Perfections
; but yet what a mass of
fabulous narrations,
and
phantasms
of their own do they contemper therewith? How
superstitious,
yea ridiculous, are their
Daemon-gods,
and
Worship?
Yea, what a Monstrous
Satanick
spirit of Hell inspired their whole System of
Divination,
by
Dreams, Maladies, Animals, Plants, Men, Elements, Stars,
and things
Artificial,
as
Glosses,
&c.
Philosophy. Whence had
the same pestiferous root? This is incomparably well demonstrated by
Tom. 1. lib. 6. cap. 13. where he shows, how
Not to mention what advantages, and aides he received from other of the
That the Injunction of Celibate, and Monastic Life, was one of the Superstitions brought out of
Egypt
by
Pythagoras
; who forbad Marriage to those of his Sect, and erected a Cloistre,
&c.
The last Branch of Antichristianism, I shall here mention, is the
Canonists Theology,
touching the
Canonization,
&
Worshipping
of
Saints,
which stands in such a Compliance with the
Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
Daemonolatrie,
as seems not to have been accidental, and casual, but studied, and contrived: The very
Popish Directorie
of the
Inquisitors
sticks not to call the
Canonization
of
Saints
their
Apotheosis,
i. e.
Deification:
And that the whole
Papal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Saint-Worship,
is but an Imitation of the
Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Daemon-Worship,
is excellently explicated, and demonstrated by Judicious
Mede,
on 1
Tim.
4.1, 2. touching the
Apostasy of the latter times.
This we may (perhaps in due time, and place) demonstrate by a parallel 'twixt the
Papal Saints,
and
Pagan Daemons.
1. In their
Origin
; 2. In their
Formal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; 3. In their
Mediatorie Offices
; 4. In their
Festivals
; 5. In their
Images,
and
Relics
; 6. In the
Offerings
made to them; 7. In their
Exorcismes,
and
Miracles
; 8. In the
Invocation
of them; 9. In the sacred
Rites,
and
Ceremonies
performed to them; 10. In that
Hierarchy,
and
Supremacy
assumed by the Pope, that great
Demonarch.
In all these regards there seems to be an intimate
Symbolization
between the
Papal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; which was the great figment of the Philosophers, as we may hereafter demonstrate. Thus we have given a concise
Idea
of what is intended touching the
defects, vanity,
and
mischiefs
of
Pagan Philosophy.
OUENUS PRICAEUS. A. M.
Book
I. Of Oriental, and Occidental Barbarick Philosophy.
Chap:
I. Of Philosophy in General, and Scripture Philosophers.
The Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from the Hebrew
Sophim
i. e.
Watchmen.
Pagans defined
Philosophy
a
Love of the highest and best Wisdom,
answerable to the Scriptures
Phrasiologie.
Philosophers called also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from the Jewish Mysteries. God the first
Exemplar, Matter,
and
Efficient
of all Philosophy. Of the first
Divine Philosophers, Adam, Seth, Enoch, Abraham.
Of
Joseph
his instructing the Egyptians.
Moses
's Writings, the Source of
Phoenician, Egyptian,
and
Grecian Philosophy,
viz.
Physicks, Metaphysics, Mathematics,
and
Politicks. Solomon's
Philosophy; also
Jobs;
and of the Jewish
Schools.
§. 1.
W
E now proceed to discourse of
Philosophy,
its
Original
and
Traduction
from the
Jewish Church.
And before we engage in the formal Explication; and Demonstration hereof, we shall first give a more general
Idea,
or
Notion
of
Philosophy,
(both name and thing) and then proceed to its original causes,
&c.
Philosophy,
in its first Introduction amongst the
Grecians,
was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and Philosophers
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Heinsius (exercit.
Sacr. lib.
1.
cap.
2.) presumeth, from the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sophim Watchmen
: thence 'tis said
Numb.
23.14.
that
Balak brought Bâlam into a place, on the top of Mount Pisgah,
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which the English Version, printed at
Geneva
1560, renders
Sede-Sophim, the Seat of the Watch men.
And that the
Greeks
derived their
Sophi
from this
Sophim, Heinsius
affirms it without a peradventure; because the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sophi
were wont, on such high hills, to observe the course and motions of the Heavens. That the Hebrews, as well as Phoenicians, called their
Wise men
or
Prophets
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sophim, Watchmen,
is most evident to any that observe the Scripture Phrasiologie. So 1
Sam.
1.1.
we read of
Ramathaim Sophim of Mount Ephraim
: on which the
Geneva
Annotators observe,
That in this City, in Mount
Ephraim,
were
Sophim,
that is, the
Learned
and
Prophets.
Thence the Syriac Version renders it,
the hill of the Watches,
or
Watchmen.
Yea, more particularly, that this
Ramathaim Sophim
was the chief
Academie
of their Wise men, or Schools of their Prophets, is apparent from 1
Sam.
19.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
v.
18.
It is said, that
David dwelt with Samuel, at Najoth in Ramah. Najoth,
say the
Geneva
Annotators,
was a Schole where the Word of God was studied.
Thence
v.
20,
&c.
it is said,
there were a Company of the Prophets there.
And what more common in the Scripture Dialect, than the styling the Hebrew
Prophets
or
Wise men
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sophim, i. e. Watchmen?
Hence it is most likely (if not without doubt as
Heinsius
will have it) that the Greeks derived their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; who were also styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Speculatores, Watchmen
; and thence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Wisdom,
or
Philosophy,
is also called, by some of them,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Speculation:
Whence that common division of Philosophy, into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
speculative
and
practic Philosophy.
Others derive the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from the Punic
Sufes,
which in that Language signifies a
Magistrate.
So
Hornius. Historiae Philosoph. lib▪
1.
cap.
1.
We will that the original of the word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, be fetched from no other than the Punic
Sufes,
who, as 'tis well known, drew their tongue from the
Syrophenicians
or
Canaanites.
And he gives this account of the Origination: In times past, says he, none but Wise men were admit
•
ed to the dignity of
Magistrates.
Such
Sufes,
in the days of old, were
Charondas, Solon, Lycurgus,
and other Legislators, who were both wise men and Magistrates. So that there is no doubt to be made of it, but that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
descended ence.
This being granted, yet it contradicts not the former Origination of
Heinsius
:
for
Hornius
seems to grant, according to that of
Scaliger in Festum,
that
Sufes
was deduced from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies an
accurate speculation
or contemplation, and so is the same with the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: 'tis used in Scripture for the Contemplation of sublime matters.
Cameron Myroth cap.
2.
Math.
derives
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, others from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies
to cover,
or
hide,
and so answers to the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and differs but little from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which is of the same import. And that which makes for this origination is
Joseph
's Egyptian name, who was called by
Pharaoh
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
an
Interpreter of Secrets.
Hence also the Persian Kings are, even to this day, called
Sophi,
which signifies
Interpreters of the God's
and
Wise men.
So amongst the Arabians
Sophus
imports a
Religious
and
Wise man,
as
Horn. Hist. Philos. lib.
1.
cap.
4. So much for that proud title
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§, 2.
But
Pythagoras
(as it is conceived) judging the term
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
too proud and swelling for degenerate nature, stiles his wise man
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
friend of wisdom,
as
Solomon,
almost everywhere, in his Proverbs, describes his wise man, a
Lover of wisdom, &c.
whence Christ calls his wise men
friends and children of wisdom.
Thus
Plato
also defines a Philosopher,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
A Philosopher is a friend to nature and a Kinsman of truth.
And elsewhere he calls Philosophers,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
sincere and friendly Contemplators of truth.
Answerably whereunto
Philosophy
is by him styled,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
love of truth
: on which, in his
Cratylus,
he gives this gloss,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
q,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
a
Divine evagation,
or wandering of the mind after the first Wisdom and divine Truth. Whence he asserts, that a true Philosopher has the true Knowledge
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of things: thence he defines him thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a Philosopher is one that covets all wisdom
: and so true Philosophy is by him styled, the
Knowledge of the fairest and choicest good, and not only of its picture
: Which in his sixth Book of his Common Wealth, he tells us plainly is no other than the Knowledge of God, which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Idea of the chiefest good,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
highest Discipline,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the genuine Philosophy
; namely because it is (says he)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Introduction of the Soul from a certain night-day, to the true discovery of the first being.
Whence he adds,
that his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
consists, not only in the contemplation of some lower objects,
and Arts;
but it is conversant
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
about the true being of beings, and the first beauty
: thence (says he)
he that contemplates
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
many beauties, but not the one first, and chiefest beauty, is not a Philosopher, but a dreamer, one that has only an opinionative knowledge of things.
So
Aristotle
in his Rhetoric, speaking of true knowledge, says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Knowledge or Philosophy is the erection and elevation of us into our natural state.
And
Cicero
defines a Philosopher
one that studies to know the causes and natures of all things Divine and human,
&c. and Philosophy he terms
the contemplation of death.
So
Plato in Theage,
defines Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a contemplation of death,
And
Pythagoras
made Philosophy to be the
contemplation of Truth
; which
Architus
understood of the
Principle of Principles,
and
Plutarch
of the
Divine Majesty
: Whence a Philosopher, in the Pythagorean estimation, is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Lastly
Plato in Phaedone,
calls Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an assimilation to God so far as 'tis possible for man.
Whence the same
Plato
defines Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the knowledge of Divine and human affairs, with their causes
: which agrees with that of
Cicero lib.
2.
Offic. Philosophy is the knowledge of Divine and human things.
Lastly
Plato
assures us, that
to philosophize, is to know, love, and imitate God
: which he makes to be the sum not only of
speculative
and
moral
Philosophy, but also of
Politicks
: for (says he)
that Common-w
•
alth is most happy in which Philosophers are Kings, or Kings Philosophers.
§. 3. Hence also the
Greek Philosophers,
especially the
Pytha
•
oreans,
when they came to the perfect comprehension of their
mysteries
and
principles,
were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
perfect,
in opposition to their
Novices
or
learners
; which phrases and custom they seem to have borrowed from the Jewish Schools, and
Colleges,
wherein there were divers orders; & the highest therein were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
perfect
: whereunto the Apostle
Paul
seems (unto some) to allude
Phil.
3.12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
v.
15.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
perfect,
of which more hereafter when we come to treat of the Pythagoreans; who were also called by the latter
Philosophers
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Mythologists
and
Philomythists
; because of their great imitation of, and symbolizing with the Jews, in
mysteries
and
wisdom,
from whom they borrowed the most of their Discipline and Philosophy. From these general hints and intimations we may easily collect, what
cognation
the
Pagan Philosophy
had with the
Jewish Wisdom
: neither
can we imagine how those dark capacities of
Heathen Philosophers,
should come to be informed with such clear
contemplations
of God, and Jewish mysteries, but by some derived
traditions,
and
fr
•
gments
borrowed from the Scriptures and Jewish Church, as hereafter·
§ 4, But to run up
Philosophy
to its first source and spring head;
we must remember that God (who is the
original Idea
of all truth, the
eternal wisdom
and
fountain
of all light) is the first
Exemplar,
and
Efficient
of all
Philosophy.
For as God made all things according to the
eternal universal idea
of his own Wisdom and Decrees, so likewise has he
stamped,
and deeply
impressed,
on the very
beings
and
natures
of all things made, certain
characters
or
intelligible ideas
and resemblances of his own
divine wisdom,
which the Schools usually term the
light
and
law of nature
; which is nothing else but those created emanations, or rays of
light
and
order
stamped on the
beings
of things, and scattered up and down in the Universe, which offering themselves to the human understanding, become the
objective matter
of
Philosophy.
So that it is apparent,
Philosophy,
as all other Sciences, owes its original to the
Divine Intellect
and
Wisdom
; which
beaming
itself forth on the works of its hands, and
diffusing
some
derivation
of
wisdom, light,
and
order
into every creature, for the
government
and
direction thereof
unto its respective ends, becomes the
objective idea,
or
matter
of all
Philosophy
; and then the same Divine Wisdom irradiating the mind of man, to contemplate those bright
Ideas
of created wisdom, which lie hid in the creature, and enabling it to gather up the same into several branches or Sciences, it becomes the
prime efficient
of all
Philosophy.
So that whether we consider Philosophy
objectively,
as lodged in the natures of things, or
formally,
as brancht forth into several
sciences,
it all owes its original to the bosom of Divine Wisdom.
§. 5. Hence it follows, that the
original impulsive cause
of all
Philosophy,
was
Admiration
of the admirable Wisdom, Power,
and Goodness of God shining in his works of Creation and Providence, as
Rom.
1.19, 20. So
Plato
in his
Theaetetus
tells us, that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The great Pathos or affection of a Philosopher is to admire: neither had Philosophy any other original than this.
The like
Aristotle
asserts, in the Proem to his Metaphysics, (which
Stobaeus
Serm. 3. cites)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Men now, as formerly, begin to Philosophize from admiration: for men first began to admire things less
wonderful,
then proceeding thus by degrees, they doubted of greater matters, as of the origin of the Universe, &c.
whence he concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
wherefore a Philosopher seems to be, in some sense, a Philomythist:
(or
Mythologist, i: e
: a relator of Fables and wonders)
for a Fable consists of things wonderful.
The same see
Arist. Metaph. lib.
2.
cap.
2. In which words
Aristotle
gives us an exact and full account, of the
original ground
and
impulsive cause
of all
Philosophy,
both
Mythologic
and
Simple.
For, whence was it that the
Phoenicians, Egyptians,
and their Apes the
Grecians,
so much delighted themselves in their Philosophic contemplations of the
origin of the Universe, &c.
but from some
fabulous narrations,
or
broken traditions
which they had traduced to them, from the
Jewish
Church, touching the
wonders of God
which appeared in his works of
Creation
and
Providence,
especially towards his Church which these purblind Heathens greatly admired, though they understood them not, and so mixed their own
Mythologic
or
fabulous conjectures
with them. And that this was the true Origin of all the Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
night Philosophy
(which is
Plato
's own phrase) will be more evident hereafter, when we come to treat of the
Grecian Philosophy.
§. 6. As for the
created
causes of
Philosophy
; they may be reduced to these two common heads, 1. Its first
Institutors or Authors.
2. Its
constitutive
principles both
material
and
formal,
or the
essential parts thereof.
We design some discourse on both, thence to make good our
Demonstration
touching the
Traduction
of all
Philosophy
from the
Scriptures
and
Jewish Church.
And to proceed methodically herein,
We shall begin with the first
human Institutors,
or
Authors
of
Philosophy
; who were indeed
Divine,
and
divinely illuminated
; so that the wisdom we find scattered up and down amongst the Pagan Philosophers, was but borrowed, and derived from these Divine
•
ights, who were enlightened by the
Divine Word, that life and light of men, which shined in the darkness of the Pagan World, but the darkness comprehended it not.
as
John
1.4, 5.
the light, &c.
The first created Divine
Institutor
of all Philosophy was
Adam,
who, without all peradventure, was the greatest, amongst mere mortals, that ever the world possessed; concerning whom the Scripture tells us,
G
•
n.
2.19, 20. That
he gave names to every living thing, &c.
which argues his great
Sagacitie
and
philosophick penetration
into their
natures.
For look a
•
our
conceptions,
if true, so also
names,
if proper, should be, and, as we may presume, at first were no other than
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
images of things:
So both
Aristotle
and
Plato
cal names
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
imitations of things. Adam
could, by his
profound Philosophy, anatomize,
and exactly pry into the very
natures
of things, and there contemplate those glorious
Ideas,
and
Characters
of
created Light
and
Order,
which the increased Light and Divine Wisdom had impressed thereon; and thence he could by the quickness of his apprehension immediately collect, and form the same into a complete
system
•
or body of
Philosophy
; as also most methodically branch forth the same into
particular sciences, &c.
whereas all Philosophers since
Adam,
having lost, by his fall, this Philosophic
Sagacitie,
of prying into the natures of things, they can only make some poor
conjectures
(in comparison) from some common
accidents,
and the external superficies, or effects of things; and therefore cannot receive
conceptions,
or give
names
exactly suited to the natures of things, as
Adam
before them did.
And that
Plato
had received some broken tradition touching this Philosophy of
Adam,
is evident from what he lays down in his
Politicus,
(and elsewhere) touching the
golden Age,
or the
state of Innocence, wherein,
says he,
our first parent was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
greatest Philosopher that ever was.
And
Bal
•
us (de Script. Brit. cent.
10.
praesat.
) tells us,
That from
Adam
all good Arts and human Wisdom flowed, as from their Fountain. He was the first that discovered the motions of the celestial bodies; the natures of Plants, of Living, and all other creatures; he first published the forms of
Ecclesiastic, Politick,
and
Oeconomick
Government. From whose Schole proceeded whatever good Arts and Wisdom were afterward propagated by our Fathers unto mankind. So that whatever Astronomy, Geometry, and other Arts contain in them, he knew the whole thereof· Thus
Baleus.
The like
Hornius Hist. Philosoph. lib
1.
cap
2.
Adam
therefore being constituted in this Theatre of the Universe, he was ignorant of nothing, that pertained to the
Mystery of Nature.
He knew exactly, and that without error, the
Natures
of all
Animals,
the
virtues of Herbs,
and the
causes
of things. The
Light of Reason,
which we now call
Logic,
altogether unspotted, and without cloud, overcame the obscurity of things, and dispelled darkness, if there were any. Now there was the highest
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, exactness of Economics, and Politicks; for man was never so much as then
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a sociable creature. Which the ancient Mythologists are wont to adumbrate under the
Golden Age,
wherein
Sponte sua sine lege fidem, rectumque colebant.
The seat of this most noble Philosophy is, in the sacred Scriptures, styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Garden of Eden.
For there is nothing more excellent given, by the great God, to mankind than that pleasure, which ariseth from the contemplation of things.
The
Chaldees
cal this
Garden of Pleasures
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and the Greeks following them,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Paradise.
Thus
Hornius,
who,
cap.
11. repetes the same in these words,
All Arts, as mankind, had their beginning from
Adam,
who among the pleasures of Paradise, learned Philosophy even from God himself.
And
K
•
ckerman, Tract.
2.
Praecogn. Logic. cap.
2. says,
that he doubts not, but that our first Parents delivered over to their Posterity, together with other Sciences, even Logic also, especially seeing they, who were nearest the Origin of all things, had an intellect so much the more excellent than ours, by how much the more they excelled us in length of life, firmitude of health, and lastly in air, food,
&c.
§. 7. From
Adam
sprung
Seth,
who, according to
Josephus lib.
1.
Antiq. cap.
3. followed his father in the pursuit of wisdom, especially that part thereof which concerns the Celestial bodies, their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, in which kind of Philosophy he proved a very eminent Doctor, as
Josephus.
So
Hornius Hist. philos. l.
7.
c.
2.
The first mentition of Letters falls upon
Seth
's times; who being mindful of his Fathers Prophesy, foretelling the Universal Dissolution of things, the one by the Deluge, the other by fire, being not willing to extinguish his famous Inventions of Astrology; he thought upon some monument, to which he might concredit these Mysteries: At length it seemed good unto him to engrave Arts and Disciplines on two great pillars of Brick, thereby to preserve them from destruction.
And that this Tradition is not vain, is proved by the Autoritie, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
Josephus
; who witnesseth, that one of these pillars remained in
Syria
even to his time, and was seen by him.
§. 8. The learned also reckon
Enoch
amongst the first
Divine Philosophers,
especially for his supposed skil in
Astrology
and
Astronomy
: so
Eusebius de praepar. Evang. lib.
9. and out of him
Bochart Phaleg.
lib.
2.
cap.
13.
fol.
101.
I cannot but add (says he) what is found concerning the same
Enoch
in
Eusebius,
out of
Eupolemus, of the Jews.
He says that
Abraham,
when he taught
Astrology
and other Sciences at
Heliopolis,
af
•
irmed, that the
Babylonians
attributed the invention of the same to
Enoch,
and that he was the first inventor of
Astrology.
It follows, not far after, that the Grecians attribute the invention of
Astrology
to
Atlas
; and that
Atlas
was the same with
Enoch, &c.
In which words we may note that
Enoch
and
Atlas
are reputed for the same. Perhaps from hence, that as
Atlas
by the
Carthaginians
is called
Duris,
and
Dyris,
so
Enoch
by the
Arabians,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Idris
: thus
Bochart.
How far these Traditions deserve assent, as also those other of
Enoch's
engraving his
Prophecies
and
Astrology
on pillars, which, they say, continued after the sloud, it concerns us not to debate: only thus much we are assured by
Jude
14,
&c.
That
Enoch
had certain Prophecies touching the worlds dissolution by fire, and the last judgment,
&c.
And that the
Stoics
derived their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
purification of the world by fire,
from some broken tradition of this Prophecy of
Enoch,
is not without ground conjectured by
Grotius
& other Critics.
Baleus (de Script. Brit. cent.
20
fol.
3.) tells us, that
Enoch,
a man famous for Prophecy, is supposed to have written before the flood of Divine matters,
&c.
§. 9. Another Scripture Philosopher is
Abraham,
who is supposed,
even by Pagan Historians, to have taught both the
Chaldeans,
where he was first seated, and also the
Egyptians,
Knowledge in Astronomy. So
Lud. Vives, in August de Civit, Dei lib.
18.
c.
2.
Not only sacred, but also many of the profane Writers have mentioned
Abraham
: as
Hecataeus,
who writ a Book particularly of
Abraham
; so
Eusebius de praep. Evang.
Also
Alexander
the Polyhistorian; who says, that
Abraham,
born in the tenth generation after the Flood, was the Inventor of Astrology amongst the Chaldeans,
&c. Damascenus Hist. lib.
4. writes, that
Abraham
coming from
Chaldea
with an Army, reigned at
Damascus.
Hence he passed into
Canaan,
leaving a great memory behind him at
Damascus.
But when
Canaan
was pressed with famine, he travelled thence into
Egypt,
and entering into debates with those Priests, he much profited them both in the Knowledge of things, & also for piety, & the ordering of their manners, and life.
Alexander
reports that he lived some time in
Heliopolis,
neither did he profess himself to be the Inventor of Astrology, but to have received it from
his Ancestors, by whose hands it was conveyed unto him, even from
Enoch. Artapanus
reports, that the Hebrews were so named from
Abraham,
who lived twenty years in
Egypt,
where he taught
Pharetates
the
Egyptian
King the Knowledge of the Stars, and thence returned into
Syria,
So
Lud. Vives. Baleus (de script. Brit. cent.
10.
fol.
3) tells us, out of
Phil. Welphius
of the lives of learned men,
that
Abraham
found out the
Syriac
and
Chaldee
Letters, also many principles of Astrology; for he was a prudent and holy man, and excellently learned as to human matters. And after his abode amongst the Egyptian wise men, he was the first that instructed them in Astronomy and Arithmetic: for before his coming into
Egypt,
the Egyptians were altogether ignorant of these Sciences.
So
B
•
l
•
us, G
•
r. Vossius de philosophorum sectis lib.
2.
cap.
8. §. 7, 8. gives us this account of
Abraham's
Philosophy:
But whether (says he)
Abraham
the Patriarch drew his Astrology from the
Chaldeans,
or rather the
Chaldeans
received it from
Abraham
; this Science came by
Abraham
first to those of
Palestine,
or the
Canaanites,
and afterwards to the
Egyptians.
That
Abraham
passed from
Ur
of the
Chaldeans
into
Palestine,
is sufficiently known by Scripture: and that he was also skilled in Astrology,
Berosus
shows in these words:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In the tenth Age after the Flood, there was among the Chaldeans a just and great man, and well skilled in the Knowledge of the Heavens. J
•
se
•
hus Antiquit. l.
1.
c
7. cites this passage of
Berosus,
and adds,
that Abraham, who was the tenth from Noah, was signified by it.
And this is confirmed by what is said of
Abraham
by
Eupolemus,
in
Eusebius,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that he was the Inventor of Astrology, and the Chaldaick Art of Divination.
Which is an evident confession of an Heathen. It is also enough credible that the
Canaanites,
and amongst them the
Phoenicians
learned much touching the Natures of things from
Abraham,
who sojourned amongst them. Moreover it is well known, that when
Canaan
was pressed with famine
Abraham
went into
Egypt
; where he said his wife
Sarah
was his sister, whom the King had abused, had he not been admonished by God. But being taught who
Abraham
was, (as
Josephus lib.
1.
cap.
8. relates) he gave him power of conversing with the most excellent and the most learned of the
Egyptians.
Then
Abraham
(says he)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
bountifully communicated unto them Arithmetic and Astronomy, for before the coming of Abraham, the Egyptians were ignorant of these Sciences: for they came from the Chaldeans to the Egyptians and from them to the Grecians.
This Philosophy of the Jews derived from
Abraham
was twofold, partly natural, whereof Astrology was a part; and partly Divine, of God and his works,
&c.
How far these reports touching
Abraham
may deserve credit, I shall not contend. I find a great confirmation of what has been mentioned touching
Abraham
's Philosophy in
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
2.
c.
10.
Amidst these darknesses (speaking of
Nimrod's
Apostasy) of depraved Philosophy, shone forth, as an hopeful star,
Abraham,
a person of a famous ingenie, who was contemporarie with
Ninus, Semiramis,
and
Zoroaster,
as
Euseb.
He was a man renowned not only among sacred, but also profane writers; namely of whom
Hecataeus
writ a whole book: and
Berosus, Nic. Damascenus, Alexander, Eupol
•
mus, M
•
la,
with many others cited by
Eusebius l.
9.
praepar, c
4. make mention of him. He being in his first years educated in the Institutes of the
Magi,
or
Chaldeans, Jos.
24.2. drank in a corrupt Philosophy from his Parents, in which notwithstanding he made a better proficience than all others. For he being a very wise and eloquent person, as also invested with a great sagacity, observed from natural things, that there was a God, and that he was to be worshipped by us; as
Josephus lib.
1.
Ant. c.
8. and
Philo
teach us; But his mind being not as yet irradiated with any Divine Light, it was envelopped in the darknesses of many errors; which, so soon as he was commanded by God to depart out of
Chaldea,
he exchanged for a more bright Light, and so of a
Magus
he became an
Hebrew,
or Christian Philosopher, studious of sacred wisdom. In whose family there was a famous Academie and seat of Philosophy. For
Abraham
had a great name for wisdom, not only among his own, but throughout all the East.
Josephus,
out of
Berosus,
attests,
that he communicated to the Egyptians the science of Numbers, or Arithmetic; and that of the Stars, called Astronomy,
of which sciences the Egyptians were then very ignorant. And
Alexander
tells us,
that the Heliopolitan Priests, and others made use of his Institution in Astrology, Arithmetic, Geometry, and other parts of wisdom.
And who can doubt of his skill in Astrology, seeing he drew his original from
Chaldea.
Whence what
Orpheus
sung,
that God of
old reveled himself to one Chaldean only,
they suppose to be meant of
Abraham
: when therefore he came into
Canaan,
it may not be doubted, but that the Phoenicians drew from him the rudiments of purer wisdom; for he was much in favor with the Princes of that Country, and venerable among their Kings. Thence, whilst his children dispersed Golonies into diverse Regions, his more pure Philosophy was communicated together therewith; which was soon contaminated by the errors of
Cham's
Posterity. This wisdom his son
Isaac
receiving from him, as an inheritance constantly to be retained, according to the example of his Father, propagated in
Canaan,
and in
Egypt.
The same may be said of
Jacob,
whose great sagacity and experience in Natural Philosophy, is sufficiently discovered in the wonderful artifice he used for the conception of the Cattle
Gen.
33.37,
&c.
There is also in his History, some mention made of the Astrology of the
Syrians, &c.
Thus
Hornius
more largely.
§, 10. Amongst the Divine Philosophers we must not omit the mention of
Joseph,
who is said, and that upon solid Scripture grounds, to have instructed the Egyptians in their wisdom, and Philosophy; and in after Ages passed amongst them under the name of
Hermes,
or
Mercurius Trismegistus.
Thus much is asserted by
Cluverus
in his History of the world
pag.
12.
Joseph,
saith he, having attained to a measure of wisdom, as it seemed above human, he obtained the whole administration of
Egypt,
and a dignity the next to the Regal. Hence the common sable, that
Hermes,
that is,
Interpreter,
was the first inventor of Arts and Sciences amongst the Egyptians. For the wisdom of the Egyptians owes its self unto
Joseph,
who by the Kings authority taught them both divine and human Arts.
So
Cl
•
v
•
rus.
The name
Hermes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies an
Interpreter,
seems to be given, and that most properly unto
Joseph,
because of his Divine Art in the interpreting of Dreams. And that he was esteemed by the
Egyptians,
as a person endowed with an extraordinary faculty of divining, and interpreting Dreams, or things secret▪ is most evident from
Gen.
44.5.
where they mention his divining,
&c.
Though they knew not the Divining power by which he was inspired, but imputed it to his cup, yet the thing itself was manifested by his interpreting the Dreams of
Pharaoh,
his Butler,
&c.
That this Art of Divining, or interpreting things was also attributed by the fabulous
Pagans
to
Mercury,
is apparent from
Act.
14.12. where
Mercury
is called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an
Interpreter.
The
Egyptians
called their
Hermes Theuth,
and supposed him to be the inventor of all their Arts and Sciences. That
Joseph
was indeed the Instructor of the
Egyptians,
and that by the Kings appointment, is most clear from
Psal.
105.22.
where he is said to be appointed by the King to teach his Senators wisdom: but the old
Geneva
Edition (
an
1560.) renders it more properly:
and teach his Ancients Wisdom,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to instruct their Elders,
that is, their
Priests,
&c.
That
Joseph
took a particular care of the
Egyptian Priests,
not only by instituting a College for them, and making provision accordingly, as
Gen.
47.22, but also by instructing them in the Knowledge and service of the true God, the motions of the Heavens, and other parts of sound Philosophy, will afterward appear, when we come to treat of the
Egyptian Philosophy.
At present it shall suffice us to give his character, as drawn by
Hornius Histor. Philos. l.
2.
c.
10.
Joseph,
says he, was of a great
name
; who after various Vicissitudes of Providence, was at length, after having happily interpreted the Kings Dream, by the public suffrage of the King and people reputed, as indeed he was, the most wise of all the Egyptians, and so honored with that splendid Title,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i e.
an
Interpr
•
ter of secrets (Gen.
41.39, 45.) Neither may we in any measure doubt, but that, whatsoever there was of Truth agreeable to Scripture, to be found among others, especially the Egyptian Philosophers, that they received it from the
Hebrews,
among whom they frequently and long conversed, even from
Abraham's
times. But especially from
Joseph
they received much of their Wisdom, whom, seeing he was next the King, no one of them durst contradict. Whence there are not wanting some who write, that there were Schools of Wisdom and Virtue erected by
Joseph
in
Egypt.
And indeed that there were such, appears, from the History of
Moses,
whom the Scripture makes to be learned in all the Wisdom of the
Egyptians,
Which seems to be made good by what
David
notes
Psal.
105 22. that
Joseph
was commanded by
Pharaoh, to teach his Princes according to his pleasure, and to instruct his Elders in Wisdom.
For so the Vulgar renders the word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from which version, seeing it is most plain, we may not recede. For it may be deduced as well from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifying as well
to instruct
as to
chastise.
Whence I wonder, what came into their minds, who
contend, that
Josephs
Doctrine was not publicly approved. For seeing it was publicly delivered in their Schools and Academies, who
can deny, that it was publicly authorized by the King, and Nobles of the Kingdom? His
Placits
were so far from being contradicted, as indeed no one durst murmur against him
Gen.
41.39,
&c.
They do ill allege the event. For the Egyptians after the death of
Joseph,
and their King, who favored him, returned again to their Vomit, and abrogated the true Philosophy. This is well observed by
Philip
in
Chronico l.
2.
Not long after the death of Joseph, the Egyptian Kings, rejecting his Doctrine again worshipped Idols, and embraced Magic Arts.
Yet there remained some rudiments, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of truth. For, that the ancient Egyptians held the world to have a beginning, and that they thought the year to begin from
Libra,
which they supposed also to be the beginning of the World; these Traditions they drew from no other fountain than
Joseph,
as
Jos. Scaliger ad lib.
1.
Manil
•
i
admonisheth. From the same
Joseph
also they learned the Souls immortality, which presently was changed into that monstre of their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. As therefore the Egyptians owe not the least part of their wisdom to the
Hebrews,
so also they participate with them in many names, which is even yet discovered, in many of the names of their God's, as we have before often demonstrated.
See Part 1. Book 2. c. 7. of
Egyptian God's.
§. 11. But amongst all the Divine Philosophers, there was none that opened a more effectual door, for the propagating of
philosophick principles
and
light,
than
Moses
; who by his writings,
contained in his five books (besides his personal Conferences) laid the main foundations of all that Philosophy, which first the
Phoenicians
and
Egyptians,
and from them the
Grecians
were masters of. Whence was it that
Sanchoniathon,
and the
Grecian
Philosophers after him, had such clear notions of the
original of the world,
the
first Cha
•
s
or Matter, out of which God framed all things? Was it not from
Moses
's descriprion of the Creation
Gen.
1.2?
Lud. Vives de Veritate fidei,
speaks thus;
The Creation of the World was so described by
Moses,
that the greatest
Philosophers
admired the depth, and embraced the truth of the narration; especially the
Pythagoreans
(whom
Plato
in his
Timaeus
follows) who expressed the said production of the world, sometimes in the very same words.
Plato
(in his
Timaeus fol.
•
9. being to treat of the origin of the Universe, acknowledgeth,
this could not be known but by some probable fable or Tradition,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
which came originally from
Moses
's History of the Creation. This will be evident by the enumeration of particulars.
1. How came
Sanchoniathon,
that great
Phoenician Philosopher,
to the Knowledge of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Cauth Ereb,
but from
Gen.
1.2. &
darkness, &c.
only the word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
v.
5 Hence all the
Poetic fictions
of the
first Chaos,
& the philosophick contemplations of the
first matter, privation, &c.
Hence also
Mochus,
another
Phoenician Phisiologist,
received his traditions about
Atoms,
which he makes to be the first principles of the world,
&c.
Whence also drew the
Egyptians
their philosophick persuasions of the worlds beginning,
&c.
if not from this
Mosaic
Fountain? How came
Plato
to discourse so accurately of the
order, beauty, harmony
and
perfection
of the
Universe,
the contemplation whereof (says he) was exceeding pleasing to its maker? Could he possibly have discoursed of these things in such
Scriptural Phrasiologie,
had he not received some Traditions from
Moses Gen.
1.31,
&c?
Whence came his conceptions of
Anima mundi, the Soul of the world,
but from Jewish Traditions touching God's framing and governing the world by his Spirit and Providence (which
Plato
calls
〈◊〉
) in the most perfect harmonious manner, as the soul governs the body
Gen.
1.2? Hence
Plato
(according to his
Allegerick
manner of discourse) supposeth the world to be an Animal,
yea a visible image of the in
•
isible God
; that is, says
Johannes Grammaticus
(that excellent Christian Philosopher)
what Moses affirmed properly
of man,
Gen.
1.27.
that he was made according to the image of God, Plato
transfers to the
wh
•
le Universe.
Yea indeed the whole of the Grecian Physiologie, touching the
Origin
of the
world,
its
first matter, privation,
and
form, &c.
in all likelihood, owes its original to some
Mosaic tradition
from the
first chap.
of
Genesis, &c.
2. As their
Physicks,
so also the
Metaphysics,
laid down by the
Grecian
Philosophers, seem evidently to be derived, and borrowed from
Moses
's
sacred Philosophy.
We read
Ex
•
d.
3.14. of God's name
I am,
whence
Austin
puts it beyond all doubt, that
Plato
traduced his notions of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which he ascribeth to the first and most perfect
Being.
From the same Scripture Fountain also came his contemplations about his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
as
Gen.
1.2. whence the
Platonics
generally assert a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Trinity
answerable to the Scriptures: and, in sum, never
Heathen Philosopher
treated more
distinctly,
yea
divinely
〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉
of
God,
his
Nature,
and
Attributes,
as also of the
Soul,
its
spiritualitie, infinite capacity, immortality, &c.
than
Plato
: which, according to the common vogue of the Learned, he received, by conference with some
Jews,
or by tradition from
Moses
's writings: of which more else where.
3. Farther, that the
Pagan Geography
had its original from
Moses
's Narration
Gen.
10. how the world was peopled by
Noah's
posterity, is asserted and made evident by the Learned
Bo
•
haert,
in his
Phal
•
g
; where he demonstrates,
that the Pagan Geography exactly answers to Moses's description.
The like may be affirmed of the
Pagan Chronology,
and
History,
of which before
part
1.
book
3·
chap.
2. §. 6 7. So in like manner, that the
Heathen Politicians,
or
Lawgivers, viz. Lycurgus, Solon,
Minos, Draco, Plato, &c.
received the chief, if not the whole of their
Politicks
from
Moses's Laws,
is generally affirmed by the Learned, and will be made farther evident by what follows.
We find a good Character of
Moses,
and his Philosophy in
H
•
rnius
Hist. philos. l.
2
c.
13.
Moses,
says he, had a mind most capacious for all things: who being educated from his childhood among the
Egyptian Priests,
drew from them all their wisdom, even their most abst
•
use mysteries: which seems to be the cause why he is reckoned by the
Grecians
among the
Magicians. Pliny l.
10.
c.
10.
There is another faction of Magic, which sprang from Moses.
And
Moses
indeed has obtained a great name even among profane Writers.
Eupolemus
says,
that Moses was the most wise man; and that he delivered Letters first to the Jews, and that the Phoenicians received them from the Jews, as the Greeks from the Phoenicians. Artapanus
relates,
that Moses was called by the Grecians
Musaeus;
and that
Orpheus
learned many things from him.
Some conceive that
Moses
is mentioned in that of
Orpheus
;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
For that
Moses
was thence so called, because
drawn out of the water,
is the persuasion of Learned men. Others make
Moses
the same with the
Egyptian Mercury,
to whom they ascribe the Invention of Letters: of which see
Part
1. B. 1. C. 10. §, 4. That
Moses
arrived unto the top of Philosophy, and by the Inspiration of God, was taught the secrets of
Nature,
is affirmed by
Philo
in
Euseb. praepar. l.
8.
c.
5. And the same
Eusebius
in
Chronico
writeth,
that Moses philosophized in the Desert
40
years
; namely being a wise man he spent his time in Contemplation
of things
Natural
and
Divine. Origen
and
Austin (lib.
2·
Quaest. in Gen.
) prove that
Moses
being skilled in all the
Wisdom
of the
Egyptians,
could not be ignorant of
Geometry.
Some also suppose him to have been a
Chymist,
which they collect from his exquisite skill in reducing the
Golden Calf
into
Ashes.
That
Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, Homer,
and others borrowed many of their choicest notions from
Moses,
is shewn by
Justin Martyr,
in his
Exhortation to the Gr
•
eks,
of which hereafter. To conclude this discourse touching
Moses's Philosophy,
It is apparent from Scripture that he was not only skilled in
sacred Philosophy, but also excelled in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians: as Act.
7.22. Now the
Egyptians
(as
Macrobius
and others tell us
were the Parents of all Philosophy
; to whom the
Grecian Philosophers
had recourse, age after age, for their Philosophy) who without doubt received great improvement in their Wisdom by
Moses,
and his writings: for hence they received their
Hieroglyphics, &c.
(as hereafter). Though the
Egyptians,
being unwilling to seem beholding to the
Jews
for their wisdom, pretend they received it from
Hermes, &c.
We find
Moses
mentioned amongst the
Egyptians
under the fable of
Typhon, &c.
§. 12.
Another great (yea the greatest next to
Adam
in innocence) Divine Philosopher was
Solomon,
of whom God himself gives this Character 1
Kings
3.12. that
he had a wise,
and understanding heart
(or as the
Hebrew,
an
amplitude
of
heart, so that there was none before, or after, like unto him.
And more particularly 'tis said 1
Kings
4. from
v.
29. to 34. That
Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the East Country, and all the wisdom of Egypt: For he spake
3000
Proverbs, &c.
&
v.
33.
he spake of Trees from the Cedar, to the Hyssop: also of Beasts, Fowls, Creeping things, and Fishes, &c.
Moreover that
Solomon
committed this his Philosophy to writing, is affirmed by the Learned out of
Eccles.
12.10, 12. and the
Wisdom of Solomon (Apocrypha) ch.
7.13. Thus
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
1.
c.
13.
In the Book of
Wisdom cap.
17.17, 18, 19, 20, 21. the Amplitude of
Solomon's wisdom
is egregiously expounded. For he was the greatest
Contemplator,
especially of things
Physic,
and admirable, a
Disputer
of the most acute Questions with the
Tyrians,
and the Queen of
Sheba.
For having contracted a great friendship with the King of
Tyre,
(whom
Eupolemus
calls
Syros
) it came to pass that they often conferred of the most subtle points. (For the
Tyrians,
among whom the
Phoenician Theology
resided, were famous in this Age.)
Josephus
makes mention of the
Tyrian
King, and
Solomon
their provoking men to the Study of
Wisdom,
by great rewards; and that
Solomon
on that occasion joined some Cities, belonging unto the Kingdom of
Tyre,
unto his own. And
Josephus
in his
Antiquit. lib.
8. writeth, That
Solomon
composed Books of
Songs
1005; of
Parables
and
Similitudes
3000 Books; and that he disputed of every kind of Plant, as in like manner of Beasts, Fishes and all other living creatures,
&c.
for he was not ignorant of, neither did he leave unexamined any
Being
or
Nature,
but philosophized of all things, eminently expounding their
natures
and
proprieties,
&c.
so
Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civit. De
•
, l.
17.
c.
20.
And
Eusebius
writes,
that these Books of
Solomon's
Proverbs, and Songs) wherein he discoursed of the
nature of Plants,
and of all kinds of
Animals
; as also of
Medicine
or the curing of diseases) were removed out of the way by
Hezekiah,
because the people did thence seek the curing of their diseases, without recourse to God for the same.
See
Wendelin
in his Preface to his Physicks.
Solomon's
Wisdom is farther evidenced by the Queen of
Sh
•
ba
her Addresses to him, and his Responses to her, mentioned 1
Kings
10. And some relate, that the
Sabaeans
retained the Books of
Moses,
brought to them by the Queen of
Sheba,
even from
Solomon
's time:
Josephus
also indeed reporteth, that this Queen, upon
Solomon
's permission, carried with her, into her own Country, a Colony of ten thousand
Jews.
Which if granted, will give us some account how the
Zabii,
and
Chaldean Philosophers
came so well acquainted with
Jewish Dogmas,
even before the
Babylonian Captivitie.
This Concession of
Solomon
some gather from 1
Kings
10.13. And that the same of
Solomon
's Philosophy (as also its main principles) was diffused not only
Eastward,
as 1
Kings
4.34. but also
Westward,
amongst the
Grecian Philosophers,
is very probable. For certain it is, that
Solomon
had great correspondence both with the
Phoenicians,
and
Egyptians
; by whom, we may presume, his wisdom was communicated to the
Grecians
Have we not sufficient ground to conjecture, that
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
traduced much of their
Symbolic
and
Parabolick Philosophy
hence? Also the
Stoics
their
Moral Philosophy
; and
Hippocrates
his
Medicinal Science
; and even
Aristotle
his
History of Animals
; as his Scholar and Successor
Theophrastus
that of
Plants
: which have all great Affinitie with
Solomon's Philosophy.
As for the Writings of
Solomon,
especially such as were
Philosophic,
the
Jews
say, that they were lost in the Captivitie.
There are some, who say, that what was more useful therein was, by the Spirits Dictate, collected; and is now extant under the Title of
Solomon
's Proverbs, which contain the Ethics of
Solomon, Euseb. praepar. l.
2.
c.
2.
§. 13. We might also mention here amongst the
Divine
Philosophers
Job,
who has many accurate philosophick discourses touching several parts of
Natural Philosophy
; the
Meteors, &c.
But I shall content myself with the character given him by
Hornius
and others.
Horn. Hist. philos. l.
5.
c.
9. says,
That
Job
was a famous Doctor of Philosophy, than whom there was not a more ancient, more learned, and more sublime to be found throughout all Antiquity.
Lipsius cent.
1.
ep.
99. says;
Behold amongst the most ancient
Job,
whom they conceive not to be of the elect Nation, and yet he writ all select or choice matters.
His Book, adds
Hornius,
is
Dialectick
: For, as
Jerome
to
Paulinus
says,
He determines all according to Dialectick Laws; by Proposition, Assumption, and Conclusion. Moreover he shows the manner how to solve fallacious Arguments. His friends also, who were very learned in Philosophy, and without peradventure proceeded from
Job
's Schole, when they sport themselves with perpetual Paralogi
•
mes, are egregiously convinced by
Job.
Who not only propagated this wisdom among his own, but also opened public Schools, as
Job
4.3.
Eliphaz
the
Temanite
testifies: where among other Elogies he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
thou hast taught many.
Neither have we more ancient Disputations than those which occur in his admirable Book. His friends are the
Opponents,
and he
Respondent:
which mode of Disputing was invented by
Job,
as
Ambrose. l.
1.
de officiis c.
12.
It is commended in
Plato,
that, in his
Politie,
he brings in him, who disputed against Justice, craving leave to oppose what he approved not,
&c.
By how much more ancient was Job, who first found out these things.
§. 14. We shall conclude this chapter,
with a brief account of the Jewish
Academies,
or
Schools,
of which we find frequent mention in the Scriptures; as 1
Sam.
1.1. we read of the City of the
Sophim
or
Learned,
so 1
Sam.
10 10, 11. and 1
Sam.
19.18, 24. where we find
Societies
of the
Prophets
or
Students,
of whom the more ancient were called
Doctors
or
Rabbies, perfect,
and Prophets,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Samuel:
but the younger
students
were called
Novices,
or
Sons of the Prophets, &c.
We find a good account of these
Schools
of the
Prophets
in
Hornius Hist. philos. lib.
2.
c.
13.
Samuel
revived the pristine fame of wisdom
among his Country men: for there were then erected
Schools
of the
Prophets,
unto which the
Jews
sent their Children for Institution: Which Custom continued long after. Some one of the Prophets, more conspicuous for wisdom, and piety, presided over them. Among these Schools,
Ramatha
in
Gilead
was mostly celebrated: where there was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or an
Academie,
as the
Chaldee
intimates. Thence those most eminent Wits
David,
and
Solomon,
were given to the world; both egregious Candidates of
Divine,
and
Human
Wisdom: both excellent Doctors of the Mosaic Sapience.
And that the Jews had Schools in
Babylon,
Diodati
proves, and observes on
Psal.
137.1. After the Captivitie those who instructed the Youth were called
Scribes,
as it appears out of
Esdras,
and
Nehemiah
; and in Christ's time, Doctors,
Luke
2.46. Amongst whom there were none more famous, than the
Essenes,
who had their Colleges and Philosophy, which was principally Medicine; with whom the
Pythagoreans
did greatly symbolize, as hereafter.
Viret,
in his
Interim, pag.
122, treating of the
Essenes
says,
That they retired from the crowd of
Politick
and
Ecclesiastic
affairs (wherein the
Pharisees,
and
Sadducees
were plunged) into certain
Colleges,
where they addicted themselves to
Gardening
; but principally to the Study of
Medicine:
And for the better ordering of their
Studies,
they divided the day into times for
Prayer, Reading of Lectures, Private Studies, Labors
with the
hand,
and for
Refreshments of Nature:
in such sort, that all things were transacted amongst them with very good order. And as they lived in common, so had they all one common purse. In sum; their state, at that time, was an excellent
Schole
of
Medicine,
of
Doctrine,
and of
examples
of
Virtue
: and, I suppose, the first
Christian Monks
took their patterns from them.
Thus
Viret.
That the
Pythagoreans
had a great affinity with them, see Book. 2. Chap. 6. §. 7.
&c. Ger Voss. de Philosophorum sectis lib.
2.
cap.
1. §. 8. tells us,
That the Philosophy of the Jews, which they derived originally from
Abraham,
was twofold. For it was partly
natural,
whereof Astrology was a part: and partly
Divine,
or of God, his works, and will. The latter Jews named their Philosophy from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to
receive, Cabala:
because it was received from God. This they divided into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Beresith
: and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mercacia.
The former treated of
celestial,
and
elementary bodies,
in which
Solomon
excelled; the latter treated of God, and his worship.
Johannes Picus Mirandulanus
was an admirer
of this
Cabala,
who gloried that he had LXX. books of it,
which he bought at a vast price; and that he found in them the Religion delivered by
Moses,
and Christ,
&c.
Thus
Vossius.
But Bishop
Usher
judged all these Rabbinick and Cabalistick writings as cheats, and not ancienter than 600 years,
&c.
Touching the
Jewish
Schools after the
Babylonian
Captivitie,
Hornius Histor. philos. l.
7.
c.
3. writes thus:
The
Jews,
after their return from the
Babylonian
Captivitie, erected many
Schools,
both at
Jerusalem,
and elsewhere. Before the Destruction there were reckoned in the
Hierosolymitan
Academie,
Synagogues,
or
Colleges
more than 40. in each whereof were two
Schools
: one was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
house of the Book,
wherein the
written Law
was read: the other, wherein the
Misnajoth,
or
Traditions,
and
exegeses
of the
Ancients,
the received Sentences, the
forensick
decisions, and other things of that sort were taught. This was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the house of Doctrine.
All these were destroyed by
Vespasian,
as
Rab. Phinehas
in
Gem
•
ra Hierosol.
I shall conclude this Chapter of Divine Philosophy, with that of
Hornius Hist philos. l.
2.
c.
10.
Wisdom, as we know, began first in Paradise, and was afterwards cultivated by the sacred Fathers, and propagated to Posterity. For God always raised up some, who, relinquishing the errors of profane men, endeavored, even by the study of Wisdom, the restauration of the Image of God. Such were, after
Noah,
the Hebrews, as
Abraham
of the Posterity of
Sem,
a man of a Divine Ingenie, and famous for his admirable Knowledge,
&c.
of which see what precedes § 9.
Of the Jewish Schools in
Babylon, &c.
see what follows C. 4. §. 8.
CHAP. II. Of the Egyptian Philosophy, and its Traduction from the Scriptures, &c.
The
Egyptians
great repute for wisdom: Their Skill in the
Mathematics, Astronomy, Geometry, Arithmetic, Geogrophie,
&c. Their
Natural Philosophy, Medicine, &c.
Their
Moral Philosophy,
especially their
Politicks,
both
Legislative,
and
Administrative,
from the Jewish Church. The Egyptian
Theology,
and God's from
Joseph, &c.
Of their
Hieroglyphics,
and other ways of expressing things. The Traduction of the
Egyptian
Philosophy from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scriptures,
proved both by
Testimonies,
and
Artificial Demonstration. Joseph's
Provision for the
College
of
Egyptian
Pri
•
sts: His informing them in the Knowledge of God and true Philosophy. The Advantages which the Schole of
Alexandria
received from the
Jews,
and Scriptures, translated into Greek by
Ptolemy's
request. Of
Ammonius,
the great master of the
Alexandrian
Schole, his mixing
Scripture Notions
with his
Philosophy.
The Christian Church at
Alexandria,
its influence on, and advantages from the Schole.
§ 1. BEing now to enter on the
Eastern Pagan Philosophers,
we shall begin with those of
Egypt,
who were exceeding famous, even to a superlative degree, for being the first Parents of
Philosophy,
and conveighers of it unto the
Grecians.
We find mention in the Scriptures of the Egyptian Wisdom, and wise men, so
Gen
41.8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exod.
7.11. And
Apulcius
6.
Florid.
gives this as the peculiar Character of the Egyptians,
that they were wise.
So
Gellius lib.
11.
cap.
8, says of the Egyptians,
that they were very exquisite in the finding out of Arts, and endowed with a peculiar sagacity for the Disquisition of things.
So
Macrobius
tells us, that
the Egyptians were the Parents of all philosophick Sciences,
and Arts.
And that a great part of the
Grecian
Learning was originally borrowed from the
Egyptians,
is very evident by the Confession of the
Greek
Philosophers; as also from
matter
of
Fact.
Thus much is confessed by
Plato
(in his
Timaeus fol.
22.) who making mention of
Solon,
his Kinsman's travels into
Egypt,
to inform himself about the ancient pieces of Learning, he says,
that one of the Egyptian Priests told
Solon,
that the Grecians were but children, as to the true Archaeologie
; but the
Egyptians
were Masters of the most
Ancient Wisdom, &c.
Of
Solon
's being in
Egypt,
and getting Wisdom thence, see
Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
2. §. 3.
Diodorus Siculus Biblioth. l.
1. tells us,
that all those, who were renowned amongst the Greeks for Wisdom and Learning, did, in ancient time, resort to
Egypt;
and that not only the first Poets,
Homer, Orpheus, &c.
but also the first Lawgivers,
Lycurgus,
and
Solon,
as also Philosophers,
Pythagoras, Plato, &c.
gained most of their Knowledge out of
Egypt. And indeed we need go no farther than the
Scriptures,
to
evince the great repute the Egyptians had for
human Wisdom
: for in 1
Kings
4.30. it is said, that
Solomon's Wisdom excelled all the Wisdom in Egypt.
By which it is evidently implied, that the
Egyptian Wisdom
was very considerable, in that it is made the measure of
Solomon
's Wisdom. We have the like honorable mention of the
Egyptian
wisdom
Act.
7.22. where 'tis said, that
Moses excelled in all the Wisdom of the Egyptians.
Without doubt, had not the
Egyptian
Philosophy been very considerable, the spirit of God would not have made such use of it, to adorn
Moses
's Character, who was otherwise sufficiently accomplished with many eminent qualities.
Vossius de philos. sectis l.
2.
c.
2. §. 4. tells us,
that in ancient times the fame of the Egyptian Priests was very great: Yet in
Strabo
's time they were of no repute. See
Strabo l.
17. where he says, That when he was in
Egypt
he saw vast houses, which the Priests in times past inhabited, who were both
Astrologers,
and
Philosophers
: but these Sciences were in his time so defective, that there was scarce one to be found skilled therein. All that their Priests could do, was, to enumerate to strangers the Rites of their Sacreds,
&c.
Clemens Alexandrinus lib.
6. tells us,
That the Egyptians had 42 books, which belonged to their Priests, written by their Mercury, whereof 36 contained the whole of the Egyptian Philosophy, their Laws, their God's, and the discipline of their Priests; wherein their Cantor, sacred Scribe, Astrologer, Curator, and Prophet ought, each according to their respective Offices, to be versed. The other 6 Books belonged to such as were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
who wore the Cloke, which contained their Medicine,
&c.
see
Vossius de phil. sect. l.
2.
c.
2.
The Egyptian Philosophy lay amongst their Priests: so
Strabo Geogr. l.
17.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
their Priests embraced Philosophy and Astronomy &c.
§. 2. But to treat a little more particularly,
and distinctly of the Egyptian
Philosophy,
and
Wisdom. Vossius de philosophorum sectis l.
2.
c.
2. §. 8. gives us this general account of the Egyptian Philosophy, and its extent:
How large the Egyptian Philosophy was, is known by this, that it comprehended the Liberal Sciences, the Hieroglyphic mode of writing, the Knowledge of the Stars, and of Universal Nature, the Situation of the earth, and particularly of
Egypt
; and of the increases of
Nile,
the Discipline of Virtues, and of Laws, the Nature of the God's, and the mode of worship by Sacrifices, and various ceremonies, also the whole of Medicine both Prophylactick,
for the preservation of health; and Pharmaceutick, for the restauration of health; as also Chirurgick. Yet notwithstanding, all these were not required in all Philosophers; but the Cantor, or Musician, took one part to him; and the
sacred Scribe
another; the Horoscope, or Astrologer assumed other parts; the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Curate of the sacred Rites, others; the Pastophori, and Prophets others.
Clemens Alexandrinus lib.
6. delivers, concerning the Egyptians,
that they had
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a certain peculiar or mystick Philosophy,
which, says he,
appears by their sacred ceremonies, &c.
Diogenes Laertius,
and others, divide the Egyptian Philosophy into four parts,
Mathematick, Natural, Divine,
and
Moral.
We shall speak something of each, and endeavor to show, what advantages, and assistances they had from the
Jewish Church,
and
Scriptures,
for their improvement thereof.
As for the
Mathematics,
the
Egyptians
were reputed to be well skilled in
Astronomy, Geometry, Geography, Arithmetic
and
Music
; for the improvement whereof they had considerable helps from the
Jewish
Church, and
Patriarchs.
As to their great insight into
Astronomy,
it is asserted by
Strabo, Herodotus,
and
Diodorus
; and it is sufficiently manifest, in that they, as it is generally affirmed, were the first, who found out the
course
of the
year
by the Sun's motion, which, as it is supposed, was the invention of the
Priests
of
Heliopolis.
Thence says
Herodotus lib.
2.
The Egyptians were, of all, the first, who found out the Course of the Year; distinguishing it into twelve Months, which they gathered from the Stars.
This Calculation of the year,
Thales
(who was the first amongst the
Grecians
that distinguished the seasons of the year) seemed to have learned in
Egypt. Clemens Alexandrinus lib.
6. tells us,
That the
Egyptian Horoscope,
or
Astrologer,
carried in his hand an
Horologe,
and
Palme,
the
Symbols
of
Astrology,
who had always in his mouth the four
Astrologick
Books of
Hermes,
whereof one treated of the five
Planets,
the second of the
Sun
and
Moon,
the third and fourth of the
rising
and
setting
of the
Stars
:
see
Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
2.
By reason of these their
Astronomick
observations and experiments, the
Egyptians
fell into a superstitious admiration of these glorious
celestial
Bodies, and thence into an opinion that they were God's. Thus
Diodorus Siculus lib.
1. tells us,
that the ancient Inhabitants of
Egypt,
contemplating the Celestial World, and the Nature of the Superior World; they, with great
stupor, admired the Sun and Moon, esteeming them as the first eternal God's; whereof the Sun they called
Osiris,
and the Moon
Isis.
The same
Lactantius lib.
2.
cap.
2. observeth. And this Idolatrous persuasion, that the Stars were God's (which sprang from natural Astronomy) was the original of all
Idolatrous worship,
especially that we call
Zabaisme,
or the worship of those
planetary Deities,
so much in use amongst the
Chaldeans
; whence also sprang
judicial Astrology,
as it will evidently appear in our Discourse of the
Chaldaick
Philosophy, chap. 4. §. 4. As for the occasion, which the
Egyptians
had for the improving of
Astronomy,
even unto
Idolatry
; we have it well described by
Eus
•
bius praepar. l.
1.
c.
6.
They report that the
Egyptians
were the first, who lifting up their eyes to Heaven, and admiring the mode, order, and quantity of those
celestial
bodies, thought the
Sun
and
Moon
to be
God's. So
Lactant. lib.
2.
Inst. cap.
14.
The first of all, those, who possessed
Egypt,
began to contemplate and adore those cel
•
stial bodies. And because they lived, by reason of the Quality of the air, without covered houses, they thence had opportunity to note the
Courses
and
Defects
of the
Stars;
and thence fell into the admiration, and adoration of them.
As for the
Egyptians
skill in
Geometry,
Porphyry
assures us,
that they have been for a long time very studious therein.
And
Proclus
in
Euclid.
2.4. faith,
that Geometry was invented by the Egyptians, taking its beginning from measuring of fields; it being necessary for them, from the inundation of Nile, which washed away their bounds. Austin de Civit. Dei l.
18.
c.
39. gives us a clear account of the whole:
The Wisdom of the Egyptians, what was it
(says he)
but principally Astronomy, &c? Ludovicus Vives
on this place▪ gives this account:
The Ancient
Egyptians
much exercised themselves in
Astronomy, Geometry,
and
Arithmetic.
As for
Geometry,
necessity taught them that, which they greatly needed, when the bounds of their fields were broken down by the overflowing of
Nile
; neither could they, any other way, divide their grounds
&c.
Whence
Geometry
is so termed from measuring of the earth.
As for
Astronomy,
the commodiousnes of their situation gave them great advantage for improvement therein, they, having their nights always clear, and serene, and the Heavens lying open to them without clouds, could easily contemplate the risings, and settings,
of the Stars, with their progresses, and regresses,
&c.
Then to these two,
Arithmetic
was added, as subservient, without which the former could not be attained.
Thus
Lud. Vives.
And that our
Astronomy
came much of it, if not the whole, from the
Egyptians,
and those
Eastern
parts, seems very probable from those
Hypotheses,
or
Hieroglyphic Signs,
which are used by
Astronomers
in the
Zodiac,
and other parts of the Celestial Globe, to express the Celestial Bodies, and their motions by: which way of expressing things was in much use amongst the
Egyptians,
and by them called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; which they derived (as 'tis supposed) from the
Jewish
Church, their
Rites,
and
Ceremonies.
Neither were the
Egyptians
unacquainted with
Geography
; as it appears from
Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. l.
6.) his description of the
sacred Scribe,
in the solemn procession; of whom it was required,
that he should be skilled in
Hieroglyphics, Cosmographie, Geography,
the
motions
of the
Planets,
the
Chorographie
of
Egypt,
and the
description
of
Nile. Eustathius,
in his Notes on
Dionysius,
attributes the invention of
Geographick Tables
to
Sesostris,
who caused the Lands he had conquered, to be described in
Tables,
and so communicated it to the
Egyptians,
and from them to others, as Stilling. Orig. Sacr. Book
2.
c.
2.
Vossius de phil. sect. lib.
2.
c.
2. §. 8. We find a good general account of the
Egyptians
skill
in Mathematics,
given by
Hornius Hist. philos. lib.
2.
c.
7.
They so handled the
Mathematick
Sciences, that if they be compared with other
Nations,
they may be said, not so much to
perfect,
as
invent
them; which they affected out of a humor of vain glory. Especially there were famous among them
Petosiris,
and
Necepson
: by whose Prudence (they are the words of
Julius Firmicus
) there was an access made to the very secrets of
Divinity.
They vindicated to themselves the invention of
Geometry, Astrology,
and
Astronomy.
§. 3. That the
Egyptians
had in like manner the Knowledge of
Natural Philosophy,
especially of
Medicine,
and
Anatomy
(which are but branches thereof) is generally affirmed by the Ancients. Its true their superstition kept them from dissecting,
and prying into the natures of those
creatures,
to which they attributed a
Deity,
yet were they not without many choice experiments, and curious observations, even in the experimental part of Natural Philosophy: for
Blinie (Hist. l.
19.
c.
5.) tells us,
that it was the manner of their Kings to cause dead bodies to be
anatomized,
to find out the
Structure,
or
Composition
of
Man's
body,
with the
causes,
and
nature
of
Diseases.
Besides they were exact in making philosophick observations touching any curious natural events, or their
irregularities.
For when there happened any
prodigy,
or irregular thing in nature,
they did,
says
Strabo, with much curiosity, lay i
•
up amongst their sacred records
; and
Herodotus
adds
That more things of this nature were observed by them, than by any other Nation; which, saith he, they not only diligently preserved, but frequently compared together, and, from a similitude of
Prodigies,
gathered a similitude of
Ev
•
nts.
Thus much also
Plato
in his
Timaeus fol.
22.33. observes concerning them, in his relation of
S
•
lon's
Conference with the
Egyptian
Priest: where
Solon,
having a curiosity to find out the truth, and original of those ancient great events, touching
Phoroneus, Deucalion,
and
Pyrrhus, &c.
the Egyptian Priest unfolds these
mythologick
fabulous narrations, by an historick relation; wherein he seems to reduce the Story of
Deucalion
to that of
Noah's Flood
; and that of
Pyrrhus
his wife, to the Burning of
Sodom,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifying
fire
: as also that of
Phoroneus
to the drowning of
Pharaoh
in the
Red Sea: Phoroneus,
and
Pharaoh
being according to the
Hebrew,
and so the
Egyptian
tongue (which differed little from it) conjugates,
And that the Egyptians had some natural history of the first Creation, (which could not be traduced to them by any hand,
save that of
Moses,
originally,
Genesis
1.) is apparent out of
Diogenes Laert. (proem pag.
7.) where he says;
that the
Egyptians
did constantly believe that the World had a beginning, and was corruptible; that the
Stars
were of the nature of
Fire
; and that the
Soul
was
immortal, &c.
But that, for which the
Egyptians
were most famous abroad,
was their skill in Medicine; which is so much spoken of by
Homer, Plato, Herodotus, Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, &c.
Pliny
tells us,
lib.
29.
c.
1. that
the original of
Physic,
or Medicine amongst the
Egyptians,
was from the relations of those, who by any remedy were cured of any Disease; which for a memorial to posterity were recorded in their
Temples.
The
Egyptians
had also excellent skill in the
embalming
of dead bodies, for their conservation (which appertains to
Medicinal Philosophy
) as it appears from
Scripture: Gen.
50.2.
where
Joseph
commands the
Physicians
to
embalm
his Father.
Clemens Alexandrinus lib.
6. treating of the
Egyptian
Philosophy, contained in 24 books written by their
Mercury,
tells us,
that 6 of these Books concerned
Medicine,
which were studied by their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
i. e.
those who wore the Cloke)
wherein was distinctly handled the Fabric of Mans Body, the Nature of Diseases, and Medicaments; and particularly the Medicine of the Eyes, and of Womens Diseases,
&c.
Diodorus
makes the
Egyptians
the first Inventors of
Medicine.
And what their dexterity in
Anatomy
was, is evident by that of
Gellius lib.
10.
Noct. Att. cap.
10.
Appion,
in his Egyptian Books, says that Human Bodies being dissected, and opened, according to the
Egyptian
mode, it was found out, that there was a certain most tenuous Nerve, which passed from one singer to the heart of man. Farther, how much the Egyptians were verst in Medicine is discovered by that pleasant Character of
Homer
(who conversed much with them)
Odyss.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Thus
Hornius Hist. philos. l.
2.
c.
7.
The Egyptians greatly studied Natural Philosophy, wherein how much they excelled appears from Medicine itself, which they strenuously exercised.
See
Vossius de Philos. sect is l.
2.
c.
2. §. 8.
§. 4. Neither were the Egyptians defective in
Moral Philosophy,
especially as to
Politicks,
for which they had a great repute amongst the ancients, both for their excellent Laws, and also for their good
Administration,
and
execution
thereof. As for their
Laws,
they are highly commended by
Strabo,
and
Diodorus
; and so greatly esteemed by
Lycurgus, Solon,
and
Plato,
as that they were not ashamed to borrow many of their Laws, and
politick Constitutions
from them.
It is most certain, says
Stillingfleet,
that those who formed
Greece
first into civil Societies, and well ordered Common Wealths, were such as had been Traders for Knowledge in other parts. To which purpose
Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. lib.
1.) informeth us, that
Lycurgus
and
Solon,
as well as the
Poets, Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus,
and
Homer
; and the
Philosophers
after them,
Pythagoras, Plato, &c.
had gained most of their Knowledge, and Wisdom out of
Egypt
: nay he saith in general,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
All those who were renowned amongst the Greeks, for Wisdom and Learning, did in ancient time resort to Egypt, there to participate of Learning, and Laws, &c,
And as the Grecians received their Learning, and Laws from
Egypt
; so we need no way doubt, but that the
Egyptians
received the best
part of their
Laws
from the
Mosaic Constitutions,
besides what they had immediately from
Joseph
their great
Legislator,
as hereafter.
As for the
Egyptians
Wisdom, in their
politick Administration,
or
Government
of
State,
it is evident from
Esa.
19.11, 12. where the King of
Egypt
is styled the
Son of the Wise.
Besides the continuance of their State so long in peace, is a sufficient demonstration of their
State Policy,
or prudent management of State Affairs; for the improvement whereof, we have reason enough to judge, they received much light from the
Mosaic judicial constitutions
; as also from
Solomon's Politicks,
with whom they had great affinity (by reason of
Solomon's
Wife) and commerce, or correspondence: Though indeed they owed much of their Politie and Government to
Joseph
; who passeth amongst them under the names of
Hermes, Apis, Serapis, &c.
as in what follows.
§. 5. We now come to the
Egyptian Theology,
for which they were greatly reputed; the original whereof they owe to
Joseph,
and
Jewish
Traditions, as it will appear by the parts thereof.
Clemens Alexandrinus
(so called by reason of his same in the Church, and Schole of
Alexandria
in
Egypt
was greatly versed in
Egyptian Rites,
and
Worship,
whereof he gives us this account,
lib.
6.
The
Egyptians,
says he, have a proper, or mystick kind of Philosophy, which appears from their sacred Ceremonies. For first
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Cantor
precedes with a Music Symbol,
and those 2 books of
Mercury,
the one containing the
Hymns
of the
God's,
the other an account of the
Kings
life. After the
Cantor
follows the
Horoscope,
with an
horologe,
and
palm,
the Symbols of
Astrology
in his hand. This has always in his mouth the four
Astrologick
Books of
Hermes.
The Horoscope is received by the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
sacred Scribe,
carrying in his head Feathers, and in his hands a Book with a ruler, wherein is an inkhorn, and pen to write. This person ought to be skilled in Hieroglyphics, Cosmographie, Geography, the order of the
Sun, Moon,
and 5
Planets,
the
Chorographie
of
Egypt,
and the
Description
of
Nile,
and all sacred
Rites,
and
Places,
with their
Dimensions
; and whatever belongs to
Sacreds.
After the
sacred Scribe
follows the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Ornator,
who hath the
Cubit of Justice,
and the
sacrisicing cup.
This person is instructed both in the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
such things as conduce to
Learning,
and the
Liberal Sciences
; and also in the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
the Doctrine of the
Sacrifices
of
Calves,
and the
Ceremonies
appertaining thereto. All these things the
Egyptian
Religion contained,
Prayers, Pomps,
Festival days, Sacrifices, first Fruits, Hymns,
and other things like hereunto. In the last place goes their
Prophet,
who carries in his bosom a
Water pot,
and is followed by those who carried the
panes emissos, i. e. bread set forth.
This person is the
Governor
of the
Sacreds
; and he learned
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the 42
Sacerdotal Books,
written by their
Egyptian Mercury,
which treated of
Laws, God's,
and the whole
Priestly Discipline.
In all of which this
Prophet
is to be versed, because he is also to oversee the distribution of Tributes,
&c.
So
Vossius de philos. sectis l.
2.
c.
2. That the chief of these
Egyptian
Ceremonies were borrowed from the
Jewish
Rites will be evident to any, that consider, how parallel they are. The
Egyptian Cantor
to the
Jewish Singer
; their
sacred Scribe
to the
Jewish
; their
sacrificing Cup
to that, wherein the
Jews
offered their
Libamina,
or
Drink-Offerings
; their
panes emissi,
or bread set forth to the Jewish
panes propositionis, show bread
; their
Calve-Sacrifices
to the
Jewish
; as their
Prayers, Festivals, Sacrifices, first Fruits, Hymns
to those amongst the
Jews.
Philip Melancthon,
in his
Chronichon lib.
2. concerning
Abraham,
tells us, that
Joseph
settling the
College
of
Priests
in
Egypt,
informed them with the Knowledge of
God,
and planted a
Church
amongst them, which pious Institution of his, in after times, degenerated into Superstition and
Idolatry, &c.
As for the
Egyptian God's,
it is evident, they are all younger than the
Patriarchs
; and, as it is supposed, had their original from them, especially from
Joseph. Melancthon
makes
Osiris,
which signifies
auxiliator,
or a blessed man, to be contemporarie with
Abraham
; but I should rather judge him an
Hieroglyphic
of
Joseph,
who helped them in their famine. That the memory of
Joseph
was preserved amongst them under the
Egyptian Apis, Vossius (de Idol. lib.
1.
c.
29.) makes very probable, from the testimonies of
Julius Maternus,
Ruffinus,
and
Soudas,
as also from the great advantages, which the
Egyptians
received from
Joseph,
which no
Hieroglyphic
could express more emphatically, than the
Egyptian Apis,
which resembled the fat and lean Kine. 2. It was the manner of the
Egyptians,
to preserve the memories of their great
Benefactors,
by such
Symbols,
which were at first designed only for civil use. 3. He proves it also from the names of
Apis
and
Serapis. Apis
he conceives to be the sacred name of
Joseph,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
father
; so
Gen.
45.8.
Joseph
himself says he was a
father to Pharaoh.
And
Serapis,
as
Soudas,
and
Ruffinus
tells us, had a bushel on his head, from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sor,
a
Bull,
and
Apis.
Yea that
the
Egyptian Demons
had their rise from
Joseph,
whom they esteemed as one of their chiefest
Demons,
and
Heroes,
is very probable: so Mr
Bochart,
in a Sermon at
Caen,
affirmed,
that the
Egyptians
had a City, which they styled the City of their
Heroes,
as some think, from
Joseph,
whom they accounted amongst their
Heroes,
or
Demons.
That the
Egyptians
had their
Demons
is asserted by
Iamblicus, &c.
As for
Orus
(which signifies
Light,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Or
) who is said to have taught the
Egyptians
their Wisdom,
Melancthon (chron. l.
2.) thinks that he was instructed by
Abraham,
and thence instructed the
Egyptians
in the Knowledge of the
true God,
as also in the Motions of the Heavens,
&c.
But may not this name be more properly applied to
Joseph
; who is expressly said
Ps.
105.22.
to teach them Wisdom? Whence he was by the Greeks called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: to which the
Egyptian,
or
Hebrew Orus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Or,
exactly answers.
Isis
was later,
and (as Learned
Bochart
told me) the same with
Pharaoh's
Daughter, who adopted
Moses
: so the name
Is
•
ha
signifies
Virago.
as
Melancthon.
As also
Busyris,
which, according to
Melancthon,
signifies
Munitor,
and is supposed to have built the
Egyptian Pyramids,
by the hands of the Children of
Israel.
See more of the Egyptian God's. Part 1. B. 2. C. 7. §. 10. of Egyptian God's.
Yea not only the
matter
of
Egyptian Theology,
but also the
Instruments,
and
Promotors
of it, seem evidently of
Judaic,
sacred Extract. For look, as the
Jewish Theology
was seated among the
Priests,
and
Prophets
: so also the
Egyptians
had, in imitation of these, their
Priests,
and
Prophets.
Thus
Diogenes Laertius lib.
1. tells us,
that the Egyptian Philosophers were styled Priests, and Prophets.
So
Apulcius de Dogm. Plat.
says, that
Plato went to Egypt, that he might learn there the Rites of the Prophets.
This also gives us the reason, why their
chief Philosophers
were called
Priests
; namely because the chief Matter of their
philosophizings
was
Theologick.
Thus
Hornius Histor. philos. l.
2.
c.
7.
They were called
Priests
by reason of their ancient
Philosophy,
which was joined with
Theology.
For they discoursed of the
God's,
their
Natures,
and
Worship
; and of things
natural,
which they esteemed also a
•
Divine,
because
Nature
was with them as a
God.
The like he adds
〈◊〉
what follows: The
Philosophy
of the ancient
Egyptians
took in all
•
as has been said,
Theology
itself, which they who mostly studied, for distinction sake, were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Priests
:
Which is the very
•
otion by which the
Jewish Priest
is expressed. Some distinguish their Egyptian
Priests,
and
Prophets
thus: the former they make to be employed about
Sacreds,
the latter about
Oracles,
and the
prediction
of
futures.
Which also answers to the
Jewish
Distribution. Touching the
Egyptian
Mysteries, or
Mystick Divinity,
it was couched under
Hieroglyphics
; of which we are now to treat.
§. 6. We have done with the
matter
of the
Egyptian Philosophy,
both
Mathematick, Natural, Moral,
and
Theologick.
We now proceed to their
manner
of
philosophizing,
which was by
Hieroglyphics,
or
Symbols
answerable unto, and, as it is very probable, derived from those in use amongst the ancient
Hebrews
and
Jews.
So
Lud. Vives,
on
Austin de civitat. Dei. l.
18.
c.
39.
Artapanus
(says he) reports that
Moses
gave Letters to the
Egyptians
— and if any shall inquire in what letters that Wisdom of the
Egyptians,
in which we read
Moses
was instituted, was contained, he will find, peradventure, it was wont to be traduced and received by
vocal Tradition,
and so conserved in the memory of the
Teachers,
and
of the Hearers
: if they had any forms of letters, they were no other than
Images of Animals,
or other
Creatures,
which they called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that is, Letters engraven in Sacreds,
&c.
The same
Ludovicus Vives
tells us,
that we find some mention of these
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Hieroglyphic Letters
(which were the forms, or images of beasts engraven on their Sacred Symbols) in the fragments of
Orus,
that ancient
Egyptian
Writer,
&c.
Vissius de philos. sectis l.
2.
c.
2. §. 7. says,
that the
Egyptian
Philosophy, for the most part, was couched under
Allegories:
which way of philosophizing ought not to be rejected: For everywhere in the
Old Testament
we find
Allegories.
And Christ himself in the Evangelist says,
I will open my mouth in parables, and in dark sayings will I speak of the ancient matters.
Also the Evangelist says, that Christ spake to the people in
parables.
Athanas-Kircherus Oedip. Egypt. Tom.
3.
cap.
1. gives us this Origination of an
Hieroglyphic.
An
Hieroglyphic
derived
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
from
sacred Sculpture,
is
nothing else but a Symbol of a sacred thing
engraven on stones. It's called a
Symbol,
to indicate the reason of its mysterious sense. It is said to be of a
thing sacred,
thereby to constitute the difference 'twixt
sacred,
and
profane
Symbols.
For there was a two
••
ld kind of
Egyptian Parables,
the one
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which comprehended
vulgar
similitudes; the other
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, drawn from their Sacred Doctrine.
Clemens Alexandrinus Strom
5, saith
that they
who are taught by the
Egyptians,
learn first of all the method of the
Egyptian
Letters, called
Epistolographick
; secondly the
Hieratick,
used by those, who write of sacred things; the last, and most perfect, called
Hieroglyphic,
whereof there is one
Curiologick
(
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) another (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
Symbolic
: of the
Symbolic
also there are three sorts, the one is spoken properly, by
imitation
;
the other is written as it were
tropically
; another, on the contrary, doth
allegorize
by
Enigmes.
As for instance; in the
Curiologick way
to express the Sun, they make a
Circle,
to express the
Moon,
a
Crescent. Tropically
they, by resemblance, traduce, transfer, and express, by changing some things, and variously transfiguring others. Thus, when they deliver the praises of Kings in
Theologick
Fables,
they write by
A
•
aglyphicks
▪ In the third kind, by
Enigmes,
they liken the Sun to a
B
••
tle,
because they say, this Creature liveth six Months under ground. see
Stanly
of
Pythag.
We have an instance of their
Hieroglyphic Mysteries
in that famous
Hieroglyphic
of
Diospolis,
of which we find so much mention amongst the Ancients; where, to express our coming into the World, they used a
child
; and to notify our going out of the world, an
old man
; they expressed
God
by an
Hawk; hatred
by an
Hippotamus; Impudence
by a
Crocodile.
And all this to express this pretty
Apothegme. O ye that come into the world, and go out of it, God hates Impudence.
so
Stilling. orig. sacr. book
2.
c.
2.
Vossius de philos. sect. lib.
2.
c
2. §. 5. tells us,
that the first Discipline of the
Egyptians
consisted in their threefold Scripture: one
vulgar
or
common,
which was used in writing Epistles, another
sacred
which they used in writing
sacreds
; and a third
Hieroglyphic,
or the Sculpture of sacred Images,
&c.
These sacred
Hieroglyphics
are called by
Apuleius lib.
11.
Pictures
and
Images,
which says he, they used to preserve their Philosophy from contempt, and oblivion by.
Benjamin Tudelensis
in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, acquaints us,
that at
Alexandria,
on the shore, there was to be seen a
Marble Sepulcher,
whereon all kind of
Birds,
and other
Animals
were engraven.
Whence it is conceived, that these
Egyptian Hieroglyphics
were not so much
letters
or
words,
as some conjecture, as entire
sentences,
ye complete
Discourses,
for the more easy preservation of the memory of things. So under the form of a
Be
making honey, they expounded the office of a
King. Lucan
wittily stiles these
Hieroglyphics, Magicas Linguas, Magic Languages,
because they denoted not single letters, or words, but entire orations; as
Hornius Hist philos. l
7.
c
6
§. 7. This
Hieroglyphic
and
Mystick
way of
philosophizing,
though it has little of substance in it, yet did it make a great noise, and was exceeding taking in the infant state of the world; as it is the property of children, to be taken more with sensible forms, shadows, or pictures, which please the fancy, than with solid reason. So the
Gymnosophists,
and
Druids
were wont to wrap up their Philosophy in obscure and
enigmatick
sentences, as
Laert. lib.
1. The like is said of
Ta
•
utus
the
Phoenician,
as
Sanchoniathon
in
Euseb. praepar. l.
1.
c.
7. For the first Philosophers delighted to conceal their more hidden Mysteries, from the Vulgar; whence they bound their Auditors by an oath o
•
secrecy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which words are taken out of a famous formule of the oath, whereby
Vettius Valcus
the
Antiochene Astrologer
bound his reader, as
Seld
••
Prol.
3.
de Diis Syris & Synt.
1.
c.
1.
H
•
rnius Hist. Philos. l.
7.
c.
6. This kind of
philosophizing, Pythagoras
translated immediately from the
Egyptians,
but originally from the
Jews,
into
Greece.
Porphyry
in the life of
Pythagoras
tells us,
that it was permitted unto
Pythagoras,
when he was in
Egypt,
to acquaint himself with all the Studies of the
Egyptian Priests
at
Thebes
;
which was never granted to any
Forreigner
besides.
saith,
that whilst he lived with these
Priests,
he was instructed in the
Learning,
and
Language
of the
Egyptians,
and in the three modes of writing,
Epistolographick, Hieroglyphic,
and
Symbolic,
whereof the one imitates the common way of speaking, the rest are
Allegorick,
by Enigms,
&c.
as
Clemens Strom.
5.
Plato
also took up the same mode of
allegorick,
or
symbolick
philosophizing, though not so expressly, as
Pythagoras.
And indeed this kind of philosophizing was extremely pleasing to these first Ages, and Philosophers; as
Amyraut
well observes in his
Salmurian Thes
•
s de Imaginibus.
In the Egyptian Hieroglyphics (says he) the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
manners
and
passions
were figured by the
shapes
of
Animals,
and other
creatures.
which were very delightful to sense;
&c.
Athan. Kircher. Oedi
•
s Aegyptiaci tom.
2.
part.
1,
cap.
1. says,
that the
Egyptians
were the first amongst men, who insisted on this mode of philosophizing by
Symbols.
For they, being of an acute, and subtle ingenie; as also continually versed in a certain profound contemplation, and disquisition of Truth, delighted themselves in these
mystick
expressions,
&c.
And the same
Kircherus,
in what follows
cap.
2. gives us the Origin of this Symbolic Doctrine.
It stands thus (saith he) with human condition,
that if men have anything that is precious, rare, and beautiful, they not only hide it under secret forms, but also conceal it under
enigmatick
and
mysterious
words, that none but the more wise, and quick-sighted, may come to the manifest notice thereof. Which, as it has been the custom of all times, so especially amongst the ancient wise men. For seeing they had, as it was most mere, so high an esteem, for those great secrets of
Divinity,
communicated, by successive
Tradition,
from the
Patriarchs,
as containing the in exhausted treasures of eternal felicity; they thought it dangeorus to expose these rich treasures, to the ignorant people, and dull ingenies. Wherefore they endeavored, by all means possible, to couch them under such
symbolick
coverts, that vulgar capacities might penetrate only the bark, or outside of the words; the marrow, or sense, being still hid from them.
And then in what follows
cap.
•
3. the same
Kircher.
gives us the Interpretation of many
Hieroglyphic Symbols,
out of
Zorcaster.
Moreover
cap.
4. he interprets many
Hieroglyphic Symbols
used by
Orpheus.
And
cap.
5. The
Symbols
of
Pythagoras
are interpreted by him, Whence he proceeds
cap.
6, 7, 8, 9,
&c,
to explicate many
Hieroglyphic Symbols
used by
Plato, Proclus, Picus Mirandulanus,
and others. Thence in the second part of his second Tome, he interprets many
Mathematick, Mechanic Medicinal, Chymick, Magic,
and
Metaphysick
Hieroglyphics: from
Classis
7. to 12.
This ancient mode of expressing things worthy of memory,
by certain
hieroglyphick forms,
or
symbols,
was very common amongst the ancients, both
Poets,
and
Philosophers
: For in this infancy of the world, knowledge being impolite and imperfect, they took delight to shadow forth their highest mysteries, and contemplations, by terrene Images, and sensible forms; which way of conveying, and preserving knowledge is not only helpful to the memory, and delightful to the fancy, but also very efficacious, as to the moving of Affections; and therefore the
wise God
made use of this familiar way and method, for the instructing of his own people, in the
non-age
of his Church, shadowing forth, and signifying to them, the most sublime heavenly mysteries of his Gospel, by earthly Symbols, or Types. Whence that great maxim
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
sensible forms are imitations of Intelligible things.
Thus were the greatest pieces of
Jewish
wisdom couched under the covert of
Symbols,
or
Types.
Whence the
Egyptians,
as the other
Eastern
Philosophers borrowed their
Hieroglyphic
manner of philosophizing by fables,
&c.
which will more fully appear hereafter, in the life of
Pythagoras,
and
Plato.
See more of these
Egyptian Hieroglyphics
in
Athan. Kircher. O
•
dipi Aegyptiaci Tom.
3.
cap.
1.
§. 8. Having given some account of the
Egyptians
Philosophy, both as to the matter, and manner of their philosophizing, I shall now proceed to give a more particular demonstration, that the chiefest parts, if not the whole thereof, descended originally from the
Jewish Church,
or
Scriptural Tradition.
I shall begin with
Inartificial Arguments,
or
Authentic Testimonies
of such whose skill in Antiquity, and faithfulness in their relations thereof, is generally acknowledged, and received.
We gave some Testimonies hereof afore in our account of
Abraham, Joseph,
and
Moses,
their Philosophy; to which we shall add, 1. that of
Ludovicus Vives
on
August. de Civit Dei lib.
8.
cap.
9.
The Philosophy of the
Egyptians (says he)
is very ancient, but for the most part derived from the Chaldeans, especially from Abraham; though they, as
Diodorus
writes, refer it to
Isis, Osiris, Vulcan, Mercury,
and
Hercules. Thus
Lud. Vives.
First this old Tradition, that the
Egyptian Philosophy,
and thence the
Grecian
sprang from the
Chaldeans
is, and that not without great probability, by the Learned interpreted of the
Hebrews:
for
Abraham
their Ancestor was a
Chaldean:
and the
Hebrews
themselves lived under the
Chaldean Empire,
at that time when this old saying began amongst the
Grecians,
mentioned by
Plato, &c
of which more hereafter. 2.
Lud. Vives
expressly says that the
Egyptian Philosophy
came principally from
Abraham
; for which he has much of
Pagan
Antiquity on his side, as we mentioned on
Abraham▪ Josephus A
•
tiquit. sud lib.
1.
cap.
16.
judgeth that the
Egyptians
learned their Arithmetic, and Astrology from the
Patriarch Abraham,
who brought these
Sciences
from
Chaldea.
But the
Egyptians
are wont to refer their
Philosophy
to
Isis, Osiris, Vulcan, Mercury,
and
Hercules;
as
Diodorus Siculus.
The Doctors of this wisdom are, by
Clemens Alexandrinus,
called
Prophets,
by Soudas
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
as amongst the
Ethiopians)
by
Eusebius,
in an
Egyptian
name,
Arsepedonaptae.
These drew their wisdom from
Abraham,
as before; and perhaps from
Joseph
also, who first taught the
Egyptians
the use of
Geometry,
as
Artapanus
in
Josephus
testifies. And this opinion, as some think, may be founded on
Psal. 105.22.
It is credible also, that they got some things from the
Israelites,
who also descended from
Abraham;
and hence
Aristophanes, in Avibus,
calls them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
which
Soudas
also observes. Thus
Ger. Vossius de philosoph. sectis. l. 2. c. 2. §. 2. 3. The Confession of the
Egyptians
themselves related by
Diodorus,
seems clearly to intimate, and prove our Assertion. For in that they refer their Philosophy originally to
Isis, Osiris, Mercury,
&c.
it is very probable that these feigned names were originally given to the
Patriarchs,
especially to
Joseph,
by the
Egyptians,
who being unwilling to own the
Hebrews,
as Authors of their Wisdom, gave these borrowed names unto
Joseph, &c.
according to the custom of that infant Age.
Athan. Kircher. Oedipi Egypt. Tom.
3.
c.
1. makes
Herm
•
s Trismegistus
the Author of the
Egyptians Hieroglyphic Philosophy.
Yet so, as that we received the first Lineaments thereof from the
Patriarchs.
His words are
Hermes Trismegistus
contemplating this world composed of so great variety of things, as a Scene distinguished with most polite Images, he rightly supposed, that these creature-images were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Symbols of God, &c.
And hence the first rudiments of
Hieroglyphic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
proceeded; which being adumbrated by the first
Patriarchs, Adam, Enoch, Noah, C
•
am,
and perfected by
Hermes,
sprang up unto the form, by the stupendous architecture of
Hieroglyphics.
That
Mercury
called by the
Grecians Hermes,
could be no other than
Joseph,
has been already proved in the Story of
Joseph
's Philosophy: as also Part 1. Book 2. Chap. 7. §. 10. of the
Egyptian Theogony.
But
Serranus
(that great
Philologist
) in his Preface to
Plato,
speaks more fully and expressly touching the traduction of the
Egyptian Philosophy
from the
Patriarchs
and
Scripture
Revelation. His words are these,
That the Egyptians retained many things from the Traditions of the Patriarchs, the ancient History of
Moses
demonstrates: & that they derived many things from the clear fountains of the
Scriptures,
which yet they contaminated by their own mud (or fables) is no way to be doubted.
Thus
Serranus
: but of this more hereafter in the life of
Pythagoras,
and
Plato.
The like
Hornius Hist. philos. l.
2.
c.
10. which see in what precedes of
Joseph
chap. 1. §. 9.
§. 9. To make good yet farther our assertion, touching the Traduction of the
Egyptian
Philosophy from the
Jewish
Church, we now shall endeavor to give some
Artifiicial
Argument, or Demonstration, from the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or cause; by showing what influence the
Patriarchs,
and
Jewish
Church had on the
Egyptian Wisdom,
as well in its first rise, as after improvement. First, that the
Egyptians
were no way famous for
Wisdom,
or
Philosophy,
before the abode of the Patriarchs with them, is evident by their own concessions: for they confess they owe all their wisdom to their God's;
Isis, Osiris
; but principally to
Mercury,
or
Theuth,
whom they call
Hermes, &c.
So
Plato
in
Phaedro
brings in
Socrates
relating,
that the
Egyptians
worshipped a certain God whom they called
Theuth,
who found out, and taught them all
Arts
and Letters, in that time, when
Thamus
held the Empire of
Egypt. This
Theuth
is the same with the
Egyptian Mercury,
of whom
Iamblichus
(most skillful in the
Egyptian Theology) lib. de Myster. Egypt. cap.
1. thus writeth:
The Egyptians report
Mercury
to be the
M
•
derator,
and
God
of
Wisdom,
and
Eloquence
; and they declared that by him not only
Letters
were found out, and reduced into order; but also that the
principles
of all
Learning
were collected, and published, in many thousand books by him,
Now that all the
Egyptian God's
were younger than the
Patriarchs,
or at least but borrowed names given to them, is generally asserted by the Learned; especially that
Mercury,
or
Hermes
was
Joseph,
or
Moses. Carion
in his
Ch
•
oni
•
on lib.
2. of
Abraham,
tells us, that after the great Famine in
Egypt, Joseph
altered the constitution, or form of the
Egyptian Kingdom
(he having bought in all the Land, that belonged to the people) and erected a
College
for the
Priests
which was endowed,
&c.
His words are these,
After the Famine the form of the
Egyptian
Kingdom was constituted, and Tributes appointed, and Revenues for the College of the
Priests
; that so they might be conservators of
Learning
▪ And although the Knowledge of
God
was, after
Joseph
's death, changed, yet the Knowledge of the
Celestial motions,
and of the
nature
of things, was conserved in
Egypt,
throughout all the
four Monarchies
of the
Assyrians,
the
Persians,
the
Greeks,
and
Romans,
even unto the
Barbarians
of the
Mohammedans,
almost 3000 years.
Jacob
saw the flourishing state of this Kingdom, which then had a pious King, with whom he had frequent conference, and who took care, that the true Doctrine should be propagated far and near, and in the famine afforded relief to many neighboring Nations.
Thus far
Carion,
or
Melancthon.
By which we see what care
Joseph
took, for informing the
Egyptian Priests,
in the Knowleedge
of the
true God,
and
sound Philosophy.
The
Scripture
also makes an honorable mention of
Joseph's
care of, and provision for the
Priests
; as
Gen.
47.22.
by assigning them
Portions,
and settling their
Lands.
And as he took this care for their
Bodies,
and
Succession
in
following
Ages; so we cannot conceive, but that he took much more care for their
Souls,
and the Souls of the whole
Kingdom,
with which they were entrusted. Can we imagine that
Joseph
made such large provision for these
Egyptian Priests,
that so they might be the better qualified to serve the
Devil,
and
Idol God's
? no; without doubt, his great design was to lay a foundation, for the
Knowledge
and
Worship
of the
true God,
as well as, and much more than, for
human
Philosophy, and other
ingegenious
Sciences) for the accomplishment whereof, he had an huge advantage, in that, having been an instrument to save the Nation, he had thereby gained the
King
's Ear, and Heart, who, if we may credit
Carion,
was piously inclined: and we may also, not without good ground, conjecture as much from
Joseph
's Instructions of, and
Jacob
's Conference with him. And indeed the unparalleled kindnesses he manifested to
Joseph,
his
Father,
and
Brethren,
argues some pious inclination in him. But this holy and great design of
Joseph,
in erecting a College for the
Egyptian Priests,
and making such ample provision for their Instruction in the
Knowledge
of
God,
and
human Philosophy,
after his decease determined in miserable
superstition,
and
Idolatry
: so also
Carion lib.
2.
of the going out of the children of
Israel
out of
Egypt, says,
That
Egypt
excelled in
Arts,
and
Laws,
and other
Learning:
Joseph had planted a
Church
there; but after his death the
Kings
turned aside to
Idols,
and in the following times
Egypt
was full of
Idols,
and
Magic
Arts.
Thus
Carion:
so
Hornius
as before Chap. 1. §. 9. Thus we have seen what foundation was laid by
Joseph,
and the rest of the
Patriarchs
for
Divine
and
human
Philosophy, and its improvement in
Egypt:
unto which we have ground enough to conjecture, that
Moses,
by his writings, and
Solomon
by his, gave no small additional advance, as it has been already observed in its place.
§. 10. We now proceed to demonstrate, what improvement the
Egyptian
Philosophy, and Wisdom received from the
Jewish
Church, after the
Babylonian
Captivitie. When the
Jews
were carried captive to
Babylon,
we find that many remainders of them fled to
Egypt,
where we may presume they had their
Schools,
as in
Babylon
; or at least some way of communicating their Knowledge to the
Egyptians,
who, without
doubt, would be very inquisitive into their
mysteries.
And when
Alexander
upon personal conversation with the
Jews,
and observation of their
Institutes,
and
Solemnities,
began to have a kindness for them, multitudes of them were, by
Alexander
's favor, settled at
Alexandria
; where they had huge advantage to season that Fountain of Learning with Scripture Light, which immediately after their settlement, began to flourish; and being afterwards abundantly supplied with the
Waters
of the
Sanctuary,
I mean with the sacred Fountain of the
holy Scriptures
translated into
Greek,
this
Schole
of
Alexandria
proved the most flourishing in the world.
For the greatest advantage that the Egyptians, and
Grecians
had, for improvement in
Divine,
and
human
Philosophy, was the
Translation
of the
Hebrew Testament
into
Greek
by the appointment; as it is supposed, of
Ptolomeus Philadelphus
King of
Egypt
; whereof
Carion Chron lib
2. of
the Kings of Egypt after Alexander,
gives us this account.
Ptolomeus Philadelphus
(says he) reigning with peace in
Egypt,
and finding the profession of
Sciences
confined to the
Priests,
and the
Egyptian
Tongue,
and Letters; he caused Learning to be translated into the
Greek
Tongue, and instituted Studies (or Colleges) at
Alexandria
; where it was, thence forward, common for all that would, to study and learn: and the King called thither from all parts Learned men; he erected a copious
Librarie,
and searched after ancient monuments, amongst divers Nations. Wherefore
Callimachus
writ a book of the origin, and migrations of the Nations, and of the Builders of the ancient Cities, and their Laws; which book being lost, is of great detriment to Antiquity. But when
Ptolemy
understood that the
Jews
had the ancient series of the Fathers, and saw that the Law of the
Jews
did mostly accord with reason, touching the
unity
of God, and
right
manners he took care to have the books of the
Jews
translated into the
Greek
Tongue. By the labor and bounty of this King
Ptolomeus Philadelphus,
the Studies of
Sciences
were restored to mankind, and largely propagated. And it is written, that he was moved by the Counsels of the most learned
Aristas, Strabo,
and
Demetrius Phalerensis, Callimachus, Apollonius, Aratus, Bion, Theocritus, Conon,
and
Hipparchus
the Mathematician, who resided with him,
&c.
The Studies of the Sciences, instituted in the reign of
Philadelphus,
flourished greatly at
Alexandria,
in the reign of
Eu
•
rgetes
his son; who also was very bountiful towards the
Jews.
In his time
Jesus the son of Sirach,
being in
Egypt,
gathered his sentences; which are yet extant; which
(says he) were written by his
Grandfather,
but augmented by himself, and translated into
Greek.
The reading of which is most profitable and sweet,
&c.
Thus
Carion
(or
Melancthon,
who added to him) by which it's apparent, what great advance the
Egyptian
Wisdom, and the
Schole
of
Alexandria
(which henceforward became the seat thereof) in its first constitution, received from the
Scriptures,
and
Jewish
Church.
§. 11. This
Schole of Alexandria
grew exceeding famous for its
Librarie
(wherein was treasured up this rich Jewel of the
Old Testament,
in its
Greek Version)
whereunto
Mark Antony,
out of Love to
Cleopatra,
afterwards added the famous
Librarie
of
Pergamos
; so that this
Schole
was the great Nurserie of all
Philosophy,
and
ingenious Sciences,
in the first dawnings of the
Christian
Religion. For the
sacred Scriptures,
as well as the
Egyptian Philosophy,
being translated into
Greek,
it proved an efficacious
attractive
to draw all the
Candidates
of
Learing,
and
Philosophy
hither. The head of this
Schole
in
Origen's
time, was that great, and so much renowned
Philosopher Ammonius,
from whom all those
Platonic Philosophers,
who were styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of the
sacred Succession,
derived their notions. Such were
Herennius, Origen,
and
Plotinus,
who were his Scholars; and
Porphyry,
who was Scholar to
Plotinus,
as
•
amblichus
the disciple of
Porphyry.
This
Ammonius,
if we may believe
Eusebius (Eccles. Hist. l.
6.
c.
9.) and
Jerome,
lived and died a
Christian,
though
Porphyry
endeavors to confute this opinion. Certain it is, that his
Philosophy
which he communicated to his
Scholars,
had much of the
Scripture revelations
mixed with it: so that the
Platonic Philosophy,
which we find in
Plotinus, Porphyry; Proclus, Hierocles,
and the latter
Platonists,
owed not its original, as they would persuade us, so much to
Plato,
or
Pythagoras,
as to the
Divine Revelation,
which
Ammonius
was well versed in, and made the foundation of his
Philosophy.
Take this in the words of Dr.
Owen,
in his learned Treatise of
Theology lib.
3.
cap.
6.
pag.
204.
After
Ammonius Alexandrinus
the
Coryphaeus
or head of the
Philosophers
of his Age (whose Scholars were
Origen, Herennius,
and
Plotinus
the
praeceptor
of
Porphyry,
as he of
Iamblichus
) had sown in the minds of his Auditors, some seeds of the heavenly Doctrine, they, who, by reason of their own inveterate prejudices, and the
Worlds
enmity against the
Christian
Religion, would not receive the same, desisted not however to manure and improve those seeds they had received,
but mixing of them with
Plato
's muddy Philosophy. Add hereto, that some of them by reading our books, drew forth many no
•
io
•
s from those hidden
mysteries
of the
Gospel.
Of this number were
Numenius, Proclus, Amelius, Plotinus, Herennius, Porphyrius, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Marinus, Damascius,
and others; who, though they quitted not the curious speculations of the
Platonics,
nor the
Magic
Inchantments of the
Pythagoreans,
yet they mixed many sparks of the
heavenly
Truth with them.
More of this hereafter. Book 3.
•
. 4. §. 5.
§. 12. There was also, in the first planting of the
Gospel,
a famous
Church
of Christ in this City of
Alexandria,
whence this
Schole,
as we may justly presume received much Light,
&c.
To which purpose,
Morelius
in his
Treatise
of
Church Discipline Lib.
3.
c.
14.
pag.
260.
St Mark,
says he, having performed the office of a
Teacher
in the
Church
of
Alexandria,
the charge of the
Schole
was afterwards given first to
Panthenus,
then to
Clemens Alexandrinus,
and after him successively to
Orig
•
n, Heraclus, Dionysius, Athen
•
door, Malcion,
and
Didymus,
who reached to the year 350. The which
Doctors
gave an admirable advance to the
Church.
The
Town
was for this reputed as the
universal Schole
of the
Church.
The truth is,
Philosophy
and
Curiositie
corrupted this
Schole,
and by consequent the
Church,
which is greatly to be heeded, because these two evils are natural to Scholars, who contenting not themselves with the
simplicity
of the
Gospel,
would fain adorn it with the ornaments of
human Eloquence,
and
Philosophy
; and from a rage to learn, would fain mount higher than their Teachers,
&c.
Hence the same
Mor
•
lius lib.
2.
cap.
4.
pag.
87. shows how the
Arian,
and
Pelagian
Heresies were hatched out of the
vain philosophizings
in this Schole of
Alexandria,
which at last proved the dissipation and ruin of the said
Schole,
and
Church.
Thus have we gone thorough the whole series of the
Egyptian Philosophy,
with endeavors to demonstrate, that it received not only its Primitive Foundation, but also its continued advance and improvement in all Ages from the Divine Oracles seated in the
Jewish,
and
Christian Churches.
CHAP. II. Of the Phoenician Philosophy, its Traduction from the Jews.
The
Phoenicians
traduced Philosophy themselves, and derived it into
Greece,
and other parts, from the
Jews.
Of the
Phoenician Philosophy,
and its propagation to the
Grecians.
Of
Sanchoniathon,
and the original of his Philosophy from the
Jews. Porphyry's
Testimony of
Sanchoniathon
's traducing his Philosophy from
Jerombalus,
Priest of the God
Jao, i. e. Gideon;
or some
Jewish
Priest.
Sanchoniathon's
Mythologic mode of philosophizing from the
Jewish Church.
The Matter of his Philosophy from the
Jews:
His
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Theogony,
or
Genealogy
of the God's.
Beelsamen
from
heb.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Gen. 1.16. Eliun
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Ilos
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Eloeim
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Baetulia
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
Israel
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Of
Angels,
and the
Soul
from
Gen. 2.7. Sanchoniathon
's Physiologie: His
Chaos
from
Gen. 1.2. Ereb.
from
Gen. 1.5, &c. Mot,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
Gen. 1.2.
The
Greek
Philosophers concurrence herein.
Sanchoniathon
's Geography.
Sanchoniathon
's Natural History continued by
Mochus
the Physiologist, who was the first Founder of the Doctrine of
Atoms,
which he makes to be the first principle of all things; which he received by some
Jewish
tradition from the History of the
Creation Gen. 1.
of
Addomenus. Vossius
's account of the Traduction of Phoenician Philosophy from the Jews, as the Ionick and Italic from the Phoenicians.
§. 1. WE now proceed to the
Phoenicians,
their
Philosophers,
and
Philosophy
; with its
Traduction
from the
Jewish Church, &c.
And to make the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,, or way to our demonstration more clear, we must reflect on some considerations, laid down in our former Discourse of
Philologie,
touching the
Origination
of these
Phoenicians
from the
old Canaanites,
who, being expelled
Canaan,
by
Joshua,
came and seated themselves on these Maritime Coasts of
Palestine
(called by them afterwards
Phoenicia)
West of
Judea:
whence, being too populous for this narrow Country, they transplanted Colonies, and with them Human Philosophy, and other Sciences, into
Greece, Africa, Spain,
and the chief parts of
Europe
; especially such as bordered
on the Midland Sea, of which see more Part 1. of
Philologie
B. 1. chap. 3, 4, 5, 6,
&c.
I shall only add a Quotation, or two, out of the Learned
Ludovicus Vives,
and
Bochart,
which will greatly conduce to the
confirmation,
and
illustration
hereof.
Lud. Vives
speaks though in a few words, fully to our purpose) thus.
The Phoenicians, says he, for lucre's sake, passed in their Ships thorough the whole world, whither they traduced Knowledge, and Philosophy from the Jews.
This great
Bochart
does more copiously explain, and demonstrate in the Preface to the second part of his
Geography,
styled
Canaan fol.
9.
From what we have said, it clearly appears, that the
Grecians
were
greatly exceeded
by the
Phoenicians,
as well in the skill of Navigation, as of
Geography.
For the
Phoenicians
began long before the
Grecians,
to view the world. And indeed, this was almost the only Study, which was innate to this Nation, even from their Origin, to sail throughout all parts of the world, and plant Colonies; whereunto they were incited, either from the thirst of Glory, or the irksomnes of their own Country, or the desire of Empire, or Curiositie (the
•
nquisitor of natures secrets) or the insatiable desire of Lucre. Thence they, amongst them who first ventured their persons at Sea, were so much admired by posterity, that they were, for this noble exploit, numbered amongst their God's. Such were
Saturn,
and
Astarte
; whom
Sanchoniathon
describes, circuiting the Earth,
&c.
The like the same
Bochart
mentions
fol.
6, 7.
Therefore, says he, if these monuments of the Phoenicians were now extant, there would thence accede great light to sacred and profane History (we might add also Philosophy) and that great hiatus, or gap, which is betwixt
Moses
and the Grecians, would be made up: We should also learn many things touching the ancient Inhabitants of the Earth, and the migration of the Nations. But time having long since consumed, to the great damage of Learning, these Monuments we have nothing remaining of the History of the Phoenicians, but a few fragments scattered here and there in the writings of the Grecians, and Romans,
&c.
§. 2. And more particularly touching the
Phoenicians
skill in
Philosophy,
especially the
Mathematics,
we have a good account in
Bochart,
part 2. of
Canaan cap.
8.
fol.
410. thus.
This was peculiar to the
Phoenicians,
to direct their course by the inspection of the Stars. So
Strabo lib.
16,
The Sidonians are reported to be Masters of
many, and of the best Arts: moreover they were skillful in Astronomy, and Arithmetic,
which they acquired at first from the Art of
Calculation,
and
Navigation.
Pliny lib.
5.
cap.
12. says,
That the Nation of the
Phoenicians
gained a great glory for their invention of
Letters, Astronomy, Navigation,
and
Militarie
Arts. Thence the
Cynosura
was so called by the
Phoenicians.
And that Arithmetic was greatly in use amongst the
Phoenicians,
by reason of their Merchandise, and traffic, is generally affirmed by the Learned. That they were also well skilled in
Natural Philosophy
will hereafter appear, in what is mentioned of
Sanchoniathon,
and
Mochus
the Physiologist.
But the greatest excellency of the
Phoenicians
consisted in their Mechanic Arts (which belong to Experimental Philosophy) of making Glass, mixing Purple, weaving fine Linne,
&c.
Whereof we have a full account in
Bochart
his
Phaleg. lib.
4.
cap.
35. His words are these:
God indulged the Inhabitants of
Tyre,
and
Sidon
(the chief Cities of
Phoenicia
a sharp vivid ingenie, flexible to all things: Arithmetic, and Astronomy flowed from them to the Grecians. And (not to mention the
modern Phoenicians) Mochus
began to philosophize of Atoms at
Sidon
before the
Trojan
Wars, And
Abdemonus
the
Tyrian
was bold to provoke, or engage King
Solomon
by his questions proposed to him. But their chief repute was for
Mechanic Arts.
At
Tyre
the mixture of Purple, at
Sidon
Glass making, and the Texture of fine Linnen (thence called
Sindon
) of the smallest thread, are reported to be first invented. And
Solomon,
in his Epistle to
Hiram
King of
Tyre,
greatly commends the skill of their Carpenters 1
Kings
5.6.
For thou knowest that there are none among us, that can hew Timber like unto the Sidonians.
Hence it is, that
Homer
calls them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
manifold,
or
universal Artists.
And if there were anything more excellenly wrought in garments, or vessels, that was usually attributed to the industry of the Sidonians.
Thus
Bochart
of the Phoenician Learning.
§. 3. The Phoenicians being thus renowned for
ingenious Arts,
and
Philosophy,
the Grecians were very ambitious of commerce, and correspondence with them: For besides the
Phoenician
Colonies, and with them the Alphabet translated into
Greece
by
Cadmns,
and other Phoenicians (of which before Part 1.) the first and chiefest of the Grecian Philosophers had recourse to
Phenicia,
to furnish themselves with
Philosophic Principles,
and
Contemplations: Vossius (de Hist. Graec. l.
3.
pag.
375.
edit.
2.) proves that
Thales
was (though a
Milesian
by birth) originally a Phoenician; who is said to have learned
Astrology
from the
Phoenicians,
especially the
Cynosura
(or constellation of the lesser Bear) which was first observed by the Phoenicians, who sailed thereby; and thence
Vossius
derives
Cynosura
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a collection of light.
Also that
Thales
received his opinion,
of water to be the first matter,
from the
Phoenician
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies
Slime,
will be evident hereafter. That
Pherecydes
was in like manner of a Phoenician extract (though born at
Syra,
one of the
Cyclades
) and much versed in the
Phoenician Mysteries
; from whom he borrowed his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Generation of the God's (contained in 10 books) also his invention of the
Heliotrope,
and
Mythologic Philosophy,
will appear in the Story of his Philosophy.
So likewise
Pythagoras,
the Disciple of
Pherecydes
(as it is generally supposed by the Learned) borrowed his
Symbolic Philosophy
from the
Phoenicians,
and
Egyptians. Iamblichus
in the Life of
Pythagoras cap.
13. tells us,
that
Pythagoras
made a voyage to
Sidon,
where he conferred with the Prophets, the Successors of
Mochus
the
Physiologist,
and with the Phoenician Priests; and was initiated into all the Mysteries of
Byblus,
and
Tyre, &c. And
Grotius
on
Mat.
7.6 assures us, that
Pythagoras
brought his Symbolic Philosophy, either out of
Egypt,
or
Syria,
where his Master
Ph
•
recydes
was, and as some think,
Pythagoras
himself. The like will hereafter be evinced of
Plato,
who makes frequent mention of his Phoenician
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or fables
&c.
I shall add for the Confirmation hereof the Testimony of Learned
Bochart
in his Preface to
Canaan fol.
12.
That I may
(says he)
add to these somewhat of the Sciences, and Arts which flourished amongst the Phoenicians, in that age, in which the Grecians were Barbarians, or very little instructed: whence it came to pass, that the most ancient Grecian Philosophers had Phoenician Masters; neither have a few of Phoenician words both
Philosophic
and
Mechanic
crept into the Greek Tongue.
That
Democritus,
and after him
Epicurus
received their
Philosophic Contemplations
of Atoms from
Mochus
the Phoenician Philosopher, will appear in his Story.
§. 4. As the Grecians derived the choicest parts of their Knowledge, and Philosophy from the Phoenicians; so these, as it is more than probable, received theirs from the Jewish Church: For indeed,
Phenicia
was but the great
Mart,
which receiving
Philosophic Traditions
from
Judea,
transported them into
Greece,
and other parts. Thus much has been already hinted out of
Ludovicus Vives,
whose words are
these,
Phaenices quaestus gratia totum orbem navigiis peragrabant, unde scientiam, & philosophiam traduxerunt a Judaeis.
And
Grotius,
in his Annotations on
Mat.
24.38. speaks fully to this purpose thus,
Quod ex Phaenicum Theologia veteres Philosophi hauserunt, & ex illis Poet
•
, Phaenices ab Hebraeis hauserant. What the ancient Philosophers drew from the Theology of the Phoenicians, and the Poets from them, the Phoenicians drew from the Hebrews.
Yea we are not without probable grounds for this conjecture, that whereas the ancient Grecians,
Plato,
and others, mention the
Phoenicians,
and
Syrians
as the Authors of their
Mythologic Traditions,
they, under these titles, comprehended also the Jews. For it is apparent (as was before mentioned) that the Jews were, by reason of their vicinitie, often styled
Phoenicians,
and
Syrians.
So in
Herodotus,
those
Ph
•
nicians,
who were circumcised after the Egyptian manner, are the same with the
Hebrews,
and
Lucian
does use the Phoenician, and Hebrew names promiscuously. Yea in the
Scripture Dialect,
the
Hebrew
is called the
Language of Canaan,
or
Phoenicia
: so
Esa.
19.18. which proves that there was a great
affinity,
and
correspondence
betwixt the
Phoenicians,
and
Hebrews,
both in Names, Language, and Sciences, as before Part 1. B. 1. C 3, 4, 5,
&c.
§. 5 But to proceed to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the manner how,
and chief Instruments, by whom the
Jewish Mysteries,
and
Philosophy
were traduced into
Phoenicia.
How near neighbors the Phoenicians were to the Hebrews, what a great
cognation,
or rather
Identitie,
there was betwixt their Languages, and what constant commerce there was betwixt these two nations, even from their first constitution, not only in
external,
but also
mental commodities,
is sufficiently known to all, who are verst in the first rudiments of Antiquity. Yea the
Scriptures
fully inform us, touching this great affinity, and correspondence 'twixt the
Phoenicians,
and
Jews,
not only in
Solomon
's Reign, but before, and after. Our main work will be to treat particularly of the two great Phoenician Philosophers,
Sanchoniathon,
and
Mochus
; with some inquiry, and discovery, how they traduced their Philosophy, which was chiefly
Mythologic,
and
historick,
from the
History
of
Moses,
or some
Jewish Traditions.
§. 6. The first great
Phoenician Philosopher
(from whom the Grecians traduced their chiefest
philosophick Traditions
) we shall mention, is
Sanchoniathon,
a person indeed of great Antiquity; who,
as
Bochart
conceives, writ before the
Trojan
War.
P
•
rphyrie,
and
Soudas
make him
contemporarie
with, if not more ancient than, the
Tr
•
jan
War.
Ger. Vossius
tells us,
that Greece had no Writer, but who was much younger than Sanchoniathon. Theodor
•
t,
out of
Porphyry,
explains his name thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Sanchoniathon, who according to the Phoenician dialect, is Philalethes,
i. e.
a l
•
ver of truth,
or a
Philosopher
; for so
Plato
defines his Philosopher to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Philo
calls him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the learned, and curious Inquisitor, &c.
The Learned
Bochart
(in his
Canaan lib.
2
c.
17.) gives his name this Phoenician, or Hebrew origination;
viz.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sanchoneatho,
which, word for word, signifies,
the Law his Zele
; or
a Zealot of true Learning.
For
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
San,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
curtaild,
signifies, amongst the Phoenicians
Doctrine, Law,
or
Canon Law.
Hence the same Phoenician City is sometimes called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Judge.
1.11, 12.
Josh.
15.15, 16.
Kiriath Sepher
i. e.
the City of Learning,
and sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the City of Learning, or of the Law,
as
Jos.
15.49.
Kiriath Sannath.
The Chaldee renders it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the City of the Archives,
where their Learning was lodged: answerably whereto, the Greeks translate it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the City of Letters.
The radix
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
firstly signifying to
whet,
or
sharpen
; thence in its borrowed notion,
to teach exquisitely.
So that
Sanchoniathon
seems to have received his
Name,
or
Sirname
rather, from the time, wherein he began to apply his mind to Learning, thereby to signify that he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Candidate of Truth.
So in like manner
Roman.
16.15. we read of one called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Phil
•
logus,
which, as
Grotius
on the place supposeth, was a Sirname given him, from that he addicted himself to the Study of
Philologie,
or
human literature.
§. 7. That
Sanchoniathon
was a person greatly versed in the
Philosophy,
or rather
Mythology,
of those Ages, is generally concluded by the Learned, both Ancient, and Moderne.
Philo
tells us, that
Sanchoniathon
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
learned, and curious, and above all things, most greedy to know, what were the first Originals, and Principles of all things.
This
inquisitive humor
has put him upon prying into
Moses
's History, whence he traduced the best part of his Historick Narrations, of the Originals of things; which he clothed with many fabulous
forms,
and
shapes,
(according to the custom of those childish Ages) thereby to disguise the truth, and conceal its parentage. That
Sanchoniathon
was Master, and Professor of Philosophy, as well as Theology, we
have assurance from
Soudas
: He writ, says
Soudas,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
of the Physiologie of H
•
rmes
: and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Egyptian Theology; which,
says
Bochart, without doubt, he took out of the books of
Taautus. So
Philo
assures us,
that, with great diligence, he searched into the books of
Taautus,
who is said to be the first, that found out the use of Letters. Philo
oft cites him, and in the beginning of his book, whatsoever he has of the Creation of the world, he says, he found it,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in the Cosmogonie of Taautus.
This
Taautus,
whom the Greeks call
Hermes,
is said to have written 42 books as
Astrology,
of
Geography,
of
Medicine,
of
Politicks,
of
Th
•
ologie,
of
Religion, &c.
The Catalogue of which Books is given us by
Clemens Alexandrinus Strom, lib.
6. The great difficulty will be, to discover who this
Taautus,
or
Hermes
was, whence
Sanchoniathon
received his
Physiologie,
and
Theology.
That the Egyptian
Hermes
is originally applicable to none more properly than to
Joseph,
has been already made probable. So in like manner, we are not without probable conjectures, that this Phoenician
Taautus,
or
Hermes,
whence
Sanchoniathon
traduced his
Physiologie,
or
Philosophy,
might be
Moses.
For it is well known,
that it was very common in those Ages, for differing nations to give the same
Titles of Honor
to differing persons, suitable to their own humors, and interests. Hence it is, that we find mention of so many
Jupiter's,
and
Hercules's, &c.
So that those blind prejudiced Heathens, being unwilllng to be thought so much obliged to
Moses,
that servant of the true God, for their Learning, ascribe it to, I know not what,
Hermes.
That,
de facto,
the chief matter, and parts of
Sanchoniathon's Philosophy,
and
Theology
were but corrupt fragments of, and derivations from the History of
Moses,
will be hereafter manifest by particulars. At present that
Sanchoniathon
had a general Vogue amongst the Ancients, for a great
Philosopher,
as well as
Historiographer,
is confirmed by the Learned
Isaac Casaubon,
in his notes on
Athenaeus lib.
3.
cap.
36.
Thus of
Sanchoniathon,
that ancient Historian, is mention made in many places by
Philo, Josephus, Porphyrius,
and others: some call him a
Berytian,
as
Porphyrius
; others a
Tyrian,
as
Athenaeus; Soudas
says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Sanchoniathon the Tyrian Philosopher writ memoir
•
s of the Tyrians in the Phoenician dialect.
Thus much also has been asserted by
Porphyrius
(who was a Tyrian) in his second book of
Abstinence, Josephus lib.
1.
contra Apion
: and amongst the Modern Philologists
by
Ger. Vossius de Hist. Graecis lib.
1.
cap.
1.
pag.
3. and Learned
Bochart Canaan lib.
2.
cap.
17.
fol.
856. as anon.
§. 8. We now proceed to the main of our demonstration: to prove, that
Sanchoniathon
traduced the body of his Philosophy (which laid the foundations of the Grecian Wisdom) from some
Scriptural,
or
Jewish Traditions
;
which we shall endeavor to make good. 1. From the confessions of his friends, and followers. 2. From his manner of philosophizing; and 3. From the matter of his Philosophy. First touching the original of
Sanchoniathon
's Philosophy,
Philo
tells us,
that he gathered it out of the hidden Learning, or Mysteries of the Ammoneans.
These
Ammoneans Heb:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
ammanim, Ibn Ezra
on
Lev.
26 30. expounds
Temples made for the worship of the Sun.
And so indeed amongst the Hebrews
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
amma
signifies the
Sun.
'It is possible under this disguise of the
Ammoneans,
were originally intended no others, than the Ministers of the true God, expressed under these borrowed appellations. That
Sanchoniathon
did indeed derive the best part of his
historick Philosophy,
or
Mythology
from some Jewish Priest, or Minister of the true God, is openly acknowledged by
Porphyry,
who was his own Country-man, a
Tyrian
(being called in the
Tyrian
Tongue
Malchus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) and therefore best able to know;
as also a great admirer of
Sanchoniathon,
but bitter enemy of the Christians, and so, as we may presume, would not mention willingly anything, that might tend to the honor of the Christians God.
Yet this
Porphyry
plainly confesseth (in his
lib.
4. against the Christians)
That
Sanchoniathon,
besides the help he had from the Commentaries of the Cities, and from the monuments or memoires of the Temples, had for his assistance in the composing of his history,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
So
Euseb. Praeparat. Evang. lib.
10.
cap.
3. and
Bochart Can. l.
2.
cap.
17.
Ger. Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib.
1.
cap.
1. gives it us in these words,
Greece
has none, who is not much younger than
Sanchoniathon. Porphyry
says, that
Moses,
and
Sanchoniathon
give the names of persons, and places alike; and that
Sanchoniathon
drew his Historick Observations, partly from the Annals of the Cities; partly from the books kept in the Temple, which he received from
Jerombalus,
Priest of the God
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
That this can refer to no other, but some Jewish Priest seems most evident.
1. If we consider who this
Jerombalus
was, by whose
memoires,
or Traditions
Sanchoniathon
is said to have so much profited himself. I
am not ignorant, that the
Learned
differ in their conjectures hereabouts: but none seems to me more probable (whatever Dr
Stillingfleet
objects to the contrary out of
Jos. Scaliger
) than that of Learned
Bochart,
who by
Jerombalus
understands
Gideon.
His words are these,
Jerombalus
is the same with
Jerubbaal,
as the Learned have formerly observed.
Now it is most known, that
Jerubbaal
is the
Sirname
of
Gideon.
as
Judge.
7.1. compared with
Judge.
8.35.
Soudas
saith
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: which is expressly mentioned
Judge.
6.32.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
let Baal plead against him.
Gideon
might be called the Priest of
Jao,
because he was
Prince,
or
Judge
of those, by whom
Jao,
the true God, was worshipped.
That which augments the suspicion is, that presently after
Gideon's
death, the
Israelites
worshipped
Baal Berith,
or
Beryti,
from the City called
Berytum,
whence
Sanchoniathon
sprang. So
Judge.
8.33. and
made Baal Berith their God.
The like
Judge.
9.2, 4.
i. e.
the Idol of
Berith,
or the
Berytian
City. Whence it is most likely, that
Gideon
making a League, or having frequent Commerce with some
Berytian
person of great fame, it gave the occasion of this piece of Jewish Idolatry, otherwise unknown: for we find not the name
Baal Berith
mentioned elsewhere.
Nonnus
teacheth us, that this Town of
Beryth
or
Berytum,
received its name from
Beroe,
the Daughter of
Venus,
and
Adonis,
who was worshipped in those parts for a Goddess.
Thus
Bochart.
Certain it is, from the Scriptures above mentioned, that those of
Berith
or
Berytum,
where
Sanchoniathon
lived, had a great commerce, or correspondence with the
Jews,
in, or immediately upon,
Gideon's
time: and as the
Jews
received from those of
Berith
their Idol
Baal Berith,
so we may also suppose, that they communicated to these Phoenicians, some of their own Scriptural Traditions, out of which
Sanchoniathon
composed his History. Lastly the Transmutation of
Jerubbaal, Gideon's
name into
Jerombaal,
or
Jerombalus
(from whom
Sanchoniathon
is said to receive the chief materials of his History) is most easy, by the exchange of one of the B
•
into M,
viz: Jerobbaal
into
Jerombaal.
2. Whoever this
Jerombalus
was, from whom
Sanchoniathon
is said to have borrowed the chief materials of his History, yet certain it is,
if we may credit
Porphyry,
he was a
Priest of the God Jao. i. e.
of
Jehovah
the true God. For the Greeks seldom express the ineffable name of God, by any other word. So in the Oracle of
Clarius Apollo
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
let him be thy greatest God, whose name is Jao.
So
Diodorus lib.
1.
says that Moses amongst the Jews owned the God called
Jao,
as the Author of his Laws.
And the
Gnostics
in
Irenaeus lib.
1.
cap.
34. reckon up seven names of God, whereof
Jao
is the second And
Jerome
in his commentaries on.
Psal.
8. reads it
Jaho
; which seems little differing from the name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jehovah,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jah
; as
Bochart Can. lib.
2.
c.
17. see more Part 1. B. 2. C. 1. §. 8.
§. 9. Farther, that
Sanchoniathon
traduced the main of his Philosophy from the
Jews
will be evident, if we consider the manner of his
philosophizing
; which was
Historick,
or rather
Mythologic,
answerable to
Moses
's manner of
philosophizing.
For the whole of his History seems to be but some
mythologick fragments,
or
fabulous traditions
of what
Moses
more nakedly, and purely laid down, as it will be more fully evident, when we come to treat of the
Matter of his Philosophy.
Touching
Sanchoniathon's Historick manner of philosophizing,
we find a good account in
Bochart Can. lib:
2.
cap.
2.
fol.
783.
Sanchoniathon
writ, before the
Trojan
Wars, his History of the
Phoenicians,
even from their first Origin, in the
Phoenician
Tongue.
Philo Byblius,
who lived under the Emperor
Adrian,
rendered the same History into
Greek.
Eusebius
has preserved for us a famous fragment of this Version; wherein many
Phoenician
things occur, not unworthy of our commentation.
Thus
Bochart. Soudas,
who makes
Sanchoniathon
to have lived about the time of the
Trojan
War, speaks to the same purpose. So
Porphyry lib.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; speaks thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Phoenician History is full of those who sacrificed
; which
Sanchoniathon
writ in the
Phoenician
Tongue.
And Philo Byblius interpreted him in
8
books.
As
Sanchoniathon's
mode of philosophizing was historick, correspondent unto
Moses
; so likewise mixed he many
mythologick,
or
fabulous
Stories, and
Symbols
with his writings; wherein he seems to affect an Imitation of the
Jewish
manner of expressing their mysteries, by
Types,
and
figurative Symbols.
And indeed this ancient
symbolick, mythick,
or
fabulous mode
of
philosophizing,
so common not only amongst the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians,
but also amongst the first
Grecian
Philosophers,
Thales, Pherecydes, Pythagoras,
and
Plato,
seems to be wholly taken up by Tradition from, and in imitation of the
Jewish
Church, their manner of expressing their
Rites, Mysteries,
and other pieces of Wisdom. So
Clemens Alexandrinus Strom.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The ancient manner of philosophizing was, as the Hebraick, and Enigmatick; for they chose a short manner of speech
(by Symbols)
which is most apt for admonition, and most profitable.
In this
mythick, symbolick mode
of
philosophizing,
the
Phoenicians
(as the
Egyptians)
those
Jewish
Apes, couched not only their
Secrets of Nature,
and
Theologick Mysteries,
but also their
Moral Precepts,
and Examples of
Prudence, Justice, Fortitude,
and other
Heroic Virtues.
Hence the
Greek
Poets first, as
Homer, Orpheus, &c.
and then their chief Philosophers, both of the
Ionick,
and
Italic
Sects, derived their
mythologick,
and
symbolick mode of philosophizing,
as hereafter.
§. 10.
We proceed now to the
matter
of
Sanchoniathon's Philosophy,
which will give us a farther demonstration, that it was traduced from some
Scriptural,
or
Jewish Traditions.
Touching his
Metaphysics,
and
Theology; Sanchoniathon
treats of
God,
his
worship, &c
; of
Angels,
and of the
Soul.
That
Sanchoniathon
writ of the
Phoenician Theology, Theodoret Therapeut. Serm.
2. assures us, out of
Porphyry,
in these words;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Sanchoniathon the Berytian writ the Theology of the Phoenicians. And Porphyry greatly admires Sanchoniathon, &c. Soudas
also tells,
that besides the Institutes of the Phoenicians, Sanchoniathon writ also of the Theology of the Egyptians.
Now this Theology, of which he treated, consisted chiefly in his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
origination of the God's,
and the Sacrifices, or worship they gave unto them. As for his account of the original of their God's, it is evident, that they received their
Names,
and
Attributes,
the chiefest of them, from some
Scriptural Relation,
or
Tradition
of the
Jews,
which will easily appear by a brief enumeration. The chiefest of the
Phoenician
God's, was the
Sun,
called by
Sanchoniathon Beelsamen:
in the
Phoenician,
and
Hebrew
dialect,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; that is,
the Lord of Heaven.
So
Philo Byblius,
out of
Sanchoniathon
's Theology of the Sun
(Euseb. praepar. lib.
1.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
This they say is God, whom they repute the only Lord of Heaven, calling him Beelsamen, which is amongst the Phoenicians Lord of Heaven.
This seems to be but a corrupt Tradition of
Gen.
1.16.
where 'tis said,
that God made the greater Light to
rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night
: whence the
Phoenicians
style the
Moon Belsisama, the Queen of Heaven:
because, as the Sun rules by day, so the Moon by night. But
Sanchoniathon
(in the fore quoted
Euseb. praep. lib.
1.) proceeds to give the extract of his God's, in these words,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
by these was produced Eliun called the most high. Eliun
in the
Phoenician,
and
Hebrew,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Elion,
is one of the names the Scripture gives unto God, and signifies
the most high
: So that we cannot rationally doubt, but that
Sanchoniathon
borrowed this
Iaol-God
from some
Scriptural
relation. Then he adds that
this God Eliun begat the Heaven and Earth
; which seems evidently to be taken from
Moses
's words
Gen.
14.19, 22.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To the most high God, that produced the Heaven.
For
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies also to
produce,
as the LXX renders it
Zach.
13.5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and so it is rendered
Gen.
4.1. Then
Sanchoniathon
proceeds thus,
The first born of the Sons of Heaven,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
was Ilos, who also was called Kronos,
or
Saturn. Ilos
is apparently from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
El,
a name of God, which the
Phoenicians
gave to their
Idol Saturn.
So
Damascius,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Phoenicians, and Syrians name their Saturn El.
Whence the
Grecians
call the
Sun
(which was the
Phoenician Saturn
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Then it follows
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The companions of Ilos (Phaen.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Eloah) i. e. Saturn are called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Elohim, as if one should say the Saturnes.
Thus
Sanchoniathon.
By which it seems evident, that he had not only some Tradition of the God of
Israel,
his several names
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but also some broken fragments of the Trinity, which he here seems to express under his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: Hence the
Platonists
seem to have traduced their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as hereafter. It follows;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The God Uranus
(i. e.
Heaven) excogitated or imagined the Baetulia, when he framed the living stones.
That these
Baetulia,
or stones, which the
Phoenicians
worshipped, were taken up by them in imitation of
Jacob
's anointing the stone, and consecrating the place, where he had received a vision, is very probable, if we consider
Gen.
28.18. where 'tis said,
he called the place Bethel,
and
Gen.
31.13.
I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the stone.
And if
Bochart
's conjecture hold true (as it seems probable)
Sanchoniathon
's original of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i, e. anointed stones.
So that the Translaror transporting
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
anointed,
read
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
living.
That these
Baetulia,
which the
Phoenicians
worshipped, had their rise from
Jacob
's consecrated stone at
Bethel,
is generally asserted by the Learned
Jos. Scalig
•
r
on
Eusebius, &c.
as elsewhere. Part 1. B. 2. C.
§. 11. To these pieces of
Sanchoniathon
's Theology,
translated by
Philo Byblius, Eusebius
adds a place, or two, out of
Porphyry,
his book
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; in which the same
Saturn
is, by the
Phoenicians,
called
Israel.
His words are,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Saturn, whom the Phoenicians call Israel, &c.
This
Saturn
is said also to have an only son by the Nymph
Anobret,
whom he called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jeud,
and sacrificed. So
Sanchoniathon
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
He sacrificed his only son,
speaking of
Saturn.
And that all this is but an imperfect Tradition of
Abraham
his resolution to sacrifice his own son
Isaac,
is evident. For the name
Jeud, Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jehid,
is the Epithet given to
Isaac Gen.
22.2.
So
Anobret
is properly given to
Sarah:
for the
Phoenician,
and
Hebrew
word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Anobret
or
Annobret
signifies one
conceiving by grace,
which is rightly said of
Sarah Heb.
11.11. only what
Abraham
did in
intention
only,
Porphyry
and
Sanchoniathon
make
Saturn
to do
actually
: which 'twas the policy of
Satan
to make them believe, thereby to induce following Ages to offer their sons to
Molech,
or
Saturn
; which was the great Idol of the
Phoenicians. Porphyry
in his
lib.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
tells us,
that the Phoenician History, composed by Sanchoniathon, was full of such kind of sacrifices, &c.
which, it is very evident, the
Phoenicians
at first traduced from the
Jews,
as the
J
•
ws
not long after received the same Idolatrous, and inhuman mode of sacrificing their sons to
Molech,
from the
Phoenicians.
So much for
Sanchoniathon
's Theogony, and Theology, which gave foundation to the
Grecian
Mythology about their God's.
§. 12.
Sanchoniathon
(according to
Philo Byblius
's Version cited by
Euseb. praep. lib.
1.) has other pieces of
Metaphysics,
which seem to be borrowed from
Scripture
relations. He makes mention of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: which
Bochart
interprets of the Creation of the Angels. Also the first men are by him said to be made
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
Colpia,
which he attributes to the wind, is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Col-pijah,
the word or breath of God's mouth, according to
Gen.
2.7.
and breathed into his nostrils
; and
Psal.
33.6.
by the breath of his mouth.
As
Bochart Can. lib.
2.
cap.
2.
§. 13. But one main piece of Philosophy, which
Sanchoniathon
is
most famous for,
is his
Physiologie,
or
Natural History of the worlds origin,
and its
first matter
; whence the
Poet, Hesiod,
and his followers, received their first
Chaos,
and the
Philosophers
their
Materia prima
; which all originally descended, by some corrupt derivations, from the first Chapter of
Genesis
; as it will appear, if we consider the particulars of
Sanchoniathon
's reports. In the beginning of his History (according to the Version of
Philo Byblius,
quoted by
Eusebius
) we find,
in the beginning of things there was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a spirit of dark air,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
according to the
Phoenicians
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Chauth Ereb, night, or evening darkness
: which seems to be taken from
Moses
's words
Gen.
1.2.
and
there was darkness, &c.
The word
Ereb
is taken from
v.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and it was
Ereb; i. e. evening.
Whence
H
•
siod
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which
Varr
•
thus imitates,
Erebo creata fuscis crinibus nox, te invoco.
That the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies sometimes the same with the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
evening
; see
Bochart Canaan lib.
2.
cap.
2. Or it is possible, that
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
might be borrowed from the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
bohu Gen.
1.2. ב being easily turned into ב; whence also we may suppose the
Greek
Philosophers traduced their
Physic privation
; which they make one of their first principles.
It follows in
Sanchoniathon
thus:
From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos, there arose
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: the words are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or (as
B
•
chart
conjectures)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos, was produced Mot, which some call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
that is, matter, or slime:
what
Philo Byblius
translates
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the
Phoenicians
write
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
M
•
d
: it being very common with the
Greeks
to change the
Hebrew
ד into τ so in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by them derived from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Now
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
amongst the
Hebrews,
and
Phoenicians
signifies that
matter,
out of which all things were at first made: which the
Arabians
call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(whence 'tis possible the
Latin materia
came) from the root
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Therefore
Sanchoniathon,
having called that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
slime
(or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the first matter) adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
out of this [matter] was produced the whole seed of the Creation, and the generation of the whole:
which is as as much as if he had said,
This Mot was the first Matter of all things.
For although the
Hebrew
word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mod
be not found in
Scripture,
yet we have the
thing
fully expressed
Gen.
1.2. and 'tis possible also the
Jewish Philosophers
might use the same word, and so the
Phoenicians
by
Tradition from them, though
Moses,
writing for the people's sake, in the plainest terms, did purposely abstain from all
philosophick
terms. That
Sanchoniathon
traduced these his coutemplations of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, with the spirits mixing with them, from
Gen.
1.2.5.
I conceive, is sufficiently evident: whence
H
•
siod
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Plutarch,
and
Or
•
heus
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(slime)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; also
Thales
his opinion of
water
being the
first matter.
And
Plato
's first matter, which he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c,
as
Aristotle's
first matter being
ingenerable, incorruptible, indefinite, without form, but capable of all forms, &c.
which are but broken fragments of
Gen.
1.2.
§. 14. That
Thales, Pythagoras,
and
Plato
concur with
Sanchoniathon,
and they all with
Moses,
about the
first matter
of the World, will be farther evident, if we consider their several expressions, with their agreement amongst themselves, as also with
Moses
's words.
Thales
held water to be the
first matter
of all things (whence
Pindar
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) which is the same with
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
mixture
of
mud,
and
water together
: which
Orpheus
also makes to be the Principle of the Universe, and it is the same with
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. So
Philo Byblius,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
This
Mot,
or
Ilus
of
Sanchoniathon
i. e.
mud, slime, or fluid matter,
which
Thales
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, water,
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(by
•
inversion
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) that is,
matter:
all of which agrees with
Moses
's words
Gen.
1.2.
And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters: i. e.
all at first was but
mud, slime,
and
water,
or
fluid matter.
So
Paulus Fagius,
from
Kimchi,
renders
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
matter,
which
fluid matter
was agitated, or moved by the Spirit of God; so
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
from this mixing of the spirit with the Chaos, was begotten Mot, which some call slime, or watery mistion, which was made the seed of all creatures, &c.
This the
Stoics
call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; and
Chrysostom
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a vivifick energy
; according to
Psal.
33.6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, whence
Plato, Thales, Pythagoras, Heraclitus
ascribe the Original of Individuals, to the
various agitations,
or
motions
of this
fluid matter, viz:
as moved by the spirit of God, so the
Phoenicians
called this motion
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a dark, and blustering wind, or spirit:
see
Stillingf. Orig, Sacr. book
3.
cap.
7.
§. 15.
Sanchoniathon
also was not a little versed in the
Chronology,
and
Geography
of those times and places, wherein likewise he accords with
Moses,
from whom, we may presume, he received both the one and the other. So
Eusebius praepar. Evang. l.
10.
c.
3. out of
Porphyry lib.
4. against the Christians, makes
Moses,
and
Sanchoniathon
to give the same names to Persons, and Places: as
Ger. Vossius de Histor. Graec. lib.
1.
c.
1.
pag.
3.
§. 16.
Sanchoniathon
's
Natural
or
Mythologic
History was continued by others, some in the
Phoenician,
some in the
Greek Tongue,
Of the
Phoenicians,
there were
Theodotus, Hypsicrates,
and
Mochus
▪ whose books
Chaetus
translated into
Greek. Tatianus,
the
Assyrian,
in his
Orat.
against the
Grecians,
speaks thus.
The
Phoenician
affairs proceeded thus; there were amongst them three persons,
Theodotus, Hypsicrates,
and
Mochus,
whose books were translated into
Greek
by
Chaetus
In
Euseb. praep. Evang. l.
10. (where
Tatian
's place is cited) for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
we have
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Theodotus
's
Phoenician name,
as
Bochart
conjectureth, was
Elnathan
or
Nathaniel.
But the most renowned of these three was
Mochus,
whom
Bochart
conceives to be, in the
Phoenician
style, called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Maacha,
taken from
Compression. Josephus Ant. l.
1.
cap.
4. shuts up his History touching the long-lived
Antidiluvians,
with this
Epiphonema.
And
Mochus,
and
Hestiaeus,
and
Hieronymus
the
Egyptian
(who prosecuted the
Egyptian
story) consent to these things I affirm.
Bochart Can. lib.
2.
cap.
17.
§. 17. Concerning
Mochus
we find this mention in
Is. Casaubon
his notes on
Athenaeus lib.
3.
cap.
36.
Mochus,
says he, is named amongst the Authors of the
Phoenician
affairs by
Tatianus,
in his last book,
which place it is worth our while to transcribe,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Ger. Jo Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib.
3.
pag.
390. Addes to
Casaubon
thus:
Mochus
the
Phoenician
committed to writing the affairs of his Country in the
Phoenician
Tongue.
Athenaeus
in
lib.
3. makes mention of him; where
Cynulcus
thus bespeaks
Ulpianus
the
Tyrian,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
according to their Citizens
Syniaethon
(i. e.
Sanchoniathon
) and
Mochus,
who writ of the
Phoenician
Affairs.
Casaubon lib.
3.
Anima
•
v. in Athen. cap.
36. says,
I remember not that
Mochus
is to be found elsewhere: and peradventure
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is the name of some Tyrian, who in his own Country was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mosche, or according to the custom of writing Moses.
Thus
Casaubon.
And truly that
Moschus
is a
Phoenician
name I learnt also one of
Strabo lib.
16. where he makes men
•
ion of
Moschus
a
Sidonian,
and that he was the Author of the opinions of
Atoms
; also that he was more ancient than the
Trojan War.
Neither is anything in
Athenaeus
to be changed, for (which occurred not to that excellent man
Casaubon
) there is mention made of this Author, not only once, amongst Ecclesiastic writers: as in
Josephus lib.
1.
Antiqu▪ cap.
8 (or according to others 50) where you read
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Also Manetho the Egyptian writer, and Berosus the Chaldean Historiographer, and Mochus, Hestiaeus, and Hieronimus the Egyptian, who prosecuted the Phoenician Affaires, consent with us.
Also we have a famous place touching
Mochus,
in
Tatianus
his oration against the
Pagans pag.
217. in
Orthodoxogr.
which is also cited by
Eusebius lib.
10.
de praepar. Evang. (pag.
289
Edit. Rob. Steph.)
And
Georg: Cedrenus
transcribing
Josephus
(almost in the beginning of his
Compendium pag.
10.) does in like manner make mention of
Mochus
amongst the
Phoenician Historiographers.
Thus
Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib.
3.
pag.
30.
§. 18. And that
Mochus
was a famous Philosopher,
as well as Historiographer, is evident, from the mention we find concerning him in
lamblichus, of the life of Pythagoras cap.
13. where he says,
that Pythagoras, being at Sidon, conferred with the Prophets, Successors of Mochus the Physiologist, &c.
By which also we see what piece of
Philosophy Mochus
was chiefly verst in, namely in
Physiologie,
or
Natural Philosophy,
which was the main Philosophy, these first Ages, and Philosophers thirsted after. This
Thales
brought out of
Phenicia, &c.
And in brief, this kind of
Physiologie,
which the
Phoenicians,
and the
Grecians
so much delighted in, was indeed no other, than a
Natural History,
or some broken fragments of the History of the
Creation,
delivered by
Moses Gen.
1,
&c.
Thus much I was assured of by learned
Bochart,
upon oral conference with him, to whom proposing some Queries, touching this
Mochus,
he answered me,
that Mochus lived before the Trojan War, and was contemporarie with Sanchoniathon, as Strabo affirms; calling him upon a mistake, Moschus; and that his Philosophy was nothing else, but the History of the Creation, the same with that of Sanchoniathon.
As for other particulars touching
Mochus,
the original of his name from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Maacha, &c,
he referred me to his
Canaan
lib.
2.
c.
17.
Strabo lib.
16. and
Athenaeus l.
3.
c.
36. with
Casaubon.
That
Mochus
did really traduce his
Physiologie,
or
natural
History from the History of the
Creation,
written by
Moses,
will be farther evident, if we consider the main Principle for which he was renowned amongst the
Ancients, viz.
the
doctrine of Atoms.
So
Strabo lib.
16. makes mention of
Moschus the Sidonian, who was the Author of the opinion of Atoms, &c.
The same
B
•
chart Phaleg. lib.
4.
cap.
35. having made mention of
Arithmetic,
and
Astronomy,
being derived from the
Phoenicians
to the
Grecians,
adds thus:
that I may be silent as to latter Philosophers,
Mochus
began to philosophize of
Atoms
at
Sidon,
before the
Trojan
War,
&c.
Hence
Democritus
borrowed his Notions of
Atoms,
as
Epicurus
from him; and that the whole Doctrine of
Atoms to be the first principles of the Universe
came from
Moses
's History of the Creation, see
Comenius
's
Physicks,
of
Materia prima. cap.
2.
§. 19.
Bochart Phaleg. lib.
4.
c.
35. makes mention of another
Phoenician
Philosopher,
Abdomenus
the
Tyrian,
who, by his questions, was so bold as to provoke King Solomon to disputation, &c.
But I shall confirm this discourse of the
Phoenician
Philosophy, and its Traduction from the
Jewish
Church with the observation of Learned
Vossius de philosophorum sectis lib.
2.
cap.
10. §. 24,
&c.
The Philosophy of the
Phoenicians
(says he) is very famous: and in as much as that Nation was most like to
Judea,
they had a mighty advantage of Learning many things from the
Jews
: some things also they gained by Tradition. For the
Phoenicians
springing from
Sidon,
the son of
Canaan,
the Nephew of
Cham,
descended also from
Noah.
They used the help of their
Priests
in writing History, as
Josephus lib.
1.
contra Apion.
Who also quotes some things out of the Annals of the
Tyrians.
Concerning their
Theology, Sanchoniathon
the
Berytian
writ in the
Phoenician
Tongue, who was more ancient than the
Trojan War,
as
Porphyry lib.
4.
contra Christ. &c.
Thence §. 25,
&c.
he adds,
To this Nation the
Grecians owe their
Letters: whence they are called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Also they attribute
Arithmetic
to these
Phoenicians,
because they excelled in
Merchandise
; to which the Knowledge of
Numbers
is greatly necessary.
Ochus
the
Persian
Philosopher was also a
Phoenician. Thales
likewise, who was the first founder of the
Ionick
Philosophy, had his original from the
Phoenicians.
Also
Pherecydes
the Praeceptor of
Pythagoras,
who was Contemporary
with
Thales,
and Author of the
Italic
Sect, drew his contemplations from the hidden books of the
Phoenicians.
Also
Zeno,
the Prince of the
Stoic
Sect, was of a
Phoenician
extract: for
Cittium
a Town in
Cyprus,
where he was borne, was peopled by a
Phoenician
Colony. Then he concludes §. 31. But if we acknowledge the
Phoenician Philosophy,
how much more justly must we
Christians
acknowledge the
Jewish?
especially seeing the
Phoenicians,
without all peradventure, traduced many things from the
Jews
their neighbors, as also the
Egyptians.
And hence it is apparent why the most
Ancient
Philosophers delighted so much in brevity, and
symbolick
Learning. The Ancient mode of philosophizing was
Hebraick,
and
Enigmatick.
Thus
Vossius.
We may add hereto that of
Hornius Hist. philos. l.
3.
c.
14.
Joh. Serranus
makes
Plato
to speak many things, which he understood not, drawn out of the
Phoenician
Theology. So
Scaliger Exer.
61. §. 3, which opinion seems very probable to me. For as to the
Phoenicians,
they were given to
Mercature,
familiar to the
Grecians:
and they sent frequent Colonies into various parts of the world. Also their Theology was well known: from which
Musaeus, Linus, Orph
•
us,
and other old Theologists drew most of their notions. Nothing hinders therefore, but that
Plato
might attain to a more intimate Knowledge of their
Theology,
whereunto
Pherecydes
had before opened the door, who also, as they say, brought some of their commentaries into
Greece.
But now the
Phoenicians
had many things common with the
Hebrews,
drawn either from daily conversation with their Ancient Fathers and their Posterity, or else from the inspection into, and reading of
Moses
; whereof they, being not ignorant of that tongue, might partake. Thence therefore
Plato
drew those things which rendered him so admirable to all Posterity.
§. 20. And as there were some
broken beams,
or
Traditions
of the
Law,
and
Old Testament
Light conveyed from the
Jews
to the
Phoenicians,
and thence to the
Grecians
; so in like manner the
Gospel
in the first publication thereof, shone, with bright rays on
Phoenicia
: For the Woman of
Canaan,
whose Faith Christ so much applauded, was a
Phoenician,
And, upon the dispersion 'tis said
Acts
11.19.
They which were scattered abroad upon the persecution, that arose about Steven, travailed as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none, but the Jews only.
By which it is apparent that there were
Jews
inhabiting amongst the
Phoenicians
(and it is not improbable, but that
there were some scattered thither even at the first
Babylonish
Captivitie) as also in
Cyprus
(where were Colonies o
•
the
Phoenicians
and
Jews
) to whom God in his Providence ordains the Gospel first to be preached (as the
Jewish
Traditions of old) that so it might thence receive the more speedy conveighance into the
Western
parts,
Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Britannie, &c.
with which parts the
Phoenicians
had frequent Commerce, and Trading; as it has been largely proved
Part
1.
of Philologie book
1.
chap.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
CHAP. IIII. Of the Chaldaick Philosophy, and Philosophers.
The Advantages the
Chaldaick Philosophy
might have from the Church of God,
Noah
and his family,
Shem, Abraham, &c.
The
Chaldeans
famous for
Astronomy,
which was communicated to them, by Church Tradition delivered by
Abraham, &c. Gen. 1.16.
The People of God much taken up in contemplation and admiration of the glory of God, shining in the Heavens,
Ps. 136.4, 5, 6, 7.
This gave foundation to
Astronomy.
How
Natural Astronomy
degenerated into
Judicial Astrology,
from an Idolatrous admiration of the Celestial bodies, as God's,
Rom. 1.19, 20, 21.
The
Jewish Teraphim,
and
Popish Agnus dei
answered to the
Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Images dedicated to the Sun
Judge. 17.5.
The
Chaldaick Theology
lay chiefly amongst the
Zabii,
or
Sabaeans. Balaam
one of the
Zabii.
The
wise men,
or
Magi Mat. 2.1.
of these
Zabii.
Many
Zabian
Rites mentioned in Scripture, as
Job 31.26. beholding the Sun,
thence
Sternutation
a
Pagan Rite. So Job 31.27. kissing the hand,
is bowing unto, and adoring the rising Sun, The Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
eternal fire,
which was a Symbol, whereby they worshipped the Sun, as
Lev. 36.30.
from the opinion that the Sun was fire. The
Judaic
Schools in
Babylon,
and other parts of
Chaldea.
§. 1. THe
Ancients
were wont to distinguish
Philosophy
into
Barbabick
and
Grecian
: by
Barbarick,
is usually understood that,
which was taught out of
Grece,
and
Italy,
in
Egypt, Phoenicia, Judea, Chaldea, &c.
This by general vogue is held to be the more Ancient. Thus
Diogenes Laertius prooem;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is affirmed by some that Philosophy had its beginning from the Barbarians.
Which
Isaac Gasaubon
in his Notes on this place thus explains,
And of the
Grecians,
those who were best natured, and most ingenuous have always thus thought. And those Ancient defenders of
our Religion
against the
Gentiles,
have so defended the truth on this part, and so broken the pride, and arrogance of those who were otherwise minded, that none may doubt of it. There are at hand those who have written on this Argument,
Tatianus, Clemens, Theophilus, Eusebius,
and others.
So
Clemens Alexandrinus lib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Philosophy a thing variously useful, in times past flourished amongst the Barbarians, shining from Nation to Nation, till at last it came to the Grecians. Austin lib.
8.
de civit. Dei cap.
9. gives us an account of these
Barbarian
Nations, who were reputed skillful in Philosophy; where having made mention of the two great Sects of the
Grecian
Philosophers, the
Ionick
and
Italic,
he adds,
And if there be found any others of the other Nations, who are reputed
wise men,
or
Philosophers,
the
Atlanticks, Lybicks, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards.
Here
Augustine
makes no mention of the
Phoenicians,
and
Jews,
who, I think, were mainly understood by the
Ancients,
under the name of
Barbarick Philosophers.
But of this we have already discoursed; as also of the
Egyptians:
we shall proceed therefore to those, who remain of the
Barbarick Philosophers
; and begin with the
Chaldeans,
who were greatly famous for their skill in
Astronomy,
and
Astrology
(which as the Learned suppose, they were masters of, before the
Egyptians
) for their improvement wherein, they had great advantages,
not only from the situation of their Country, which lay plain, but also from the Church of God; which after the Flood was first planted, and seated amongst them; and furnished not only with
Divine,
but also
Human
Knowledge. For
Noah
and his family, which was then the seat of the Church, living before the Flood, had the advantage of gathering up all the Wisdom of the old World, and conveying of it, by Tradition to their Posterity, especially to such as were of the
Holy Seed,
who, as we may presume, would be most curious in searching into, and inquiries
after the great works of God, both as to
Creation,
and
Providence
: amongst whom we may reckon
Abraham,
who is said to teach the
Chaldeans
Astonomie.
§. 2. But to proceed gradually in our Discourse: First that the
Chaldeans
had a great reputation for the
Antiquity
of their
Philosophy,
we have the Testimony of
Cicero lib.
1.
de Divinat.
Where he says,
that the Chaldeans were the most ancient kind of Doctors.
And particularly, that they taught the
Babylonians,
and
Assyrians
Philosophy, we have for it the Autoritie of
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and of
Sotion,
in his books
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, if we may credit
Laertius.
So
Diodorus
tells us,
that the Egyptians received their Philosophy from the Chaldeans.
Now the great piece of Philosophy the
Chaldeans
were at first famous for, was
Astronomy,
and
Astrology.
So
Strabo lib.
12, and 15. Hence
Pythagoras
is said
to derive his Knowledge of the Stars from the Chaldeans,
as
Porphyry,
in the life of
Pythagoras.
Whence also the name
Chaldeans
passed in the
Roman
Empire for
Astrologers.
And
Quintus Curtius lib.
5. tells us,
that
Alexander
entering
Babylon,
whereas others approving themselves otherwise, the
Chaldeans
shown the motions of the Stars, and the stated vicissitudes of times. Wherefore as
Simplicius
in
Arist. lib.
2.
de Coelo
affirms)
Aristotle,
that great Inquisitor of Nature, gave it in command to
Callisthenes
his Kinsman and Disciple, who travailed with
Alexander
into
Asia,
that he should send him Commentaries of such things, as the
Chaldeans
had observed touching the Celestial Bodies. And
Callisthenes
sent him observations of two thousand years.
Tully
tells us,
they had much convenience for such Astronomick observations by reason of the plain situation of their Country.
So
Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
1. §. 9.
Neither is it to be wondered, says he, if persons, so ingenious, were so well skilled in the Knowledge of the
Stars,
who inhabiting a large, and even Country, could always behold the face of the Heavens: neither is it more to be wondered if those first
Chaldeans
observed so many things, who in
Aristotle
's time gloried in the experience of 2000 years.
§. 3. But though it may be granted that these
Chaldeans
had some advantage for the improvement of their Astronomick Skill from the convenience of their Country, which lay on a level; yet have we
both
Authority
and
Reason
to judge, that the original of this their
Art
was more
Divine.
That the
Chaldeans
received their skill in
Astrology
from
Abraham
was afore (chap 1. §. 8. of
Abraham
) asserted, and proved out of
Berosus, Eupolemus, Josephus,
and
Vossius
: so
Lud. Vives
on
Aug. de civ. Dei l.
8.
c.
9. asserts the Traduction of
Philosophy
from the
Chaldeans
to the
Egyptians,
by
Abraham.
The truth of which assertion will be more evident, if we consider the original causes of this
Astronomick
Science. We need no way doubt,
but that
Noah
had been fully instructed by
Church-Tradition,
from his Godly predecessors
Methuselah, Enoch
and
Seth,
touching the Creation of the World by God; and particularly touching the excellent
fabric
of the Heavens, the Nature of those
Celestial
Bodies, their Harmonious Order, and Motion; that the
Sun
was made to govern by
Day,
and the
Moon
by
Night,
as
Gen.
1.16. and
Psal.
136.7, 8.
that these
Celestial
had a
mighty influence
on all
Sublunarie
Bodies,
&c.
These and such like considerations, which greatly conduced to the enhanceing the Wisdom, Power,
and Goodness of God, in his works of Creation, and Providence, we may not doubt, were very frequent, by Church-Tradition, in the Hearts and Mouths of those
Sons of God,
before and after the Flood. And it is the opinion of some, (which is not without probable grounds) that the whole story of the Creation, written by
Moses,
was conveyed down even from
Adam
to his time, by a constant uninterrupted Tradition to the Holy Seed, and Church in all Ages. And indeed if God vouchsafed to any the manifestation of his glorious works of Creation, and Providence, to whom can we suppose it should be, if not to his darlings and friends, the faithful and holy Seed? who both could and would best improve such contemplations, for their Makers glory, and most faithfully hand them over to posterity. Thus God himself gives
Abraham
this Character
Gen.
18.17.
Shall I hide from Abraham the thing which I do?
19.
For I know him, that he will command his children, &c·
God gave
Abraham
the Knowledge of things not only past and done, but to come; because he knew
Abraham
would make the best improvement, and conveighance thereof to his posterity. And thus we may conceive how
Abraham
having the Knowledge of God's glorious works of Creation and Providence, especially as to the
Celestial
Bodies, their Natures, Order, Harmonie, Government, Motions, Influences (which takes in the whole of true
Astronomy,
and
Astrology
) communicated to him partly by Church-Tradition,
partly by the blessing of God upon his own meditations and contemplations (if not also from some Divine Inspiration even of this Natural Knowledge) could not but conceive himself in duty obliged to communicate the same, not only to his own Posterity, but also to his Kindred, and Country men the
Chaldeans.
That the people of God were, in the infant state of the Church, much ravished with holy contemplations of the Glory of God, that shone so brightly in those Celestial Bodies, their Order, Government, Motion, and Influence, is evident, by many
Philosophic,
yet gracious Meditations we have to this purpose in the
Psalms: as Ps.
19.1.
The Heavens declare the glory of God, &c.
to the end. So
Psal.
136.4.
To him who alone doth great wonders
: and
v.
5.
To him that by Wisdom made the Heavens, &c.
7.
To him that made great lights.
8, 9.
The Sun to rule by day, the Moon and Stars to rule by night, &c.
So it is said of
Isaac, he went out into the field to meditate
; where he could no sooner open his eyes,
but contemplate the wonders of God, in those
Celestial
Bodies. Thus were these holy men
Abraham, &c.
ravished with the admiration (which as
Plato,
and
Aristotle
assure us, was the first cause of all Philosophy) of the Glory of God, that shone so brightly in those Celestial Bodies, the Sun, Moon, and Stars, their admirable natures, positions, conjunctions, regular motions, and powerful influences, which is the sum of Natural Astronomy, and Astrology; which was, as we have endeavored to prove, communicated to the
Chaldeans,
by
Abraham
or
Shem, &c.
§. 4. This
Astronomy,
and
Astrology,
which the
Chaldeans
(according to the common presumption) received from
Abraham,
did soon by their holding the truth in unrighteousness (as
Rom.
1.18, 19, 20 21, 22.) degenerate into that
Black Art
(deservedly so called, because from Hell) of
Judicial Astrology,
or
Divination
; which was thence called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Chaldaick Art
: the original of which was this; (as we find it
Rom.
1.20, 21.) These
Chaldeans,
besides the Traditions they received from
Abraham,
and the rest of the
Patriarchs,
touching these Celestial Bodies, their glorious natures, order, situations, regular motions, and governments, as
Gen.
1.16. they themselves, by their own
Astronomick observations
and
experiments,
contemplating a mighty Beauty, and Ornament in the Heavens, a regular course in the Motions of the Stars, an excellent Harmonie and Order in the distances and conjunctions, and a powerful influence descending from them
on sublunarie Bodies, the more they contemplated these glorious creatures the more they admired them; 'till at last their
admiration
determined in
adoration
of them, as God's. Thus was that Scripture fulfilled
Rom.
1.21.
they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
That this was the original of their
Zabaisme,
or worshipping the
Celestial Bodies,
is gathered from
Deut.
4.19.
And lest thou lift up thine eyes to Heaven, and when thou seest the Sun, &c, shouldst be driven to worship them.
When they grew vain in their imaginations, no wonder if such a glorious sight of their eyes, was followed with the Idolatry of their foolish hearts. Now this
Phaenomenon
being granted, that the Stars were God's, the Hypotheses of Judiciarie Astrology easily followed.
So
Maimonides More Nevoch. p.
3.
c.
29.
speaking of these
Chaldeans,
saith,
that they had no other God's but the
Stars,
to whom they made Statues or Images, which derived an influence from the Stars, to which they were erected, and thence received a faculty of foretelling things future.
These images the
Greeks
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and were much the same with the
Teraphim,
they being both exactly made according to the positions of the Heavens.
So
Grotius
says,
that the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Teraphim Judge.
17.5.
were Images made with figures; according to the position of the Stars; which also the Idolatrous Jews made use of for divination, as
Zech. 10.2. whence the
Ephod
accompanies the
Teraphim Judge.
8.27. And this Idolatrous mode of Divination continues yet to this very day amongst some, who are pretenders to this
Judicial,
or rather
Satanick Astrology.
For they make Figures, and Images, which they pretend to answer to the form of the
celestial
bodies: thence they persuade the foolish people, that these Images receive influence, and virtue from the Celestial Figure. (near of kin whereunto is the
Agnus Dei
amongst the Papists) All of which Magic trumperies are but imitations of those
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Talismans,
so much in request amongst the
Chaldeans,
and other
Idolaters
: of which see
Plotinus Enead.
4.
lib.
3.
cap.
11. where he unfolds the whole Mystery of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Images, and their manner of
Divination
by them; which, upon the supposition of the
Chaldeans,
that the Stars are Deities, might admit of some probable pretext, but without this Hypothesis of
allowing a Divinity to the Stars,
I cannot see what shadow of Reason those pretenders to
Judiciarie Astrology
can have to salve their
Phenomena.
See more of this
Owen de Idololat. l.
3.
c.
7.
§. 5. This leads us to the
Theology
of the
Chaldeans,
which comprehended
a chief part of their
Philosophy.
So
Diodorus Siculus lib.
3. tells us,
That the Chaldeans were most skillful in Astronomy, Divination, and sacred Offices.
This their
sacred Philosophy,
or
Divinity
was chiefly studied by, and preserved amongst their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Zabii,
who, according to
Scaliger
's account, were the most
Eastern Chaldeans:
which he gathers from the origination of the word
Zabii
from
Saba
the Son of
Chus.
Salmasius
thinks these
Zabii
were the
Chaldeans,
inhabiting
Mesopotamia.
If so, it is very probable that
Balaam
that famous
Magician,
or
Diviner,
was one of these
Zabii.
For
Mesopotamia
seems to be
Balaam
's Country, thence
Numb.
22.5.
Pethor,
where
Balaam
lived, is said to be by the river,
i. e.
says the
Chaldee Paraphrase, Euphrates.
That
Balaam
was a
Magician,
or
Conjurer
is evident from the whole of the Story.
Thus
Stillingfleet Orig. sacrar. lib.
1.
chap.
3. To which he adds these words,
Hence we may conclude, that these
Zabii
were the same with the
Persian Magi
instituted by
Zoreaster
: which farther appears from the
Magi,
that were guided by the Star unto Christ, who are said to come from the East (
i. e. Sabea,
or
Arabia Felix
) with presents, which are peculiar to that Country.
That
Balaam
was a
Zabean,
and of these
Zabii,
or wise men mentioned
Mat.
2.1, 2. may be gathered from what
Deodate
observes on that place
v.
2.
viz.
that this Star was the sign that the King of the World should be born in
Judea,
which perhaps might come to their notice, by the Prophecy of
Balaam Numb.
24.17. continued amongst them,
&c.
§. 6. Concerning these
Zabii, Maimonides
tells us, that the understanding their Rites would give light to many obscure passages of Scripture: I suppose he means such as relate to the
Original of Idolatry
or the Worship they gave to those
Planetarie Deities: for,
saith he,
they had no God's, but the Stars, to whom they made Statues
(or pillars which the
Greeks
styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) and
Images
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. We find one
Rite
or
Ceremony
of this
Zabaisme,
or
Planetarie Worship Job.
31.26, 27.
If I beheld the Sun when it shined,
&c.
This holy man (who, as 'tis supposed, lived amongst these
Zabii
about
Joseph's
time (as
Jerome
) when this their Idolatry was come to some maturity) speaks openly of this
Planetarie Worship,
then so common. And the first part of this
Zabaism,
he so industriously a moves from himself, is
Beholding the Sun when it shined
: Not the
simple beholding
of it, that's only a
Natural Act
of our
Natural Sense,
and hath no more of
Moral Evil
in it, than the Natural Shine of the Sun beheld by it: But
beholding
it with such an Eye, as secretly steals away the heart from the Worship of the
Creator,
affecting the Soul with,
and carrying it out in an Idolatrous Adoration of that so glorious a Creature (as in some it did, to such an height,
that
Plato
says
Socrates
underwent
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an Exstasie
in worshipping the
Sun
) for so it follows
Job.
31.27.
And my heart hath been secretly enticed. Job
shows here that the original Seat of this
Zabaisme
was the Heart: for by long contemplation, and admiration of the eyes the heart was drawn away to worship those Celestial bodies as before. So it follows, or
my mouth hath kissed my hand, i. e.
adored the Sun: for kissing the hand and
bowing to the Sun
was a main ceremony they used in their worship. So the worship of Christ the
Sun
of
Righteousness
is, under that ceremony of kissing, commanded
Ps.
2.12. And
Hos.
13.2. the worship of the Calves expressed by that ceremony reproved. There were other parts of
Zabaisme,
or
Star-worship,
namely
Images
and
Fire
; of which we find some mention in Scripture: so
Lev.
26 30.
God threatens to destroy their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Images of the Sun,
as some, but rather their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
their hearths where they kept their
perpetual fire,
for these are called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from the
Heb.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which signifies both the
Sun,
and
Fire.
Hence from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
comes the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
q.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) and the
Latin Caminus
a
Chimney,
or
Furnace
▪ So in like manner the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies the
Light
of the
Sun,
is used also for fire (as the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is by
Plato
used for both fire and light) whence some derive
Ur
in
Chaldea,
which was the Seat of this
Idolatrous
worshipping the
Sun
by
Fire,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Light. Now the reason of this piece of
Zabaisme,
or worshipping the
Sun
by
Fire,
seems this. These
Zabii,
or
Chaldean
Philosophers were possessed with this opinion (which afterward was taken up by many of the
Greek
Philosophers (that the matter of the Sun was Fire,
which 'tis possible they might take up from some broken Tradition, touching the Creation of those greater Lights, as
Gen.
1.16. And the words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that signify
the Sun,
and its
Light
are used also to express
Fire. Plato
in his
Timaeus
calls the Sun
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an heavenly Fire: and
Job.
31.26. calls the Sun
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which also signifies Fire, thence
Ur
in
Chaldea
was so called because it was the Seat of their
eternal fire,
and the
Stoics
of old held
that the Sun was Fire.
So
Grot.
on 2
Pet.
3.7. and
Comenius
in his
Physicks.
Thus the
French Conferences, par les beaux exsprits tom.
1.
conf
6. so
Willis de febribus
says
the Light is but a greater flame more dilated.
And
Ames. Medul. Theol. l.
1.
c.
8.
thes.
50.
Subtilissima illius massae parte sursum evocata, facta suit lux i. e. ignis lucens.
That the Sun is of an ignite fiery nature was generally believed amongst the ancient Philosophers; particuarly by
Thales, Plato, Heraclitus, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Theophrastus, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Philolaus, Empedocles, Democritus, Cleanthes, Zeno, Chrysippus,
and others, as we intend to prove in what follows of
Plato
's
Physicks,
of which see more Part 1. B. 3. C. 3. §. 9. And that the
Sun,
and
Fire
agree, not only in name, but also in nature, I am apt to think, is the more probable conjecture, if we compare their
properties, influences,
and
effects,
which are very near
akin,
if not the same. However we have sufficient ground to conclude this to be the reason why these
Zabii
worshipped the
Sun
under this
Symbol
of
Fire.
Moreover
Maimonides
tells us that
Abraham
had his conversation amongst these
Zabii.
That he lived in the Country of
Ur
in
Chaldea,
the
Scripture
assures us; whence he wanted not opportunity of communicating Knowledge in these and other things, to these
Chaldeans
as before.
Batricides
attributes the original of the Religion of these
Zabii
to the time of
Nahor,
which disagrees not with what has been laid down. I shall conclude this with the words of Learned
Owen de Ortu Idol. l.
3.
c.
4,
pag.
187.
Sabaisme
consisted in the worship of the
Sun, Moon,
and
Stars: Hellenisme
added the
Daemon-worship
; the adoration of
Images
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] and
pillars
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] was common to both: the beginning of Idolatry was in
Sabaisme
or the worship of
celestial
bodies.
§. 7. Besides the
Zabii,
there were other
Sects
of these
Chaldeans
: for some were called
Orcheni,
others
Borsippeni.
They were also distinguished by other names, as it often happens among
Sects
who have different apprehensions of the same things: of which see
Strabo lib.
16. Amongst the
Chaldeans,
who writ in
Greek
touching
Astrology, Berosus
gained the greatest repute, especially amongst the
Greeks.
Of whom
Pliny lib.
7.
cap.
37. gives this character.
Berosus was famous for Astrology; to whom, for his Divine predictions, the Athenians gave a golden tongue, which was placed publicly in their Schole, as Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
1.
§. 8. Besides the advantages, which the
Chaldeans
had from the first
Patriarchs, Abraham, &c.
without doubt, they received many Scripture Traditions, and much light touching the origin of the Universe,
&c.
from the
Jewish
Doctors, and Schools, which were settled at
Babylon,
in the time of their Captivitie. That the
Jews
had
Schools
in
Babylon, Deodati
has well observed on
Psal.
137.1. according to the
French
thus,
Being near the Rivers of
Babylon
] He has regard to certain
Towns in
Chaldea,
mentioned in Histories, which were assigned to the captive
Jews
for their abode, in the which they had their
Synagogues,
Schools, and places for the service of God; which were nigh the River
Euphrates, &c.
thus
Deod.
To which
Stillingfleet orig. sacr. l.
1.
c.
3. adds,
that In order to the spreading of sacred Scripture Traditions, the
Jewish
Church, which before the Captivitie was as an enclosed Garden was now thrown open, and many of the plants removed and set in foreign Countries, not only in
Babylon,
where even after their return were left three famous Schools of Learning
Sora, Pompeditha,
and
Neharda, &c.
By which it is evident what mighty advantages the
Chaldeans
had from the
Jewish
Church and Schools for improvement in their Philosophy, at first received from the
Patriarchs, Abraham, &c.
And indeed whereas it's said that
Pythagoras,
and
Democritus,
with others travelled into
Chaldee,
to acquaint themselves with the first principles of
Philosophy,
and that they received much of their
Philosophy
from the
Chaldeans,
why may we not by the
Chaldeans
understand the
Jewish Church,
and
Schools
which were then settled in
Chaldea,
and under that
Empire.
CHAP. V. Of the Magi, Gymnosophistae, Druids and other Barbarick Philosophers.
Of the
Persick Philosophy
preserved by the
Magi,
who were instituted by
Zoroaster,
with the origination of his name, &c. Of the
Indian Gymnosophists,
both
Brachmanes,
and
Germans.
The
Phrygian
Philosophers. The
African
Philosophers, both
1 Atlantic
or
Lybick. 2 Ethiopic.
The
European Barbarick
Philosophers,
1
In
Scythia. 2
In
Thracia. 3
In
Spain. 4 Britannie,
and
Gaul,
who were called
Druids
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an Oke; in the
Celtick
Tongue
deru,
and in the
British drew.
The
Druids
first in
Britannie;
thence they translated their Sect and Discipline into Gaul. Their Academies, Degrees, Privileges and Studies. Their Philosophy
Natural, Moral, Medicine, Geography, Astronomy, Magic,
Their mode of philosophizing
symbolick;
which they learned from the
Phoenicians,
with their distinctive
habits. Their
Theology,
touching God, and the Souls immortality. Their
Ecclesiastic Discipline,
and Worship, by human sacrifices. Their names
Taronides, Bard, Euates.
Their
Oke Religion
from
Abraham, &c.
§. 1. HAving dispatched the
Jewish, Egyptian, Phoenician,
and
Chaldean Philosophy,
we now proceed to the remaining
Sects
of the
Barbarick Philosophers,
both
Eastern
and,
Western
; and shall begin with the
Persians,
who had a considerable repute for their
Philosophy,
from whom the
Grecians
received many things, especially such as referred to their
God's.
Thus
Porphyry
in the Life of
Pythagoras,
tells us,
that as
Pythagoras
received his
Arithmetic
from the
Phoenicians,
his
Geometry
from the
Egyptians,
his
Astrology
from the
Chaldeans,
so also what
appertained to the worship of the God's,
and to other Studies, which regard conversation, he learned from the
Magi,
or
Persick Philosophers.
So
Pliny lib.
34.
c.
37. testifies,
that Democritus had recourse to them. Laertius
tells us
that Pyrrhus, the head of the Skeptics, and companion of Anaxarchus, had conversation with them.
And
Philostratus
5.
de vita Apollonii
informs us,
that
Apollonius Tyanaeus
(that great
Magician,
who is by the
Heathens
extolled above
Christ
for his miracles) in his travels into
India,
made some stay in
Persia,
partly to visit the
King,
and partly to consider their Wisdom,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, studied by their
Magi
: with whom he conversed twice every day; and being asked his judgment concerning them, he answered
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
they are wise men, but comprehend not all things.
So
Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
1. §. 7. These
Magi
were the Interpreters of
Human,
and
Divine Laws
; and of so great reputation among the
Persians,
that as
Cicero lib.
3.
de Nat. Deor.
writes, no one could attain to the
Persian Empire,
but he, who had been instructed in the
Science,
and
Discipline
of the
Magi
; who taught
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and instructed their
Kings
in the
mode
of
Government.
So
Apuleius, Apolog.
informs us,
that Magic is taught among the chief Regal Affairs; neither was it permitted to any among the Persians rashly to undertake the office of a Magus, no more than that of a King.
Neither were these
Magi
less prevalent in the Affairs of their
God's. Plato
joins both their
politick,
and
sacred
capacity together,
Alcibiad.
1,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
[
sc.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Magic is a Ministry of the God's: it teacheth also things that appertain to the Regal Office. Lucian de Longaevis,
says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Apollonius Tyanaeus Epist ad Euphrat.
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Magus is a Minister of the God's
; which
Porphyry
interprets,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
wise about sacreds, and ministering in the same.
To which agrees that of
Laertius lib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Among the Persians the Magi, were Authors of Philosophy, who employed themselves about the worship of the God's.
The like
Soudas,
who calls these
Magi
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 2. That the
Magi
were the Authors, and Preservers of the
Persick Philosophy,
is affirmed by
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
Sotion
in his books
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. As
Laertius.
These
Magi
are said to be instituted by
Zoroaster.
So
Lud. Vives in Aug. civit. l.
8.
c.
9. Thus
Hornius Histor. philos. lib.
2.
c.
6.
Zoroaster
therefore was the first most illustrious Doctor of
Magie
in
Persia
: neither did he deliver this
Art
by
oral Tradition
only, but also in large
Writings,
according to
Pliny,
and
Aristotle.
For he writ concerning it an hundred thousand
Verses
; which
Hermippus
is said to illustrate by his
Commentaries.
There are yet extant certain,
Geek Poems,
which pass under the Inscription of
Zoroaster's
Chaldaick
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and are not unlike to
Theognes
's
Sentences,
yea in many things they resemble much the
Sacred Scriptures.
But
Beza,
and others justly suspect that these are but the spurious Comments of some
Semi-Christian.
Concerning the origination of
Zoroaster's
name, there are various opinions, but none more probable than that of Learned
Bochart,
who derives the name from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
contemplari
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Astrum, q. d.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, for which
Dinon in Persicis
calls him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
Soroaster,
who is reputed the
Founder
of the
Persick Philosophy,
and
Worship,
was indeed but the
Promoter
of it: for the main of the
Persian Rites
and
Wisdom,
wherein their
Magi
were instructed,
were traduced from the
Zabii,
or
Chaldean Philosophers,
with whom they agreed in the chief points of their
Idolatry, viz.
in the worship of the
Sun
by
Images,
and
kissing their hand,
as
Job
31.26, 27. also in their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or hearths, where they preserved their
eternal fire,
the
Symbol
of the
Sun, Lev.
26, 30. as before
chap
4. §. 6. So
Stillingfleet orig. sacr. book
1.
c.
3.
Hence probably the Rites of the
Zabii
are the same with those of the
Chaldeans
and
Persians,
who all agreed in this worship of the
Sun,
and of
Fire,
&c.
Neither had the
Persians
only their
Magi,
but also the
Medes,
Parthians,
and other neighbor
Nations
; as
Lucian de Longaevis,
and
Pliny
calls the
Arabian
wise men
Magi.
One chief Philosopher amongst the
Persians
was
Ochus
the
Phoenician,
who, as we may presume, instructed them in the
Phoenician,
and so in the
Jewish
Wisdom. See
Soudas
in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 3.
Austin, de civ. l.
8.
c.
9. makes mention of the
Indian Philosophers,
and
Lud. Vives
on that place adds thus,
The
Indians
had their
Philosophers,
whom they called the
Brachmanes,
of whose Life, and
institutes Philostratus,
in the Life of
Apollonius,
has given us many things, as
Strabo,
and such, who have written of the things done by
Alexander.
So
Apuleius Florid.
15.
The Brachmanes are the Wise men among the Indians.
And
Bardisanes Syrus
in
Euseb. lib.
6.
praepar. Evang. cap.
8. gives us a more full account of them thus:
Among the
Indians,
and
Bactrians
there are many thousand of men called
Brachmanes
· These, as well from the
Tradition
of their Fathers, as from
Laws,
neither worship
Images,
nor eat what is
animate
: they never drink Wine, or Beer: they are far from all Malignitie, attending wholly on God.
These
Brachmanes
some derive from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Barac,
he
praised,
or
worshipped:
Others make the name to be compounded of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
ab rec the Father of the young King,
as
Onk
•
loss
and
Rabbi Judas.
Some of the
Ancients
make several
Sects,
or
Societies
of these
Indian Philosophers,
namely the
Brachmanes, Gymnosophistae, Samanaei
and
Calani.
The chief of the
Brachmanes,
and
Samanaei
is by
Philostratus lib.
3.
de vita Apollon. Tyan.
called
Iarcha.
The
Head
of the
Gymnosophists
is, by
Hieronymus, contra Jovin.
named
Buddas.
But
Vossius de philos. sectis l.
2.
c.
1. tells us that the common Appellative of these
Indian Philosophers
was
Gymnosophists,
as
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
Sotion in libris
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
according to
Laertius
; as also
Strabo, Clemens, Apul
•
ius,
Solinus, &c.
These
Indian Gymnosophists
were of two sorts some were called
Brachmanes,
as before, others
Germans.
And amongst the
Germans
some were called
Hylobii,
because they lived in
Woods,
for that's the import of the
Greek
word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. To these the name
Gymnosophists
properly belonged. See
Strabo l.
15. and
Clemens
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
1. Amongst the
Brachmanes
there was one named
Buddas Preceptor
to
Manes
the
Persian,
who was the Founder of this Sect, as
Soudas, &c.
These
Brachmanes
held a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Transmigration
of
Souls
into
Beasts,
especially into
Oxen.
They held also the worlds
Creation
by God, and his
Providence
in
governing
of it. So
Strabo lib.
15. of these
Brachmanes
saith
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. They agree with the Grecians in many things viz. touching the worlds production, and destruction, and that God is the Creator and Governer of it
: which opinions of theirs,
Owen
questions not, but they had, by ancient Tradition, from the Church of God.
Owen Theol. l.
1.
c.
8. Hence, as we justly conjecture, from this cognation 'twixt these
Indian Philosophers,
and the
Jews
in some
Divine Dogmas,
sprang that mistake of
Clearchus
the
Peripatetic,
and
Megasthenes,
who thought the
Brachmanes
and
Calani
to be the same with the
Jews.
Of which see
Euseb. l.
9.
praep. c.
3. Amongst the
Greeks,
who resorted to these
Indian Philosophers,
we may reckon
Democritus,
so
Aelian lib.
4.
Var. Histor.
and
Laert.
Also
Pyrrho
the Head of the
Skeptics
is said to have conversation with the
Gymnosophists
in
Indiae
as
Laertius. Apollonius Tyanaeus,
that great
Pagan Antichrist,
is said to have spent much conversation among these
Indian Philosophers. Eusebius contra Hieroclem l.
5. brings him in thus characterizing of them:
The
Indians,
contracting
Philosophy
for the greatest advantage, comprehend it in the
Divine
and
sublime
Nature. These truly I have greatly admired, and esteem them blessed, and wise.
By which it appears that their
Philosophy
was mostly
Theologick.
Apulcius Florid. l.
5. says,
that the
Philosophy
of the
Brachmanes
was composed of many severals:
viz.
what were the documents of
Souls,
what the exercitaments of
Bodies,
what the parts of the
Mind,
what the turns of
Life,
and what were the
Torments,
and
Rewards,
which the God's appointed to all, according to their
Merits.
§. 4. Amongst the
Asiatic Philosophers
we might reckon the
Phrygians,
who had also their
Philosophy,
which had been better known to us, if
Democritus
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which
Laertius
makes mention of
lib.
9. were extant. Concerning their
Theology
see
Diodorus Siculus,
and
Eusebius:
so
Vossius.
§. 5. We now proceed to the
African Philosophy
;
and passing by the
Egyptian,
of which we have already treated, we shall begin 1. with the
Atlantic
or
Lybick Philosophers,
of which
Lud. Vives, in August. civ. l.
8.
c.
9. thus speaks;
The
Atlanticks
inhabit the places in
Africa
bordering on the
Ocean,
whose ancient
King
was
Atlas,
the brother of
Saturn,
and son of the
Heaven,
who being a great
Astronomer
(whence he was said to bear up the Heavens) taught his son
Hesperus,
and others of his kindred, and people, the same
Art
: from
whom this
Science
of
Astronomy
crept into the inner
Libya
; where also
Hercules philosophized.
By which it seems most probable that the
Atlanticks,
and
Lybicks
received their
Philosophy
from the
Phoenicians
; for
Hercules,
as its well known, was a
Phoenician
; and so, I doubt not, was
Atlas.
Also
Laertius,
in his Preface makes mention of
Atlas
the
Lybian,
amongst the ancient
Philosophers.
And
Diodorus. Siculus l.
4. reckons up some fables concerning the God's, which these
Atlantic Philosophers
held.
Atlas
is said to bring Astronomy out of
Libya
into
Greece,
whereof
Orion
is said to be the first Author in
Baeotia,
whence the Star
Orion
received its name: so
Carion. Chron. lib.
2. But
Bochart
makes
Atlas
the same with
Enoch
as before
chap.
1. §.7.
V
•
ssius
tells us (
de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
2.)
That the
Lybick Philosophy
came from
Atlas,
especially
Astrology,
whence
Atlas
is said to hold up Heaven with his shoulders, and the
mountain
called
Atlas
received its name from him,
&c. Plin. l.
7.
c.
56,
2. The
Ethiopians
also had their
Philosophers
called
Gymnosophists,
so
Jerome l.
4. in
Ezech. cap.
13. makes mention of these
Ethiopian Gymnosophists,
who received both their
Name,
and
Philosophy
from
India,
as
Philostratus
in the Life of
Apollonius lib.
6. Touching the
Ethiopic Philosophy,
and its Traduction from the
Mosaic,
we have this particular account in
Hornius, Histor. Philosoph. lib.
2.
c.
8.
Touching the
Philosophy
of the
Ethiopians,
little is mentioned by Antiquity; and what has been mentioned, is well nigh all lost, by the iniquity of the times. But this is certain, that they received all their
Divine,
&
Human
Dogmas from the
Egyptians.
Whence their very names were confused. For the
Romans
called the
Ethiopians Egyptians
; because indeed they descended from
Egypt.
Moreover there is no doubt to be made of it, but that they drew somewhat of more sound
Wisdom
from
Moses.
§. 6. Amongst the
European Barbarick Philosophers
we shall first mention the
Scythians
(who according to their ancient bounds lay partly in
Asia,
partly in
Europe
) of whom
August. Civit. l.
8.
c.
9. makes mention, and
Lud Vives
on that place speaks thus.
The
Scythians
in times past philosophized and contended with the
Egyptians
touching their
Antiquity.
They are a people stout, simple, and just, ignorant of vice, and malice, and got that by their natural ingenie, which the
Grecians
could not attain unto by all their magnifick and illustrious
Sciences:
see
Justin l.
2.
§. 7. But we pass on to the
Thracians,
who had anciently a great
repute for
Philosophy,
which some think, they owed to
Zamolxis
a
Thracian
(whom some make the servant of
Pythagoras
) but others derive their
Philosophy
from the
Grecians,
as
Laertius lib.
8. What the
Philosophy
of the
Thracians
was, may be known by the Doctrine of
Orpheus,
who was a
Thracian.
Many Anciently writ
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Poems
according to the Doctrine of
Orpheus,
of which see
Soudas
in
Orpheus
's
Philosophy
(delivered in
Poesie
) which was chiefly
Moral,
and
Theologick
; for by his
Music,
and
Rhetoric,
he had so great a power on the
Thracians,
to
civilize
them, as that he was said to have
drawn Trees and Beasts. Justin Martyr
calls him,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the first master of Polytheism, or multiplicity of God's
; which he brought from
Egypt,
with many superstitious
Ceremonies
and
Usages,
and set them up amongst the
Thracians,
and
Macedonians, &c.
see more in our relation of
Orpheus
Part 1. B 3. C. 1. §. 5.
§. 8. But to come to our
Western Philosophers
;
and firstly the
Spaniards
; of whom
Aust de Civ. Dei l.
8.
c
9. makes mention; and
Lud. Vives
on him speaks thus.
In
Spain,
before the veins of Gold and Silver were found out, and Wars begun, there were many
Philosophers
; and the people lived holy and quiet lives, being everywhere governed by such Magistrates, as were men most excellent for Learning and Probitie: Their affairs were transacted according to
Justice,
and
Equity,
not by the number of
Laws
: and if any were written, 'twas principally amongst the
Turdetans,
in the most ancient times. There were scarce any quarrels or controversies amongst the people: and all the disputes were touching Emulation of
Virtue,
the nature of the
God's,
the reason of
Nature
(or
Natural Philosophy
) of good
manners
(or
Morals
) which their Learned men, on stated days, publicly disputed of, the women also being present. But when the mountains, big with metals, brought forth Gold, and Silver, men began to admire this
new matter.
Hence the
Phoenicians,
who sailed far and near, for lucre sake, traded here, and drew multitudes of men, from
Asia
and
Greece
hither, who taught us the
Grecian,
and
Asiatic
Vices: there remain yet some few fragments of our Antiquities in
Greek
and
Latin,
whence I hope in time to illustrate the Origin of my
Nation.
Thus
Lud. Vives.
That the
Phoenicians
brought into
Spain,
with their
Colonies,
not only the
Phoenician Letters,
but also
Sciences,
and
Philosophy,
we have reason to believe by what has been before asserted out of
Bochart, &c.
Part 1. B. 1. C. 5.
§. 9 We shall conclude this Discourse of
Barbarick Philosophy
with that in use among the old
Britain's,
and
Gauls,
whose
Philosophers
are by
Hornius Hist. philos. l.
2.
c.
12.
reduced to two
Sects,
the
Bardi,
and
Druids.
The
Bardi
were an inferior sort of
Philosophers,
and for the most part
Poets,
according to that of
Lucan. l.
1.
Plurima securi fudisti carmina Bardi!
Who notwithstanding, as the ancient
Greek Poets,
arrogated to themselves no small reputation for Wisdom. But the
Druids
were accounted the more worthy, yea almost
Divine Philosophers,
and obtained no small Autoritie among the people. These
Druids,
who in ancient times
philosophized
amongst the
old Britons
and
Gauls,
and were indeed a peculiar and distinct
Sect of Philosophers,
differing from all the world besides, both in their
mode of philosophizing,
as also in their
Religious Rites,
and Mysteries
: yet we may not doubt, but that they received much of their
Philosophy,
as well as
Theology
from the
Ph
•
nicians,
who traded amongst them, as before. As for the name
Druids, Pliny l.
16.
c.
44. deduceth it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from an
Oke
:
For, saith he,
the
Druids
have nothing more sacred than an
Oke.
Even now, they of themselves chose groves of Okes; neither do they perform any Sacreds, without that leaf; so that hence they seem to be called, according to the
Greek
interpretation,
Druids.
4.
c.
42.) assents to this
Origination
of
Pliny
; to which he adds
Neither is it to be wondered that the
Druids
were so called from this
Greek
name, when as an
Oke
amongst the
Celtae,
was called
Deru.
The
Britain's
in
England
write
drew
(so
Drewstenton
in
Devon
) and our Country men
deru.
That
Drewstenton,
and names of like sound, came from these
Druids,
'tis not without probability
Vossius de Orig. & Progr. Idolotr. l.
1.
c.
35. thinks that the name
Druids
ought rather to be fetched from the
Celtick
name
deru.
So
Dickins
•
n. Druidum origo p.
35.
I assent most to them who fetch the
Druids
from the
Celtick
name
Deru, i. e.
an
Oke
; which the
Cambro-Britain's
or
Welch
to this day call
Drew.
And I am so far from believing that the
Druids
were so called at first from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that I rather think
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was formed out of the
Celtick deru.
§. 10. This Sect of the
Druids
began first in our Country of
Britannie
; and hence it was translated into
Gaul.
Thus
Caesar de Bello Gall. lib.
6.
Their Discipline,
says he,
was first found out in Britannie, and thence translated into Gaul, according to the common opinion.
The
like
Bochart
acknowledgeth.
Can. l.
1.
c.
42. These
Druids
instituted their
Academies,
for the promoting of
Learning,
in
Groves
;
in which tbey had their
Schools
filled with studious youth; so
Caesar,
also
Mela l.
3.
c.
11. They spent twenty years, before they were admitted to the degree of
Doctor.
That which allured them to study,
was the many
privileges
of their
Students,
and the great Authority their ancient
Doctors
obtained. So
Caesar lib.
6. tells us,
that the Druids were exempted from War, and paying Tribute.
The which
privileges
are still continued in our
Universities.
As for the
method
of their
Studies,
the same
Caesar
tells us,
they were wont to get by heart a great number of verses.
They affected various, and almost all kinds of Philosophy.
Strabo l,
4. relates,
that, besides the Science of natural causes, they were also exercised in Moral Philosophy.
And
Pliny lib.
3.
c.
1. makes them to be skilled in
Medicine,
and
Magic.
Touching their Skill in
Moral Philosophy
or
Ethics, Diogenes Laertius,
in the
Proem
to his Book, gives us this account;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
And they say the Druids were wont to philosophize enigmatically, that the God's were to be worshipped, that no evil was to be done, that fortitude was to be embraced.
By which also we learn, that the
mode,
or manner of their
philosophizing
was
symbolick,
or
enigmatick
; which, we need no way doubt, they learned from the
Phoenicians
(as these had it from the
Jews
). Hence their famous
symbolick
Image of
Hercules Ogmius,
who was a
Phoenician,
as
Bochart
proves at large
Can. l.
1.
c.
42.
The
Gauls,
says he, called
Hercules Ogmius,
as
Lucian
in
Hercul.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Ogmion,
that is,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
agemion,
a
stranger,
so in the
Arabic
: Namely because
Hercules
came from
Phoenicia,
or
Africa,
or the
Gades,
and after his many and great Labors arrived amongst the
Gauls
; thence his picture in
Lucian Hercul.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
a decrepit bald old man, Gray, and wrinkled, as old Mariners,
&c.
Farther,
that these
Druids
were skilled in
Geography, Astronomy,
and
Natural Philosophy,
we have the testimonies both of
Caesar,
and
Mela. Caesar Comment l.
6. speaks thus of them:
They dispute, and teach their Scholars many things touching the Stars, and their motion; also concerning the Magnitude of the Universe, the nature of things, the force, and power of the Immortal God's. Mela lib.
3,
cap.
2. says,
that the
Gauls
have their Masters of Eloquence, and Wisdom from the
Druids.
These profess they know the magnitude, and form of the earth, and world▪ they teach many Noble
persons of their Nation privately. One thing which they commonly teach is, that Souls are eternal.
As for their habit, it was (as in our Universities)
distinctive
and peculiar, thereby to gain the veneration of the people. In their sacred Offices they used a white Vestment (answerable to the
Jewish Ephod
) as we are informed by
Pliny lib.
6
cap. ultimo.
They also gave themselves to the study of Eloquence▪ so
M
•
la l.
3. as before.
Caesar
adds farther concerning these
Druids, That they learnt by heart a great number of Verses: Therefore some of them continued twenty years in study. Neither did they conceive it meet, to commit their studies to writing, whereas in other affairs, both public, and private, they used the Greek Letters.
§. 11. But these
Druids
had a special vogue for their
Theology,
wherein they taught many things peculiar, and some things excellent, as
Owen Theol l.
3.
c.
11. particularly they asserted the
immortaltie
of the
Soul
▪
so
Strabo
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: the like
Caesar.
The
Druids
held also a
Metempsychosis,
or
Transmigration of Souls,
which some conceive they received from the
Pythogoreans,
as these derived it from the
Jews,
as
Selden Jan. Anglor. l.
1.
p.
22.
Strabo
also tells us, that they held
the World should be at last destroyed by Fire:
which, without doubt, they had from some
Jewish
or
Phoenician
Tradition. They taught also that
one God
was to be worshipped, as
Origen
on
Ezech.
4. This one God was the
Sun
; to whom the
Moon
was added, which was worshipped by the Women.
§. 12. As for their
Ecclesiastic Discipline
; they being many, reduced themselves unto a
Hierarchy,
under one President, who ruled them all. So
Caesar,
and out of him
Selden Jani Anglorum l.
1.
p.
18.
The Druids have one presiding over them, who holds the supreme Autoritie amongst them. This being dead, he that excels most, succeeds in his Dignity; but if there be many equal, they choose by suffrage.
And to strengthen this their
Imperial Autoritie,
they made use of a politick religious excommunication, as
Caesar,
and
Grotius, de Imper. sum. p
•
test.
of excommunication.
Thus
Selden, Jani Angl. p.
17. (out of
Caesar
)
If any private person or people amongst them▪ submit not to their
Decree,
they
excommunicate
him from their
Sacrifices.
This is amongst them the higehst punishment. They, who are thus interdicted, are esteemed in the number of the most impious, and wicked; all separate from them, they avoid any conversation, or discourse with them, lest they
should receive damage from their Contagion. Neither is the Law open for such, neither is any Honor given to them.
The same
Caesar
tells us,
that they had so much Autoritie amongst the people, that they determined almost all controversies, both public and private.
So
Selden Jan. Angl. lib.
1.
They determine all controversies, both
public
and
private.
If there be any crime committed, if any murder done, if there be any controversy about inheritance, or bounds, the same decree, and constitute rewards and punishments.
Hence we may gather whence the
mystery of iniquity
gathered much of its power.
§. 13. As to
Rites
and
Worship,
the main Sacrifices of the
Druids
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Human Sacrifice
: whereof there were 2 sorts, the one
private
; when any sacrificed himself, or another,
for some others safety: the other
public,
not unlike that which the
Phoenicians
offered to their
Molec
; from whom, we have reason enough to persuade us, these
Druids
received this, as other Rites. By reason of these cruel inhuman
human
Sacrifices the
Romans
endeavored, though in vain, to take away all their
superstitious worship
; as
Strabo de Gallis lib
4.
Owen Theol. l.
3.
c.
11. We have a good, though brief account of these
Druids
in
Lud. Vives
on
August. Civ. l.
8.
c.
9.
There were, says he, amongst the
Gauls,
the
Druids,
as
Caesar l.
8, who were
Priests, Poets, Philosophers,
and
Divines
; whom they called
Saronides,
as
Diodorus l.
6. They had also their
Diviners,
to whom the people referred their affairs. Neither was there any
Sacrifice
performed without a
Philosopher, i. e.
one skilled in the
Divine Nature:
by whose advice all things, at home and abroad, were administered. That the
Druids
were
Philosophers, Strabo l.
4. relates.
That the
Saronides
were the same with the
Druids Bochart (Can. l.
1.
c.
42.
) proves out of
Diodorus l.
5.
These Philosophers, and Divines,
saith he,
were in great veneration amongst them,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
whom they call Saronides:
which name has the same origination with that of the
Druids,
namely from an Oke; which anciently was by the
Greeks
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thus
Pliny lib.
4:
c.
5. And
Hesychius
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Okes having an hiatus,
by reason of their antiquity. So
Callimachus
in his hymn on
Jupiter,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
where the Scholiast renders
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e. Okes. Caesar l.
6. comprehends all the wise men of the
Gauls
under the name of
Druids:
so
Cicero
1.
de Divinatione.
But
Strabo
divides them into 3 sorts,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Bardi,
the
Euates,
and the
Druids:
the
Bardi,
adds he, were
Singers,
and
Poets
: the
Euates, Priests,
and
Physiologists
: the
Druids
(especially so called) to
Physiologie
added
Moral Philosophy.
The like
Marcellinus lib.
15. as
Vossius de Philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
3. §. 6.
§. 14. Now that the
Druids
derived much of their
Philosophy
from the
Mosaic History
is farther evidenced from that of Learned
Dickinson, Druidum Origo
(at the end of his
Delphi Pheniciz.) pag.
36.
Farther, thou mayest demand whence this
Oke Religion
(of the
Druids
) sprang? namely from the
Okes
of
Mamre
: under which, in times past, those holy men (in whose hands the administration of
Divine
Service and Worship was) lived most devoutly: the shadow of which
Okes
afforded an
house
to
Abraham,
and a
Temple
to
God.
This I sucked from the
Dugs of Truth,
namely from the
sacred Scriptures▪ Abraham dwelt
(saith the Hagiographer
Gen
13.18.
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in,
or (as the
Arabic
has it)
among the Okes of Mamre.
Which the Lxx renders
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and
ch.
18.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Under which
Oke
he fixed his
Tabernacle,
erected an Altar, and offered to the Lord Calves, Goats, Rams, and other Sacrifices of like kind;
and performed all
Sacerdotal Offices.
Yea under this tree he entertained
God himself,
together with
Angels.
He here had
conference
with
God,
and entered into
covenant
with him, and was blessed of him. These are indeed admirable
praeconia
of
Okes.
Lo the
Oke Priests
! Lo the
Patriarchs
of the
Druids!
For from these sprang the
Sect
of the
Druids,
which reached up at least, as high as
Abraham
's time (for they report that the
Druids Colleges
flourished in the time of
Hermio,
who was King of the
Germans,
immediately after the death of
Abraham
). For because this holy man and Priest,
Abraham
lived under
Okes,
and enjoyed God for his companion, performing worship to him, our Divines (the
Druids
) from this so famous example, chose Groves of
Okes
for their
Religious
Services,
&c.
See more of the
Druids,
their Doctrine, and Rites,
Caesar Com. l.
6.
Strabo l.
4.
Diodorus. l.
5.
Owen Theol. l.
3.
c.
11.
BOOK II. The Original of the Ionick, but chiefly of the Italic, or Pythagorick Philosophy.
CHAP. I. The Traduction of the Grecian Philosophy from the Patriarchs and Jewish Church proved by Universal Consent.
The
Grecian
Philosophers recourse to
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia.
That the
Grecian
Philosophy was originally traduced from the
Jewish
Church, and Scriptures, is proved by Testimonies.
1.
Of
Heathens,
and
Grecians
themselves,
Plato, Numenius, Hermippus. 2.
Of
Jews, Aristobulus, Josephus. 3.
Of the Fathers,
Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret;
as also
Joh: Grammaticus. 4. Moderne
Papists,
Steuchus, Eugubinus, Justinianus
on
Joh. 1.1. 5. Forreign
Protestant Divines, and learned men,
Serranus, Julius
and
Joseph Scaliger, Vossius, Heinsius, Hornius, Bochart, Grotius, Diodate. 6.
The Testimonies of
English
Writers,
Jackson, Usher, Richardson, Preston,
Sir
Walter Raghley, Owen, Hammond, Stillingfleet, Mede, Cudworth, Selden, Dickinson,
&c.
§. 1. HAving finished our Discourse of
Barbarick Philosophy,
and
Philosophers,
we now proceed to the
Grecian
; which owes its
original
to the former. So much
Plato
in his
Cratylus
(and else where) acknowledgeth,
that they received their Learning from the Barbarians, and Ancients▪ who lived near the God's, &c:
so
Clemens Alexander: lib.
1. says,
that Philosophy, a thing variously useful, in times past shined from Nation to Nation amongst the Barbarians
; whence afterward it came into
Greece.
What these
Barbarick Nations
were, from whom the
Grecians
received their
Philosophy,
has been already B. 1. Ch. 4. §. 1. demonstrated: and it will be farther evident by what follows in the enumeration of particulars; how
Thales
had recourse to
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia
for his
Philosophy, Ph
•
recydes
to
Phoenicia
for his;
Pythagoras
to
Phoenicia, Egypt,
and
Chaldea
for his;
Socrates
and his Scholar
Plato,
traduced theirs from
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia: Solon
his
Laws
from
Egypt,
and
Zeno
his
Morals
from
Phoenicia
: As
Democritus,
and
Epicurus
their
Atoms
from
Mochus
: And
Aristotle
his
Natural Philosophy
of the
first principles, matter, form,
and
privation, &c.
from
Sanchoniathon
's History of the Creation: of each whereof in its respective place. At present, we shall only endeavor some
general
demonstration, that the
Grecians
traduced the chiefest part, if not the whole of their
Philosophy
originally from the
Scriptures,
either by
personal conversation
with the
Jews,
or
Traditions
from them; which they gleaned up in
Egypt, Phoenicia,
and
Chaldea, &c.
§. 2. That the
Egyptians, Phoenicians,
and
Chaldeans
received their
Philosophy
from the
Jewish
Church and
Scriptures
; we have, in the former Book, endeavored to prove, both as to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: which might suffice to make good our
position,
on this
supposition
(which is universally granted,
and shall be hereafter proved) that the
Grecians
received their Philosophy from these aforementioned
Egyptians, Phoenicians,
and
Chaldeans.
But to make our demonstration more valid, we shall give some more immediate (though at present only
general
and
inartificial
) proofs, that the
Grecian Philosophy was traduced from the Jewish Church and Scriptures.
And we shall begin with the
Testimonies
of the
Grecian
Philosophers themselves,
Plato,
with others.
Plato
in his
Gratylus
tells us plainly,
that they
(the
Grecians) received their Learning from the
Barbarians,
who were more ancient than themselves.
These
Barbarians, Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Nicephorus,
and
Serranus
understand to be the
Jews
(as before) whose name
Plato concealed,
thereby to avoid the envy of the people (who were professed enemies of the
Jews,
and their
Religion
) as also to gain the more
credit
to himself.
But
Plato,
in his
Philebus,
speaks more plainly to this purpose, acknowledging,
that the report or tradition he had received of the
Unity
of God, as to his
Essence,
and
plurality
of
persons,
and
Decrees,
was from the
Ancients,
who dwelt nearer the
God's,
and were better than they (the
Grecians
).
Who certainly could be
no other than the
Patriarchs,
and
Jewish Church,
from whom all those
Traditions,
touching the
Unity
of God, and Pluralitie of persons, and Decrees, were traduced. Whence also
Plato
acknowledgeth, that the best, and surest course to prove the
immortality
of the
Soul
was by some
Divine Word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as in his
Phaedo.
The like he acknowledgeth elsewhere,
that he received his knowledge of,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or providence governing the World, from the wise, i. e.
as 'tis conceived, the
Jews.
And
Serranus,
in his Preface to
Plato
does confidently affirm,
that
Plato
received his
symbolick Philosophy
from the
Jews, i. e.
from the Doctrine of
Moses,
and the
Prophets
; as all the learned, and ancient
Christian Doctors
have judged; though he industriously avoided the naming of the
Jews,
which was odious.
We have also the Testimonies of other
Pagan
Philosophers concurring herein; as that famous saying of
Numenius
the
Pythagorean,
what is Plato, but Moses Atticizing?
Also that of
Hermippus,
a most diligent, and ancient Writer of
Pythagoras
's Life, who plainly affirms (as
Josephus contra Ap. lib.
1.)
that
Pythagoras
translated many things out of the Jewish Institutes, into his own Philosophy.
So
Aristotle,
in his Books of
Politicks,
makes mention of many things taken out of the ancient
Lawgivers,
which exactly suit with
Moses
's
Laws,
as
Cunaeus
observes. Thus
Diogenes Laertius
in his Proem to the Lives of the
Philosophers
begins with these words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Some affirm that Philosophy had its origin from the Barbarians.
That by the
Barbarians
must be understood (
inclusively,
if not
exclusively
) the
Jews,
is affirmed by
Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius,
and others, as in what immediately precedes §. 2.
Thus
Steuchus Eugubinus de peren. Philosoph. l.
1.
c.
12.
whence it is manifest that the
Philosophers
thought, and spake those things, which they had learned from the
Barbarians.
The first
Barbarians
were the
Chaldeans, Egyptians,
and, whom we ought to place in the first rank, the
Hebrews.
§. 3. We may add hereto the Testimonies of
Jews
;
as that of
Aristobulus,
the
Egyptian Jew,
affirming,
that
Pythagoras
translated many of his opinions out of the Jewish Discipline.
The like he affirms of
Plato,
as
Euseb praep. Evang. l.
9.
c.
6. and
Clemens Alexand. Strom.
1. who also
Strom.
5. says,
that
Aristobulus
affirmed the same of the Peripatetic Philosophy,
viz.
that it depended on Moses
's
Law, and other of the Prophets. Josephus l.
1
contra Apion.
says of
Pythagoras,
that he did not only understand the Jewish Discipline, but also embraced many things
therein
; Whence he gives this character of him, out of
Hermippus,
who writ his life,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he was an Imitator of the Jewish Opinions.
So the same
Josephus Antiq. l.
11.
c.
2.
brings in
Demetrius Phalereus,
commending the
Law
of
Moses,
and giving this reason, why their
Heathen Poets,
and
Historians
made no mention of this
Law
; because (saith he) it being
holy,
ought not to be delivered by a profane mouth.
Its true the
Jews
mixed with these their relations many sigments, yet this notwithstanding is sufficiently manifest hence, that they had a strong and fixed persuasion, that the
Grecanick Philosophy
was traduced from them and their
Sacred Oracles
; as Learned
Selden
has observed
de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib.
1.
c.
2.
§. 4. If we consult the
Memoires
of
Christians,
both
Ancient,
and
Moderne,
we shall find abundant Testimonies conspiring to make good this Assertion,
that the Grecians traduced their Philosophy from the Scriptures and Jewish Church.
Amongst the
Ancients
we have
Tertullian Apol. c.
17.
who of the
Poets,
says he, who of the
Sophists
was there, who did not drink of the
Prophets
fountain? Hence therefore the
Philosophers
quenched the thirst of their ingenie.
Thus
Justin Martyr
in his
Paraenesis
to the
Greeks,
showeth, how
Orpheus, Pythagoras,
Plato, Homer, &c.
borrowed many things from
Moses
: and he does industriously prove the Noveltie of the
Grecian
Philosophy, out of
Polemo, Apion, Ptolemaeus Mendisius, Philocrates,
and others. So
Minucius
in
Octavius: The Philosophers,
says he,
have imitated some shadow of interpolated Truth from the Divine predictions of the Prophets.
So
Clemens Alexandrinus,
in his
exhortation
to the
Gentiles,
speaks thus:
O
Plato
what ever good
Laws
are afforded thee of God,
&c.
thou hadst from the
Hebrews
; and else where
Strom.
1. he calls
Plato the Philosopher, who derived what he had from the Hebrews,
and he speaks this
universally
of the
Philosophers,
that before the coming of
Christ,
the
Philosophers
took part of the truth from the
Hebrew Prophets,
though they acknowledged not the same, but attributed it to themselves as their sentiments or opinions; and thence some things they
adulterated
; and other things they did by a needles diligence unlearnedly, yet as seeming wise, declare; but other things they
invented.
Thus
Clemens. Eusebius
tells us,
that
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
translated the Learning of the
Jews,
and
Egyptians
into
Greek.
The like
Euseb. praepar. l.
9.
c.
1.
The most Illustrious of the
Greeks,
were not altogether ignorant of the
Judaic
Philosophy: some by their Writings, seem
to approve their manner of life, others followed their
Theology,
so far, as they were able.
Thus again
Euseb. praepar. l.
10.
c.
2.
& praefat. in lib.
5.
The
Grecians
like Merchants fetched their
Disciplines
from else where. So
Theodoret l.
2.
de Curand. Graec. affect.
says that
Anaxagoras, Pythagoras,
and
Plato
gathered many riddles, or dark sayings of
God,
from the
Egyptians,
and
Hebrews.
The like is affirmed of
Justin Martyr, Ambrose, Augustine,
and
Jerome,
as
Justinianus
in 1.
Joh.
1.1. and
Selden de Jur. Nat. Hebr. l.
1.
c.
1. have observed. And
Johannes Grammaticus
(called otherwise
Philoponus
) speaks affirmatively to this point:
so
de mundi Creatione lib.
1.
cap
2.
pag.
4. he tells us,
that
Plato,
in expounding the production of the world by God, imitates
Moses
in many things.
The like he affirms
de mundi creatione lib.
6.
cap.
21.
pag.
24
•
.
what
Moses,
says he, said of
Man,
that God made him after his own image,
Plato
translates to
all things
in the world, whence he styled the world a
sensible
Image of the
intellectual
God.
But of this more in its place.
§. 5. As for
Moderne Writers
we have a cloud of witnesses,
and those of the most Learned, and that both of
Papists,
and
Protestants,
who have given
assent
and
consent
to this our conclusion,
touching the traduction of Grecian Philosophy from the Jewish Church, and Scriptures.
Amongst the Papists we might mention
Brietius,
in his
Geography. Mariana
on
Genes.
1. also
Ludovicus Vives
upon
August. de civ. Dei, & de veritate, &c.
of whom else where: we shall at present content ourselves with the Testimony of one or two of the most learned amongst them.
August. Steuchus Eugubinus, De Peren. Philosophia lib.
1.
cap.
1.
treating of the
Succession of Doctrine from the beginning of the world,
begins thus:
As there is one
Principle
of all things, so also there has been one and the same
Science
of him at all times, amongst all, as both Reason, and
Monuments
of many
Nations,
and
Letters
testify. This
Science
springing partly from the first origin of men, has been devolved through all Ages unto Posterity,
&c.
Thence he proceeds to show the
Modus,
how this
Philosophy
was derived from hand to hand, in all Ages.
The most true
Supputation
of Times proves, that
Methuselah
lived, and might converse with
Adam,
as
Noah,
with
Methuselah.
Therefore
Noah
saw, and heard all things before the Flood. Moreover before
Noah
died,
Abraham
was fifty years aged. Neither may we conceive, that this most pious man, and his holy Seed would conceal from
Abraham
(who they foresaw would prove most
holy, and the Head of the pious Nation) things of so great Moment, & so worthy to be commemorated. Therefore from this most true cause it is most equal, that the great
Science
of
Divine
and
human
Affairs should be deduced unto following
Ages
greatly overcome with Barbarism,
&c.
Thence having explicated how Philosophy was handed down even to
Moses
's time, the same
Eugubinus
adds:
Therefore that there has been one, and the same Wisdom always in all men, we endeavor to persuade, not only by these reasons. but also by those many, and great examples, whereby we behold some
Vestigia
of the truth scattered throughout all
Nations,
which
Moses
in his books long since held forth to be beheld as in a glass a far off.
So in what follows he says,
That Sapience also, besides what the ancient Colonies brought with them, passed from the
Chaldeans
to the
Hebrews,
except what
Moses
writ, which passed from the
Hebrews
to the
Egyptians,
from these to the
Grecians,
from the
Grecians
to the
Romans.
For
Abraham
was a
Chaldean,
in whose family the ancient
Theology,
and the
Traditions
of the Fathers, whereof he was
Heir
(as it was most equal) remained. All these things being retained by
Noah,
and his
Sons,
were seen and heard by
Abraham
: he declared them to his
Son,
& Grandchild: from
Jacob
they passed unto posterity. Whence also flowed the Piety, and Sapience of
Job,
who in no regard came short of the Piety, and Sapience of the
Hebrews.
Canst thou conceit, that he, who was most ancient, even in
Abraham
's days, saw not
Noah,
and heard him not discoursing?
Hence the same
Eugubinus cap.
2 having divided
Philosophy
into 3 parts, the first conveyed by
Succession
from
Adam
to
Moses
; the second corrupted by the
Philosophers,
the third restored by the
Sacred Scriptures
: of this last he concludes thus:
At last the third kind of Philosophy shone forth, scattering by its Brightnes all the darknesses of the former, not containing itself in one place, but by its beams filling the Universe,
&c.
Justinianus
on the first Epistle of
John c.
1.
v.
1. having given us a large account of the
Jewish Traditions,
scattered up and down amongst the
Pagan Philosophers,
touching the Divine
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Word,
concludes thus:
Truly many things have been taken up by the
Philosophers,
and
Poets
from
Moses
's Law, which they depraved, changed, and wrested: as touching the
Chaos,
the
Giants War,
the
Flood
; and many other things, as we learn out of
Augustine de civ. dei l.
8.
c.
11. and
lib.
18.
c.
37.
And it is likely that in the same manner they corrupted those
traditions, they had received touching the
Divine
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, his
generation,
& so taught, that those
Persons
differed in
nature,
which (according to the word of God) differ only in
Hypostasis,
or manner of
subsisting, &c.
§. 6. But none have given a more full Explication, and Demonstration of this our Assertion, than the learned Protestants,
as well
Divines
as
Philologists,
of this last Age. Amongst whom we may mention P.
Melancthon
in his Preface, and additions to
Carion. Serranus
(that learned
Philologist,
as well as Divine) in his Preface to, and Annotations on
Plato
almost everywhere asserts our conclusion; as we shall have frequent occasion to show. The like doth
Julius Scaliger,
that great Philosopher, as well as Critick; and
Joseph Scaliger
his Son more fully in his Notes on
Esebius
's
Chronicon,
gives testimony to,
and proof of this Assertion. The same does learned
Vossius
in his excellent Treatise of
Idolatry
;
as also in that
de Philosophorum sectis l.
2.
c.
1,
&c.
as hereafter.
Heinsius
has a
Discourse
professedly on this Subject.
But Learned
Bochart
(that rich
Antiquarie,
and
Philologist
) has given an incomparable advance, and light to this Notion, from whom, I thankfully acknowledge, I have received great assistance in this undertaking, both by
personal conference
with him, and also from his elaborate
Works
; especially his
Geographia Sacra. Grotius
also (from whom I received the first hints of this Assertion) doth
positively
affirm the same;
as on
Mat.
24.38. but especially in his book
de Veritate Religions,
as else where.
Hornius Hist. Philos. lib.
3.
cap.
1.
speaks categorically thus:
The most famous of the
Grecians
deliver, that Philosophy flowed from the
Barbarians
to the
Grecians. Plato
in
Epinom. Cratylo, Philibo. Manetho
in
Josephus
against
Apion.
Whence they so frequently, and so honorably mention, the
Phoenicians, Chaldeans, Egyptians,
who were all instructed by the
Hebrews.
Whence also it was so solemn a thing for the most ancient
Grecian Philosophers
to travel into the
Oriental
parts. Whence sprang the mutual commerces, and common studies betwixt the
Grecians,
and
Egyptians.
Whence he concludes, that Philosophy was not
borne
but
educated
in
Greece:
for the most ancient wise men of
Greece
brought Philosophy thither from the East,
&c.
We have also the Testimony of
Dioda
•
e, Amirault,
and
Daille, &c.
of whom in their place.
§. 7.
To come to the Testimonies of our
English Divines
and
learned
men.
Jackson of the Authority of the Scriptures
(last Edit. in Polio)
pag.
27, 34, 47, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57,
&c.
largely proves this our Assertion,
touching the Traduction of Philosophy from the Scriptures, and Jewish Church.
And withal gives account of the manner, how it was traduced; of which else where. Learned and pious
Usher
asserts the same of
Pythagoras
his Philosophy,
as it will appear in his Life,
&c.
Thus great
Richardson,
in the Exposition on his Divinity Tables, Table 5. MSS. treating of the first Matter says,
that Aristotle received it from Plato, and he from the Egyptians, as these from the Jews. Preston
makes use of this Principle as a main Argument to prove the Divine Original,
and Authority of the
Scriptures,
as before.
Sir
Walter Ralegh,
in his
History of the World
(Part 1. Book 1. Chap. 6. §. 7.) affirms Categorically
that the wiser of the ancient
Heathens,
viz.
Pythagoras, Plato, &c.
had their opinions of
God
from the
Jews,
and
Scripture
; though they durst not discover so much: as in what follows, of
Platonic Philosophy.
Owen
in his learned Discourse of
Gentile Theology
(which I must confess,
has given me much light, and confirmation herein) does frequently assert the same Conclusion. The same is often, and strongly maintained by the Learned
Stillingfleet
in his
Origines Sacrae,
it being indeed one chief
medium,
he much insists on, to prove the Autoritie of the Scriptures. We have also the Testimonies of
Mede, Hammond,
and
Cudworth
for confirmation hereof; as good Essays, and Discourses on this subject, by
Duport
on
Homer, Bogan's Homerus Hebraïzans,
and
Dickinson
's
Delphi Phoenicizantes; &c.
But amongst our English learned Men, none have given us more ample Testimonies to confirm our assertion, than famous
Selden,
in his elaborate book
de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib.
1.
cap.
2. where, says he,
Touching the famous custom of the ancient
Philosophers
before Christ, to consult, and hear the
Hebrews,
we have many Testimonies, both of
Jews
themselves, of
Christian Fathers,
and of
Pagan Writers
; which he cites at large in what follows.
CHAP. II. Of Mythologic Philosophy its Traduction from the Jews.
Of
Mythologic
Philosophy in general, and
1.
particularly of the Poetic,
and fabulous. How the
Greeks
disguised
Oriental
Traditions by
Fables.
Of the use and abuse of
Fables
and
Parables. 2.
Of
Symbolic
or
Enigmatick
Philosophy, and its traduction from the
Jewish Types, Symbols,
and
Enigmes. 3.
Of the
Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick
mode of philosophi
•
ing by
Plato,
and its descent originally from the
Jews.
Mat.
13.3.
The Matter also of
Mythologic
Philosophy from God's sacred
Word,
and
Works.
The Causes of
Mythologic Philosophy. 1.
Ignorance of the
Hebrew. 2.
Of the Matter of their
Traditions,
or
Jewish Mysteries. 3.
Of the
Form
of
Jewish
Doctrines.
4.
Of the
Traditions. 2
d
Cause was
Admiration
of the
wonders of
God brokenly reported to them.
3. Imitation
another cause, concerning which
Plato
has excellent Discourses
touching
the
Subject, Object, Effect, Uses,
and
Abuses
of
Imitation
in
Symbolic
Philosophy.
4. Curiosity,
and affectation of Novelty
Act. 17.21. 5. Pride,
and
self advancement. 6. Inclination
to Idolatry.
7. Carnal Policy
to avoid the people's hatred.
A general Conclusion
that
all Philosophy,
even
Aristotle
's itself, as to its
Matter,
was traduced from the
Jewish Church,
and
Scriptures.
§. 1.
THat the Grecian Philosophers received the choicest of their Philosophic Contemplations from the Jewish Church, and Divine Revelation,
we have already endeavored some inartificial demonstration, as to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, thereof: we now proceed to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to demonstrate the same from the several
causes from whence
; and
wales by which
the
Grecians
traduced their
Philosophy
from the
Jewish
Church and
Scriptures.
And to make this good, we shall first run thorough the sundry
kinds
and
modes
of
Grecian Philosophy,
and thence proceed to their several
Sects of Philosophers.
The first great
mode
or
way
of the
Greeks philosophizing
was
Mythologic
and
Symbolic,
of which we are now to treat, with endeavors to demonstrate how, that both as to
matter
and
form,
they traduced it from the
Jewish Church.
§. 2. That the first
Grecian Philosophy
was
Mythologic
and
Symbolic,
will be easily granted by any versed in those
Antiquities.
So
Diodorus Siculus lib.
4. makes mention of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
ancient Mythology,
which he also calls,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
old fables
; and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mythick History.
This
Aristotle,
in the
Proem
to his
Metaphysics,
calls
Philomythie
: for, saith he, a
Philosopher
is in some sort
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Philomyther, or Lover of fabulous Traditions. Strabo lib.
11.
makes mention of this ancient
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as that which gained little credit in the world. Which
Proclus
on
Plato
's
Theology l.
1.
c.
4. calls
Symbolic Philosophy.
But to speak distinctly and properly, we may distinguish
Mythologic Philosophy
(or
Philosophic Mythology
) into these severals, 1.
Mythologic
strictly taken, or
Parabolick.
2.
Hieroglyphic, Symbolic,
or
Enigmatick.
3.
Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick
: The difference betwixt these several
modes
of
philosophizing
is this: The
Mythologic
(which the Scripture calls the
Parabolick
) is the couching of
Philosophic Principles,
and
Mysteries
under some
fabulous narration,
or
feigned story:
the
Symbolic
is the wrapping up of
Natural Principles,
or
Moral Precepts
under certain
Symbols, Hieroglyphics, sensible Images,
or obscure
Enigmes
and
Riddles: Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick
is the expressing things, either under a
naked single Similitude,
which belongs to
Metaphors
; or by a
Series
of
Metaphors,
which belongs to
Allegories, &c.
see
Diodate
on
Mat.
13.3.
§, 3. To begin with
Mythologic Philosophy,
strictly so taken, called, in Scripture
Phrasiologie, Parabolick,
which was, as to order of time, the first, taken up by the
Grecian Poets,
and after embraced by some of their
Philosophers.
The chief
Grecian Poets
who traded in this kind of
Mythick,
or
Fabulous
Philosophy, were 1.
Orpheus
; who is supposed to have been the most
Ancient
of the
Poets,
and equal with their God's; insomuch as he is said to have sailed among the
Argonats,
with
Hercules,
and the
Tyndarides
; as
Lactant. l.
1.
c.
5. They say he was a
Thracian
by birth; but his
Philosophy
he gained in
Egypt
as
Euseb. l.
2.
praep. c.
1. They report also, that he was very famous for
Music,
wherein he so greatly excelled, as he mollified not only
Men,
but the
brute beasts
also by his singing. But others give a more rational account of this
fable,
namely, that congregating men, who were dispersed here and there, and lived as beasts in the fields, he drew them to a more civil form of life. so
Horat. in Art Poetica.
Sylvestres homines, sacer, interpresque Deorum,
Caedibus, & Victu faedo deterruit Orpheus,
Dictus ob hoc lenire Tigres, rapidosque leones.
There were Contemporaries with
Orpheus, Musaeus, Arion,
and
Amphion.
Of
Amphion
'tis said, that having received an
Harp
from the
Muses,
he fitted his verses, composed with great suavitie so exactly thereto, as that the stones ran
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of their own accord,
&c.
Which
Thucydides lib.
1. thus unriddles:
Orpheus
and
Amphion
a
little before the
Trojan War,
drew men out of the Wood, unto Humanity, or a more civil conversation.
By which it appears, that
Orpheus
's Phhilosophie was, as to the Matter of it, chiefly
Ethick,
and
Theologick.
Thus of
Orpheus
himself.
Orpheus
's followers writ
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Poems according to Orpheus's Doctrine,
which were partly
Moral,
partly
Theologick
; but wholly
Symbolic,
or
Fabulous,
so
Proclus
in
Theol. Plat. l.
1.
c.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Orphicks delivered their Philosophy by Symbols or Fables.
2.
Homer
also was a great
Inventor,
and
Propagator
of this
Mythologic Philosophy.
So
Democritus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Homer having obtained a nature inspired by a Divine Afflatus, or Spirit, framed a beautiful Structure of divers verses. Plutarch l.
2.
de Homero,
showeth, how the seeds of all
Arts, Physicks, Medicine, Politicks, Ethics, Eloquence, Militarie Discipline, &c.
are to be found in
Homer, Alcidamus,
a noble and ancient
Orator,
calls
Homer's Odyssea,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a good glass of human life.
These Poemes of
Homer
were in great estimation with many of the latter
Philosophers,
who received much of their
Philosophy
thence. So
Zeno,
the Head of the Stoic Sect, writ five books of
Homerick Questions
: Yet some of them were not so well pleased with
Homers mode of philosophizing,
in as much as it had so many
Fables,
and so much
obscurity
mixed with it. Thence
Plato
in his
Alcibiades,
concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Novices in Philosophy ought not to fall upon Homers Poems, least they should fancy this Hero writ fables.
The
Egyptians
say, that
Homer
was in
Egypt
: others suppose him to have been born in
Egypt:
and that he imbibed there his choicest Notions, from the
Jewish
Doctrine originally, if not immediately, we have proved Part 1. B. 3. C. 1. §. 6. of
Homer.
3.
Hesiod
philosophized much in
Economics,
as also in
Natural Philosophy
; as of the first Chaos,
&c.
We find this character of him in
Velleius lib.
1.
Hesiod
lived about 120. years after
Homer.
He was very famous for his elegant Wit, and the most soft sweetness of his Verses. He was most desirous of ease and quiet,
&c.
see more of him, and the Traduction of his Philosophic Poems from the
Jewish
Church, Part 1. B. 3. C. 1. §. 7. of
Hesiod.
4.
Phocylides, Theognes, Museus,
and
Pythagoras
writ much in
Moral Philosophy.
5.
Empedocles, Nicander, Aratus
philosophized in
Naturals.
As 6.
Solon
and
Tirtaeus
in
Politicks.
But all the
ancient Poesie
was
fabulous,
&
obscure,
so
Maximus Tyrius orat.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because all Poesie does obscurely hint a thing.
§. 4. These ancient fabulous
Greek Poets
having received from
Egypt,
and else where, many broken Traditions, touching the several
Names,
and
Works
of God, the
Origin
of the World, with other
Mysteries,
wrapped up in the bosom of the
Scriptures,
and
Jewish Church,
they made it their business to disguise these
oriental Traditions,
by clothing them with a new
Grecian dress,
of many fabulous narrations; with which they were so
disfigured,
as that they could never recover their
old face.
Thus
Jackson
on the Scriptures
folio
29.
continually, saith he, whilst we compare ancient
Poets,
or
Stories,
with the book of
Genesis,
& other
Volumnes
of sacred Antiquity; these
sacred
books give us the pattern of the
waking
thoughts of
ancient
times. And the
Heathen
Poems, with other fragments of
Ethnic
Writings (not so ancient as the former) contain the
Dreams,
and
Fancies,
which succeeding Ages, by
hear-say,
and broken reports, had conceived concerning the same or like matters. For any judicious man from the continual, and serious observation of this Register of truth, may find out the
Original
at least, of all the
Principal Heads,
or
Common Places
of
Poetic Fictions,
or
Ancient
Traditions, which cannot be imagined, they should ever have come into any man's fancy, unless from the imitation of some
Historick Truth,
or the impulsion of real events stirring up admiration.
Thus
Jackson.
§. 5. This
Mythologic Philosophy
begun by the
Poets,
and after taken up by the most
Ancient Philosophers,
had it not been mixed with so many ridiculous, and Idolatrous Fables, might have been of much use in those
first Ages,
even amongst the
Heathens,
as well as in the
Jewish Church,
whence it received its origination. For under these sensible
Forms,
and
Images
(suited to that infant state of the world) were contained many lively examples of, and strong incentives unto, Virtue: Hence
Basil
says of
Homer
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. all Homers Poesie is but the commendation of Virtue, &c.
Of the same use were
Esep
's Fables, and the Fables of
Philostratus.
Only the
Elder
Poets of
Greece
had such unworthy Fables of their
God's,
as also so much
obscurity
in their
Traditions
of
Natural Experiments,
and
Moral Precepts,
as that the
Wiser Philosophers,
who followed, thought it most expedient to reject this
mode of philosophizing,
and to begin upon a new foundation, namely, some more
immediate Traditions
from the
Eastern parts,
with which also they mixed some Fabulous, or Symbolic conceits of their own.
§.6. After the
Mythologic,
followed the
Symbolic,
or
Enigmatick mode of philophizing
amongst the
Grecian
Philosophers,
especially those of the
Italic Sect, Pythagoras, &c.
who, though they rejected the multitude of obscure and absurd
fables,
taken up by the
Elder Poets
; yet, were they not without their
Symbols, Enigmes,
and
Emblemes,
or
Corporeal Images,
which are but branches of
Mythology
considered in its general Idea. Such were the
Enigmes,
and
Fables
so common among the
Ancients,
whereof we have a collection extant ascribed to
Esop,
which yet were not (at least) originally his, as
Quintil. lib.
5.
cap.
11.
These Fables (which albeit they received not their origin from
Esop
; (for
Hesiod
seems to have been their first Author) yet are they celebrated chiefly under his name) are wont to lead the minds of rustic, and unskillful persons, who are more easily taken with things feigned, and finding a pleasure in them, do more easily assent, and consent to them.
Dius
in the
Phoenician
History relates
that
Solomon
proposed
Enigmes
to the King of
Tyre,
which could not be solved, but produced many concertations; till at length he found
Abdemon
a
Tyrian
young man, who solved many of them
Josephus Ant.
5.
c.
2.
We read also of
Amasis
an
Egyptian
King, who disputed by
Enigmes
with the
Ethiopian
King. Also in the
Oriental
parts it was a received custom among the
Nobles,
having staked down their wager, to contend by
Enigmes
or
Riddles
; and he that could not solve what was proposed, lost his wager. Which custom
Plutarch, in Convivio Sapient.
mentions; and we have some
Vestigia
of it, in the History of
Sampson,
and
Solomon:
Whence even in the Sacred Scripture we find the name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Enigmes,
attributed to such
Philosophic Placits,
of which of old the most Learned among the
wise men
oft disputed, as
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
7.
c
6. This mode of philosophizing
Pythagoras
principally addicted himself unto. So
Porphyry,
and
Iamblichus
attributed unto him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Symbolic mode of teaching,
or as
Proclus
in
Theol. Plat. l.
1.
c.
4. observes in general of the
Pythagoreans,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Pythagoreans study to deliver Divine things by Images, i. e.
by
corporeal Images; Emblemes, and
short
Enigmatick Symbols,
or
Sayings,
whereby they shadowed forth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Affections
and
Morals
of the Soul. Neither did these
Pythagoreans
only express their
moral precepts
thus, but also couched their most
sacred mysteries
both of
God
and
Nature
under these, and such like
figures, numbers,
and
enigmatical propositions,
which they all founded on these
Principles
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
sensible Forms are but Imitates, or Images of Intellectuals:
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
man is the most imitating creature.
That
Pythagoras
traduced these his
Symbols
(if not immediately, yet) originally from the
Jewish Church,
we need no way doubt. So
Clemens Alexandrinus l.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the old mode of philosophizing was Hebraick and Enigmatick.
This way of
philosophizing
by
Enigmes
and
Problemes
was common among the
Jews
in the time of the
Judges,
as
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
2.
c.
13. observes,
They were exercised, saith he, now and then in the solution of
hard Problemes,
such were those which
Sampson
in his
Nuptials
proposed.
It is called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which you may translate either an
Enigme,
or
Problem:
of which see more what precedes B. 1. C. 2. §. 7. Such also were
Solomon
's
Proverbs,
for the most part, and all the
Jewish Types,
which indeed were but
Symbols,
or
corporeal Images
of things
spiritual.
Or if we will not grant, that
Pythagoras
received his
Symbols
immediately from the
Jews,
yet we may without danger conclude he had them from the
Egyptian Hieroglyphics:
as hereafter.
§. 7. Another
mode of philosophizing
amongst the
Grecians
was
Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick
; which also is a
Species
or kind of
Mythologic Symbolic Philosophy.
For, as
Aristotle
in his
Rhetoric
observes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Metaphor is but an Image, or shadow of a thing
; And an
Allegory
is but a
continued metaphor,
or taking the figure of a
true
History, but in a
metaphorick
sense, to represent things
moral
or
spiritual
;
whereby it is differenced from a
Parable
or
Fable,
which is but a
feigned story,
to represent something
moral
; as also from a
Symbol
and
Enigme
which is more short, and obscure; yet do they all accord in the general Idea or Notion of
Mythology.
Now this
Metaphorick Allegorick
mode of philosophizing, was chiefly embraced by
Plato,
who concealed the most of his more
sublime
Traditions, and contemplations under
Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick Shadows,
and
Figures,
with w
ch
he likewise mixed many
Fables,
and
Parables.
So in his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Dialogue of Love
(which seems to be an imitation of
Solomon
's
Song
) we find many
Allegorick
Figures; as that of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(which is conceived to be but a
Symbolic
Tradition of
Adam
and
Eve,
& their Creation)
&c.
And that
Plato
received this
Allegorick mede of
philosophizing
from the
Jewish
Church,
Serranus
(in his Preface to
Plato
) makes to be the common persuasion of all Learned
Christians,
of which more in the story of
Plato
's
Philosophy.
That the Spirit of God makes great use of
Parables, Symbols, Enigmes, Metaphors,
and
Allegories
for the unfolding of
Heavenly Mysteries,
any, that acquaints himself with the
Scriptures,
cannot be ignorant, as
Mat.
13.3.
'tis said,
Christ spake many things to them in Parables, &c.
where
Diodate
asserts,
that this was a fashion of teaching used amongst the
Jews,
followed by our
Lord,
and very profitable to make the truth to be understood, and to insinuate the apprehension thereof into the mind of the
Auditors,
by a well appropriated similitude, taken from a feigned story,
&c.
And as this
parabolick, symbolick
mode of expressing
heavenly Mysteries
was so frequent amongst the
Jews,
so we may, on good grounds, conclude, that the
Grecian Philosophers
traduced their like mode of
philosophizing,
from this sacred fountain originally, if not immediately.
§. 8. Having demonstrated,
how the
Mythologic
and
Symbolic mode
or
form
of
philosophizing
amongst the
Grecians
was derived from the
Jewish Church,
their
Parables, Types, Allegories, &c.
we now proceed to the matter of the
Grecian Mythologic Philosophy,
to demonstrate its traduction from the
Jewish Church
and
Scriptural Traditions.
And to make this evident, we must recollect (what has been oft hinted) that the
Elder Poets
(as well as
Philosophers
) had generally recourse to
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia,
for the matter also, as well as for the form, or mode of
their Philosophic Mythology.
So
Diodorus Siculus bibl. l.
1. tells us,
that the
Poets, Orpheus, Musaeus, Melampus,
and
Homer,
and the
Philosophers
afterwards,
Pythagoras, Plato, &c.
had gained most of their Wisdom out of
Egypt.
And
Carion,
in his
Chronicon lib.
2. touching the
ancient Learning of the Jews
; says,
that men write, that
Linus
brought Learning from
Phoenicia
into
Greece:
for the ancient Learning of
Greece
was some part of the
Law
touching
Morals,
known partly by
Nature,
partly by
Tradition
from the
Fathers,
as also the inquisition of
herbs,
and
remedies,
the consideration of the
Stars,
and the description of the
year
; and in these
Sciences
he (
Linus
) received the chiefest part, from the
Phoenicians,
and
Egyptians, &c.
The same he affirmeth afterward of
Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod
; as also of
Thales,
and
Pythagoras.
Now this being granted, it is not difficult to conceive how these first
Mythologists
gained the chief materials
of their
Philomythie,
or
Symbolic Philosophy.
For here it was, in
Egypt,
and
Phenicia,
that these
Grecian Philomythists
got the skill of coining
Wonders,
and
Fables
in imitation of, and by Tradition from the wonders of
Creation,
and
Providence
mentioned in the sacred
Scriptures,
and vouchsafed to the
Jewish
Church. For the report of God's
miraculous
works in creating the World, and governing of it, especially his miraculous preservation of the
Jewish
Church, being by tradition, soon communicated to the
Phoenicians,
and
Egyptians,
who were next neighbors to the
Jews
; hence the
Grecians
derived the principal
heads,
or first
lines
of their
Philosophic Philomythie
; wherein, although by successive artificial imitation, the variety grew greater, and the resemblance of Divine truth less, yet there still remained some characters, and footsteps of those Divine truths, and sacred
Oracles,
from whence they originally were traduced; as
Jackson
on the Script.
fol.
57.
§. 9. This Demonstration touching the Traduction of
Mythologic
Philosophy, both as to
Form,
and
Matter,
from the
Jewish
Church, will be more evident, if we shall take a more particular view of the
causes
of it, which were very many, and great; as 1. Ignorance was a pregnant, and great cause of all that
Mythick Philosophy,
which gained so much upon the
Grecians,
as well as on the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians.
For
when
these dark, and purblind
Heathens
had received any broken
Traditions
touching the glorious Works, Wonders, Mysteries, and Truths of God reveled unto, and in his Church (the seat of his glorious presence) they being not able to
apprehend,
much less to
comprehend
the same, grew vain in their imaginations, and turned the glory of God into a Lye, by mixing their own
Fables
with those fragments of
Divine Revelation,
which, by imperfect Tradition, were delivered over to them. Thus were their foolish hearts darkened, as
Rom.
1.21.
Now this their
Ignorance
of these
Divine Mysteries
was much greatened, 1. from want of skill in the
Hebrew
Tongue, and Idiome; whence they gave words of
ambiguous
Interpretation a sense far differing from what was intended: also some words they understood in a
literal,
and proper sense, which, according to their
genuine mind,
and sense,
ought to be taken improperly; of which many instances might be given, as that of
Gen.
46.26. whence
Bacchus
was feigned to be born out of
Jupiter's
thigh,
&c.
2. Another thing, which greatly fed, and nourished the Ignorance of these
Mythologic Philosophers,
was
the
sublimity
and greatness of the
Matters,
concerning which they philosophized. So great was the confidence, or rather ignorance, of these first
Grecian Sophists,
as that they durst adventure to philosophize on the deepest
Mysteries
of the
Jewish
Religion; which being not able, in any measure, to apprehend, they turned them into mere
Fables.
This might be largely exemplified in all parts of their Philosophy: as, 1. In their Theology; whence came their
mythologick contemplations
of their God's.
Jao, Adonis, Saturn, Jupiter,
&c.
but from
Hebrew
Traditions of the true God,
&c?
Whence the
Platonic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Trinity,
but from some imperfect Scripture Traditions? whence
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but from that essential name of
God Exod
3.14? as
Austin
long since observed: whence his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but from the
Scripture Relation
of
Christ,
if not
Gen.
1.1. yet
Prov.
8. where he is called
Wisdom?
hence also that
Poetic
Fiction of
Minerva
the Goddess of Wisdom being produced out of
Jupiter's
head: whence also
Plato
's Fable of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but from
Gen.
1.2.
The Spirit of God moving on the Waters?
whence also the original of their
Demons,
and
Demon worship,
but from some broken Traditions touching the
Jewish Messias,
his
Nature,
and
Offices?
as elsewhere. 2.
And as those fabulous
Grecians
were ignorant of the
sublimer
matters of the
Jewish Religion,
so also did they discover much Ignorance in
Natural
things; concerning which they had received some traditions. As
Plato,
having had some broken relation of
Eve
her being taken out of
Adam
's side, coined from hence, his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Lastly whence all those
Poetic
and Fabulous Narrations of the first
Chaos,
the
Golden Age, &c.
but from corrupt traditions from
Gen.
1,
&c?
3.
Another
spermatick principle,
which bred, or Root, that nourished this
Grecian
Ignorance, and consequently their
Mythologic Philosophy,
was the peculiar
mode,
and hidden
form,
under wdich the
Jewish Mysteries
were couched. For God condescending to the
Childish
capacity of that
Infant
Church, clothed the sublime
Mysteries
of Salvation with
terrene habits, sensible forms,
and
Typick shadows,
or shapes, which the carnal
Jews
themselves could not understand; much less could those blind
Heathens,
who received only some broken traditions of them, penetrate into their Spiritual sense, and marrow; whence they turned all into
Fables.
All
Types, Symbols,
and
Parables,
though never so lively Images of
things
Spiritual, to those, who have
Senses
spiritually exercised in Converse with them, are yet but Riddles, and dark sayings
to such, as have not a capacity to dive into their Spiritual import: whence Christ is said
Mat.
13.13.
to speak in Parables to the obstinate
Jews,
that so they might not understand. 4. The last thing I shall name, as that, which added to their Ignorance, and thence increased their
Philosophic Philomythie,
was the imperfection of those traditions which originally descended from the
Jewish
Church. For as
Rivers
the farther they are from the
Fountain,
the less they have of its original purity, and favor; or as it is fabled of
Argos
's ship, that through long absence it passed under so many emendations, and alterations, as that at last there was no piece left of the old bulk: The like usage did these Jewish traditions find amongst those fabulous
Grecians.
For they passing from one Age to another, through the various Imaginations, Inclinations, Humors, and Interests of men, received such strange alterations, and disfigurations, as that it was at last difficult to find any certain piece, or footsteps of the
original Tradition.
This is well observed by Learned
Selden de Jure Nat. Hebrae. lib.
1.
c.
2.
fol
26.
Neither, says he, is it a wonder, that we find not in the writings of the
Greek Philosophers
more express footsteps of the
Jewish
Doctrine, yea that there is scarce anything occurring in them, which retains the pure nature of the
Hebrew
original: for the
Sects
of
Barbarick
Philosophers were so mixed in the
Greek
Sciences, as also the
Greek
Philosophy itself torn into so many pieces, and fractions, as that it was wholly disguised,
&c.
§. 10. A second cause (or
prolific root
) of
Mythologic Philosophy
was
Admiration,
and this indeed follows naturally upon the former: for what is admiration, but the Souls contemplation of some novel, and rare matter, proposed to it, with desire to know the cause? or as others describe it,
the state and disposition of the Soul towards things, that are new, and rare, and strange, of which we can give no reason: for wise men wonder not, because they see a reason, and have a comprehension of things.
I hence
Plutarch
in his book
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, says of
Pythagoras,
that he affirmed of himself, that he gained this by Philosophy,
not to admire anything
: for Philosophy takes away wonderment, and admiration, which flows from Ignorance.
So
Aristotle Eth. l.
1.
c.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
He, that is conscious of his own ignorance, admires what seems above him.
Now this being the genuine notion, and Idea of
Admiration,
to contemplate overmuch things above our capacities, especially if they are
strange and rare; hence we may easily gather, how soon those
Grecian Mythologic Philosophers
fell in love with the contemplation of those wonderful Experiments, and Issues of Divine
Creation,
and
Providence,
which were handed over to them by some broken Traditions. We have already shown, how
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia
with other parts bordering on the
Jewish
Territories, had received many imperfect fragments, or broken Traditions touching
God
his
Names, Attributes,
and
Works
both of
Creation,
and
Providence
; especially of the wonders he wrought for his Church in
Egypt,
at the
Red Sea,
in the
Wildernes,
and after they came to
Ganaan
: also that they had some, though very obscure, notices of the
Messias,
and his work of Redemption,
&c.
Now the
Grecians
travelling into those
Oriental parts,
to acquaint themselves with these hidden
Mysteries,
and
Wonders,
at first fell into a great Admiration of them, and anon set themselves to philosophize upon them in a
mythologick mode,
according to the fashion of th
•
se
first
Ages,
Oriental
parts. And this kind of Admiration was a genuine, yea the main, cause of all Philosophy, both
Mythologic,
and
Simple,
as is confessed by the chiefest Philosophers,
Plato,
and
Aristotle
; so
Plato
in his
Thaeetetus
informs us;
that this is the great
Affection
of a Philosopher to
wonder,
neither had
Philosophy
any other origin but this:
the like
Aristotle
in his
lib.
11.
Metaphys. cap.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. by reason of admiration men both now, and in times past began to philosophize.
But
Aristotle,
in the
Pro
•
me
to his
Metaphysics,
gives us a full and excellent account of the mode, or manner how all
Philosophy,
especially
Mythologic,
sprang from Admiration; which because it is so much to our purpose, I shall first give it at large:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Both now, and in old times men began to philosophize from admiration; at first indeed admiring the more
easy
wonders, thence proceeding by little and little, they began to doubt of greater matters, as concerning the
Origin
of the
Universe, &c.
wherefore also a
Philomyther (
or
Mythologist)
is in some sense a
Philosopher,
for
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
a fable is composed of things wonderful,
wherein we have an admirable account: 1. How all Philosophy sprang from admiration, first of the lesser works, and wonders of Providence [perhaps he means the wonders which God wrought in
Egypt,
the
Wildernes, Canaan,
and
Babylon,
which were of latter date,
and so yet fresh in their memories]. 2. Then says he, they proceeded by little & little to doubt of greater Matters, a
•
of the original of the
Universe, &c.
Namely of the Creation of the World out of no preexistent
Matter
; of the first
Chaos
; of man's first
Production,
and state in
Innocence
; of the Fall; of
Noah's
Flood, which they call
Deucalions, &c.
All which particulars are largely philosophized upon by
Plato,
in his
Timaeus,
of the
Origin of the Universe.
3.
Aristotle
concludes,
that every Philomythist, or Lover of Fables, is in some sense a Philosopher; for a fable is made of wonders.
That is, as
Jackson
on the Scriptures (
fol.
34.47. and elsewhere) well observes, All the principal heads of
Mythologic Philosophy,
entertained by the elder
Poets,
and
Philosophers,
came not into their fancies by mere accident, but from the impulsion of real events, and wonders of God, which being delivered to them by tradition (originally from the
Jews
) stirred up Admiration in them. For the traditions of God's miracles being far spread, when
Greece
began to philosophize, they could not but admire the
Wisdom, Power,
and
Majesty
of God, that shone so greatly therein, which yet being no way able, for want of Divine Revelation, to apprehend, they turned all into Fables, and vain Philosophy.
§. 11. A third Mother root, or cause of
Mythologic Philosophy
was
Imitation
; which indeed was the great
sovereign principle
that ruled and governed those
Infant Ages,
but its influence appeared in nothing more
powerful,
and
particular,
than in the
Philomythie,
and
Symbolic Philosophy
of the
first Poets
and
Philosophers
; who having had some
broken
Relations of the great
Works
of God in
Creating
▪ and
Governing
the World, were not only taken up in the
contemplation,
and
admiration
of them; but also grew ambitious of
coining
the like; which by an
artificial
kind of
Imitation
they were dexterous in, as
Strabo
observes, and
Jackson
on the
Scriptures fol.
49.
From this vicinitie of
true wonders
in
Jury,
or thereabouts, were the
Medes, Persians,
and
Syrians
so much addicted to
fabulous narrations,
and
coining
of Wonders. And
Greece,
as it received artificial Learning first from
Asia,
so did it drink in this humor with it. For the traditions of God's
Miracles
in
Jury,
and the
Regions
about it, having been far spread when
Greece
began first to tattle in artificial Learning, the
Grecians,
as
Children
in true
Antiquity (
as the
Egyptian
Priest told
Solon)
were apt to counterfeit the
form
of ancient truths, and misapply it to unseemly
matters,
or purposes, as Children will be doing in homlier stuff, which they
see their Elders do better in. Finally the same humor, which yet reigns amongst men, might possess most of them: There is no famous event which falls out though it be but a notable jest) but in a short time is ascribed to a great many more, than have affinity with it. In like manner did the reports of sundry events, which either fell out only in
Jury,
or upon occasion of God's people, fly about the world, some with cut, and mangled, but most usually with enlarged artificial wings; as if the same had been acted everywhere, or the like invented on every occasion.
And
fol.
57. he concludes,
that the principal, or first heads of the
Grecian
invention were derived, for most part, from the
Hebrews;
although, by successive artificial imitation, their variety grew greater, and their resemblance of Divine truth less.
Thus Dr
Jackson.
And that the main, if not the whole, of
Mythologic,
and
Symbolic
Philosophy was but a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or reflex Image of
Jewish Mysteries,
and
Discipline,
traduced by Artificial Imitation, has been sufficiently proved by what was mentioned touching the
matter,
and
form
of
Mythologic
Philosophy: Namely, as to its
form
: Whence sprang the
Egyptian Hieroglyphics
; the
Phoenician,
and
Grecian
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Fables;
Pythagoras
's
Symbols
; and
Plato
's
Allegories
; but from the
Jewish Types, Allegories, Enigmes,
and
Parables?
and both the one, and the other founded upon that great
Oriental Maxim,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Then if we consider the
matter
of
Symbolic Philosophy,
it seems plainly to be taken up by
traducti
•
n
from, and in
imitation
of, some Divine work, or truth. Whence can we imagine that
Pythagoras
should receive his
Institutes,
and
Ceremonies
of
Purifications, Washings, White Vestments, Sacrifices,
with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
School
▪ wherein were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
perfect,
as well as
novices
; but from the
Jewish Ceremonies
and
Schools,
which he affected, to the utmost of his skill, to imitate? whence he was styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Jewish Imitator,
or
Ape.
And as for
Plato, Johan. Grammaticus de Creat. Mundi l.
1.
c
2. tells us plainly,
that
he imitated Moses in his exposition of the World's Origin, as in many other things.
And indeed none of the ancient Philosophers was better skilled in this kind of
artificial Imitation
than
Plato
; who had a luxuriant, pregnant
Fancy
(which is the proper
seat
of
Imitation
) and a great dexterity, backed with much affection, yea ambition, to imitate the
Eastern,
particularly the
Jewish,
Wisdom. Neither was he only versed in the
Practick
part of this Art, but also in the
Theory.
For we find in his Works (and nowhere else, that I know of) excellent discourses
professedly treating of
Imitation,
1. its
subject,
which he makes to be the
Fantasy,
that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Touching the power of the imagination in order to imitation, see
Les Conferences par les Beaux esprits Tom.
1.
Confer.
5.
de la ressemblance
: 2. its
object,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
se
•
sible Forms, or Images, representing something
Moral,
or
Spiritual
: 3. its
effect,
which he makes to be a
shadowy dark truth.
For, says
Plato Reipub. lib.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. an Imitator is but a Coiner of Idols, or Images:
and these Images, he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Shadows of Truth
; whence he adds, that
imitation
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
is but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an imperfect representation of Truth
; wherefore he adviseth those, who would study with advantage the
Symbolic Philosophy
(which he, and others before him had taught) not to fasten on the
Fables, Allegories,
or
Symbolic Images,
wherewith Truth was clothed, but rather to attend unto the
Truth
itself
couched
under these Images, Shadows, or imperfect
notices
: 4. whence he lays down the great
Benefits
of
Imitation
in
Natural,
and
Moral Philosophy,
for the
colouring,
and
shadowing
forth of
Truth
; as also in
Economics,
and
Politicks: Examples
and
Patterns
being the most powerful, because visible precepts: lastly he shows the sad abuse of it, by the fabulous
Poets,
in their
feigned St
•
rie
•
,
or
Romances,
and
blasphemous Figments
of their God's; which gives us a clear Demonstration, what a mighty influence
Imitation
had upon the
Grecanick Philosophy; Symbolic,
and what followed: of which see more
Plato Reipub. lib.
6. also
lib.
10. and
Serranus
thereon.
§. 12. 4. Another
Seminal Principle,
which had an
influential Causality
on this
Mythologic, Symbolic Philosophy,
was the
Itch of Curiosity,
or an
eager inquisitive humor
innate in those first
Grecian Philosophers,
which made them wrestles in their Inquisitions after some Knowledge, touching the
first Principles
of things, and the
Supreme Universal First Cause.
This indeed was one first
moving impulsive
Cause of all
Philosophy,
whence it received its name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and so it's defined by
Plato,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. an Appetition of Wisdom.
For the
Oriental parts, Phenicia,
and
Egypt
(which bordered on
Judea
) having first had some tastes of the Knowledge of God, the
first Cause,
his
Names, Perfections,
and
Works,
both of
Creation,
and
Providence,
by some imperfect Traditions from the
Jews
; this awakened the
inquisitive Grecians
(who always labored under an
itch of curiosity,
even unto
Paul's
time,
as it appears
Acts
17.21.) to make farther Search into
these
dark Mysteries
concerning which they had received some very broken, and imperfect
notices.
This inquisitive curious humor put
Thales, Pythagoras, Solon,
and
Plato,
with the
Poets
before them, upon their travels into the
Oriental
parts, to get more exact information touching the first
principles
of
Wisdom.
§. 13. 5. Another Master vein,
which fed the
Grecian Mythologic
Philosophy, was
Pride,
in appropriating that to themselves which was done by, or belonged unto, others; thus did they appropriate the chief of
God's
names to their own God's,
Jupiter, Jao, Adonis, &c.
so in like manner
Noah's
Flood was attributed to
Deucalion,
with multitudes of the like Instances; and to make these their assumings
authentic,
they disguised the traditions, they received in the
Oriental
parts, with many
Fables,
and
Symbols,
thereby to make them pass for their own.
6.
Another fountain of their
Philomythick Philosophy
was the natural propension, and inclination of their hearts to
Idolatry.
Hence sprang the
Grecian Polytheism, Hellenism,
and much of their
vain Philosophy,
for their imaginations being vain, and their foolish hearts darkened by Idolatrous opinions, and persuasions; hence they convert all those imperfect Traditions, they had received, touching the true God,
and his Works, into
fabulous
narrations, which they appropiate unto their false God's,
&c.
7.
We might also mention the Carnal Policy of the first
Greek
Philosophers, as another spring of their
Mythology.
For seeing the people too much resolved to maintain these fabulous God's, the Poets had commended to them, they conceived it their wisest course, to darken those traditions, they had received touching the
true
God, his
Unity, Nature,
and
Works,
by
Fables, Symbols,
and
Allegories
; thereby to avoid the envy, and hatred of the people.
And thus much indeed
Plato
seems ingenuously to confess: for, saith he,
to assert many God's is without show of reason. Only we embrace them being impelled thereto, though without shadow of reason, by the
Autoritie
of our
Fathers,
and the
severity,
of
Laws, &c.
Plato Timaeo.
It seems he had not so much courage as his Master
Socrates,
who notwithstanding these Obstacles declared himself plainly enough in the case.
§. 14. By all that has been mentioned touching the
Matter, Form,
and
Causes
of
Mythologic,
or
Symbolic Philosophy,
I conceive we have given (so far as our Matter will bear it) a sufficient demonstration
of its traduction originally from the
Jewish Church,
and
Scripture Revelation
: And what has been affirmed of
Mythologic Philosophy,
and its
Causes
in particular, may also be applied to all the
Grecian Philosophy in general
; which, as it is evident, had the same
Causes
; namely
Ignorance, Admiration, Imitation, Curiositie, Pride, &c.
Moreover it i
•
evident that all the first Philosophers,
Thales, Pherecides, Pythagoras, Socrates,
and
Plato,
did more or less exercise themselves in this
Mythologic, Symbolic mode of philosophizing. Aristotle
was the first, who rejected this fabulous
Symbolic manner of philosophizing,
and clothed
Philosophy
in a more native, and simple dress, the
materials
of whose Philosophy were notwithstanding taken up from
Plato
his Master, and the more ancient
Symbolic Philosophers.
So that what has been said of
Symbolic Philosophy
will serve also to demonstrate that
Aristotle
's more
simple Philosophy,
as to the Matter of it, was derived originally from the
Jewish Church.
CHAP. III. Of the Ionick Philosophy by Thales, and its Jewish Original.
Of the first distinction of Philosophers, into the
Ionick,
and
Italic
Sects. Both the
Ionicks,
and
Italicks
derived their Philosophy by Tradition, immediately from the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians;
but originally from the
Jews. Thales
of
Phoenician
extract, the first that brought Philosophy into
Greece
: his Philosophy traduced originally from the
Jews.
His
Natural Philosophy
plain. His great Principle, that Water is the
first Matter
of the Universe, derived immediately from
Sanchoniathon
his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which descended originally from
Gen. 1.2.
His other principles of
Physiologie, viz.
touching the Worlds production by God, by its Beauty; and the precedence of the Night before the Day from
Gen. 1.5. Thales's Astronomy;
his Invention of the Cynosure from the
Phoenicians;
his Calculation of the Year from the
Egyptians
: his
Geometry,
and
Arithmetic. Thales
's Divine Philosophy, or Natural Theology from the
Jews.
His
Demons
thence also. His Scholars, and Successors, &c.
Anaximander, Anaximenes,
Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Heraclitus, Democritus, Hippocrates.
§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of
Philosophy
in general,
especially of
Symbolic,
and its
Traduction
from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scriptures,
we now proceed to the several Sects of
Greek
Philosophers, and therein to demonstrate, that the chief Heads (at least) of each Sect, traduced their
philosophick notions,
and
contemplations
from some
Scriptural,
or
Jewish Tradition.
As for the several
Sects
of
Grecian Philosophers
; there were at first but few, but in after times they grew very numerous.
Varro in August. de Civit. Dei l.
19.
c.
1. tells us,
that in his time, there were found in the Books of Philosophers, no less than 288. different
opinions
(which made so many different
Sects)
concerning the
chiefest Good.
For that Doctrine was, at that time, the touch-stone, whereby the different Sects of Philosophers were distinguished.
Themistius
acquaints us,
that there came under his examen, near 300 several Sects.
The first, and most Ancient Division of the
Greek
Philosophers was into the
Ionick,
and
Italic
Sects:
as for the
Eleaticks
(which
Vossius
adds as a third Sect) they were but a branch of the
Italicks.
Now touching the
chief Heads,
and first
Founders
of these two Sects, we have this good general Account in
Carion's Chronicon l.
2. of
the Studies of Learning in Greece.
The first Doctors, says he, in
Greece
were the Poets. Thence other Doctors sprang up, who embraced all Arts:
Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Physicks,
and
Medicine.
Part of these
Sciences
the ancient
Jones
(as it is likely) received from their Parents,
Japheth,
and
Javan.
But yet as for
Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy,
and
Medicine,
the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians
were more skilled herein. By conversation with whom
Thales,
and
Pythagoras
being instructed (about the time of
Croesus
&
Cyrus
) by the example of their Ancestors raised up the Study of these
Sciences
in
Europe
; and taught them familiarly in the Schools of their Disciples. From these two then arose two
Kinds
of Philosophy:
the
Ionick
from
Thales,
which was less obscure, & mostly
Natural
The
Italic
from
Pythagoras,
which was more obscure, and full of
Enigmes, &c.
And that these two Founders of the
Ionick,
and
Italic Sects
received the first
Principles
of their
Philosophy
by tradition, rather than from any natural improvement, or
Theories
of their own, we have a good Demonstrative account in
Stillingfleet Orig. Sacrae Book
3.
Chap
2.
Sect.
2. which is worth our transcribing.
It is a matter of some inquiry (saith he) whether the
first principles
of
Philosophy
amongst the
Greeks,
were not rather some
traditional
things conveyed to them from others, than any
certain Theories,
which they had formed from their own
Experiments,
and Observations. The former is to me far the more probable, on many accounts, but chiefly on this; that the first
principles
of the two
Founders
of the two chief
Sects
of
Philosophers, viz.
the
Ionick,
and
Italic,
did come so near to that, which we have the greatest reason to believe to have been the most certain account of the Origin of the World. For this opinion of
Thales, viz. that Water was the first Matter,
seems to have been part of that
universal Tradition
which was continued in the World, concerning the first Principles. This I suppose is evident; that those
Philosophers
of
Greece,
who conversed most abroad in the world, did speak far more agreeably to the true account of things, than such, who only endeavored by their own Wits to improve, or correct those
principles
which were delivered by their other
Philosophers.
Which I impute not so much to their converse with the
Mosaic Writings,
as to that
universal Tradition
of the first Ages of the World, which was preserved far better amongst the
Phoenicians, Egyptians,
and
Chaldeans,
than among the
Greeks.
For
Greece
from its beginning shined with a borrowed Light,
&c.
Thus
Stillingfleet.
Wherein he fully grants, and proves, that the first principles of the
Ionick,
and
Italic
Philosophy were received by Tradition: only he seems to dissent from such, who derive their Tradition from
Moses
's Writings, or the
Jewish
Church; rather inclining to believe, that the
Tradition was universal
from
Noah
's Sons,
&c.
which, if we grant, will not overthrow our
Hypothesis, that the Grecian Philosophy descended by tradition from the Church
(for
Noah
's family was the
Church) of God.
Yet I conceive (with submission) that (as it hath been already proved) the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians
(if not the
Chaldeans
) received their traditions of the
Creation, &c,
not from their Ancestors,
Cham,
and his
Posterity
; but from
Moses
's Writings, and the
Jewish
Church: and I think we shall hereafter give most probable (if not certain) conjectures, that the chief
principles
of
Thales,
and
Pythagoras
their Philosophy were traduced from the Writings of
Moses,
or the
Jewish
Church. Yea Mr.
Stillingfleet
himself, in what follows in this same
Section
3. gives us this ingenuous Concession.
I will not deny but that
Pythagoras
might have
had converse with the
Jews,
who it is most probable was in
Chaldea
after the Captivity,
&c.
§. 2.
But to begin with
Thales
the Head of the
Ionick Philosophy
who was born at
Miletus,
the chief City of
Ionia
in the 31
Olymp.
as
Laertius
informs us out of
Apollodorus
: yet others make him to be not a
Milesian,
but
Phoenician
by birth.
Pliny l.
2. says, that he lived in the time of
Alyattis
; and
Cicero lib.
1.
de Divin.
tells us, that he lived under
Astyages
: both of which Relations agree; in as much as these two
Kings
waged war, each against other: as
V
•
ssius de Philosoph. Sectis l.
2.
c.
5.
Hyginus,
in his
Poetico Astronomico,
treating of the
lesser Bear,
speaks thus:
Thales,
who made diligent search into these things, and first called this [lesser Bear.]
Arctos,
was by nation a
Phoenician,
as
Herodotus
says.
Which well agrees with these words of
Herodotus Halicarnassensis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
This was the opinion of Thales the Mil
•
sia
•
, by his Ancestors a Phoenician: i. e.
he was born at
Miletus,
but his Ancestors were
Phoenicians.
So
Vossius de Hist. Graec. l.
3. That
Thales
was of a
Phoenician
extract, is also affirmed by
Diogenes Laertius,
and
Soudas.
So in like manner
Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. lib.
2.
cap.
1 §. 28.
Thales
also, says he, who founded the
Ionick
Philosophy, drew his original from the
Phoenicians
: Whether he travelled from
Phenicia
to
Miletus,
with his Father
N
•
leus,
and there was made a
Citizen,
as according to
Laertius,
some would have it; or that he were born at
Miletus,
but of
Phoenician
Parentage, as others rather incline.
By which it is evident, that he was of a
Phoenician
Extract;
whence he had no small advantages fully to inform himself in the
Phoenician,
and
Jewish
Philosophy. Some say that
Thales
travelled into
Phanicia,
and brought thence his Knowledge of
Astronomy,
particularly his observations of the
Cynosura,
or the
lesser Bear,
as
Pliny lib.
5.
c.
17. That
Thales
travelled into
Asia,
and
Egypt,
to inform himself in the
Oriental Wisdom,
he himself affirms in his Epistle to
Pherecydes.
§. 3.
That the
Grecian Philosophy
owes its original to
Thales
is generally confessed. For he, travelling into the
Oriental parts,
first brought into
Greece Natural Philosophy,
and the
Mathematics, Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy,
and
Astrology.
Whereupon he had that swelling Title of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e. wise man,
conferred on him.
About which time the same title was bestowed on six others, for their more than ordinary Skill in
Moral Philosophy,
and
Politicks, viz.
on
Chilo
Chilo
the
Lacedaemonian, Pittacus
the
Mitylenian, Bias
the
Prienean
•
Cleobulus
the
Lindian, Periander
the
Corinthian,
&
Solon
the
Athenian
; who with
Thales
made up the seven wise men of
Greece,
of whom see
Diogenes Laertius.
The Wisdom of these
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, was for the most part
Moral,
tending to the Government of
Human
Conversation, which they wrapped up in certain short
Aphorisms,
or Sentences, as it appears out of
Quintil. l.
5.
c.
11.
The
Precepts
of those seven men, may we not esteem them as certain
Rules
of
Life
? For the
Art
of
Disputing
obtained not as yet: but couching their Placits, under a
few round words,
they commended them as so many
Religious Mysteries.
Which at first began to be called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because they contained the
Sentences
of
Wise Men
touching the Precepts of
Life,
and
Manners.
The like
Euseb.
10.
praepar. cap.
2. These
Sentences,
that they might have the greater Autoritie, and seem to be derived from God, rather than from men, were ascribed to no certain Author. Whence that famous
Sentence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, was attributed by some to
Chilo,
by others to
Thales.
Concerning
Thales, Apuleius
18.
Flor.
gives this honorable Character.
Thales
the
Milesian,
of those seven wise men mentioned, will easily be granted to have the preeminence. For he was the first Inventor of
Geometry
amongst the
Greeks,
and the most certain finder out of the nature of things, and the most skillful Contemplator of the Stars; by
small lines
he found out the
greatest things,
the
Circumferences
of
Times,
the
Flatus,
or blowings of winds, the
Meatus
or small passages of the Stars, the miraculous
Sounds
of Thunders, the
oblique Courses
of the Stars, the
Annual Returnes,
or Solstices of the Sun, the
Increases
of the New Moon, as the
Decreases
of the Old, and the
Obstacles
which cause the
Eclipse.
He truly, in his
old
Age, found a
Divine
account of the Sun; how often (
i. e.
by how many degrees) the Sun, by its
magnitude,
did measure the Circle it passed thorough: thus
Apulcius
: see more in
August. de Civ. Dei l.
8.
c.
2 and
Lud. Vives.
§. 4. Now to come to the
particulars
of
Thales's Philosophy,
thereby to demonstrate, that the main thereof was traduced
immediately
from the
Phoenicians,
and
Egyptians,
but
originally
from the
Jewish
Church. The chief of
Thales
's
Philosophy
was
Natural
(which the
Greeks
called
Physic
) and that not obscure (as
Aristotle's
) but
plain,
and
familar.
Hence
Thales
's
Followers
in the
Ionick Schole
were in a peculiar manner styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Naturalists,
because quitting the
mode
of philosophizing in use among the other
Wise Men,
which was chiefly
Ethick
; as also that in the
Italic Sch
•
le
which was
Theologick,
they wholly busied themselves in the Contemplation of things
sensible
&
natural.
In brief;
Thales
his
Natural
Philosophy was indeed no other than a
Natural History
of the Origin of the
Universe,
or (as Divines phrase it) of the
Creation
of the World, which, as we have sufficient reason to judge, he received from the
Phoenician Sophists, Sanchoniathon,
and
Mochus,
their
Physiologie,
which originally was derived from
Moses
's Writings, and the
Jewish
Church. And to make the
Demonstration
hereof firm, we must consider that in
Thales
's time, when
Philosophy
began to take place in
Greece,
the main
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or first great principle of
Natural Philosophy,
then in question, was touching
the first matter of the Universe.
For that the
World
had a
beginning
; and that this
beginning
was from
God,
all the
Philosophers,
till
Aristotle,
generally asserted. So that this being a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or a thing taken for granted;
the great Inquirie was, about the
first matter,
out of which the World was formed. Concerning which
Thales
delivers his Judgment,
that Water was the first Matter of all things.
So
Tully de nat. Deorum lib.
1.
c.
25. says
that
Thales
affirmed
Water to be the Beginning of things, and that God out of Water framed all things.
So
Diogenes Laertius
of
Thales.
Thus
Steuch. Eugub. de peren. Philos. l.
7.
c.
12.
Thence Thales the Milesian, according to the Theology of Orpheus, and the Egyptians, pronounced, that Water was the principle of all things.
And according to the affirmation of
Homer,
this
opinion
was delivered by other
Grecians
before
Thales. Pherecydes
also held the same opinion,
that Water was the first Matter of the World,
which, as 'tis most p
•
bable, was traduced immediately from
Sanchoniathon's Physiologie
; for in the beginning of his
Natural History
(cited by
Eusebius praepar. Evang. l.
10) he says
there was in the beginning of things a spirit of dark Air,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an evening chaos, or darkness.
And that
Thales
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Water,
was the same with
Sanchoniathon's Chaos,
we have the Testimony of
Plutarch,
who produceth the Authority of
Hesiod
touching his
Chaos
; & addeth, that the greater part of ancient Philosophers called water
chaos,
from
diffusion
(a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
sundo
) which will farther appear, if we compare it with what follows in
Sanchoniathon
:
From the conversion of the Spirit with the
chaos,
there resulted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which they call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, (according to the
Phoenicians
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) signifies
matter,
which he interprets by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
mud,
or
slime,
or
watery mistion,
which indeed was but
the effect, or grosser part of that Water, which
Thales
makes to be the
material principle
of all
natural bodies.
So
Orpheus,
speaking of the
first matter
of the
Universe
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
out of water slime was made.
Which is a full explication of what
Thales
understood by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
water
; and the same with
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i e. slime,
or
mixture of mud, and water.
And we have a good explication of the whole by the
Scholiast,
on these words of
Apollonius
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The Earth of slime was made
; where the
Scholiast
affirms that
the Chaos, whereof all things were made, was Water, which settling became Slime, and the Slime condensed into solid Earth.
Thus we see how that
Thales
's Water, which he makes the first
material principle
of all things, was indeed the same with, or immediately derived from,
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e. slime,
or
mixture
of water and mud together, from which the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
Plato,
and
Pythagoras,
seems little to differ. Now that
Sanch
•
niathon,
and
Thales,
who followed him, traduced these their sentiments of the
first matter
out of
Moses
's History
Gen.
1.2.
we have already demonstrated (Book 1. Ch. 3. §. 13, 14, 15.) out of Learned
Bochart,
and others. But because Learned
Stillingfleet
(as before §. 1.) inclines rather to believe,
that these first Philosophers received these their principles by universal Tradition from the first Ages, and not from the Jews, or Mosaik Writings.
I shall add farther. 1. The Confession of
Sanchoniathon,
who said, that
he received the materials of his Hist
•
rie, from Jerombalus the Priest of the God Jao:
who certainly was some
Jewish Priest
(as before Book 1. Ch. 3. §. 8.) 2.
Sanchoniathon
makes mention of
Sydic, &c.
which, without doubt, he received from the
Jews.
3.
Numenius
an ancient
Philosopher
cites for this opinion of
Thales, that water was the first matter,
the very words of
Moses Gen.
1.2.
The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
; as
Porphyry de Antro Nymph.
Of which see
Stanley
on
Thales.
4. That
Thales
received these Traditions of the Creation from
Moses
's Writings is affirmed, and demonstrated by
Steuchus Eugubinus. de peren. Philosoph. l.
7.
c.
12. where he shows how
Thales
subcribed to
Moses,
in his notions of the Worlds Creation, as in what follows, §. 5. 5. Yea
Stillingfleet
himself, in the following Section (
Orig. Sacr. Book
3.
Chap.
2.
Sect.
3.) has these very words:
And thus we see, these 2 renowned
Founders
of the
Ionick,
and
Italic
Societies, both giving their concurring testimony with
Moses,
as to the true Origin of the World, and not at
all differing from each other.
Thales
meant by his Water, the same with that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or mixture of mud, and water, which
Orpheus, &c.
speak of, as the principle of the Universe. And the Successors of
Thales, Anaximander,
and
Anaxagoras
express themselves to that purpose, which is the same with the
Phoenician
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which some call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, some mud, or slime, which they say was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thus we see, how
Thales
with the
Phoenicians,
from whom he was derived (as
Laertius
tells us) and
Pythagoras
with the
Egyptians,
and others concur with
Moses,
not only in the Production of the World, but in the manner of it, wherein is expressed a
fluid matter,
which was the material principle, as
Gen.
1.2.
upon the face of the waters:
that is, all at first was but fluid matter,
&c.
Thus
Stillingfleet,
which, I conceive, fully proves our
Assertion
; and overthrows his foregoing
Hypothesis.
That
Thales, &c. received not these traditions from Moses's Writings, or the Jewish Church originally.
6.
Vossius de Philos. Sect. l.
2.
c.
5. §. 3. seems to refer this
principle
of
Thales, that water was the original of all things,
to the words of
Moses Gen.
1.2.
upon the face of the waters,
which, says he, perhaps he learned from the
Egyptians,
and they from the
Jews:
even so plainly asserting our conclusion: Yet I should think it most probable, that
Thales
had it from the
Phoenicians,
and they from the
Jews.
7. Lastly,
Mariana
in his
Annotations on Gen.
1.1. assures us;
that from this place the Ancient
Poets
derived their
chaos,
and other like things.
§ 5.
Thales
held also many other
philosophick opinions
touching the Worlds Origin, and perfection, which seem to be but traditions originally taken from
Moses's
History. 1. He held there was but one world, and that made by God
the spirit,
out of the foresaid Water.
So
Montaigne Essay l.
2.
c.
12.
Thales, qui le premier s'enquesta de telle Matiere estima Dieu un esprit, qui sit d'
•
au toutes chooses.
This great Fundamental Principle, that
the world was made by God,
was generally received, and asserted by all the
Philosophers
before
Aristotle,
who was the first that opposed it, because seemingly contradictory to his
Phenomena,
or purblind principles, as we are told by
Plutarch de philosplacit.
2.1. and
Johan. Gram. de Creat. Mundi.
2.
Thales
held (as
Diogen. Laert.
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
That the world being God's workmanship, was exceeding beautiful, or good, and perfect
; as
Gen.
1.31. This beauty or perfection of the world, he made to consist in the
admirable
disposition, and harmony, or order of every part, wherein he
was followed by
Pythagoras,
who for this reason called the world
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; and
Plato,
who says, that God
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
beautified, and orderly disposed every part of this Universe, with great
symmetry,
and
proportion
answerable to his own eternal
Idea,
or
form,
as in his
Timaeus,
of which hereafter. That
Thales
received this contemplation from
Moses,
is affirmed by
Steuch. Eugub. De Peren. Philosophia l.
7.
c.
2.
To which it is to be referred, that according to
Laertius
the same
Thales
pronounceth:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The world is most beautiful because the workmanship of God.
Doest not thou think that he subscribeth to the
Mosaic Theology? Moses
says,
In the beginning God created. Graec.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
made:
which
Thales
expresseth by the substantive
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, designing thereby the same which
Moses
does by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
3. Thence
Thales
asserted the world was
Animate,
or a
Living
Creature: which also
Plato
held, calling the World
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
Moses's
words
Gen.
1.2. supposing this world to be
animate,
or vivified by the
Spirit,
or Providence of God called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 4.
Thales
said,
the night was elder than the day,
according to the Scripture
Phrasiologie Gen.
1.5.
Thus
Steuch. Eugubinus, de peren. Phil. l.
7.
c.
12.
Thales being asked,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
what first existed night or day? The night, saith he, was before any one day.
Thou mayest not judge that he conceived anything else hereby, than what
Moses
before delivered, and what the
Latin Poet
heard, from the same
Grecians
: but
Thales,
who, according to
Laertius,
went to the
Egyptian Priests,
to be instructed by them, had this passage from them.
This
circumstance
of the
Creation
was held also by
Orpheus,
and
Hesiod,
who (as
Stanley
affirms on
Thales
) had it from the
Phoenicians
: I suppose from
Sanchoniathon's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which in all likelihood was traduced from the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Gen.
1.5. as
Bochart Can. l.
2
c.
2.
§. 6.
Thales
was in like manner well instructed in the
Mathematics,
especially in
Astronomy,
which he is supposed to have gained, partly from the
Phoenicians,
and partly from the
Egyptians
: From the
Phoenicians
he received, as 'tis said, the
Invention
of the
Cynos
•
ra,
or the
Constellation of the lesser Bear,
which he first brought into
Greece.
For that the
Phoenicians
were the first Inventors, or observers of this
Constellation, Vossius
endeavors to make good, from the word
Cynosura,
which he makes to be
Phoenician
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a collection of light,
that they were the first, that found out the use of this
Constellation,
to sails
by (which has been ever since of great advantage to Mariners in their Navigations) I think, is generally granted. Yet it cannot be denied, but that
Thales
received much emprovement, in his
Astronomical Contemplations,
from the
Egyptians.
For he himself in his Epistle to
Pherecydes
confesseth, that
he travelled into
Egypt
to confer with the
Astronomers. This Journey of his into
Egypt
is supposed to be the last he made; where having studied Philosophy, he returned to
Miletus.
That
Thales
was the first that brought
Astronomy
into
Greece,
we have the affirmation of
Eudemus
to confirm us.
Laertius
tells us,
that
Thales
was the first amongst the
Grecians,
who found out the calculation, or distinction of the year into its seasons, calling the last day of every month
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the
30
th
day,
which we have good ground to persuade ourselves, he learned in
Egypt
; for there it was first in use, according to
Herodotus lib.
2.
The
Egyptians, says he,
were the first, that found out the year, distinguishing it into
12
months, this they gathered from the
Stars. But I think we have more probable conjectures, that the
Egyptians
received their distinction of the
seasons
of the
Year,
from the
Jewish Church
their Institutes, touching the
Calculation
of the Year, which I conceive were more ancient, than those of the
Egyptians.
Thales
also brought out of
Egypt
the Science of
Geometry,
which took its beginning there, from the constant occasions the yearly overflowing of
Nile
gave them of renewing the bounds of their Fields:
Proclus
on
Euclia.
2.4. As in like manner he brought his skill in
Arithmetic
out of
Phoenicia,
which was found out there, in order to their
Traffick.
§. 7.
Thales
also was the first of the
Grecians,
who made any
Philosophic
Inquiries into the
Nature,
and
Perfection
of
God.
'It is true
Orpheus, Homer, Linus,
and
Hesiod
had gotten from
Egypt,
and
Phoenicia,
some cloudy, and very obscure traditions of God, which they made much more dark, by the many
fabulous,
and
unworthy
narrations, they mixed with them. But
Thales
delivered those traditions, he had received in the
Oriental
parts, touching God, in a more
Philosophic,
naked, and simple mode. For as
Diogenes Laertius
informs us, he held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
That God was the most ancient of beings, because without generation.
2. That the
World
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Work of God.
3. He asserted that
God
by his
immutable Decree,
and
Providence
governs the World (as
Stobaeus
) whence his opinion that the World was
animated, i. e.
by the
Spirit,
or
Providence
〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉
of God acting therein; as
Gen.
1.2. The Spirit,
&c.
4.
Thales
also (as
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
after him) held the Doctrine of
Daemons
(mentioned
Psal.
106.24. 1
Tim.
4.1.) which he asserted to be
Spiritual Natures,
or
Substances, and a kind of middling made God's, betwixt the immortal God's, and mortal men:
which traditions, some conceive, he had from
Egypt
: for that the
Egyptians
held these
Daemons
in the same manner,
Iamblichus de myster. Egypt.
acquaints us. So Mr.
Bochart,
in a Sermon at
Caen,
affirmed, that
Joseph
was reputed the first of these
Egyptian Daemons.
But I should rather think, that
Thales
had his
Traditions
of these
Daemons,
from
Phoenicia,
where they mostly abounded, under the common name of
Baalim,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Belus
one of the first
Phaenician
Kings, whence
Jezebel, &c.
and that the
Phoenicians
had their
Baalim
from some broken tradition, and in imitation, of the
Jewish Messias
his
Mediatorship, &c.
as elsewhere. That
Thales
the first of all the
Grecian
Philosophers, was of all the first, that treated
Philosophically
of
God,
and
heavenly
things, we are assured by
Tully
; and so
Minucius
in
Octavio
says,
that Thales the Milesian was the first of all, that disputed of heavenly things.
Which Philosophic Traditions, we need no way doubt, came (though immediately from the
Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians,
yet) originally from the
Jewish Church.
§. 8 Amongst the
Disciples
of
Thales,
we may reckon firstly
Pythagoras,
the
Institutor
of the
Italic Sect,
who, being but 18 years old, addressed himself to
Thales,
at
Miletus,
from whom he received the first
Rudiments
of his
Philosophy,
especially his
Mathematics
; with instructions to address himself to
Egypt,
for farther progress therein. But he that suceeded
Thales
in his
Schole,
was
Anaximander
the
Milesian,
who in some things differed from his
Master.
For he held an
Infinity
of
first principles,
yea
of worlds, and God's born, &c.
as
Laertius
in his Life,
Plutarch de philos. placitis, Eusebius, &c.
The Successor to
Anaximander
was
Anaximenes
the
Milesian,
who died the same year that
Croesus
was taken captive by
Cyrus,
as
Laertius. Anaxagoras
the
Clazomenian
succeeded
Anaximenes,
whom
Justin Martyr
calls the
Atheist,
following herein the Judgment of his adversaries,
Cleon, &c.
who thought him so, because he denied the
multiplicity
of their
God's.
This
Anaxagoras
translated the Schole from
Asia
to
Athens
;
where he taught
Socrates, Euripides,
and
Pericles
: his Successor was
Archelaus
the
Athenian:
as
Vossius.
§. 9 Among those of the
Ionick
Sect,
Chrysyppus, Empedocles,
Heraclitus, Democritus, Protagoras, Polemon, Epaminondas, Hippocrates,
are by some reckoned.
Empedocles
was a person of a
sharp Ingenie,
but mighty greedy of
fame
; for he affected not only
Adoration
while
living,
but after
death
also: wherefore, that he might be thought to have his abode among the God's, he cast himself into the furnace of
Etna. Heraclitus
was of a great A
•
umen,
but cloudy;
whence he is styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: He seems to have borrowed many things from the
Jews,
as elsewhere.
Democritus
glorieth in this, that he learned many things from the
Barbarians,
(by whom,
as we have often hinted, we are principally, if not only, to understand the
Jews
) as
Euseb. praep. l.
10
c.
2. Out of
Democritus
's Schole proceeded
Protagoras,
who turned ad
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as also to make
Sale
of
Philosophy
for money, which was of ill fame among the Ancients.
Epaminondas,
the
Th
•
ban,
is by
Austin lib.
7.
de civ. Dei,
called the
chief Philosopher,
and
Emperor.
But none gained a greater name among the
Ionicks
after
Thales,
than
Hippocrates
;
a person of a stupendous Acumen,
and erudition. He it was, that first made that happy conjunction 'twixt
Philosophy,
and
Medicine.
The manner how he attained unto his
Medicinal Science,
they make to be this. There was in the
Island
of
Cous,
where he lived, the Temple of
Aesculapius,
wherein were laid up the
Cures
of
Diseases
engraven on tables; as also rare
Monuments
of
Wisdom
collected by
former
Ages: all these
Hippocrates
transcribed, examined, and perfected, so that the praise not only of the
Restitution,
but also of the
Invention
of Medicine is given to him. Although these all are by some reckoned
Ionicks,
yet some of them may be reduced to more particular Sects: as hereafter.
CHAP. IV. Pherecydes his Philosophy traduced from the Jews.
Pherecydes
born at
Syrus,
was of
Phoenician
original. The original of his Philosophy from the
Phoenicians,
and
Jews.
He was the first that writ Philosophy in Prose: He yet retained the old
Symbolic
mod of Philosophizing: His Natural Philosophy, and Astronomy: His Invention of the Heliotrope from the
Phoenicians.
His Theology was chiefly
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which he received from the
Phoenicians,
as also the immortality of the Soul.
§. 1. HAving dispatched the
Ionick
Philosophy, as founded by
Thales,
we now come to the first foundations of the
Italic,
began by
Pherecydes
; who, though he had not a
Schole
in
Italy,
yet in as much as he was the
Praeceptor
of
Pythagoras,
and led him the way to that
Symbolic mode of Philosophizing,
he afterwards taught in
Italy
; he may justly claim some commemoration amongst the first founders of the
Italic Sect.
So
Vossius de philosoph. sect. l.
2.
c.
1. §. 29. calls
Pherecydes
the Author of the
Italic Sect.
This
Pherecydes
is by
Strabo lib.
10. called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(so
Laertius,
and
Soudas
) a
Syrian,
which is differently understood by the Learned. For some make him to be a
Syrian, i. e.
a
Phoenician:
but others, and that upon more probable grounds, call him a
Syrian
because born in the Island
Syros,
or
Syrus,
one of the
Cyclades,
those lesser Islands in the
Egean
Sea, near
Delus.
So
Apuleius,
and
Soudas
; whence
Cicero
1.
Tuscul. Quaest.
calls him
Syrus.
This opinion I was confirmed in, by a conference with learned
Bochart
; who also gave me the ground of the difference; with this reconcilement,
viz. Syra,
or
Syrus,
where
Pherecydes
was borne, received both its name, and people originally from the
Phoenicians,
or
Syrians (Phenicia
being a part of
Syria
) whence
Pherecydes
might justly be reputed a
Phoenician,
if we regard his
Ancestors
; or perhaps he might be so esteemed by reason of his
Philosophy,
which he drew from the hidden Books of the
Phoenicians,
as
Soudas
: of which hereafter.
§. 2
Pherecydes
's fathers name was
Badys,
as
Diogenes Laertius l.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or rather as
Vossius
will have it
Babys:
for so
Strabo,
and
Soudas
write it,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
with a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. He was borne, according to
Soudas,
in the 46
th
Olympiad,
who also distinguisheth him from
Pherecydes Lerius
the
Historian,
who lived in the 75
th
Olympiad.
So
Vossius de Histor. Graec. lib.
4.
cap.
4.
Some,
says he,
confound
Pherecydes
the
Historian,
with
Pherecydes
the
Physiologist,
and
Theologue:
This latter was of
Syrus,
one of the Cyclades,
as
Strabo lib.
2.
Hesychius,
and
Soudas in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Laertius
makes this our
Pherecydes,
the
Philosopher,
to have flourished about the 69
th
Olympiad.
Others make him more ancient.
Tzetzes, Chil.
2.
Hist.
55. says, that he lived in the time of the Rich
Croesus,
about the 59
th
Olympiad,
and that he was
Praeceptor
to
Thales
the
Milesian.
But this account has no likelihood; for
Thales
seems, at least, contemporary to, if not more ancient than
Ph
•
recydes. Cicero
1.
Tusc. quaest.
says, he lived in the Reign of
Servius Tullius
his Country man,
&c.
That
Thales
was more ancient than
Pherecydes, Vossius de philosoph. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 1. proves from this, that
Thales,
according to
Laertius,
died in
Olympiad
58, whereas
Pherecydes
flourished in
Olympiad
60.
§. 3. As for the original of
Pherecydes
's Philosophy,
some say he heard
Pittacus,
so
Laertius
: others, that he had no
Praeceptor,
but drew his
Philosophy
from the secret Books, and hidden Mysteries of the
Phoenicians
: so
Soudas
in the Life of
Pherecydes,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The same goes, that he was
Praeceptor
of
Pythagoras,
but he himself had no
Instructor
; but that he exercised himself in the hidden Books of the
Phoenicians,
which he was possessor of. Thus
Vossius de philosoph. sect. l.
2.
c.
1. §. 19.
Pherecydes
also the
Praeceptor
of
Pythagoras,
who was contemporary to
Thales,
and the Author of the
Italic
Sect, drew his
Philosophy
from the hidden Books of the
Phoenicians.
Yea some think him to be a
Syrian,
not from
Syrus,
one of the
Cyclades,
but from
Syria,
a famous Country of
Asia,
whereof
Phenicia
is part.
Yea
Ambrose lib.
1.
Epist.
6. of
Pherecydes
speaks thus:
seeing he drew his pedigree, as some conceive, from the Jews, from their Discipline also he derived his Magisterial Precepts.
That he traduced his invention of the
Heliotrope,
and other parts of his
Philosophy,
from the
Phoenicians
will be hereafter evident.
§. 4. Touching the mode or form of his
Philosophy,
it was delivered in
Prose,
but
symbolick,
and
mystical.
That
Pherecydes
was the first that delivered his
Philosophy
in
Prose,
we have co
•
curring Testimonies from the Ancients,
Strabo lib.
1. tells us that
Cadmus, Pherecydes,
and
Hecataeus
were the first that writ in
loose Oration,
or
Prose
:
and so
Porphyry,
as
Soudas
testifies, made this
Pherecydes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Author of loose Oration,
The like
Apuleius
in
Floridis
;
Moreover, says he,
Pherecydes,
who sprang from the Island
Syrus,
was the first, who rejected
Verses,
and attempted to write in words at large, loose Discourse, and free Oration.
The like
Theopompus, Laertius,
and
Soudas
affirm, that
Pherecydes
was the first that treated of the
God's,
and the
Natures
of things in
Prose,
for the former
Philosophers
were
Ports, &c.
§. 5. Notwithstanding
Pherecydes
rejected the ancient mode of delivering his
Philosophy
in Poems, yet he still retained the old
Mythologic,
and
Symbolic
mode of the Poets, in mixing many
Fables
with his
Philosophy.
So he himself confesseth in his
Epistle
to
Thales,
thus:
Whatsoever the
Theologist
(speaking of himself) saith, you must understand otherwise; for I write in Fables.
And this is sufficiently evident from the
Matter
of
Theology
(which contained the most of his
Philosophy,
and was written in 10 books) which, saith Dr.
Owen
(in his
Theol. l.
1.
c.
1.) was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
symbolick,
and
cryptick,
or
enigmatick
(wherein he was followed by the
Pythagoreans
) whence he was styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
dark cloudy Divine,
as anon.
§. 6.
Pherecydes,
as to
Natural Philosophy,
differed in some things from
Thales
; yet he agreed with him in that great, and first principle, that
Water was the first Matter all things
; which they both received from the
Phoenicians,
as these had it from
Genesis
1.2. by some
Jewish
Tradition.
Pherecydes
was very famous amongst the
Ancients
for his
Astronomical Invention
of the
Heliotrope
: whereas yet he was not indeed the first Inventor, but only a great Emprover of it, as
great Bochart
in a Conference informed me;
viz.
That this
Astronomical Experiment
was brought into
Syra
(or
Syrus
) where
Pherecydes
lived, by the
Phoenicians,
who had a
Colony
there (of which
Homer
makes some mention:) and that
Pherecydes
only emproved this same invention of the
Heliotrope
; the original pattern, as some conceive, was taken from the
Jews,
or
Asa
's Dial. The said
Bochart
referred me, for more information herein, unto his
Canaan l.
1.
c.
14.
That
Pherecydes
was the first of the
Grecians,
that found out the
Eclipses,
and
periods
of the
Moon, Tzetzes Chil.
2.
Hist.
55. gives us to understand: as
Vossius.
§. 7. But the main of
Pherecydes
's
Philosophy
was
Theologick.
So
Laertius
out of
Theopompus
acquaints us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he was the first amongst the Grecians, who writ of Nature, and of the God's.
Whence he was styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Theologist
: which Title
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
also obtained. For amongst the
Greeks,
whoever discoursed accurately of God, was styled the
Theologist,
and their
Science
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Theology,
as
Arist. Metaph
3.
Pherecydes
is supposed to be the first, that handled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Theologick Mysteries in Prose.
This
Theology
of his consisted in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or a description, and exposition of
the Generation, and Succession of the God's.
For the
Grecians,
after the introduction of
Hellenism,
supposed all their God's to be generated. This his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Theology, Pherecydes
comprised in 10 books: enigmatick, and cloudy Discourses, full of Fables, and Allegories; which
Isidore,
cited by
Clemens Alexandrinus,
supposed to have been taken from the
Prophecy
of
Cham
: but its much more probable, he traduced them from
Sanchoniathon
's
Mythologic Theology,
touching the
Origin,
and
Succession
of the
God's
: for it is the common opinion of
Soudas,
and others, that he derived this his
Mystical Theology
from the abstruse, and dark books of the
Phoenicians. Pherecydes,
in the beginning of his book, affirms that
Musaeus
the son of
Eumolpus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
was the first that made Poems of the Generation of the God's,
which others ascribe to
Orpheus,
others to
Homer.
§. 8. Concerning
Pherecydes
his Books of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
there passeth an
Epistle
under his name written to
Thales,
which
Montaigne Essais livre
2.
c.
12. gives thus.
Pherecydes
one of the Seven
Wise men
(that is a mistake) writing to
Thales,
as he expired; I have, says he, appointed my friends, after they have enterred me, to bring unto thee my
Writings:
if they content thee, and the rest of the
Wise men,
publish them; if not, suppress them. They contain not anything certain, that gives me satisfaction: so that I profess not to know the truth, nor to have attained to it. I start many things, that I cannot discover,
&c.
Though it is likely this
Epistle
is as fabulous, as the Matter of his Books; yet we may suppose it to be Ancient; and so to give us some account, how much unacquainted these
fabulous
Mythologists
were with the materials of their own traditions. Touching this
mystical Theology
of
Pherecydes,
see more in
Diogenes Laertius
of his Life,
Ger. Vossius de Hist. Graec. lib.
4.
cap.
4.
pag.
443.
Edit.
2. Dr.
Owen Theol. lib.
1.
c.
1.
pag.
3,
&c.
§. 9. Though
Pherecydes
's
Philosophic Theology
was fabulous, and
mystical,
yet, as it is generally conceived, he did clearly, and plainly assert the
Soul
's
Immortality.
So
Cicero lib.
1.
Tusc. quaest. Pherecydes Sy
•
us was the first that asserted the Souls of men to be immortal.
Thus
Tully,
which
Lactantius lib.
7.
cap.
8. quotes. Also
Austin Epist.
3. to
Volusianus,
thus writeth.
What Idiot now, what abject woman is there, who believeth not the
Immortality
of the
Soul,
and a future
Life
after
Death?
which in old times
Pherecydes,
first disputed for, amongst the
Grecians,
and
Pythagoras
the
Samian
being much moved by the novity of this Dispute, was transformed from a
Wrestler
into a
Philosopher
: so
Montaigne Essais livr.
2.
cap.
12. The opinion of the
Immortality
of the
Soul, Cicero
says, was first introduced by
Pherecydes
; but others attribute it to
Thales.
Who ever were the first traducer of this opinion into
Greece,
we have sufficient reason to conclude it was originally traduced from some Scripture, or
Jewish
Tradition.
CHAP. V. Of Pythagoras, and the Traduction of his Philosophy from the Jews.
Of the sundry
Sects
of
Philosophers.
Testimonies proving, that
Pythagoras
traduced his
Philosophy
from the
Jewish Church.
The Story of
Pythagoras
's Life. His extract from
Phenicia. Pythagoras
flourished about the
60. Olymp.
when the
Jewish
Garden was laid open to the
Grecians. Pythagoras
his Preceptors in
Greece,
and how he was first converted from a
Pugil,
to a
Philosopher.
His first travels into
Phenicia,
and conferences with the
Successors
of
Mochus, Phoenician
Priests, and
Jews.
His travels into
Egypt,
familiar conversation with the Priests, as also with the
Jews
in
Egypt:
and the motives inclining him thereto.
Pythagoras
's travels into
Babylon,
and converse
with their
Wise men,
as also with the
Jews
under
Chaldean
titles,
Zabratus, &c.
The advantages he had for converse with the
Jews,
and their
Writings
from his skill in the
Egyptian,
and
Chaldee
Tongues,
&c.
His Return to
Samos,
and
Voyage
to
Cre
•
e. Pythagoras
's coming into
Italy,
and restoring many Cities to liberty, and unity by means of his Scholars; by whom he gave Laws to
Italy.
His
Character,
wherein appears his many eminent qualities, Natural, and acquired: his freedom from undue passions: his moderation in use of Creatures, care for his health, and husbanding his time: his awful presence, and Severity, his contempt of honors, and contentation.
§.1. THe first
Distribution
of
Philosophers
into the
Ionick,
and
Italic Sects,
has already passed under some general consideration; with endeavors to demonstrate, that
Thales,
and
Pherecydes,
the two
Heads
of these first
Sects,
received the main of their
Philosophy
by
tradition originally
from the
J
•
wish Church.
But we now proceed to a more
particular reflection,
on the
Italic
Sect, in regard to its more proper, and immediate
Founder Pythagoras,
who had his
Schole
in
Italy
(that part which was called
Magna Greece
) where he vented his
Phil
•
sophie,
which consisted mostly of
Jewish Mysteries,
and
Traditions,
as it will be evident by what follows. His Adherents were termed
Pythagoreans,
as those who followed
Plato
's Philosophy
Platonics
: whence also there sprang up many other
Sects
of
Philosophers,
which gave occasion to a second
Distribution
of Philosophers into their several Sects, as we have it excellently laid down by
Ammonius
(not he, who was head of the
Alexandrian
Schole, but the Scholar of
Proclus
) on
Aristotle's Categories pag.
9. in these words.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
We must know that the
Sects
of
Philosophers
had a seven fold Denomination; either from the
Head
of the
Sect,
as the
Platonics,
and
Pythagoreans;
or from the
Heresiarchs
Country, as the
Cyrenaicks
from
Aristippus,
and the
Megaricks
from
Euclid;
or from the place, wherein they taught, as the
Academics
from
Xenocrates,
a
•
d the
Stoics
from
Zeno
the
Citiean;
or from their
Judgment
in
philosophizing,
as the
Skeptics;
or from their
manner
of
life
as the
Cynics,
of whom
Antisthenes
was
Head:
or from the
End
of their
Philosophy,
as the
Voluptuous Epicureans:
or from some Accident, as the
Peripatetics,
from
Aristotle's walking,
&c.
Thus
Ammonius
: of which Sects we shall discourse in their order, beginning with the
Pythagoreans.
§. 2. As for
Pythagoras
(the
Heresiarch
of the
Pythagoreans,
as also the chief
Founder
of the
Italic Sect)
that he traduced the main, or choicest parts of his
Philosophy originally
from the
Jewish Church,
and
Scriptures,
is a persuasion generally received by the Learned, both
ancient,
and
modern,
as well
Pagans,
as
Jews
and
Christians.
As for
Pagan
Testimonies,
we have a famous Concession of
Hermippus
(quoted by
Josephus lib.
1. against
Apion
) a most
ancient,
and
diligent
Writer of
Pythagoras
's Life, who, in his first book of
Pythagoras,
affirms plainly, that he did
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
translate many of the Jewish Laws into his own Philosophy
: and he gives a particular mention of some
Jewish
opinions, which
Pythagoras
taught,
viz.
of the
Soul,
of
Purification,
of
Excommunication, &c.
to which he subjoins
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and he was an Imitator of the Jewish, and Thracian opinions. Diogenes Laertius
also affirms, that he went to the
Hebrews,
as hereafter. So
Strabo,
that he went into
Judea,
and inhabited Mount
Carmel,
where the Priests shown
Pythagoras
's Walks, even in his time. And
Malchus
(otherwise called
Porphyry
) who writ also the Life of
Pythagoras,
says
that he went to the
Arabians, Hebrews,
and
Chaldeans,
and that amongst the
Chaldeans
he had converse with
Zabratus:
whom
Selden
makes to be
Ezekiel,
as hereafter. Amongst the
Jews
we have the Testimony of
Aristobulus,
a
Jew
of
Egypt,
who is supposed to have been the
Master
of
Ptolemeus Philometer
mentioned in the
Maccabees
(2
Mac.
1.10.) who says expressly of
Pythagoras
(as
Clement Alexendrinus lib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.) (or as others
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Pythagoras
has translated many things from us, into his own
Traditional Dogmas. So also
Josephus (contra Apion. l.
1.) speaking of
Pythagoras,
says, that he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
not only well skilled in our
Discipline,
but also embraced many things greedily.
Amongst the
Fathers,
we have this Testimony of
Origen (lib.
1.
contra Celsum
).
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
It's said, that
Hermippus
in the first of his
Legislators
reports, that
Pythagoras
traduced his Philosophy from the
Jews
unto the
Greeks; we have also concurring Testimonies of Modern Learned.
Thus
Aug. Steuch. Eugub, de peren. phil. l.
2.
c.
2.
We have the Testimony of all, that
Pythagoras
travelled into
Egypt
to hear their
Priests
: The like is said of
Solon, Eudoxus, Plato: Strabo
writes, that in his time the
Priests
could show their very
Walks.
It is reported, that
Pythagoras
brought his
Symbols
from them, and that he was circumcised after the
Egyptian
(which we must understand of the
Jewish
) manner. That he was in
Judea,
and that he dwelt in Mount
Carmel,
is the report of
Iamblichus
; also that he travelled 22. years in
Egypt,
embraced their
manners,
and the
Institutes
of the
Egyptian
Priests, and desired
Polycrates
the
Tyrant,
that he would write to his friend
Amasis
King of
Egypt,
that he might participate of their Discipline,
&c.
To
Steuchus Eugub. I subjoin
our learned and pious
Usher
in his
Annals fol.
151. It may be proved (says he) that
Pythagoras
conversed with the
Jews,
at
Babylon
; for as much as he transferred many of their
Doctrines
into his
Philosophy,
as
Hermippus
declareth in his
first book of things concerning Pythagoras,
cited by
Josephus,
and in his first book of
Law givers,
cited by
Origen
; which is likewise confirmed by
Aristobulus
the
Jew
(a
Peripatetic
) in his first book to
Philometer
; who moreover was induced by the same reason to believe, that the Books of
Moses
were translated into the
Greek
Tongue before the
Persian
Empire; whereas it is much more probable that
Pythagoras
received that part of his
Learning
from the Conversation he had with the
Hebrews,
thus
Usher.
that learned
Philologist
supposeth, that
Pythagoras
might have, whilst in
Egypt,
conversation with
Jeremy
the
Prophet
: That he traduced many things originally from
Moses
his Writings (as
Plato
after him) he affirms with some
confidence,
in his notes on
August. Civ. lib.
8.
c.
11.
Selden de Jure Nat. Hebr. lib.
1.
c.
6. §. 5. proves this at large.
Cassander
in his
Consult.
on
Art.
21. asserts the same.
Grotius
on
Mat.
10.29. says, that many of the
Hebrews
held God's Providence about
men,
but not about
Beasts
; which
Pythagoras
may seem to have learned from the
Hebrews,
and to have taught the
Grecians.
And in his
Votum, pag.
124. he says,
that Pythagoras lived amongst the Jews, as Hermippus testifieth
; and that he drew many of his Symbols from the
Jews
he affirms
very
positively,
in his Annotations on
Mat.
7.6. and
Mat.
8.22. as hereafter.
Vossius de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 5. proves at large, that
Pythagoras
owes much of his
Philosophy
to the
Jews.
And Mr.
Stillingfleet
himself (the only learned man that I have met with seemingly contradicting our Hypothesis) says
I will not deny, but that
Pythagoras
might have had converse with the
Jews
in
Chaldea, &c.
Orig. sacr. book
3.
c.
2.
sect.
2. But we shall endeavor to make good our Assertion [that
Pythagoras
traduced the main
Principles
of his
Philosophy
from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scriptures
originally] from the
•
rie of his
Life,
his
Institutes,
and
Philosophy,
both as to Matter, and Form thereof.
§. 3. We shall begin with the
Story
of
Pythagoras
's
Life,
who is said to be a
Samian
; but whether he were born there, or elsewhere, is not certainly determined.
Cleanthes
(as
Porphyry de Vita Pythag.
) says, he was a
Syrian
of the
City
of
Tyre
in
Ph
•
nicia
(a part of
Syria
) whence making a Voyage to
Samos
(before
Ionia
) for traffick,
at such time, as the
Samians
were much pressed with
famine,
he supplied them with
Corn
; in acknowledgement whereof they made him free of their
Country. Soudas
saith,
Pythagoras
was a
Samian
by
education,
but a
Tyrrhenian
by
Birth,
brought over young by his father to
Sam
•
s.
So
Aristoxenus
makes him to be a
Tyrrhenian,
as
Lud. Vives in August. Civ. l.
8.
c.
2. and
Grotius
on
Mat.
7.6.
Many, says he, make him to be a
Tyrrhenian
; others a
Tyrian, &c.
But the more general, and approved opinion is that of
Iamblichus (de vita Pythag. cap.
2.)
that
Pythagoras
's Father was a
Samian,
descended from
Ancaeus,
who first brought a Colony into
Samos
; and that
Pythagoras
his Son was born at
Sidon
in
Phenicia,
but educated at
Samos.
Which ever of these accounts we fix upon,
it is evident,
Pythagoras
had a very great affinity unto, and so advantage from, the
Phoenicians,
whereby to acquaint himself with the
Jewish Learning,
and
Mysteries.
§. 4.
Pythagoras
is supposed to have been borne about the 3. year of the 53.
Olympiad,
and he flourished, as some think about, the time that
Nebuchadnezzar
besieged
Jerusalem an. mundi.
3360. or according to
Laertius,
about the 60.
Olympiad.
About which time the
Jewish Garden,
which had been before enclosed, was thrown open, and many of the
Plants
thereof removed and set in foreign parts; in
Babylon, Egypt, Phenicia, &c.
By which means
Pythagoras
and the rest of the inquisitive
Grecians
had a mighty advantage to inform themselves in
the
Jewish
Wisdom, and
Mysteries,
touching
God,
his
Names,
and
Attributes
; the
Production,
or
Creation
of the World, and its
first principles,
and all the
Jewish Ceremonies.
That
Pythagoras
went to
Phenicia,
and thence into
Egypt,
where he stayed 22. years, and afterward into
Babylon,
where he continued 12. years, and had conversation with the
Jews
in those parts, I now proceed to make evident.
§. 5.
Iamblichus (Vit. Pythag. cap.
2.) tells us, that
Mnesarchus,
the Father of
Pythagoras,
returning from
Syria
to
Samus,
brought up his Son in many excellent
Sciences,
committing him sometimes to
Creophilus,
sometimes to
Pherecydes
of
Syrus. Diogenes Laertius
says, that
Pythagoras
's Father dying, he was committed by his Uncle
Zoilus
to
Pherecydes
the
Syrian, &c.
Augustine. Epist.
3.
ad Volusianum
says,
That
Pythagoras,
hearing
Ph
•
recydes
disputing amongst the
Greeks
of the
immortality
of the
Soul,
was so moved with the novity of this Dispute, that he was changed from a
Pugil,
or
Wrestler
into a
Philosopher.
That
Pythagoras
first was a
Pugil, Laertius lib.
8. relates, as
Vossius de philosoph. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 8. The same
Laertius
(in the Life of
Anaximenes
) reckons
Pythagoras
amongst the
Disciples
of
Thales.
For (says he, out of
Anaximenes
's Epistle to
Pythagoras) Pythagoras,
being from his youth greatly inclined to an
inquisition
into
Religious Rites,
and
Mysteries,
addressed himself to
Thales
at
Miletus,
as to one, that could most advance him in this
Enterprize.
From
Thales
he received the first
Elements
of his
Philosophy.
So also
Iamblichus (de vita Pythag. lib.
1.
c.
2.) tells us
that
Thales
entertained him very civilly, with admiration of his excellent
naturals,
which surpassed other Youths; and after he had given him such instructions, as he could, in the
Mathematics,
he advised him to have recourse to
Egypt,
there to converse with the
Priests
of
Memphis,
especially those of
Jupiter
; from whom he himself had obtained those pieces of Knowledge for which he was accounted
Wise.
Amongst other things
Thales
advised him to improve his time well, by reason whereof he abstained from Wine, and Flesh.
See more
Stanly
on
Thales.
Whence we may collect how
Pythagoras
came by the first rudiments of his
philosophick inclinations,
and
principles,
namely from
Thales,
and
Pherecydes
; from the former we may suppose he received his
Natural Philosophy,
and
Mathematics
; from the latter his
mystical
and
symbolick Theology,
as also his notions of the Souls
Immortality, &c.
which were derived originally from the
Jewish
Nation, as before▪
Vossius de philos. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 9. says,
that
Pythagoras
heard in
Greece,
besides
Pherecydes, Hermodamas,
and Anaximander the
Physiologist.
§. 6.
Pythagoras
having learned of
Thales
to improve his time, and inure himself to temperance, both as to the
quantity,
and
quality
of meats, whereby he acquired an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a good habitude, and clearness of
mind,
and an exact constant health of
Body,
he resolves upon travelling into the
Oriental parts
; thereby to inform himself touching the
first principles
of Wisdom, and
sacred
Mysteries. And the first Voyage he made, was unto
Sidon
in
Phenicia
; whereunto he was inclined,
as well from a natural desire he had to the place, which he supposed to be his own Native Country, as also that he might satisfy himself touching their
Mysteries,
and
Philosophy.
Here he had conference with the
Prophets, Successors
of
Mochus
the
Physiologist,
with the
Phoenician Priests,
and others; and was initiated in all the
Mysteries
of
Byblus,
and
Tyre,
and sundry of the chief
sacred Institutions
in other parts of
Syria,
not undergoing these things out of
superstition,
but from his natural inclination and love to
Wisdom,
and fear, lest anything worthy to be known, which was preserved amongst them, in the
Mysteries
of the
God's,
might escape him. Thus
Iamblichus c.
13.
and
Stanly
out of him. That
Pythagoras,
whilst he was in
Phenicia,
had conversation with some
Jews,
is not unlikely; for their own
Country
being depopulated, many of them fled for refuge to their
neighbors
the
Egyptians, Phoenicians, &c.
Yea that
Pythagoras
visited
Judea,
is affirmed by
Strabo,
who affirms that
Pythagoras
visited not only the
Egyptians, Arabians, Chaldeans,
but also penetrated into
Judea
itself, and inhabited Mount
Carmel,
where the
Priests
even in his time shown the Walks of
Pythagoras.
So
Hornius Hist. philos. l
3.
c.
11.
That
Pythagoras,
says he, penetrated into
Judea
itself is affirmed by great Authors, though all agree not to it.
However
Iamblichus
openly informs us, that he had conference with the
Successors
of
Mochus,
who, as has be
•
n already proved, had his
Philosophy
from the
Jews.
§. 7. From
Phenicia Pythagoras
passed into
Egypt,
with recommendation from
Polycrates
the
Tyrant,
to
Amasis
King of
Egypt,
who gave him Letters to the
Priests,
to whom he had recourse. In the first place he went to those of
Heliopolis,
who sent him to the
Priests
of
Memphis
: from
Memphis
he was sent to
Thebes,
where he was permitted to acquaint himself with all their Learning, which was never granted to any stranger before, as
Porphyry de Vita
Pythag. p.
5. So
Vossius de philos. sect. lib.
2.
c.
2. §. 2.
Pythagoras
(says he) was sent by
Thales
into
Egypt,
to confer with the
Priests
of
Memphis,
and
Diospolis
where he arrived in the Reign of
Semneserteus,
as
Pliny,
or of
Amasis,
to whom he was recommended by letters from
Polycrates
the
Samian Tyrant,
as
Laertius: Plutarch
says, he heard
Oenuphis
the
Heliopolite, &c. Diogenes
saith, whilst he lived with these Priests, he was instituted, and informed in the
Language,
and
Wisdom
of the
Egyptians,
and in their threefold kind of Writing,
Epistolick, Hieroglyphic,
and
Symbolic
; of which see
Clemens Alexander. Strom.
5. as before.
Laertius
also adds, that
while he was in
Egypt,
he entered into the
Egyptian Adyta,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and was instituted in things inexpressible touching the God's.
Perhaps he means the
Tetracty,
and the other
Jewish Mysteries,
in which
Pythagoras
was instructed, of which hereafter.
Clemens Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. says,
he was
Disciple
to
Sonchedes,
a chief
Prophet,
or
Priest
of the
Egyptians;
Diog. Laertius
says, that he learned the
Egyptian
Tongue.
And
Iamblichus (l.
1.
c.
4.) says,
that being thus acquainted with the
Learning
of the
Egyptians,
he gained the observations of many Ages; and, whilst he lived amongst them, was admired, and beloved of the
Prophets,
and
Priests,
with whom he conversed; by which means he gave himself exact information concerning
persons,
and things; not omitting any person eminent a
•
any time for
Learning,
or any kind of
Religious Rites
; neither leaving any place unvisited, wherein he conceived, he might find somewhat extraordinary. Now that
Pythagoras
had converse with the
Jews,
is more than probable.
Some incline to think he might have conference with
Jeremy.
So
Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civ l.
8.
c.
11. tells us,
that
Jeremy
went with the
Tribe
of
Judah,
and
Benjamin
into
Egypt,
and died at
Tanis
; where he was worshipped by the Natives, for a present remedy against the
stinging
of
Serpents. Eusebius
placeth the beginning of
Jeremy
's
Prophecy
in the first year of the 36.
Olympiad.
Then afterwards making mention of sundry
Platonic Mysteries
of
God
his
infinite Essence,
and
Idea
's traduced from
Exod.
3.14.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he concludes thus:
Although I do no way doubt, but that
Pythagoras
himself learned these
Mysteries
in
Egypt
from the
Sacred Volumnes
; and the conference with
Jeremy,
rather agrees to him, than to
Plato.
Though it is possible,
Jeremy
might be dead before
Pythagoras
came into
Egypt.
Yet we need no
way doubt, but that his fame was then living, which together with the great repute the
Jewish
Nation had for
ancient Wisdom, Records,
and
Mysteries,
could not but prove a prevailing
motive,
and quickening of
Pythagoras
's inquisitive humor, to make some inquisition into the
Jewish Records, Rites, Wisdom,
and
Mysteries,
contained in the
sacred Volumnes,
according to this positive affirmation of
Lud. Vives.
And indeed how can we rationally imagine, that
Pythagoras,
who was so greedy after
oriental Traditions, Wisdom,
and
Mysteries
; and so curious to pry into every corner of
Egypt
(where he staid 22. years) to examine all
persons,
and
things,
especially such as pretended to any
ancient Records, Religious Rites,
or
Mysteries
; I say, how can we imagine, that he should pass by those multitudes of
Jews,
he met with in
Egypt,
without enquiry into their
ancient Wisdom,
and
Records,
which infinitely excelled those few broken Traditions, and corrupt derivations, which the
Egyptians
had extracted from their
sacred Fountains?
Yea
Clemens Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. tells us,
that
Pythagoras,
to satisfy his curiosity in these his enquiries in
Egypt,
suffered himself to be
circumcised,
and so learned things not usually communicated, concerning the
God's,
and their
Mysteries.
Now we know this
Rite
of
circumcision
was proper to the
Jews,
not used by
Egyptians.
§. 8.
Pythagoras,
quitting
Egypt,
went to
Babylon
; of which Voyage
Iamblichus l.
1.
c.
4. gives this relation:
that
Cambyses
having (in the 63. Olympiad) conquered
Egypt, Pythagoras
was taken prisoner by him,
and sent to
Babylon,
where he conversed with the most eminent amongst the
Chaldeans
(I suppose the
Zabii
) as also with the
Persian Magi,
who entertained him very courteously, and gave him insight into their more
hidden Mysteries,
and
Religious Rites
of
worship
performed to their
God's,
as also in the
Mathematics.
Thus
Vossius de philosoph. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 4. treating of
Pythagoras,
says,
out of a desire to get Learning, he was conversant with the
Persian Magi,
and with the
Assyrians,
or
Chaldeans
; as, besides others,
Laertius
testifieth, who saith, that he was initiated in all the
Grecian,
and
Barbarian
Mysteries; and that he learned the
Egyptian
Tongue, and thence had conversation with the
Chaldeans
in
Assyria,
and the
Magi
in
Persia.
The same
Vossius
says (
de philos. l.
2.
c.
1.) that from the
Chaldeans
he learned
Astronomy. Laertius
says, that he was most conversant with these
Chaldeans.
Now that by these
Chaldeans,
with
whom
Pythagoras
was so intimate,
we may justly understand
inclusively (if not exclusively)
the
Jews,
I think, will be pretty clear, if we consider that the
Jews
having lost their own
visible state,
and
Nation,
lived now under the
Chaldean Government,
and
State
; and so might pass amongst the
Grecians
for
Chaldeans.
And this will be farther evident, if we reflect on what is mentioned by
Diogenes
(cited by
Porphyry
) of the
Chaldeans,
with whom
Pythagoras
conversed in
Babylon
; amongst whom he particularizeth one
Zabratus,
by whom he was cleansed from the defilements of his Life, and informed in many things concerning
Nature,
and the first principles of the
Universe.
This
Zabratus (Selden de Jure Nat. Heb. l.
1.
c.
2.) inclines to believe was
Ezekiel
: for he takes notice that
Ezekiel,
and
Pythagoras
flourished about the same time, betwixt the 50. and 52.
Olympiad.
The like is mentioned by
Selden Syntag.
2.
de Diis Syris cap.
1.
Truly the most accurate
Chronology
teacheth us, that
Pythagoras,
and
Ezekiel
flourished together, between the L. and LII.
Olympiads.
Therefore the account of time hinders not, but that
Nazaratus
(who is said to be
Pythagoras
's Master) should be the same with
Ezekiel.
He also is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Zabratus,
who by
Malchus
in the Life of
Pythagoras
is called his
Master, &c.
Godefred Wendelin
asserts, that
Pythagoras
derived his
Tetractie
from the
Jews
; and particularly from
Daniel,
the chief of the
Magi,
who was then, when
Pythagoras
lived in those parts, about 70. years old. So
Selden Syntag.
2.
de Diis Syris cap.
1. affirms, that
Pythagoras
had some rude notices of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or God's name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jehovah,
which he called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Tetracte.
That
Pythagoras
had conversation with, and some traditions from, the
Jews,
whilst he was in
Babylon
appears farther, by what
Diogenes
in his Treatise of incredible things beyond
Thule
(quoted by
Porphyry pag.
8.) affirms of
Pythagoras; that he went also to the Hebrews, &c.
That
Pythagoras
visited
Egypt,
and
Babylon,
at those very times, when the
Jews
had their abode there, is affirmed by
Eusebius lib.
10.
praepar. c.
2.
They report, that
Pythagoras
was an Auditor, not only of
Pherecydes Syrius,
but also of the
Persian Magi,
and of the
Egyptian Divinators,
at that very time, when some of the
Jews
went to
Babylon,
and others of them to
Egypt.
That there were a quantity, or great number of
Jews
in
Babylon,
when
Pythagoras
was there, is most evident: for suppose we fix the time of his being in
Babylon
after the
Captivity
of the
Jews,
and their Return to
Judea
;
yet it is certain, there were great numbers of them never returned, but continued in
Babylon,
where they had 3. famous
Schools,
or
Universities, Sora, Pompeditha,
and
Neharda
(as has been afore observed) which we cannot conceive, that
Pythagoras,
so curious an Inquisitor into Antiquity, would pass by, without observation for 12. years space, for so long he continued in
Babylon,
according to
Iamblichus.
That,
which gave
Pythagoras
the greatest advantage, and encouragement to converse with the
Jews
in
Babylon,
was his skill in the
Egyptian Tongue
(as
Diogenes,
and others assert) which indeed differed not in
Substance,
but only in
Dialect,
from the
Hebrew,
and
Chaldee,
as we have endeavored to prove out of
Bochart,
and others; so that we need not, with
Aristobulus,
suppose the Translation of
Moses
's books into
Greek
before the
Persian Monarchy
; for
Pythagoras
being skilled in the
Egyptian,
and, I suppose, also the
Chaldean
Tongue, having lived in
Chaldea
12. years, might without difficulty, read
Moses
's Writings, at least have
conversation,
and conference with the
Jews,
who could, without doubt, (having lived so long in
Chaldea)
speak the
Chaldean
Tongue,
&c.
That
Pythagoras
really had conversation with the
Jews
at
Babylon,
and translated many things out of their
Doctrines
into his Philosophy, has been already proved by sundry Testimonies collected by Learned
Usher,
as also by the concession of
Stillingfleet
; of which see §. 2. of this
Chapter.
§. 9.
Pythagoras
having spent 12. years at
Babylon,
in conversation with the
Persian Magi, Chaldeans,
and
Jews,
about the 56 year of his age he returned to
Samos,
where he endeavored to instruct the
Samians
in that
Symbolic mode of philosophizing,
he had learned in
Egypt,
and other
oriental parts,
but the
Samians,
not affecting his
obscure,
and
enigmatick
Philosophy, did not give him any great encouragement to continue long with them, as
Iamblichus de vita Pythag. l.
1.
c.
5.
Laertius
informs us, that the occasion of his departure from
Sames,
was the
Tyranny
it lay under by reason of
Polycrates
his usurpation. So
Vossius de phil. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 1. That
Pythagoras
was a great assertor of the people's
Liberties
(as
Plato
) but an inveterate enemy of
Tyranny,
will appear in its place.
§. 10.
Iamblichus
also (
cap.
5.) acquaints us, that, before his going into
Italy,
he went to
Crete
to acquaint himself with the Laws of
Minois,
as also to
Sparta,
to gain Knowledge in those of
Lycurgus,
which then had the Vogue for great
Legislators. Laertius
tells us,
while he was in
Crete,
he had conversation with
Epimenides,
with whom he entered the
Idean Cave.
This
Epimenides
is by
Apuleius
in 2.
Florid,
styled the famous
Diviner,
where also he adds, that
Pythagoras
made use of one
Leodamas
the disciple of
Creophilus
for his Master; but
Laert. l.
8. and
Soudas
call him
Hermodamas. Casaubon
thinks, that he might have heard
Solon
also, but
Vossius
gainsays it,
Vossius de phil. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. § 4.
§. 11.
Pythagoras,
quitting
Greece,
went into
Italy
(that part which was called
Magna Greece
) and first arrived at
Croto,
where, by his graceful presence, Rhetorical Orations, and friendly
complaisance,
he gained the affections of the Citizens, both Magistrates, and others; as
Iamblichus cap.
8. The same
Iamblichus (cap.
6.) tells us, that, at the first Speech he made in
Croto,
he attracted many followers, in so much that in a short time he gained 600. Disciples. And that he had a general esteem amongst the
Romans,
is evident by the Statue, they erected to him, at
Rome
; of which
Pliny lib.
34.
cap.
6. thus speaks:
I find Statues erected to Pythagoras,
and
Alcibiades in the horns of the Comitium.
see
Vossius philos. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 28.
&c.
And indeed no wonder, that the
Italians
had so great an esteem for, and affection to
Pythagoras
: for he had been a great Instrument of delivering them from
Oppression,
and
Sedition
amongst themselves, as also of communicating to them
Good Laws
(which he had from the
Jews
) and such a constitution of their Common Wealth, as tended most to the preservation of
Liberty,
and
Unity
; the main pillars of any
State.
So
Porphyry
in the Life of
Pythagoras, pag.
14. and
Iamblichus
out of him
l.
1.
c.
7. inform us,
that whatsoever Cities
Pythagoras
in his travels through
Italy,
and
Cicilie
found in subjection one to another, he instilled into them, by his
Disciples,
a
principle
of
Liberty.
Thus he freed
Crotona, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum,
and other
Cities
where his
Disciples
prevailed.
Yea indeed many of the most eminent
Rectors
of the
Italian
common wealths proceeded from
Pythagoras
's Schole, as
Zaleucus,
who gave Laws to the
Locrians,
and
Charondas
the
Catanaean,
who gave Laws to the
Thurii,
with other
Legislators,
of whom see
Iamblichus l.
1.
cap.
30. By means of which
Pythagorean Laws,
and
Governors,
these Cities were a long time well governed.
Pythagoras
wholly took away dissention. So
Iamblichus.
Some also say, that
Numa Pompilius
had his
Laws
from
Pythagoras
; but of this more hereafter.
§, 12. From
Pythagoras
's settlement, and Schole in
Italy,
the
Italic Sect
received its denomination. That part of
Italy,
wherein
Pythagoras
taught, was called
Magna Greece,
which comprised
Tarentum, Metapontus, Heraclea, Croto,
and the
Thurii. Pythagoras
having lived at
Croto
20 years, died in the last year of the 70.
Olympiad,
as
Eusebius
will have it. He had indeed an universal esteem amongst all:
but a particular reverence from his
Scholars,
who, as long as he lived, were wont to style him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Theologue
; but after his death they called him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
man. Iamblichus de vita Pythag. l.
1.
c.
2.
gives him this
honorable character.
Pythagoras
(says he) after the death of his Father, grew up in
Wisdom,
and
Temperance,
being even from his youth generally honored by the most ancient. His graceful
presence,
and taking
Discourse
drew all persons to him; in so much that many affirmed him to be the son of some
God.
He being thus confirmed by the common vogue of all men concerning him, by the
education
given him in his youth, and by his excellent
Naturals,
made himself daily more deserving of these advantages; adorning himself with
Religious Exercises,
natural
Sciences,
exemplary
conversation,
stability of
mind,
grave
deportment,
and with an amiable imitable
serenity.
He was never transported by unlawful passion, laughter, emulation, contention, or any other disorder. He lived like some
good Genius
coming to converse in
Samos,
whence he was styled the
Samian Comet.
Iamblichus (chap.
13.) gives us a farther account of his
Moderation
in the use of
creature comforts,
and
refreshments
; of his exact
Wisdom,
and
diligence
to preserve a good habitude, and disposition of body, and mind: as also of his great care in redeeming, and emproving his time.
Pythagoras
(says he) having learned of
Thales
above all things to husband his time well, he did for that reason abstain from Wine, and Flesh; having before abstained from eating much, and accustomed himself to such meats, as were of more easy digestion; by which means he acquired an habit of watchfulness, serenity, and vivacity of mind, and an equal continued health of body.
§. 13. To give a brief Abstract of what
Diogenes Laertius
does more at large relate touching
Pythagoras.
He was (saith he) the first
Institutor
of the
Italic Sect
; all the others were called
Ionick
from
Thales. Pythagoras,
when young, was committed by his Uncle
Zoilus
to
Pherecydes
a
Syrian.
When he was young, and most studious
of
Learning,
he initiated himself in the
Barbarian,
and
Grecian Rites
▪ and
Mysteries.
At length he went to
Egypt,
with commendatory Letters from
Polycrates,
where he learned the
Egyptian
Tongue; but he was most conversant with the
Chaldeans,
and the
Magi.
After that he went to
Crete,
where he conversed with
Epimenides.
In
Egypt
he entered the
Adytum,
and was instructed in the
ineffable mysteries
of the
God's.
At his return to
Samos,
finding his
Country
under Tyranny by
Polycrates,
he went to
Croto
in
Italy
: where he
gave Laws
to the
Italians
; and was
honored
by his Scholars.
He is reported to have been of a most
awful majestic presence,
which made so deep an impression on such, as had conversation with him, that a young man being severely rebuked by him, immediately hanged himself; whereupon
Pythagoras
ever after forbore to reprove any:
thus
Laertius.
We have a good evidence of
Pythagoras
's contentation, and contempt of worldly
grandeur
by his
Epistle
to
Hiero,
in answer to an invitation he made him, to come and live with him.
My life, says
Pythagoras,
is secure, and quiet, but yours will no way suit with me: a moderate, and self denying person needs not a
Sicilian
table.
Pythagoras,
wheresoever he comes, has all things sufficient for the day; but to
serve
a
Lord
is heavy, and intolerable for one unaccustomed to it.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
self sufficiency
is a great, and safe thing; for it hath none, that envieth or conspires against it. Whence that life seemeth to come nearest to God. Therefore write not to
Pythagoras
to live with you: for
Physicians
will not fall sick, to bear their
patients
company.
Stanlie Life of Pythagoras chap.
22.
§. 14.
Apuleius Florid.
15. gives us this brief account of
Pythagoras's
Travels, Instructors.
and
Philosophy
: The common fame goes, that of his own accord he sought after the
Egyptian Sciences,
and learnt there of the
Priests
the incredible efficacies of their
Ceremonies,
the admirable changes of
Numbers,
the most exact formules of
Geometry
: but his mind being not satiated with these
Siences,
he thence goes to the
Chaldeans,
and hence to the
Brachmanes,
and
Gymnosophists.
The
Chaldees
teach the
Sideral Science,
or
Astronomy,
the stated
ambitus
of the
wandering Stars,
and the various effects of both in the
Genitures
of
men
; also
Medicine, &c.
The
Brachmanes
also contribute much to his
Philosophy.
Moreover
Pythagoras
embraced
Pherecydes,
who sprang out of the
Scyran
Island, for his Master. It is said, that he studied
Natural Philosophy
with
Anaximander:
also
that he followed
Epimenides
of
Crete,
that famous Prophet, and Poet, for Science sake: also
Leodamas,
the Disciple of
Creophilus, &c.
To which we may add that of
Justin Hist. lib.
20. He went first to
Egypt,
then to
Babylon
to learn the
motions
of the
Stars
and the
Origin
of the
Universe.
Whence returning he came to
Crete,
and
Lacedemon,
to understand the
Laws
of
Minos,
and
Lycurgus,
at that time most famous. With which being instructed he came to
Croto,
where, by his Authority, he reduced the people fallen into
Luxury,
to the use of
frugality.
He enumerated the ruins of the
Cities,
which had been destroyed by the pest of
Luxury.
He frequently taught the
Women
apart from the
Men,
and the
Children
apart from their
Parents.
And he gained thus much by his continual
Disputation,
that the
Matrones
laid aside their golden garments, and other ornaments of their Dignity, accounting
Chastity,
and not
fine Clothes,
to be the true ornaments of
Matrones:
Thus
Justin.
Pythagoras,
the more effectually to form, and shape the Manners of the City, frequently explicated the
practic
part of
Wisdom. Pythagoras
leaving
Croto
went to the
Metapontines,
who had him so greatly in admiration, as that after his
death,
they made his
house
a
Temple,
and worshipped him as a
God. Justin lib.
20.
CHAP. VI. Pythagoras's College, and Discipline from the Jews.
Pythagoras's 2.
Schools
1.
common.
2.
His private College, wherein were
1. Novices,
their examen, and probation.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Intrinsicks, Phil. 3.12, 15.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
1. Tim. 3.6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The Discipline of
Pythagoras's
College. Their consociation founded on
Virtue
as
Exod. 19.5, 6.
set forth by
Salt,
from
Lev. 2.13. Numb. 18.19.
Covenant by Salt what?
Luke 13.26. Ezra 4.14. Mark 9.49.
Of the
Essenes,
their Collegiate Life, and the
Pythagoreans
Symbolizing with them in
16
Particulars. The
Pythagoreans
a sort of
Separatists Gal. 2.9.
Their shunning worldly Pleasures, and Company: their Celibate, and Abstinenoes, as
Col. 2.16, 21, 22. 1. Tim. 4.3.
Their Purifications
and Festivals. Their white Vestments from
Eccles. 8.
Their perpetual Silence, and their concealing Mysteries. Their reverence towards their Elders. Their owning Providence, with their Devotion. Their daily exercises, with morning premeditation, and night examination. Their Constancy, with their excommunication
Mat. 8.22.
§. 1. HAving given the Story of
Pythagoras
's
Life,
and
Travels,
and some account of his Conversation with
Jews
therein; we proceed to his
Schole, Institutes,
and
Discipline
; wherein we doubt not, but to make discovery of many
Jewish Institutes,
&
traditions. Iamblichus,
lib. 1. cap. 6. tells us, that
Pythagoras,
upon his settlement at
Croto
in Italy, drew unto him, by his
persuasive Orations,
many followers even unto the number of 600. persons, who were by him won, not only to the embracing that
Philosophy
he professed; but also to submit to his
Rules of Discipline,
and that
Collegiate mode
of life, which he prescribed to them. For the more full understanding whereof, we must know, that
Pythagoras
had two several
Schools,
and thence two sorts of
Disciples,
as
Porphyry, Iamblichus,
and
Clem. Alexander.
have observed. For 1. he had his
Homocoeion
or
common Schole,
for all;
which
Clemens Alexandrinus
(
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1.) enterprets
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Church,
where all sorts of
hearers
were admitted: where the Disciples that belonged to this Schole were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Auditors,
or
Pythagorites,
these learned only the
chief
Principles of
Philosophy,
without more exact explication. For these being either of more dull capacities, or else engaged in civil affairs, had not
Abilities,
or leisure to addict themselves wholly to
Pythagoras,
and his
Philosophy
; wherefore he expounded to them only the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or naked
Heads
of
Philosophy.
Among these common hearers there were of all
sexes, ages,
and
conditions
: men, women, adult, youth. The
Citizens,
and men of
Croto
he exhorted daily, and apart with a great splendor of
Oration,
to the study of
Virtue.
The
Matrons
also, who were thence styled,
Pythagoricae,
he instructed frequently, and
apart
in their duties, as also the
children
apart from their
parents,
as
Laert.
lib. 8. and
Hornius Hist. Philos.
l. 7. c. 12.
2.
Pythagoras
also had his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
coenobium,
which
Laertius
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
his
System
; and
Cassiodorus
his
College,
as others his
Family,
and the
Disciples,
that belonged to this
Schole,
or
College,
were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Genuine,
as also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mathematicians,
because they being generally young, of quick apprehensions, and as willing, as also able, to
devote themselves to the study of
Philosophy, Pythagoras
expounded to them not only the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
but also the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Causes,
and
Reasons
of things; why it was so, and so, and why it could not be otherwise. These
Mathematicians
being of
Pythagoras's College, Covent,
or
Family,
and by him instituted in the more full, and exact
Reasons of things,
and deeper points of
Philosophy,
were only esteemed and called
genuine Pythagoreans:
the former
acoustiques,
or
common hearers,
being called only
Pythagorites.
To these two sorts of hearers
Gellius
l. 1. c. 4. adds a third
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
naturalists.
Yea the Author of the
Pythagorean life
adds more: of which see
Photios
cod. 249.
Clemens Alexand.
lib. 5
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
V
•
ssius de Philos. Sect.
l. 2. c. 6. §. 18.
Stanly
of
Pythag.
Discip. Chap. 1.
§. 2 In
Pythagoras's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Convent, College
or
Family
there were also two sorts of
Disciples
; some were only
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exoteriques, Novices
or
Probationers.
Others were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intrinsiques,
or
Perfect.
As for the
Probationers
or
novices, Pythagoras,
to render them capable of Philosophy, prepared them by a most severe
Discipline,
and made them pass a very strict
examen.
For
Pythagoras
studied very much to know, and understand men; what every man's
Disposition
was, what his natural
capacity
for Philosophy, and what his inclinations thereto were: neither would he admit any into his
College,
or
Family,
before he had made some
Physiognomicall observations
concerning the man; If upon exact observation of all circumstances, he found the person to be of
good naturals,
and of an
awakened understanding,
then he brought him under an Examen touching his
morals
; whether he were of good manners, and had affectionate inclinations to
Philosophy,
&c. The person thus
examined,
and
approved
by Pythagoras, was admitted into his Society, or College as an
Exoterique,
or
Probationer
; as
Iamblichus
cap. 20. and
Stanly
of
Pythagoras's Discipline
chap 2.
§. 3. Now that
Pythagoras
traduced this part of his
Discipline,
as also the former relating to his
Acoustiques,
or
Common auditors
from the
Jewish Church,
seems very probable. For who knows not, that the
Jews
had two sorts of
Proselytes?
1.
Those of the Gates,
i e. such as lived within their
gates,
and partaked of some common privileges; unto whom Pythagoras's
common Disciples
seem to answer: but secondly, there were
Proselytes of the covenant,
or of
Righteousness,
i e. such as were incorporate into the
Jewish Church,
and so made partakers of all their
privileges.
Now in the admission of these,
Maimonides
tells us,
the Jews were very strict and severe, as
Ainsworth
out of him on Gen. 17.12. [
Bought with money.
]
when a man or woman cometh to join a
Proselyte,
they make a diligent enquiry after such, lest they come to get themselves under the
Law,
for some
Riches,
they should receive, or for
Dignity
they should obtain, or for
Fear.
If he be a
Man,
they inquire whether he have not set his affection on some
Jewish woman
; or a
Woman
her affections on some
Young man
of
Israel.
If no such like occasion be found in them, they make known to them the Weightinesse of the
Yoake
of the
Law,
&c. to see if they will leave off. If they will take it upon them, and withdraw not, and they see, that they come of love, then they receive them as its written
Ruth.
1.18. &c.
Thus
Ainsworth.
By which we see, how near
Pythagoras
comes to the
Jews
in his strict, and
severe examen,
as to the
Admission
of
Disciples,
from whom we have some reason to persuade us, that he took the whole
Idea,
or
Platforme
of his
Schole
and
College.
Yea if we may believe
Clemens Alexandrinus
(
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1.)
Pythagoras
himself was
circumcised
; and if so, we may suppose he was admitted as a
Proselyte,
to partake of the
Privileges,
and
Mysteries
of the
Jewish Church.
And
Porphyry
(pag. 2.) tells us, that he was cleansed from the pollutions of his life past by one
Zabratus,
who according to
S
•
lden
was
Ezekiel.
Or if not a
Proselyte of the Covenant
; yet we may with safety suppose him to be a
Proselyte of the Gates
; that is, one that heard amongst them, and so acquainted himself with their
Discipline,
and
Mysteries,
and
affected
an
imitation
thereof, particularly in this rite of admitting his Disciples and
Probationers.
§. 4.
Pythagoras
appointed his
Exoteriques
under
Probation
many
Exercises
for the
purification
of their minds, as also many
Abstinences
from
wine, flesh,
and other
meats
obstructing the
clearness of understanding,
with many other
probationarie exercises
: which
probation
or
preparative Discipline
they underwent usually
five years
before they were admitted to be
Intrinsiques,
or
complete Pythagoreans.
But the main Injunction, which Pythagoras laid on these
Exoteriques,
or
Novices,
was their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
quinquenniall,
or 5
years silence.
The cause of which
silence
was to inure his
Disciples
to the right government of their
Tongues,
which of all things is most
difficult,
and yet the most
useful,
and necessary for
Novices
in any science. Thence
Iamblichus
lib. 1. c. 31.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪
The Government of the Tongue is of all most difficult.
So
Apul. Florid.
15.
The first Founder of
Philosophy
first taught his Disciples to hold their peace,
and his first mediation, in order to the procuring
Wisdom,
was to bridle the Tongue, and keep our words within the wall of our teeth; for he forbad not
speech
altogether, but
loquacitie
; requiring that they spoke more rarely, more submissively, more modestly, which is a great virtue, though very difficult in Scholars:
according to that of
Quintilian,
Decl. 19.
I think there is no virtue more difficult, than that of Silence.
This
Pythagorean
silence answers that of Job ch. 6. v. 24.
Teach me and I will hold my tongue.
Others make the reason of this silence to be
that the soul, turning
inward
to her self, might be diverted from
external objects,
and all
irregular passions.
Hence his silence was termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that is, (says
Aulus Gellius
lib. 1. c. 9.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or as
Hesychius,
and out of him
Soudas
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
containing within himself his speech.
This
Probationary silence
of these
Novices, Laertius
lib. 8. calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
quinquenniall silence. Laertius
says,
that the
Pythagorean Novices
kept silence 5. years, only hearing Pythagoras's discourses, but not seeing him, till they were fully approved, & then they became of his Family, which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
system.
So Servius on Virgil, Aen. 10. yet Aulus Gellius l. 1. c. 9. informs us, that this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
5
years silence
was not required of all, but of some more, of some less; but none were enjoined less than two years silence, as none more then five years. The like
Apuleius
in
floridis
tells us, that some were silent for a lesser space, especially such as were more
grave
: but those who were more prattling, were enjoined a
quinquenniall
silence. The Pythagoreans for this their silence continued in great honor even to
Isocrates
's time, who in his
Busiris
says,
that men more admired the
Pythagoreans,
who held their peace, than others, who had obtained the greatest glory by speaking.
Yea
Pythagoras
enjoined his Disciples some kind of
perpetual silence,
for he taught 1. That we ought to be silent, or to speak things better than Silence. 2. to comprehend many things in few words, not few things in many words, whence
Zeno
blamed such as instead of being
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
lovers of learning,
were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
lovers of
words.
3.
Pythagoras
forbad his Scholars declaring his
mysteries
to others. Those who after their five years
preparative Discipline,
and
Probation,
appeared by their
moderation,
commendable
conversation,
and other
qualifications
fit to participate of Pythagoras's more secret
Philosophy
and
Mysteries,
were made
Intrinsiques,
being admitted to hear
Pythagoras
within the
screen,
and to see him, and henceforward were accounted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
perfect,
which privileges the former
Probationers,
or
Novices
were not made partakers of. But if these
Novices,
after the time of their
Probation,
were not judged worthy to be received to the condition of the
perfect,
or complete members of
Pythagoras
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Covent,
then were they rejected, & a
Coffin
was made by the Disciples of
Pythagoras,
& placed in their room, as a lively
symbolique
image of a person
morally
dead: so
Iamblichus
cap. 17. and
Grot.
on
Mat.
8.2. as
Hammond
on
Luke
25.24. of which hereafter in the
Pythagorean Excommunication Par.
9.
§. 5. That
Pythagoras
took the
Idea,
and
Platform
of his
probationary examen, Discipline,
and
preparative exercises
from the
Jewish
Church the
Learned
assure us; and that upon more than conjectural grounds. So
Daille
in his Sermon on
Philip.
3.12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
This term [perfect] says he, is taken from those (viz. the
Pythagoreans
) amongst the
Pagans,
who after many
preparations
and
purifications
rendered themselves capable of the view, and participation of certain great
Idololatrique mysteries,
which in those times were had in great veneration, &c.
Now that this mode of initiating
Novices
by such
preparative exercises,
after which they became
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
perfect,
does originally belong to the
Jewish
Church, the same
Daille
affirms on
Phil.
3.15. Parfaits
perfect.
The ancient
Greek
Pagans had in their Religion certain mysteries, & sacred ceremonies, to the view, & participation of which they received not their Devoto's, till they had been prepared for the same by diverse
Disciplines,
calling them
perfect,
who were admitted thereto, and holding the others for
Novices
or Apprentices only — But these words were taken originally from the fashion of the
Jewish
Church, in the Schools whereof there were divers orders: some were more
low,
others more
high,
in which were taught the most sublime
mysteries:
and this last part of their
Theology
was called by a word, that signifies
perfection,
because they held it for the top of their
Discipline
: and in like manner they, who had been instructed in this their
sublime Theology,
were called
The perfect
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Thus likewise the
Levites
(as some observe) had their
quinquennial,
or
five years probation
and
preparation,
by
preparative Exercises,
before they entered upon their
complete
office: whence we see what affinity there is betwixt Pythagoras's
Probationers,
or
Novices,
and those in the
Jewish
Church, and Schole.
Paul
also 1
Tim.
3.6. makes mention of a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that is, a
Novice
in the
Christian
Church, which
Oecumenius
enterprets
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
one newly initiated
in the faith, a
Catechumen,
and Theophilact
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
one newly baptized,
and admitted into the Church, answering to the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(which the LXX. render Job. 14.9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) and as we may presume with allusion to the
Novice
in the Jewish Church. And this very custom of
initiating Novices
by
preparative Discipline
the popish
Monks,
such as are
Regular,
universally retain to this
very
day (both
name
and thing) in the admitting persons into their
Covents
; which, we need no way doubt, they at first took up in imitation of, and compliance with the Pagans, especially the
Pythagoreans,
and the
Jewish
Church; as also their whole
Monastique
Life, and Institutes, of which hereafter. Lastly, we should be perfect
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and without blemish; such were the
Pythagorean
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; and Plato's
Priest,
whom he requires to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
perfect and genuine.
§ 6. We have spoken of
Pythagoras's Disciples
in
common,
as also of those who belonged to his
coenebium,
or
College,
both his
Novices,
and
perfect,
with their
cognation
to, and derivation from the
Jewish
Church, and Schools. We now proceed to treat of the
Discipline
Pythagoras exercised amongst his Scholars, especially those of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
College,
wherein we doubt not, but to discover many remarkable, and evident
footsteps
of
Jewish
discipline, and Traditions, whence we may suppose it was traduced.
The first thing considerable in the
Discipline
of
Pythagoras's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
College
was the
Confoederation,
League,
or
Covenant
betwixt all those, who were
Members
thereof. For as we have already proved,
Pythagoras
was very severe and strict in the admission of
Members
into his
System
or
College.
He judged, and that rightly, there could be no
fraternity
and lasting friendship, but what was grounded on
Likeness
; and no true proper
Likeness,
but what was founded in
virtue,
or
resemblance
of
God.
Whence says
Iamblichus
of the
Pythagoreans,
Their study of friendship by words and actions, had reference to some
Divine
temperament, and to union with God, and to unity with the Divine soul.
So
Stanly
of
Pythag. Philos.
ch. 2. By which it is plain, that
Pythagoras
asserted both in
Thesi,
or
Opinion,
and in
Hypothesi,
and
Practice,
that there could be no
Consociation,
or
friendship
worthy of that name, but what was founded on
Virtue,
and
Likeness to God.
This also was sufficiently couched under two of
Pythagoras's Symbols
according to the explication of
Iamblichus,
as that Symbol 28.
[
Lay not hold
on everyone suddenly with your right hand
] i. e. says Iamblichus,
give not
your right hand,
or draw not easily to you into your society persons not
initiated
(
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) i. e.
such as have not been long tried
by
Doctrines
and
Disciplines,
nor are approved as worthy to participate, &c.
Another of
Pythagoras's Symbols,
whereby he signified to us, that
Virtue,
or
Likeness
to
God,
was the only solid and genuine foundation of strict Friendship and
Society,
was this, Symbol. 35. [
set down salt
] that is, saith
Iamblichus Justice,
of which salt is an emblem. This also
Plato (Pythagoras's
imitator) does much insist upon, especially in
Lysis
(this
Lysis,
whom
Plato
makes to be the subject of this discourse of friendship, was
Pythagoras's
Scholar)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
Friendship,
proving first that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Likeness
was the ground of all
Friendship.
2. Thence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c. that good men only were
alike,
and
Friends,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that
wicked
men had no likeness, &c. Whence he concludes 3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
there is no conjunction, or stable union amongst wicked men.
§. 7. Now that
Pythagoras
took this
Foundation, Constitution,
or
Idea
of his
Cellege
from the
Jewish Church
their
holy confederation,
I think we have good
conjectures, if not demonstrative Arguments
to prove it. For we know, the
Jewish Church
was by virtue of God's
Covenant,
and gracious presence with them a
separate, select, peculiar, and holy people
: Exod. 19.5. —
and keep my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure to me above all people,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifieth ones own
proper good,
which he loveth, and keepeth in store for himself, and for peculiar use: 1 Chr. 29 3. Here it is applied to God's
Church,
and translated by the LXX. a
peculiar people,
and St
Peter
expresses it by a word, that signifies a people for peculiar possession 1
Pet.
2.9. [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] i. e. as
Cameron
observes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies primarily
abundance,
thence
excellency,
as choice, select jewels, &c.
Therefore God, though he were the
Rector
of all the earth, yet the
Jewish Church
was his
peculiar treasure,
or
possession,
as the Diademe on the head, or the seal on the hand: so Exod. 34.9.
and take us for thine inheritance
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
we find the same Psal. 135.4.
For the Lord hath chosen Jacob to himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
it is the same word with Exod. 19.5. and so rendered
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
such a
separate, peculiar,
and
holy relation
had the
Jewish Church
by virtue of God's
Covenant,
and their own
stipulation
unto God. In imitation whereof, we may safely conjecture,
Pythagoras
framed his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Covent,
or
College,
which was to him
as a
peculiar Family,
or
Church
; and therefore look as
Salt
was of great use in the
Jewish Church,
and
Sacrifices,
as that which did
lively,
though but
Symbolically,
represent their
holy friendship,
and
communion with God
; so in like manner
Pythagoras
makes great use of this same Symbol [
set down salt
] to express the holy
Friendship
and
Communion
there should be amongst his
Collegues.
And that
Pythagoras's
Symbol of Salt, by which he signified that
Covenant,
and
Friendship,
which ought to be betwixt his
Collegues,
had its first rise from the parallel use of
Salt
in the
Jewish Church,
will I think appear very probable, if we consult the
Scriptures,
where we find this
Symbol
mentioned, as also its use amongst the Ancients.
It is said Lev. 2.13.
Thou shalt not suffer the Salt
of the
Covenant
of thy
God
to be
lacking; with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.
So Numb. 18.19. we read of a
Covenant by Salt.
The like 2. Chron. 13.5. where the salt, that was cast upon all the Sacrifices, is called the
Salt of the Covenant,
because the
Covenant
of God with his people was confirmed by
Sacrifice,
as Psal. 50.5.
Gather my Saints together unto me,
those who have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice.
The original of which
Covenant by Sacrifice
we find Gen. 15.9, 10. which was afterwards imitated by the
Heathens
in the confirmation of their solemn Covenants: so that this
Covenant
by
Salt
is the same with the
Covenant by Sacrifice,
because these Covenants by
Sacrifice,
both in the
Jewish Church,
and also amongst the Greeks, were solemnized by
Eating,
and drinking the
Sacrifices,
whereunto
Salt
was always a necessary appendix. For God by these feastings upon the
Sacrifices,
wherein
Salt
was used, did confirm his
Covenant
with those, who did participate of them; in as much as they did in some sort
eat
and
drink
with
God
: as Luke 13.26.
We have eaten and drunk in thy presence.
i. e. we have eaten and drunk together with thee of thy
Sacrifices,
or at thy
Communion Table,
for the ratifying our Covenant, and in token of our friendship with thee. And, that
Salt
was always accounted by the
Ancient Jews,
as an essential concurrent of their feasts, especially such as were for the confirmation of
Covenants, Love,
and
Friendship,
appears by that common proverb,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Every feast wherein is not some salt, is no feast.
We have a great instance, and proof of this
Jewish
custom to make use of
Salt
for the confirmation of their Covenants,
in Ezra 4.14. where the original Chaldee (different from our version) runs thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
because we have eaten of the Kings salt.
i. e. because
we have
engaged
ourselves in a
Covenant of Friendship
to him, by
eating of his meat.
So that we see this
Rite
of making
Covenants by Salt
was fresh amongst the Jews even then, when
Pythagoras
flourished, and lived amongst them in
Chaldea.
Hence learned
Cudworth
(in his Discourse of the true notion of the
Lord's Supper
pag. 68.) having shown how
Salt
was used amongst the
Ancients
as a
Symbol
of
Covenants,
and friendship, adds,
Thus I understand that Symbol of Pythogoras
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to set down Salt for Friendship, and hospitality.— Because Covenants and reconciliations were made by eating, and drinking, where salt was always used. Salt it self was accounted amongst the Ancients a
Symbol
of friendship,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Salt,
and the
Table
was used proverbially amongst the
Greeks
to express friendship by: thence
Origen's
quotation out of
Archilochus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to
transgress the Salt and Table, was to violate the most sacred league of Friendship. Aeschines
in his
Oration
de
perperam habita Legatione
hath a passage very pertinent to this purpose,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. For he saith, that he ought greatly to esteem the
Salt,
and
common Table
of the
City.
Thus
Cudworth,
&c. By which we see how, and why the Ancients both
Jews,
and
Greeks
made Salt a
Symbol
of their
Covenants,
and
friendship.
But yet I conceive there was something more couched under this
Symbol
of
Salt,
than learned
Cudworth
hath taken notice of, which will give further illustration, and proof to our Assertion, that
Pythagoras
traduced it from the
Jewish Church.
For God instituting Salt, as a
Symbol
of his
Covenant,
to be eaten with the
Sacrifices,
as Lev. 2.13. did thereby represent to the life that
sanctity,
or
holiness,
which he required, and expected from such, as entered into Covenant with him: For who knows not, that Salt, as it gives a savor, and relish to meats, so its chief use is to preserve from putrefaction: this explication
Christ
himself gives of this
Symbol,
Mark 9.49, 50.
Everyone shall be salted with fire, and every Sacrifice salted with Salt,
&c.
Salted,
i. e. purified, and preserved by
Grace,
as flesh by
Salt:
the like
Symbolique
usage of
Salt
is given by Christ Mat. 5.13.
Ye are the salt.
So Luke 14.34. Coloss. 4.6. seasoned &c. That this was a main use of
Salt
amongst the
Heathens,
and that they traduced this usage from the
Jewish Church,
is asserted and proved by
Francis Valesius de Sacra Pholosophia, cap.
16. on Levite. 2.13.
It is a wonder (saith he) that it was a solemn Rite, not only in the Sacrifices of the true God, but
also in those of the false gods, to
use salt,
as you may understand by
Pliny
lib. 31. cap. 7. where discoursing of the praises of Salt, he saith,
that its authority is much understood in Sacreds, seeing no Sacrifices are performed without Salt.
Whence I conjecture that this custom was derived from the first Sacrifices of the infant world, which were offered to the great God. And that it was thence derived into the
Sacred Rites
of all the
Gentiles
: for we have much reason to judge, that those
false Ministers
of
Sacreds,
received this custom from the
true Priests,
according to the
Devils
institution, thereby to have the
Divine Sacrifices
offered to him.
Plato
in his
Dialogue
of
Natures
says, that
Salt is a body friendly to God,
which accords with this present text: for God requires every
Sacrifice
to be seasoned with
Salt,
as that which was grateful and friendly to him. — Namely Salt seems to be a
Symbol
of
Integrity,
and
Incorrupti
•
n,
and thence of
Innocence.
For Salt, as tis manifest by experience (and from
Aristotle Problemat.
26. Sect.) dries, and thence preserves things from
Corruption.
Deservedly therefore is
Salt
made a Symbol of
Justice,
and so commanded in the
Sacrifices.
To which belongs that Numb. 18.19.
Its a covenant of salt forever.
He calls it a covenant of
Salt.
i. e. a covenant of Sacrifices, &c. Here Valetius seems to take in both
notions:
namely, as
salt
signifies an
inviolable covenant of friendship,
and moreover
Integrity
and
Holiness,
both which are couched under this borrowed
Symbol
of
Salt,
and both conveyed from the use of
Salt
in the
Church
of God to the like usage of it amongst the
Pythagoreans,
and other
Heathens.
And thus much indeed
Pythagoras
understood by this
Symbol
of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to place salt.
i. e. says
Iamblichus in his explication, as a sign of Justice, Righteousness
or
Holiness.
Thus also
Diogenes
explains this Symbol of Salt as preservative of meats, &c. For
Pythagoras
conceived there could be no right consociation or friendship, but what was founded in virtue (as before) and therefore was he so strict in the
examen
or trial of his
Probationers,
and so severe in the whole
Discipline
of his
College,
which that it all sprang from the
Jewish Discipline,
and his affectation thereof, will farther appear by what follows.
§. 9. As
Pythagoras
took the
Idea
or
platform
of his
System,
and College from the
Jewish
Church in general, that holy, and peculiar relation they had to God, and to each other, by virtue of that
mutual confederation
or
covenant
betwixt them and God. So I conceive he had a peculiar regard, in framing this his College, to the particular
Confoederation,
or
Monastique consociation
of the
Essenes,
with whom he does in the chief parts of his
Collegiate Discipline
Symbolize, as it will appear, when we descend to particulars. Now here to make the way to this demonstration clear, we are to consider the
Rise, constitution,
and
Discipline
of these
Essenes.
As for the
origination
of their name they were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e. according to the Greeks
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and according to our English Dialect
Pure.
Now the Origination or Rise of these
Essenes
I conceive (by the best conjectures I can make from Antiquity) to be in, or immediately after the Babylonian Captivity, (though some make them later) and the occasion of their
separation,
or
consociation,
seems this. Many of the
carnal Jews
defiling themselves either by being too deeply plunged in
Worldly Affaires,
even to the neglect of their
Religion,
or, which was worse, by
sinful compliances
with their
Idolatrous
Lord's, thereby to secure their
carnal interests,
these
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Essenes
to preserve themselves from these
common pollutions
separated, and retired themselves from the crowd of worldly affairs into an
holy solitude,
and private condition of life;
where entering into a strict
confederation,
or
consociation,
to lead together a
Collegiate devout life,
they 1. shunned all
carnal pleasures,
which might entice them from their
Devotion.
2. They avoided all
profane
company, and conformity to the world, as also all affectation of
Secular dignity,
applause and honor. 2. They engaged in a
strict fraternal communion
amongst themselves, professing a community of goods, &c. 4. They did in time of persecution, so far as they were able, lead a
Monastique life,
forbearing marriage, &c. 5. They were very
abstemious
and moderate in the use of creature comforts; forbearing
wine,
drinking
water,
&c. 6. They had their
Distinctive garments,
or white vestments. 7. They used
Ceremonial purifications,
according to their Law; as also
moral
mortification of sin. 8. They enjoined
silence
on their
Novices,
and were all studious for the right government of their
speech,
&c. 9. They forbad
Oaths.
10. They had their
Elders
in great esteem. 11. They acknowledged all things to be disposed by a
particular
over-ruling
Providence.
12. They did in a peculiar manner devote themselves to the
worship
of God by
Prayers,
and
Sacrifices,
especially of manimates. 13. They divided their
Lives,
and
Studies
into two parts, 1.
contemplative.
2.
active
: they spent their time most in Action, besides what they employed in their
Devotions
; the
principal
study they addicted themselves unto was
Medicine
: they gave themselves
also to
gardening,
and other labors of the hand. 14. They distributed the
Day
into times for
Prayer,
for
Reading,
for
Study,
for labor with their
hands,
and for natural
Refreshments.
15. They endeavored much exactness in their
Morals,
to lead an exemplary
Life.
16. Such as proved Apostates, or Scandalous, they excommunicated by the common consent of all the Fraternity, or Society. And to conclude with the character of
Viret.
(in his interim pag. 122.)
In sum
their Estate was in their
first constitution
an excellent
Schole
of
Medicine,
of
Doctrine,
and of
Examples
of
virtue:
all things were done amongst them in good order, and I think the first
Christian Monks
took their
pattern
from these
Essenes.
But the later Monks have rather followed the example of the
Sadducees,
and
Pharisees.
Thus Viret. Indeed the
Sadducees,
and
Pharisees
seem to be orders of much later
constitution,
and but a spurious degenerate offspring of the ancient devout
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Essenes.
For although they both affected the
opinion
and
esteem
of eminent
Saints,
or
Separatists
(for so their name Pharisee imports) yet all their pretended sanctity was but apparent hypocrisy, as far short of the sanctity and devotion of the first
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Essenes,
as the pretended Popish mortifications of the later Monks comes short of the sanctity and devotion of the first
Christian
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Puritans.
He that will see more of these Jewish
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
Essenes
may consult
Drusius
de 3. sectis
Judaeorum, &c.
Having laid down the original of the
Essenes,
their
Collegiate Constitution, Order,
and
Discipline,
I shall now proceed to show, how much the
Pythagorean College,
or
System
did
Symbolize,
and agree therewith: which will give a great confirmation to our
Hypothesis
; that
Pythagoras
traduced the
Idea
of
his College,
and its
Discipline
from the
Jewish
Church, &c.
1. The
Pythagoreans,
as the
Essenes,
separated themselves from the rest of men, whom they accounted
Profane
; not at all regarding their Riches, Honors, or Pleasures. Hence that great Law amongst them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to give the Right hand of fellowship to none but to Pythagoreans
: i. e. says
Iamblichus,
to have communion with none, who are not
initiated,
or
tried
by
Doctrines,
and
Disciplines,
&c. The same phrase was used in the
Jewish
Church, to denote communion. So
Paul
speaks of the
Right hand of fellowship
given to him by
Peter,
James,
and
John. Gal.
2.9. according to the
Jewish
Dialect. And as the
Jews
accounted all, that were not of their
Church,
as
dogs, profane, without, &c.
So likewise the
Pythagoreans,
called all those, who were not of their
Society
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
not initiated
; &
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
those without, profane,
&c. So
Grotius
on Mat. 7.6.
[
cast not what is holy to dogs
] observes this
Symbolic mode
was brought by
Pythagoras
out of the
Oriental
parts. Yea
Iamblichus
tells us, that the
Pythagoreans
excluded all, save their
Parents,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from their conversation; hence those
verses
touching
Pythagoras.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
His
Associates
he esteemed equal to the blessed
God's
: but as for others he esteemed them not either in
speech,
or
number;
Iamblichus
lib. 1. cap. 35. This
Pythagorean separation
; and contempt of all others, but their own
Collegues,
gained them much envy, so that as some observe, they being once assembled in their
College,
or the place where they were wont to meet, some ill-willers accused them of a
conspiracy
against the
City,
which caused them to be almost all massacred, of which see
Vossius de Philos. sect.
l. 2. c. 6. par. 26. This is most probable, that the
Pythagoreans
were strict and severe
separatists,
as the
Essenes,
and
Jews
before them.
2. The
Pythagoreans,
as well as the Essenes, shunned all
carnal
pleasures, all
mundane
Honors, Riches, and Grandeur,
affecting an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
mental self-sufficiency.
Thus
Pythagoras
in his Epistle to
Hiero
(of which before chap. 5.) pretends to an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
self-sufficiency,
which made him scorn the Honors, Pleasures, and Pomp of
Hiero
's court. Herein the
Pythagareans
were followed by the
morose Cynics,
who affected a great aversation from all
worldly
pleasures, dignities, and conformities: as also by the
Stoics,
who placed happiness in an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
self-sufficiency,
thence
Epictetus
begins his Enchiridion with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
3. The
Pythagoreans
made not only a
separation
from the world,
both persons and things; but also a strict
Consociation,
or
Confoederation
amongst themselves; professing a
community of goods,
or enjoying all things in common; wherein they did exactly imitate the
Collegiate Discipline
of the
Essenes.
Thus
Iamblichus
(cap. 17.)
Pythagoras,
says he, appointed a
Community
of Estates, & constituted an inviolable
Confederacie, and Society as being that ancient way of consociation (perhaps he means in the
Jewish
Church, which was most ancient) which is truly styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Covent
or
College.
This was agreeable to the Dogmas of
Pythagoras
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
all things ought to be common amongst Friends,
And
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Friendship is an equality
: whence his precept,
Esteem nothing your own.
So
Diog. Laër.
says, the
Pythagoreans
put their estates in one common stock, &c. Thus
Vossius
de Phil. Sect. l. 2. c. 6. §. 25. The Pythagoreans, says he, maintained the
strictest conjunction amongst
themselves; also a
communion
of
Goods.
But as for the
Friendships
of other men, they no way esteemed them, albeit they abounded with Riches, and Honors.
And
Plato
proceeding upon the very same principles with
Pythagoras,
viz:
That all things must
be
common among friends,
&c. enjoins a
Community
of all things in his
Common-wealth:
of which hereafter.
4. As the
Essenes,
and
devout Jews
did, if they had ability, forbear
marriage
in times of persecution, especially thereby to avoid many snares, and encumbrances; so likewise the
Pythagoreans,
who did not only look on
Celibate,
or
single life
as expedient for sometimes, and conditions; but enjoined it in their sect, as a thing sacred, and holy.
This learned
Bochart.
proves at large in his excellent Treatise against
Veron.
part 3. chap. 25. sect. 4. Art. 1. (in French pag. 1338.) where he shows, that the Injunction of celibat, or
Monastique life,
was one great part of the doctrine of
Daemons
(mentioned 1. Tim. 4.1.3.)
which, says he, was one of the superstitions
Pythagoras
brought out of
Egypt,
when he returned into
Greece.
For (as
Clem Alexander.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. l. 1.) he forbad
marriage
to those of his
sect,
and erected a
Cloister
of
Virgins
(or
Nuns
) the charge of which he gave to his
Daughter. Plato
held the same sentiment, and
Heraclitus,
and
Democritus,
and
Zeno
the Prince of the
Stoiques,
who never touched a Woman.
Thus
Bochart.
But 'tis possible,
Pythagoras
might take up this his injunction of Celebat from the
Jewish Priests,
who at sometimes were enjoined abstinence from Women. So
Grotius
on Colos. 2.21. having shown how these Injunctions did not refer to the
Jewish
Law, but to some Traditions of the
Jews,
and Dogmas of
Philosophers,
especially the
Pythagoreans,
he concludes thus,
This last phrase
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
handle not,
refers to separation from Women, which the
Jewish
Priests at some certain times were enjoined, but the Pythagoreans always, &c.
Hammond
on 1. Tim. 4.3. [forbidding to marry] shows, how the
Gnostics
received this part of their character
forbidding marriages,
&c. from the
Pythagorean
Philosophers, as
Clemens Alexander.
Strom. lib. 3. &c.
5. As the
Essenes
had their particular Rules for
Abstinences
from wine, &c. And the
Jews
in general had their Abstinences from several meats, and at several times. So also the
Pythagoreans
in imitation of them. Thus
Jerome
tells us,
that the Essenes abstained from flesh:
whence some conceive
Pythagoras
brought this superstition into
Greece,
as Horn. Hist. Phil. l. 7. c. 12. Thus also
Stanley
of
Pythagoras
's Discipline, ch. 5. out of
Iamblichus.
Moreover
Pythagoras
commanded his Disciples to abstain from all things, that had life, and from certain other meats, which obstruct the clearness of understanding: likewise from wine, also to eat, and sleep little.
So
Diogenes Laertius
tells us, that
Pythagoras held things dedicated to
God
were holy, and so not to be used for common uses:
thence that fishes were not to be eaten
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. And
Grotius
on Col. 2.16 gives us a full account hereof,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, in meat, or drink.]
In one clause, says
Grotius,
he comprehends both those, who
Judaized,
and
Pythagorized.
To abstain from wine was not a perpetual
Jewish
Institute, but in some [persons and Times] but amongst the
Pythagoreans
it was frequent. The
Jews
abstained from some meats; the
Pythagoreans
from many more.
Thus
Grotius.
The like he adds on verse. 20.
To the rudiments
of the world,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, says
Grotius, Rudiments,
&c. every institution, Gal. 4.3.9. where you will see why they are called
rudiments of the world,
namely because they were common to the
Jews
with other
Nations.
There was nothing in these Rites proper to the
Jews,
&c. The same he adds on verse. 21.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] Here is,
says
Grotius,
a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the note whereof the
Syriac
has placed here. For thus these masters spake.
Tertullian
against
Marcion
5. denies that this belongs to the Law of
Moses.
He seems to me to have used common words which should comprehend both the
Jews
and
Philosophers,
especially the
Pythagoreans.
And these first words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
touch not, taste not,
chiefly belong to meats: the later
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
refer to
Women,
&c. So again, v. 22.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] This, says
Grotius,
refers to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, v. 20. These things were invented by men, they came not primarily from God.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
precepts were such as were commanded by men's Laws:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, such
things as were enjoined by the
Pythagoreans,
as before.
Thus likewise
Hammond
in his
Paraph
on 1. Tim. 4.3.
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats
affirms that the
Gnostics
had these Doctrines from the
Pythagorean
Philosophers. And
Mede
in his
Apostasy of the latter times,
on these words 1. Tim. 4.3.
forbidding to marry,
&c. proves at large that these
Monkish
Abstinences were but imitations, and branches of the Doctrines of
Daemons
(mentioned v. 1.) brought into
Greece
by
Pythagoras, Plato,
and other
Philosophers.
6. The
Jews
in general, but more particularly the
Essenes
had their
Purifications,
or
Purgatories,
both
Ceremonial,
and
Moral.
So in like manner the
Pythagoreans.
Thus
Iamblichus
of
Pythagoras.
He said (quoth he) that purity is acquired by expiations, and bathings, and sprinklings, &c. So
Diogenes Laertius
in his life.
Pythagoras,
says he, held, that cleanness is acquired by expurgations, washings, and sprinklings, with separation from all that defileth.
And
Justin Martyr.
Apolog. 2. gives us this general assertion,
that all these washings, which the
Heathens
used in their sacreds, had their original, though by a Diabolique imitation, from our Sacred Scriptures, &c.
7. The
Jews
in general, and the
Essenes
in particular, were very exact in their observation of their Festivals. So likewise were the
Pythagoreans.
For, saith
Iamblichus, Pythagoras
commanded that upon holy days we cut not our hair, nor pair our nails: See
Stanley
of
Pythag.'s Discipline,
chap. 3. fol. 92.
8. Again the
Pythagoreans,
as well as the
Jews
and
Essenes,
had their
white distinctive vestments,
or garments. So
Iamblichus
(cap. 20.) speaking of
Pythagoras
's Disciples, says,
They wear a white,
and
clean garment:
So
Diogenes Laertius
says, that
Pythagoras
held the God's to be worshiped
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, with a
good conscience
(so
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is used by
Plato
) and white Vestment, &c. as Eccles. 9.8.
Let thy Vestment be always white,
&c. Hence I suppose the
Pythagorean
white. P.
Virgil
quaest. 4, de Inv. Rer. 7. supposeth that the
Hebrews
borrowed their white Garment from the
Egyptians,
whence also
Pythagoras
received the same: for
Herod.
l. 2. acquaints us,
that the Egyptian Priests used a pure white Vestment, and rejected the Woollen, as profane.
But it seems evident, that both the
Egyptians,
and
Pythagoreans
traduced their white Vestments from the
Jews,
who received them from sacred Institution.
9. As the
Essenes,
so the
Pythagoreans
enjoined
silence,
and that not only on their
Exotericks,
or
Novices
; but also on their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Intrinsicks
: for besides the
five years silence
which
Pythagoras
prescribed his
novices,
he had another called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
continual silence,
which properly belonged to his
perfect Disciples,
who were enjoined
secrecy,
or
concelement
of the
Pythagorean mysteries
from all those who were not of their
society,
whom the
Pythagoreans
termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
uninitiated, profane, &c.
therefore not meet to have notice of their
mysteries.
Thus
Iamblichus,
speaking of the
Pythagoreans,
saith.
That the Principal, and most
mysterious
of their
Doctrines
they reserved amongst themselves unwritten, as not fit to be published, but to be delivered by
oral tradition
to their
Successors,
as
mysteries
of the
God's.
To which that of
Cicero lib.
1.
de nat. Deor.
refers.
Thou mayest not conceal it from me, as Pythagoras was wont to conceal his mysteries from aliens.
Thus
Vossius de Philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 24. having spoken of the
Pythagorean quinquennial silence
says,
They had another
silence,
which was perpetual: by which it was unlawful for the
Pythagoreans
to discourse (not amongst themselves, but) with
strangers
of those
mysteries,
which they had received.
This indeed exactly answereth the
Jewish silence,
or
secrecy
in conceling from the
Gentiles
their
mysteries. viz.
the name
Jehovah,
which they (as 'tis said) would always pronounce by the other more
common
name
Adonai,
thereby to conceal it,
&c.
For the
Jews
accounted the
Gentiles,
but as profane, and
Dogs
; therefore not fit to be made partakers of their
mysteries.
To which
Christ
seems to allude
Mat.
7.6.
give not what is holy to Dogs.
Yea indeed the
Pythagoreans
were not without some kind of silence amongst themselves, for they esteemed the right government of our speech, one of the
hardest,
and therefore
best governments
; as
Iamblichus l.
1.
cap.
31. Thence
Pythagoras
enjoined his Disciples, 1.
Perpetual silence,
unless they could
speak
somewhat more profitable than their
silence.
2. When they did speak, to utter many things in few words, nor few things in many words: For
Pythagoras
was a professed enemy to tattling; thence that
Symbol
of his:
Receive not a Swallow into your house,
i. e. says
Vossius, admit not of tatlars.
So
Zeno,
the Prince of the
Stoics,
when he heard any talk much, was wont to say.
That man's ears were fallen down into his tongue.
3.
Pythagoras
enjoined his scholars not to speak
rashly
without premeditation. 4. Not to discourse of
Pythagorean mysteries
without
Light
: For,
says
Iamblichus,
it is impossible to understand
Pythagorean Doctrines
without Light.
5.
Pythagoras
required a
particular silence,
or
right ordering
of speech in speaking of, or drawing near unto the God's. So
Iamblichus
on
Pythagoras
's Seventh
Symbol. [Above all things govern your tongue in following the God's.
]
The first work of wisdom (saith he)
is to turn our speech inward upon ourselves (by meditation) for nothing does more perfect the soul, than when a man turning inward upon himself followeth the God's.
6. And touching the
Pythagorean silence
in
general, Apuleius in floridis
tells us,
That the first thing
Pythagoras
taught his Disciples, was to hold their peace; and the first meditation of him who would be wise, should be for an universal bridling of his tongue; and having clipped the wings of his words, which the Poets call birds, to shut them up within the walls of his white teeth.
7. The
Pythagoreans,
as the
Essenes,
forbad
Oaths.
10. The
Pythagoreans
in imitation of the
Essenes,
and
Jews,
had their
Elders
in great esteem. They never made mention of
Pythagoras,
without some note of
reverence,
calling him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Theologue &c.
And
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he said it,
had with
Pythagoras
's Disciples the same
authority,
as a
first principle
with other
Philosophers,
or a
Scriptural
testimony with a
Jew,
and
Christian.
This is observed by
Laert. l.
8.
Cicero l.
1.
de. N. Deor. Quint. l.
11.
c.
1. and others; who tell us that
Pythagoras
's Authority answered all objections: for when he spake, he was esteemed as the
Pythian oracle
: so that the solemn formule was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
And 'tis not unlikely, but this title also he borrowed from the Sacred Records: for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
thus saith he,
is a title given to
God
in Scripture; as
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
7.
c.
12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an honorable appellation is attributed not only to Profane, but also to Sacred Writers; so that it is not given to any, but the most excellent, yea to God himself: for so He more easily gained credit to his Doctrine, and Authority to Himself.
11. The
Pythagoreans,
as the
Essenes,
acknowledged all things to be disposed by a
particular providence,
which they called
Fate.
12. The
Jews,
and particularly the
Essenes,
did in a peculiar manner, especially in times of Persecution, and captivity, devote themselves to the worship of God, by prayers,
&c.
in order whereto, they had their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
praying houses.
So likewise the
Pythagoreans
were generally
Devoto
's, or much addicted to devotion: of which hereafter.
13. The
Pythagoreans,
as the
Essenes,
divided their
life,
and
studies
into
Contemplative,
and
Active.
In their studies they much addicted themselves to
Medicine
; in their bodily exercises to
Gardening, &c.
14. The
Pythagoreans,
in imitation of the
Essenes,
distributed the day into several parts, for
Devotion, Study, Labor, &c.
So
Iamblichus
of
Pythagoras
cap. 20.
Those who were taught by
Pythagoras,
spent their morning walk alone, and in such places, where they might be most retired, and free from disturbances.
After their morning walk, they met together in the
Temple,
or place of Devotion. After that, having spent some time in their studies, they went to their morning Exercises. At Dinner they used (mostly) bread and honey. Their afternoon they employed in
Political affairs.
All the actions of the day they contrived in the morning before they rose, and examined the same at night before they went to sleep.
A
Pythagorean
rose not out of his bed, before he had called to mind the Actions of the day past, which recollection he performed in this manner.
He endeavored to call to mind what he had heard, or done in the first, second, third place (and so in order) after his rising:
And then after his going forth, whom he met with first, whom next,
&c.
and what discourses he had with the first, what with the second,
&c.
for he
endeavored to keep a
Diarie, Journal,
or memoires of all that happened throughout the day; and so to repeat everything in order as it happened. Thus they chiefly exercised their memories; for they conceived nothing conduceth more to knowledge, experience, and wisdom, then to remember many things. He taught his Disciples to do nothing without premeditation; nor anything whereof they could not give a good account; but that in the morning they should consider what they were to do; and at night make a recollection thereof: so
Porphyry
on the life of
Pythag.
pag. 26. saith, That
Pythagoras
advised his Scholars, to have regard chiefly to two things. 1. The time of their going to bed. 2. The time of their rising: at each of these to consider what actions are past, and what to come: of the past to require from themselves an account; of the future to have a Providential circumspection, and care.
So Virgil
ex Pythag. inter Epigr.
Non prius in dulcem declinat lumina somnum,
Omnia quam longi reputaverat acta diei;
Quae praetergressus, quid gestum in tempore, quid non:
See more
Stanly, of Pythagoras
's
discipline
cap. 9, 10.
15. The
Pythagoreans,
as the
Essenes,
affected a great constancy in their
principles,
and
morals
: in order whereto they had many
cautionary precepts
against
Apostasy.
So
Iamblichus
explains that 15th. Symbol of
Pythagoras. [Travelling from home turn not back, for the Furies go back with you.] i. e.
saith
Iamblichus
after you have applied yourself to
Philosophy,
turn not back,
&c.
Which also was a
Proverbial Symbol
amongst the
Jews
; to which our
Savior
seems to allude, when he giveth those cautions against
Apostasy
: viz.
Remember Lots Wife
: and
He that puts his hand to the Plow and looketh back,
&c.
16. As the
Essenes
were severe in their
Excommunication
of
Apostates,
and
Scandalous persons,
so the
Pythagoreans.
Thus
Iamblichus
cap. 17.
Those, who were cast out of
Pythagoras
's Schole, had
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a coffin
made by his Disciples, placed in their room, as if they had been dead: for all, that were about
Pythagoras,
spake of them as dead; and when they met them, behaved themselves toward them, as if they had been some other persons; for the men themselves they said were dead,
&c.
That
Pythagoras
traduced this
Symbolic Emblem,
of persons
dead in sins,
from the
Jewish
Church, is well observed, and proved by
Grotius
on
Mat.
8.22.
Let the dead bury their dead
: and
Hammond
(out of him) on
Luke
15.24. of which hereafter.
17. As the
Pythagorean Novices
had their probationarie year, or years; so the
Jewish Essenes.
Thus
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
7.
c.
15.
The
Essenes,
who alone are worthy the name of
Philosophers
among the
Jews,
did not presently admit their Disciples, till after one year, (or more) they had probation of their behavior,
&c.
I have in these
severals
drawn the Parallel betwixt the
Jewish Essenes
and the
Pythagoreans
:
and for the farther conviction, that all this was not a mere figment of mine own, without foundation, or prescript, see something of this Parallel in
Godwins
Jewish Antiquities
l.
1.
c.
12. of the
Essenes,
whom he makes to
symbolize
with the
Pythagoreans.
1. In that both professed a
Communion of goods.
2. Both shunned
pleasures.
3. Both wore
White garments.
4. Both forbad
Oaths.
5. Both had their
Elders
in singular respect. 6. Both drank
Water.
7. Both asserted
Fate.
8. Both enjoined silence,
&c.
Now that the
Pythagoreans
derived these parts of their
Discipline
from the
Essenes,
and
Jews,
will be further evident by what follows.
CHAP. VII. Of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy Natural, and Moral, &c.
The Original of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy, from the Jews, &c.
1.
His Mathematics.
1.
Arithmetic.
2.
Music.
3.
Astronomy.
4.
The earths Motion, &c.
5.
Geometry.
6.
Weights, and Measures, from the Jews.
2. Pythagoras
's Physicks.
1.
Contemplative, The world's origin, its first Matter,
Gen. 1.1, 2.
Its Form,
Gen. 1.13.
Fire the great active principle in all things, from
Gen. 1.2. 2.
Medicine from the Jews.
3. Pythagoras
's Moral Philosophy.
1.
Ethics, Dogmatick, Preceptive, and Characteristick Ethick, Characters Jewish. Death a Character of a wicked state, as
Luk. 15.24.
Salt of Grace, &c. The Sum of
Pythagoras
's Ethics in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
2. Pythagoras
's Politicks from
Moses
's Politie: The
Pythagoreans
great Politicians. Their two great Maxims to preserve
1.
Liberty against Tyranny.
2.
Unity against Faction.
§ 1. HAving gone thorough the story of
Pythagoras
's life, as also the
Discipline
of his
Schole,
and
College,
we now proceed to his
Philosophy
; wherein we doubt not but to discover many Jewish Traditions, and Foot-steps. And to proceed methodically, we shall begin with the
matter
of his
Philosophy,
and thence pass on to his
Form,
or
mode
of
Philosophizing
; each whereof will afford us very strong
Presumptions
(though not Physical demonstration) that he traduced both the one, and the other from the
Jewish sacred fountains.
Some distribute
Pythagoras
's Philosophy into two parts. Theologick, and Ethick: By Theology, they understand that, which we usually call
Physicks,
namely the knowledge of God, as the first cause of all things. Thus
Danaus
in
cap.
9.
August. ad Laurent.
and
Hornius Histor. Philos.
l. 3. c. 11. But we shall follow the usual Distribution thus. The
matter,
or
body
of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy may be distributed into
Natural, Moral,
o
•
Supernatural.
1. His
Natural philosophy
contains, 1. His
Physicks,
or
Natural philosophy
properly so called. 2. His
Mathematics.
His
Physicks
were either, 1.
Contemplative,
which was nothing else but the
story
of the Creation; or 2.
Active
consisting in
Medicine.
2. His
Moral philosophy
consisted, 1. in
Ethics,
or
moral
precepts, 2. in
Politicks.
3. His
Supernatural philosophy
was 1.
Diabolick,
or
Magic divination.
2.
Theologick,
and
Divine: Pythagoras
usually began with the
Mathematick
Sciences, as
preparatives
to the contemplation of things more sublime: So
Porphyry in the life of Pythagoras
pag. 31. He is said to be the first, that changed the proud title of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
wisdom
into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Love
of Wisdom as
Austin. de civ. Dei
l. 8. c. 2. They report, that the name
Philosophy
sprung from
Pythagoras,
whereas before they were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
wise-men,
&c.
§. 2. Now that
Pythagoras
traduced the main parts, if not the whole, of this his
Philosophy
from the
Jewish Church
originally, may in the general be demonstrated from what we find in
Iamblichus,
and other
Historiographers,
concerning the original of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy.
Iamblichus
says, that
Pythagoras
drew his Philosophy, and the several parts thereof,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. He says, That
Pythagoras
drew part of his Philosophy from the
Orphicks, i. e. Doctrines of Orpheus.
So elsewhere, he tells us,
That
Pythagoras
derived much of his
Theologick Science
from
Orpheus.
That
Orpheus
's
Theology
was
symbolick,
and mystical, much the same with that of
Pythagoras,
we have already proved, out of
Proclus
in
Theol. Plat.
l. 1. c. 4. Also, that
Orpheus
had his
Theology
originally from the
Jews
: which is farther evident by that famous fragment of the
Orpheick Doctrine
in
Justin Martyr
; wherein we find mention of
Abraham,
and the
Mosaic tables,
or
Decalogue.
2.
Iamblichus
informs us, That
Pythagoras
received part of his Philosophy from the
Egyptian Priests.
The like he affirms
lib.
1.
cap.
5.
Pythagoras,
says he, owes to the
Egyptians
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
his symbolick mode of learning.
So,
Clemens Alexandrinus.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
It is storied that
Pythagoras
was instructed by
Sonchedes
the Egyptian Arch-prophet.
That the
Egyptians
had their Philosophy from the
Jews,
we have before proved
book
1.
chap.
2. Besides we have shown
(book
2.
chap.
5. §. 7.8.) That
Pythagoras,
while in
Egypt,
had immediate conversation with the
Jews,
(who resorted thither in great numbers) by means of his skill in the
Egyptian
tongue, which was but a different
Dialect
of the
Hebrew,
so that he was thereby capacitated to read, and inquire into the
Sacred Scriptures
and
Jewish
books, without supposition of their being translated into
Greek,
which was not till after times. 3.
Iamblichus
acquaints us,
That
Pythagoras
received part of his Philosophy from the
Chaldeans.
Now that
Pythagoras
had converse with the
Jews,
whilst in
Chaldea,
by means of his skill in the
Egyptian,
and
Chaldean
tongues (which differed from the
Hebrew
only in Dialect) yea that the
Jews
themselves, frequently past amongst the
Greeks,
under the name of
Chaldeans,
because they lived under their government, we have endeavored to prove in
chap.
5. §. 8. of this second Book.
4.
Iamblichus,
together with
Hermippus,
tell us, That
Pythagoras
received part of his Philosophy from the
Thracians,
so
Josephus lib.
1.
contra Apion.
That the
Thracians
had their Philosophy originally from the
Jews
has been proved
Book
1.
chap.
5.
parag.
7. 5.
Porphyry p.
4. acquaints us, That
Pythagoras
had part of his Philosophy from the
Phoenicians,
who had theirs from the
Jews,
as before. 6.
Porphyry pag.
8. and
Clements Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. assure us,
That
Pythagoras
learned the most excellent parts of his Philosophy from the
Barbarians.
That by these
Barbarians
must be understood the
Jews,
in the first, and chiefest place, we have Testimonies of
Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, Nicephorus,
and
Serranus
on
Plato
's,
Cratylus fol.
426. 7. What
Pythagoras
learned from his Preceptors,
Thales
and
Pherecydes,
owes its original to the
Jews,
as before,
chap.
3.4. of this second Book.
§. 3.
Having given a general Demonstration touching the traduction of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy from the
Jews
; we now proceed to its Particulars, and shall begin according to
Pythagoras
's own method, with his
Mathematics
: So
Porphyry in his Life,
pag. 31.
The Mind (says he) being purified by Disciplines, ought to be applied to the most useful: These
Pythagoras
procured by certain
methods,
and
gradual mediums,
bringing the mind by degrees to the contemplation of
Eternal, Incorporeal, Real Beings.
To this end, he first used the
Mathematics,
as degrees of preparation to the contemplation of
things that are,
&c.
This
Pythagorean method
of beginning with the
Mathematick Sciences
has been greatly applauded by some of our
New Philosophers
(and that perhaps not without sufficient grounds) as a method most proper for the fixing the Volatile vagrant spirits of
young Students,
in their entrance on Philosophy. And this is much practiced by the
French Nobles,
who study little else of Philosophy besides the
Mathematics.
§. 4. Amongst the
Mathematick Sciences, Pythagoras
firstly entered his Scholars in
Arithmetic,
So
Stobaeus
in
Ecl. Phys.
lib. 1. c. 11.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Pythagoras seems of all Sciences to have esteemed mostly of Arithmetic, and to have brought it in use from
Mercature;
he compared all things to Numbers.
That
Pythagoras
made great use of
Numbers,
is apparent, in that he does
symbollically
set forth, and describe his chiefest
mysteries
by
numbers,
as hereafter. This part of his
Mathematics Pythagoras
learned from the
Phoenicians,
who by reason of their
merchandizing
made much use of
Arithmetic.
§. 5.
Pythagoras
having laid a foundation in
Arithmetic,
proceeds to other parts of the
Mathematics,
especially to
Music,
of which also he made a very great
symbolick
use in all other parts of his Philosophy:
So
Iamblichus de vita Pythag.
cap. 29.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
Of the Sciences, they say, the
Pythagoreans
did not a little esteem of Music, &c.
Thus
Apuleitus Florid.
15. and
Quint.
l. 1. c. 16. tell us, that
Pythagoras
was a great esteemer of, and very well skilled in
Music,
which he commended to his Scholars daily. This they practiced morning, and evening: in the morning after sleep to purge their minds from
stupor,
and impure imaginations; at evening to allay their more disturbed affections by this kind of Harmonie, as
Plut. de Iside.
and
Horn. Hist. Phil.
l. 7. Thence
Pythagoras
gives
symbolical descriptions
of the
Heavens,
of the
Soul,
and of other of the
mysteries
by
Harmony,
&c. This his Science of
Music,
I suppose he might receive from the
Egyptians,
who greatly affected
Music,
or rather immediately from the
Jews,
who were the first, and most skillful
musicians
; receiving their
Music
by
Divine Institution,
and
Inspiration,
it being prescribed them by God, as a
medium,
or Ceremonial Rite of his worship, and practiced by them in
Moses
's time, long before
Orpheus,
who (next to their Idol god
Apollo)
was styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 6.
Pythagoras
also was skilled in
Astronomy,
or the
Science of the stars,
which
Porphyry in his Life
tells us, he received from the
Chaldeans.
That the
Chaldeans
at first received this
Science
of
Astronomy
from the
Patriarchs,
See
Book
1.
chap.
4.
Paragr.
3. One great
Astronominical
Paradox, which the
Phythagoreans
maintained was,
That the Earth moved, and the Heavens stood still.
This was also the opinion of
Aristarchus
the
Samian,
who whether he were more ancient or latter then
Pythagoras,
is not determined. This likewise was the opinion of
Gleanthes
the
Samian, Leucippus, Heraclides,
and
Ecphantus.
That the
Pythagoreans
generally affirmed,
That the Earth was not immovable, but moved in a circle about the fire: Plutarch
in the life of
Numa
informs us.
For they held,
that Fire being the most excellent of creatures, was placed in the midst of the world, which moved round about it.
They asserted moreover, That the
Sun
was composed of Fire,
&c.
Which opinions, that they were from
Jewish
traditions, we shall hereafter prove:
Laertius
acquaints us, that
Philolaus
the
Pythagorean
was the first, who openly taught
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Earth moved in a circle. Cicero
in his 4
o
Academ. Qu
•
stion,
attributes the same opinion to
Hicetas
the
Syracusian. Plutarch
in
Numa
says, that
Plato
in his old age asserted the same. The like is said of
Seleucus.
This
Hypothesis
of the
Earths moving,
has been since revived by Cardinal
Cusanus, lib.
2.
c.
12.
Doct. ignorant
: but more professedly defended by
Nicol. Copernicus,
who about the year 1540, writ a Book concerning it, which is Dedicated to Pope
Paul
3d. who was followed herein by
Joannes Keplerus,
Mathematick Professor to
Rudolphus, Matthias,
and
Ferdinand
the Emperors. Also by
Christopher Rothmannus, Michael Maest
•
inus, David Origanus,
Mathematick Professors. Lately,
Patricius Galilaeus, Hoscarius
Italians, with,
William Gilbert,
our English Physician, famous for his Book
de Magnete
; wherein he asserts this Hypothesis, having all maintained the same opinion: which albeit it was condemned by the Cardinals at
Rome, Anno
1616, yet is it still defended by many of the New Astronomers:
Ticho Brahe,
the famous
Danish
Astronomer went a middle way: affirming, that both
Earth, and Heavens moved,
though in a differing manner: See
Vossius sect. Phil.
l. 2. c. 6.
s.
41.
§. 7.
Pythagoras
was also skilled in
Geometry,
which I suppose he learned from
Thales,
or immediately from the
Egyptians,
who were the first, amongst the Nations, that practiced this Art.
Diogenes Laertius
also tells us, that
Pythagoras
was the first, that brought
Measures,
and
Weights
into
Greece
; which also belongs to the Mathematics; and as we have good reason to judge, he received them from the
Jewish Weights,
and
Measures.
To conclude this, as we began
with
Pythagoras
's Mathematics in the general:
Iamblichus
l. 1. c. 2. tells us, he was first initiated therein by
Thales.
And
Porphyry
in the
Life
of
Pythagoras (pag.
4.) says,
that the Mathematick Sciences he learned from the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Phoenicians.
Now that these Nations received their first Rudiments from the Patriarchs, and Jews, has been already proved.
§. 8. Another branch of that Natural Philosophy, which
Pythagoras
professed was that, which we properly call
Physicks,
or
Natural Philosophy
: Whereof there are two par
••
. 1.
Contemplative.
2.
Active.
As for
Pythagoras
's skill in Contemplative Physicks, or Natural Science,
it was indeed nothing else but the History of the Creation, with some Experimental Observations and Conclusions, which we need no way doubt was traduced to him from the
Jewish
Church, and Sacred Fountaines originally. For
Diogenes
tells us,
That
Pythagoras
whilst he was in
Babylon,
had familiar conversation with one
Zabratus,
by whom he was cleansed from the Pollutions of his life past, and learned this Science concerning Nature, and what are the Principles of the Universe.
That this
Zabratus
was a
Jew,
we have endeavored to prove afore,
chap.
5. §. 8. And whether we affirm that
Pythagoras
received his
History of Nature,
and of the
principles
of the
Universe,
from his Masters,
Thales,
and
Pherecydes,
or from the
Egyptians,
or
Phoenicians,
yet that it came originally from
Moses
's story of the Creation, I think will be pretty evident from a consideration of Particulars.
§. 9. First
Pythagoras
held Positively that the World was made by God, and by Him adorned with an excellent Order, Harmonie and Beauty, as to all its parts, whence He was the first that called it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to Adorn, or Beautifie, answerable to
Gen.
1.31.
Very good.
&c.
2.
Pythagoras
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
first matter,
was the same with that of
Plato
; concerning which he treats so largely in his
Tima
•
s,
proving that it was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
without
Form &c.
This
Timaus
the
Locrian,
whom
Plato
here brings in, thus discoursing of the
Origin of the Universe, its first Matter, &c.
was indeed a
Pythagorean,
from whom
Plato
borrowed much of his Natural Philosophy, as
Hieronymus
in his Apology against
Ruffinus
assures us. And that
Plato
's
Timaeus,
or discourse of the Origin of the Universe was traduced from the first
chap. of Genesis,
and other parts of the
Mosaic history,
I conceive will receive a strong probability, from what shall be laid down in the
original of
Plato
's Philosophy. At present let any but compare this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
first Matter,
asserted by
Pythagoras,
and
Plato,
with
Sanchoniathons
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
slime,
and
Thales
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
water,
they will find all to answer exactly to
Moses
's description of the first Matter,
Gen.
1.1, 2.
&c.
3. As for the
Form
of the Universe,
Pythagoras, Plato,
and the foregoing Philosophers, dreamt not of any such Form, as
Aristotle
invented
to be educed out of the passive power of the Matter
: no;
all the Form they asserted, was the Harmonie, Beauty Order, and Perfe
••
ion of the Universe, and all its parts, resulting from that Law of Nature, which Divine Wisdom stamped on the Beings of all Things, together with that Divine
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Providence, which Inspired, and Influenced the whole Creation; Governing and Directing all things to their proper Offices, Functions, and Ends, which they styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the soul of the world.
From this Order, Beauty, or Perfection of things, the word
Form
had its original; for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
comes from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Beauty, by an easy transposition of φ into the place of μ, on which account
Pythagoras
called the World
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as before. Yea
Pythagoras
made Harmonie the Form, and Soul of all things, as
Gen.
1.3.
§. 10.
But the main Active principle of all things in the Universe, according to the
Pythagorean
Philosophy, was Fire. So
Aristotle, lib.
2.
de Coelo, cap.
13, tells us,
That the
Pythagoreans
placed Fire in the middle of the world, as that which was the most excellent Principle, and preservative of all things:
he adds also that Fire was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jupiter
's
custody.
This also was the opinion of
Numa Pompilius,
as
Plutarch
in his
Life
affirms: whence it is generally thought, that
Numa
had conversation with
Pythagoras
; but this cannot be, because
Numa
was more ancient: only we may suppose they both had their persuasion from the same
original,
namely the
Mosaic Institutes,
by the hands of the
Phoenicians,
or some other. The same
Plutarch
tells us,
That
Numa
caused the Temple of
Vesta
to be made
round
according to the Figure of the World, in the midst whereof was placed the
eternal
Fire (preserved by the
Vestal Nuns
) as a
symbolick image of the Sun.
That the main Ceremonies of this Temple were instituted by some
Pythagorean Prescript,
in imitation of the Jewish Temples, we shall endeavor hereafter to prove, both from the name
Vesta,
which comes from the
•
reek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and this from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Es Jah
the
Fire of Jehovah,
according to
Lev.
6.12, 13. where
the
Priests
are commanded to preserve the Fire on the Altar,
&c.
as also from the
Vestal Nuns,
and
Priests, &c.
At present, it may suffice to show, that the
Pythagoreans
had a great reverence of Fire, as that, which being the most
active,
and
noble principle
of all things, diffuseth itself thorough out the whole Universe; and therefore they placed its main seat in the midst of the World, whence it might, as the Heart in man's body, shed abroad its natural
vivifick heat,
and
influences
into all
sublunarie
bodies, for their
nourishment,
and
conservation. Plato
speaks to the same purpose of a Fire that diffuseth itself through the
Universe,
for the production of diverse effects, which agrees exactly with the words of
Moses, Gen.
1.2. according to the interpretation of
Beza,
and
Serranus
out of him, on
Plato
's
Timeus, fol.
10.
The element of
Fire,
says
Serranus,
was nothing else, but that fiery spirit, or efficacy, which is variously diffused, in the
Symmetrie
of the
Universe,
for the nourishing and somenting all things according to their respective natures. Which
vivifick
natural heat
Moses, Gen.
1.2.
calls the
Spirit of God
: and
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
effective Fire.
And whereas it is said, this
sacred Fire,
which the
Pythagoreans
so much adored, was a
Symbol of the Sun
; I suppose, this sprang from that common opinion amongst the Ancients (especially the
Chaldean
Philosophers) that the
Sun was a fiery body
: which how far it is consonant to truth, and
Mosaic Tradition,
we intend hereafter to examine, when we come to the Philosophy of
Plato
; who also affirmed the same. To conclude; This
Pythagorean principle, That Fire is the great Active principle of all things
; was also held by
Heraclitus
the Founder of the
Heraclitian Sect,
which was but a branch of the
Pythagorean
: Also
Xenophanes
the
Colophonian,
the Founder of the
Eleatick Sect
(another branch of the
Pythagorean Sect)
held the
Sun consists of a collection of little Fires; &c. Plato
also held the Heavens to be Fire, as
August. lib.
8.
c.
11. which seems most consonant to Scripture story; for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
comes from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies both
Light,
and
Fire
: as also the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies
Fire,
as well as
Light
; so
Mark.
14.54. of which more in
Plato
's Philosophy where
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: The
Stoics
also made
Fire the chief Principle of all things.
§. 11.
Pythagoras
and his followers were much versed in
Medicine,
or
active Physic.
So
Iamblichus (de vita Pythagorae cap.
20.) says,
That amongst the Sciences, which the
Pythagoreans
were versed in
Medicine was one of the chief: then he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The chiefest part of their Medicine consisted in an exact Regiment, or right order of Diet.
Where
Iamblichus
subjoins many other particulars of the
Pythagorean
Medicine. So
Cornelius Celsus in Praefat.
amongst the famous Professors of Medicine reckons up
Pythagoras
for one, who flourished under
Cyrus, Cambyses,
and
Darius
: as
Laertius, Solinus, Eusebius,
and
Vossiu
•
.
That
Pythagoras
was very severe in his Prescripts, or Rules of Dyet, both to himself and his Followers, we have already shewn: how that he Prescribed to himself, and his Followers,
Abstinence
from all Meats, that might too much heat the blood; as from
Flesh,
and
Wine
: also from such meats as did load the stomach, and were not easily
digested
; likewise from such as were obstructive, and bred ill humors; as
Beanes, &c.
Lastly from all such meats as might bring a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
ill habitude
of body, or mind. For the great end, and scope of all the
Pythagorean
Prescripts, and Abstinencies, was to preserve an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a good Healthfull Complexion of Body, and cleanness of Mind. As for the original of
Pythagoras
's Medicinal skill,
Apuleius
tells us,
That he received it from the Chaldeans
; i. e. as I concieve the
Jews
; who in
Pythagoras
's time lived amongst, and were subject to the
Chaldeans
; and therefore might well pass under their name; as before: Neither do we find any considerable mention of the
Chaldeans,
their skill in Medicine; but that the
Jews
were excellently versed therein, we have sufficient proof, both from what is mentioned of
Solomon,
1.
Kings
4.3, 4. touching his skill in Plants, and Animals,
&c.
Also by
Eusebius,
who says he was excellently skilled in Medicine, and curing of Diseases,
&c.
(as
book
1.
cap.
1.
par.
11.) Likewise from what
Cunaeus (de repub. Jud.
) relates of the
Jewish Physicians,
that belonged to the Temple for curing the sick Priests, and Levites. But amongst the
Jews
none more famous for skill in Medicine than the
Essenes,
who had a particular inclination, and devotion to this Study, whom the
Pythagoreans
affected an imitation of, in this, as in other parts of their
Discipline,
as before.
§. 12. As
Pythagoras
was well skilled in Physicks,
or Natural Sciences, both Contemplative, and Active; so was he likewise no less versed in Moral Philosophy; which according to the Third
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Relation of men
· 1. To
Themselves,
or, 2. To their
Families,
or, 3. To the
Cities, or Common-wealths
they live in, admits of a Three-fold
Distribution. 1. Into
Ethics,
2. Into
Economics,
3. Into
Politicks.
The
Pythagoreans
were skilled in all these. 1. As for that part of Moral Philosophy, the
Greeks
call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Ethics,
which concerns the right government of man's self,
Pythagoras,
and his
Adherents
were much in the Study, and Practice thereof. Yea indeed
Pythagoras
esteemed all Philosophy but Vain, which did not some way conduce to the
m
•
liorating,
or bettering of a man's self. Thus
Stobaeus Serm.
80. brings in
Pythagoras
thus Philosophizing:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That discourse of a Philosopher is Vain, which cures not some passion of a man: For look as that Medicine is useless, which frees not the body from diseases, so likewise Philosophy, which drives not away evil from the soul.
The Learned divide
Ethics
into 3 parts
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
1.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Dogmatick.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Exhortative,
or
Preceptive.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Characteristical. Pythagoras,
and his Disciples were versed in each of these. Concerning the
Dogmatick
part of
Ethics,
the
Pythagoreans
laid down many wholesome Principles relating to the
Object, Subject,
and
End, &c.
of
Moral Philosophy, viz·
That the Souls happiness lay only in
God
its
chiefest
Good: That the proper
Subject
of
Ethics
was the Human Soul, as capable of the
chiefest Good
: That its
chief End
was to cure the Soul of its
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
its
sick diseased passions,
and to bring it to an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or good healthie complexion, which consisted in vittuous
Dispositions,
and
Acts.
These
Dogmas,
albeit they were not
Formally,
and
Methodically
treated of, according to that accurate Method of
Definition, Division, &c.
to which
Aristotle
reduced them, yet were they all
seminally,
and
virtually
comprised in the
Pythagorean Philosophy.
And particularly
Pythagoras
expressly asserted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
That virtue consisted in Harmonie
; yea that all health of body, and mind, yea all good, yea God himself, and so all things else consisted in Harmonie, as
Diogenes Laertius
informs us.
Pythagoras
farther taught his
Scholars
3
Mediums,
by which they might become
Masters
of
Philosophy,
and
better themselves
: 1. By conversation with the God's. 2. By
Well doing,
for that is proper to
God,
and therein they were
imitators
of God. 3. By
Death,
whence he affirmed, that the most considerable of all things, is to instruct the Soul aright, touching Good and Evil: and that men have perfect
felicity
in
having a
good Soul,
as
Iamblichus,
and
Stanly
out of him of
Pythagoras
's
Philosophy, part.
3.
chap.
1.
fol.
83.
And as the
Pythagoreans
held many useful
Dogmas
of
Moralitie
; so were they not less versed in the
Hortative,
and
Preceptive
part of
Ethics
; as it appears by the
model
of their
Discipline
before mentioned; as also from that great
Apothegme
of
Pythagoras,
which he frequently inculcated on his
Disciples,
as the sum of his
Philosophy, viz. That in all things they should endeavor to avoid excess, &c.
of which hereafter.
§. 13. But the chief part of the
Pythagorean Ethics
was
Characteristical
: for
Pythagoras
taught
morality
mostly,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
by
Ethick Characters; i. e.
Lively descriptions of
Virtues,
and
Vices,
by
Symbols, Fables, Emblems, Images,
or
Signs,
and
Effects,
answerable to
Aesop's-Fables, Philostratus
's-
Fables,
and also the
Scriptural Types,
and
Parables. Pythagoras
also exhorted his
Scholars
to Virtue under that Symbolic letter
Y,
as
Lactant. l.
6.
c.
3. which was thence called
Pythagoras
's Letter; not that he was the first
Inventor
of it, as some conceive (for it was found out 600 years before his time, by
Palamedes
) but because he was the first, that applied it to this
Mystical.
sense, as
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
7.
c.
12. Thus
Pythagoras
expressed to the Life, the condition of a Debauched Profligate Wretch, by his Symbol of a
Coffin,
which signified his being
dead in sin,
exactly answerable to the
Jewish,
and
Scriptural
Phrasiologie; whence we need no way doubt, but that
Pythagoras
borrowed this
Symbolic Image.
Thus the Father of the Prodigal speaks,
Luk.
15.24.
[
This my Son was dead.
] where
Hammond
(out of
Grotius
) observes,
That this is according to the ordinary Notion of
Pythagoras,
who for any, that had forsaken his
Schole, i. e.
refused to live according to his
Rules
of
Philosophy,
had a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an empty Coffin
set in his place, to signify him to be
morally dead.
This was a common Symbolic manner of speech amongst the
Jews,
to express a
wicked state
of
Spiritual,
or
moral death.
So
Philo
defines this Moral death,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
when the soul is dead as to the life of Virtue, and lives only the life of sin,
as elsewhere,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
wicked men are dead in their souls.
And that this
Symbol
was by
Tradition
from the
Jews
universally received amongst the Oriental
Barbarick Philosophers,
and thence traduced into
Greece,
appears by what follows,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
For
in the
Barbarick
Philosophy (which takes in also the
Jewish
) they call men fallen from their Principles
dead
; as such also, who subjugate their Minds to their Sensual passions.
But more of this, when we come to discourse of
Pythagoras
's Symbols.
2. Another
Ethick Character,
or
Symbol,
which
Pythagoras
used to express his Moral Precepts by, was that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to set down Salt:
by which he signified, that Holy, and Intimate Communion, and Friendship, which ought to be amongst all those of his Society. For
Salt
was used first in the
Jewish Church,
and thence in the
Pythagorean College,
as a Symbol, 1. Of
Confederation,
or
Covenant,
2. Of
Communion,
and
Friendship,
3. Of
Sanctitie,
as we have proved already, and shall give farther proof thereof. 3. Another
Characteristical
Symbol, under which
Pythagoras
couched a reproof against
Sloathful,
or
Pratling
Scholars was this.
[
Receive not a Swallow into your house] i. e.
saith
Iamblichus,
Admit not a
slothful person
unto your Philosophy, which requireth great industry, and unwearied patience. The
Swallow
comes but in one season, and stays not long; but sleeps a good part of the year.
Others by
Pythagoras
's
Swallow
intend a great
pratler,
or
babbler.
This
Ethick Character
against sloth, and
vain discourse,
doth Symbolize with many of
Solomon's
Proverbs, against
slothful persons.
4. Under this
Symbolic Character,
[Turn away from thyself every edge.] Pythagoras
exhorted men to the use of
prudence,
rather then
passion,
as
Iamblichus.
5. By this Symbol [
Stir not the Fire with a sword] Pythagoras
advised his Disciples not to provoke the passions of Potent men; as
Diogenes
understands it; or not to provoke a man full of Fire, and Anger,
as
Iamblichus.
6.
Pythagoras
's
Ethick Character,
or Symbol, by which he dehorted men from Covetousnes, was this, [
Breed nothing that has crooked Talons,] i. e.
saith
Iamblichus, be not tenacious.
7.
Pythagoras
taught his Disciples
Patience,
and
Fortitude,
&c. by this Symbol, [
Help to lay on a burden, but not to take it off.
] This saith
Iamblichus,
teacheth Fortitude,
&c.
8.
Pythagoras
taught his Scholars to avoid anxious heart-distracting cares by this Symbolic Character, [
Eat not the heart.] i. e.
Consume not thy heart by cares,
&c.
answerable to that of
Christ,
Mat. 6.27.31, 32.27.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 9.
Pythagoras
exhorted men to
Justice
under that lively Symbol [
Passe not over the balance
]
This, saith
Iamblichus,
commands to do
justice,
to observe
equality, &c.
which agrees exactly to that
Ethick Character,
or
Proverb,
used frequently by
Solomon,
as
Prov.
11.1.
A false balance
is an abomination to the Lord; but a just weight, &c.
The like
Prov.
16.11
Prov.
20.23.10. And lastly
Pythagoras
to draw his Scholars to a cheerful embracing of
Virtue,
was wont to give it many amiable, and lively characters under the Symbolic Images of
Bodilie Health, Sanitie,
and
Beauty
; but principally under the Symbol of
Musical Harmonie
; for what ever was excellent he compared to
Harmonie
; which suites very much with the Characters of
Grace
in Scripture, which stiles it the
Beauty, Health,
and
Harmonie
of the Soul. But more of these Symbols hereafter.
§. 14. We have now dispatched
Pythagoras
's
Ethics,
which may be summed up in these two words,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e. forbear moral evils,
or the
evils of action
; and
bear physical natural evils,
or the
evils of passion
: for all
Ethics,
or
morals
are comprehended under
active,
and
passive morality,
or under
Abstinence,
and
Tollerance. i. e. forbearing
what is evil in manners, and
bearing
(which implies doing also, as well as suffering) what is evil to nature.
§. 15.
Pythagoras
taught not only
Ethics,
but also the two other parts of Moral Philosophy;
viz. Economics,
which regard the
Government
of
Families
; and
Politicks,
which respect the
Government
of
Cities,
and
Nations.
This latter
Pythagoras,
and his Followers, were greatly versed in: for 'tis said that
Pythagoras
had his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
book of Politicks,
which he composed, and gave to his Scholars, as
Laertius
relates.
Iamblichus
says,
That
Pythagoras
used to say, that amongst Being's, nothing was pure, but everything partaked of some other, as Earth of Fire,
&c.
farther, That there was a friendship of all to
•
ards all, answerable to that saying, man is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
on which he grounded his Politicks.
Iamblicus
says also
That men hold
Pythagoras
was the first Inventor of all Politick Science.
'It is true there were
Lawgivers
more ancient, as
Minos
of
Crete,
and
Lycurgus
of
Sparta,
whose laws
Pythagoras
consulted (as
Iamblichus cap.
5, (but yet we read not (as I conceive) of any public Professor of the Science of
Politicks
more ancient than
Pythagoras,
who made it a main design of his
Travels,
&
Studies
to inform himself, touching the ancient Laws, and the best
Maxims
of
Politie
; this put him upon a journie to
Crete,
to consult
Minos
's Laws; and upon another to
Sparta
to inform himself in the Constitutions of
Lycurgus.
But amongst all the
Constitutions, Laws,
and
Maxims
of
Politie,
he met with none afforded him greater light, and assistance, for the framing his Body
of
Politicks,
than the
Mosaic Laws,
and
Politick Constitutions.
And that
Pythagoras
did in truth traduce the best of his Laws, and Principles of Politie from
Moses
's Laws, and Politie, will be more evident hereafter, when we come to treat of the traduction of all Human Laws from the Divine
Mosaical Law.
At present take only this proof hereof: It is well known, that
Zaleucus,
the great Founder of the
Locrian
Laws, was Disciple to
Pythagoras,
from whom we may presume he received the Body of his
Politie,
now that the
Locrian
Laws were many of them of
Jewish
extract, and original, is evident. I shall only mention one, which
Aristotle
in his Politicks takes notice of, telling us, that the
Locrenses were forbid to sell their Ancestors possessions
: which was plainly a
Mosaic institute.
I might instance in the
Roman
12
Tables,
the
Agrarian
Laws, and others, which, were traduced originally from the
Mosaic
Laws, by the hands of
Pythagoras,
or some other.
§. 16.
Pythagoras,
as he had an high esteem of this Science of Politicks, so it was the last piece of Philosophy he acquainted his Disciples with; as
Varro,
and out of him
Augustine
in his last Book
de ordine. Iamblichus (cap.
20.) tells,
That the
Pythagoreans
employed their time after Dinner in Political affairs.
And that the chief Politicians of
Italy
proceeded from
Pythagoras
his Schole we are assured by
Iamblichus, (l.
1.
c.
29.) and by
Vossius, de philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 27.
This, says he, was the great glory of
Pythagoras,
that in
Italy
so many excellent Rectors of Common-wealths proceeded out of his Schole.
Amongst these the most famous were 1,
Zalencus,
who gave Laws to the
Locrenses,
and is supposed to have been the first, who committed his Laws to writing. For
Strabo
says of the
Locrenses, That they are believed to be the first that enjoyed written Laws.
As for the Laws of
Lycurgus,
he forbad the writing of them. 2. Also
Charondas
the
Catanean
another of
Pythagoras
's Disciples, who gave Laws to the
Thurii, &c.
§. 17. The great
Maxims of Politie,
or
Reasons of State,
which
Pythagoras
instilled into his Disciples, as the main Foundations of Human Politie, and Government, were these Two: 1. The extirpation of
Tyrannie,
and
Preservation
of
Liberty.
2. The Prevention, and removing of
Dissensions
: These Principles he endeavored to put in Practice, where ever he came. So
Porphyry pag.
14, and
Iamblichus cap.
•
. inform us.
That whatsoever Cities
Pythagoras
in his
travels through
Italy,
and
Sicily
found subjected one to the other, he instilled into them Principles of Liberty by his Scholars, of whom he had some in every City. Thus he freed
Croto, Sybaris, Catana, Rhegium, Himera, Agrigentum, &c.
To whom he sent Laws by
Charondas
the
Catanean,
and
Zaleucus
the
Locrian
; by means whereof they lasted a long time well governed. He wholly took away
dissention
: for he did frequently utter his great
Apothegme,
(which was a kind of abstract of his Philosophy) That we ought to avoid with our utmost endeavor, and to cut off even with Fire, and Sword, from the Body
Sickness
; from the Soul
Ignorance
; from the Bellie
Luxury
; from a City
Sedition
; from a Family
Discord
; from all things
Excess.
Which
Apothegme
comprehends the sum of all his
Morals,
both
Ethics, Economics,
and
Politicks
: of which see
Stanly
of
Pythag. cap.
17.
CHAP. VIII.
Pythagoras
's Theology traduced from the Jewish Church.
Pythagoras
's Theology the center of his Philosophy: his Tetractie from the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. His
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
Exod. 3.14.
His Scriptural notions of God's Unity, Simplicitie, &c. His Divine Ideas the same with the Scripture descriptions of God's Decrees; and founded on that Oriental Maxim,
All things are one, and many. Parmenides
's opinion of Ideas.
Timaeus
•
oc
•
us
of Ideas. His primary Idea the same with God's Idea of things possible. His exemplar answers to God's Decree of things future.
Gen. 1.31.
With
Timaeus
's Tradition thence. Of God's Creation, and Providence. Of Divine Worship against images,
Exod. 20.4.
That God is to be worshipped according to his own Will. Their exactness in Divine Worship,
Eccles. 5.1. Pythagoras
's Damons, their Nature, and Office according to
Plato
's description.
Pythagoras
's Aeones. His traditions of the Soul, its Immortality,
&c.
His Metempsychosis. The
Pythagorean
Theology mystical,
&c.
§. 1. HAving finished
Pythagoras
's Philosophy, both
Natural,
and
Moral
; we now proceed to his
Supernatural,
or
Metaphysics,
which is either
Theologick,
and
Divine
; or
Magic,
and
Diobolick
: We shall begin with
Pythagoras's
Theology, which indeed comprehended the best part of his Philosophy, and gave foundation to
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Natural Theology,
as also to
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Metaphysics.
That
Plato
received much of his Natural Theology from this of
Pythagoras
is generally granted, and shall be hereafter proved: our present work is to show, what
Pythagoras
's Theology was, and how he traduced it from the
Jews,
and
Scriptures.
That
Pythagoras
received the choicest of his Theologick contemplations immediately from the
Jews,
while he was in
Judea, Egypt,
and
Babylon,
I conceive may be groundedly conjectured by what has been before laid down,
chap.
5. §. 2. & 6. But supposing this be denied, yet I suppose no one can rationally deny, that he received his Theology from the
Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Pherecydes,
and
Orpheus,
who had theirs origionally from the
Jews,
as before. He is said to have a particular affection for, and inclination unto
Orpheus
's Theology, whose Philosophy, if we may believe
Iamblichus,
he had continually before his eyes.
§. 2.
Pythagoras
according to
Iamblichus
's relation (
chap.
29) made Theology, or the Knowledge of God the first, most universal Being, to be the Center of all his Philosophy; for, says he,
Pythagoras,
who first gave the name to Philosophy, defined it (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Plato
terms it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
a friendship, or love to Wisdom.
Wisdom is the knowledge of the truth of
things that are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Things that are,
he called
immaterials, eternals,
and
Sole Agents.
Other things are equivocally called such by participation with these; For Corporeals indeed
are not
further then they depend upon incorporeals,
&c.
Hence
Pythagoras
defined Philosophy,
The knowledge of things that are, as things that are
: again,
the knowledge of things Divine, and Human
: also
the meditation of Death,
daily endeavoring to free the soul from the Prison of the body; Lastly he defined it the
resemblance of God, &c.
Which Definitions are properly applicable to no part of Philosophy but Metaphysics, or Natural Theology;
whence
Pythagoras
judged the supreme end of all
Philosophy
to be the contemplation, and knowledge of
Unity
: which
Architas
interprets, of the
Principles
of
all Principles
; and
Plutarch
of the
Intelligent,
and
Eternal Nature
: and
Simplicius,
of
the Divine Majesty
i. e.
God.
Hence we see the reason why
Pythagoras
was by way
of Eminencie called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and his Philosophy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Theology,
namely because he treated chiefly of
God,
his Nature, and Worship, and delivered
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Science of the worship of God
; which is properly the office of a Divine. So greatly was the
Idea
and persuasion of
Divinity
impressed on his mind, as that without it he judged there could be no true Philosophy. Yea
Aristotle
himself. 10
Metaph. cap.
6. and elsewhere stiles his Metaphysics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Theologick Science.
The Rabbins call the same
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the wisdom of the Deity.
The Author
lib. de Mundo
saith,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. which
Cicero lib.
1.
de Leg.
expresseth thus:
A man by Philosophy, undertakes the worship of the God's, and pure Religion.
By which it appears, the Ancients, especially
Pythagoras,
made Knowledge, and Worship of God the chief part of their Philosophy.
Plato
in his Definitions of Philosophy follows
Pythagoras
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, making its Object to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which truly is
; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Being itself, or the most independent Being, &c.
Yea
Aristotle
himself comes not much behind in making the object of his Metaphysics to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Ens
or
Being
in its universal latitude; & its Affections
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Unity,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Truth,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Bonity,
which Notions, I presume, he had from
Plato,
as he received the same from
Pythagoras,
or from the
Jews.
§. 3.
Pythagoras
's Natural Theology, as to its Object or Matter, comprehended, 1. the Knowledge of
God,
his
Names, Nature, Decrees, Providence,
and
Worship, &c.
2. The knowledge of the
Aeones,
or
Angels.
3. The knowledge of the
Daemons.
4. The knowledge of
Human Soul, &c.
Concerning the knowledge of
God,
his
Names, Attributes, Acts,
and
Worship
; we find manifest footsteps of
scriptural,
and
Jewish
Traditions in
Pythagoras
's Theology. For First, as to the Names of God; that
Pythagoras
received some broken tradition, touching that Essentials Name, of God
Jehovah,
seems manifest. For this Name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
being sacred amongst the
Jews,
they endeavored, what they could, to conceal it from the
Gentiles
: whence instead of pronouncing of it, they called it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Four Lettered Name of God,
and in imitation of the
Jews, Pythagoras
called it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Tetractie.
This
Godefrid Wendelin
in his Epistle to
Erycius Puteanus
Dissertations of
Pythagoras
's Tetractie: where he shows,
That the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Four Lettered Name of God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was signified: Moreover, that
Pythagoras
traduced this
Tetractie
from the
Jews
and particularly from the Prophet
Daniel,
the
Prince of the
Magi,
who was then, when
Pythagoras
visited
Babylon,
about 70 years aged, as
Vossius Philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 5.
That
Pythagoras
had clear notices of the Name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jah,
which is but the contract of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jehovah,
is evident from all his Metaphysick Contemplations about
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being, truly Being, Self-Being, &c.
as in wh
•
t follows.
§. 4. Neither could
Pythagoras
content his Curious Inquisitive Humor with some imperfect notices of God's Name, but makes some farther Inquiries into his
Essence,
or
Nature,
concerning which he gained his best notices, and satisfaction from the
Mosaic
Descriptions of God. For the best discovery, that ever was given of the
Divine Essence,
or
Nature,
is that, which God himself gives,
Exod.
3.14.
I am,
that
I am,
— and
I am
hath sent me. Which the LXX renders
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.] As if he had said
I am He that is.
For the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is a Participle, which the Latins knew not how to express in one word better than by calling it
Ens, Being,
which
Caesar
derived from
Sum, I am,
as
potens
from
Possum.
It here signifies, That God alone is the
First, Eternal, Infinite,
most
Simple,
most
Necessarie,
most
Absolute,
most
Independent,
yea only, truly, properly, and purely
Being.
For all
Beings
else have much of
not-Being,
or
nothing
; yea much more of
Nothing
than of
Something
mixed with them: yea
all things else,
if compared with God, they are but mere
Metaphors,
or
Shadows
of his
Being,
or rather
pure Nothings,
or less than
Nothings,
as
Esa.
phraseth it,
Esa.
40.17. And
Job
speaketh in the same Dialect frequently. Now that
Pythagoras
traduced his Contemplations of God hence, is to me, and I think, to any other that shall duly consider it, most apparent. For whence could
Pythagoras,
and his followers
Timaeus, Parmenides,
and
Plato
out of them, traduce their Metaphysick Contemplations of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being, Self-Being, Very-Being, &c.
but from this Scriptural Definition of God. For we must remember, that the
Pythagoreans,
and
Platonics
from them, when they discourse
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
of
Being,
or
that which is truly Being,
they understand it of
God,
the most
Universal, Infinite,
and
only true Being
: They accounted all
derived, temporal, lower Beings,
but as
Beings by accident,
or to speak in
Aristotle's
phrase,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Beings
of, or from
Being,
they judged nothing
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
properly, and truly Being,
but what was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
very Being,
or
self-Being
: and
first-Being.
Thus
Steuch. Eugubinus de Peren. Philos.
l.
4.
c.
7.
The Ancients called God
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Being itself,
that which only, and principally exists, which never was not, never shall cease to be. Other things sometimes
have been,
and sometimes have not
been.
As therefore the Divinity is styled with an article
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Unity itself,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Bonity itself
: so by a manner of eminence it is called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being itself.
And because
Being
is ascribed principally to God, it seems to denote, that he alone is
Essence,
and that he alone is; so that in comparison of Him, other things exist not. By Three Testimonies it appears, that the Divine Nature is
Being itself,
by the Testimony of the
Ancient Theology,
by the Testimony of
Plato,
who is as it were the Interpreter thereof, lastly by the Testimonies of the
Heavenlie Philosophy,
the mistress and guide of the other. For the Sacred Name
Jehovah,
being as it were, the Third person of the Verb Substantive future,
Jod
being turned into
Vau,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, hence this most ancient name of God was translated to the Greeks; (for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
differ only in Gender.)
Thence in what follows he adds It is true, we may doubt, what
Plato
meant by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, unless we call to witness the
Superior Divines,
and the
heavenly Philosophy
itself, with which
Plato
differs not, save in the variation of the Gender, so that he who is styled in the Sacred Scripture
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
Gen.
3.14.)
Who am,
is called by
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being.
Which variation was duly made, for two causes, both because the
Hebrews
have no Neuter Gender, and also because it seems more full to say,
God is Being itself,
as that comprehends the whole plenitude of Existence, than to say
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Existing.
For Names of the very Natures, or Essences, import more than Derivatives from them: As
Life
signifies more than
Vital.
And God is rightly expressed by the present,
who is,
because with him there is neither
past,
nor
to come,
but the very Eternal Presence alone.
Pythagoras,
when he defines Philosophy a
Love to the Knowledge
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of Beings.
]
By
Beings,
saith
Iamblichus,
he understood
(
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
sole,
and
self Agents, Immaterials,
and
Eternals,
other
Beings
indeed are
not Beings,
but yet are equivocally called such by
participation
with these
Eternals, Iamblichus cap.
29.
So
Plato
in his
Parmenides
(who was a
Pythagorean
) treating of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being,
and
Unity,
which he makes the First Principle of all things, thereby understands God: so in his
Timaeus, Locrus
(who was also a
Pythagorean,
from whom he received much of his knowledge of God, and of the
origin
of the
Universe,
as hereafter) he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Being
is always, neither hath it beginning.
So again in his
Timaeus (edit. Stephan. fol.
37, 38.) he proves
nothing
properly
is, but
God
the
Eternal Essence,
to which, says he, we do very improperly attribute those distinctions of time
Was,
and
Shall be
; for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is,
properly, and truly, only belongs to this Eternal Essence.
These Contemplations, as 'tis supposed, he received from this
Timaeus
the
Locrian
who was a
Pythagorean
; yet we need not doubt, but that originally they were traduced from
Exod.
3.14. for the
Greek participle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
there used signifies properly the
present time
only, as the
Hebrew,
excluding from God
erat,
and
erit, was,
and
shall be, past,
and
future
; denoting that God only
is,
according to the description of the
Pythagoreans,
and
Platonics. Phutarch
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The true Being is Eternal, Ingenerable,
and
Incorruptable, unto which no time ever brings mutation.
Hence in the
Delphic
Temple among other Rarities, which might please the greater wits, there was engraven
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies▪
Thou art.
And indeed of God alone it can be truly said
He is,
without mutation. That
Pythagoras
did really traduce these Metaphysick Notions of God's Essence from
Moses,
see
Lud. Vives
on
Aug. Civit. l.
8.
c.
11. where he concludes thus.
I doubt not but
Pythagoras
was taught these mysteries in
Egypt,
and that from the sacred Volumnes, of which more hereafter.
§. 5.
Pythagoras
seems to have had some
Scriptural,
or
Jewish tradition
touching the
Unity
of
Divine Essence.
So
Diogenes Laertius
informs us, that
Pythagoras
asserted,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Unity to be the principle of all things, from which proceeded indefinite Dualitie, which was as matter subject to Unity, it's essential cause.
We have a good explication on this
mystical Pythagorean Unity
by Learned
Reuehlin
in his explication of the
Pythagorean Doctrine e Cabala lib.
2.
The Divine Essence (says he) the preexistent
Entitie,
and
Unity
of Existence, Substance, Essence, Nature, was by
Pythagoras
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because it is the
Super-Essential Unity
and
Being,
from which, and by which, and in which, and through which, and to which all things are, and are ordered, & persist, and are comprehended, and converted,
&c.
Thus also
Parmenides
(who followed
Pythagoras
) herein is brought in by
Plato
Philosophizing on that old
axiom
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One, and many,
and Determined thus,
That God as he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
One Divine
Essence, 1. Was not
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Many.
2. That he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One immutable Being.
3. That he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
One Eternal Being, &c.
This also
Plato
in his
Philebus fol.
17. discourseth of at large, showing how this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and how these
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
How this
one
Divine Essence was
many,
as to the Divine
Idea's,
or
Decrees,
and how the Divine Ideas were one in the Divine
Unity,
and
Essence,
This Doctrine, says he, seems strange, but yet the God's, as they say, have thus delivered it to us, to learn, and to teach it others, though some wise men now (perhaps he means his Scholar
Aristotle
) teach otherwise,
&c.
By which he seems to confess that these Contemplations of God's
Unity
came originally from the
Jews,
as hereafter.
§. 6.
Pythagoras
seems also to have had some
Jewish,
if not Scriptural tradition of God's
Simplicitie.
This is apparent from
Iamblichus
's interpretation of that great Fundamental Symbol of
Pythagoras,
[
Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e. Philosophize,
and above all things, think that the God's are incorporeal. This Symbol is beyond all others the Seminary of the
Pythagorean
Doctrines. Think not, that the God's use forms that are Corporeal, neither that they are received into material substance fettered to the body, as other animals.
Thus
Iamblichus
on Symbol 24. Thus also
Plutarch
in the Life of
Numa Pompilius
informs us,
That the
Pythagoreans
thought, the God's were Invisible, Incorruptible, and only Intelligible, wherefore they forbad the Framing Images, or Forms of them.
And
Diogenes Laertius
gives us a pretty Romance of
Hieroninus,
who, saith he, affirms, that
Pythagoras
descending
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
into Hell,
saw there
Hesiods
soul bound to a Brazen pillar,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
making a lamentable noise: and
Homer
's Soul hanging upon a tree, and Serpents about,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, for those things they feigned of the God's, which story, though but a Fiction, yet it is sufficient for our present purpose, to show that
Pythagoras
was, according to the common Vogue, a professed enemy to all those Mythologic, & Poetic Fictions of the God's.
The same dislike we find in
Plato
against
Homer
for his monstrous fictions of God.
So also
Parmenides,
(who did much,
Pythagorize
) is brought in by
Plato
discoursing of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
one Divine Being. 1. As one that was neither the
whole,
nor had he parts. 2. Neither had he beginning, nor end, therefore was 3. Infinite, and without terms. 4. Without Figure either round, or
straight. 5. Neither in himself, nor in anything else, nor anywhere, 6. Neither like, nor dislike; neither equal, nor inequal, because without all terms, or composition.
So
Plato Parmenide, pag.
136, and 140.
Edit. Stephan.
And
Plato
in his
Repub.
says, God continues,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
simply in the same Form &c.
as hereafter. We find the
simplicity
of the Divine Essence thus described, according to the
Pythagorean
Doctrine, by
Reuchlin,
(and
Stanly
out of him,
cap.
3.)
The
Pythagoreans,
says he, assert three worlds, the
Supreme, Intelligible,
and the
Sensible.
The supreme world being that of the
Deity,
is one, Divine continual constant Essence of
Sempiternitie,
poized as it were with immovable weight; not unfitly termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the all governing Throne.
It is not confined to
genus,
Place, Time, or Reason; but is the free unlimited
President
over all these; infinitely supreme in place, power, possession, excellence, above all Essence, Nature, Aevum, Age,
&c.
See
Stanly, fol.
138.
§. 7. That
Pythagoras
received by tradition from the
Jews,
if not immediately from the Scriptures, some notices, touching the Divine Idea's or Decrees (which were the first original Archetype, or Universal exemplar of all things made) seems very probable. Thus
August. Stouch. Eugubinus, de Peren. Philos. l.
1.
c.
12.
It is very observable, and worthy to be known, what
Plutarch
mentions,
that the Divine mind, and Ideas,
(which
Philo,
and
Plotinus
taught) are the same: and that his Wisdom, is the Nature and Substance of all Ideas: and that the whole series of Ideas is the same with the immense
Sapience
of God. It is also to be observed, that this
Mind,
was according to the Sentiment of all the Philosophers, the
Creator,
because they attribute unto him Ideas as the Origines of things. Whence it is manifest, that they thought, and spake, what they learned from the
Barbarians.
The first
Barbarians
were the
Chaldeans, Egyptians,
and, whom we ought to set in the first place, the
Hebrews, &c.
That
Pythagoras
asserted the Doctrine of Ideas before
Plato,
or
Parmenides,
is evident, as
Reuchlin
in his explication of the
Pythagorean
Doctrine shows us,
that the
Pythagoreans
reduce all beings
Subsistent,
or
Substant
immediately to Ideas.
And to prove, that
Pythagoras,
and his followers,
Parmenides, Timaeus Locrus,
and
Plato
by their
original Ideas
understood nothing else, but that which our Divines call the
Divine Ideas,
or
Decrees of God,
it will be necessary to examine a little
their Doctrine of
Ideas,
its Original,
&c.
The great foundation of all this Doctrine of Ideas was that famous Oriental Tradition,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That all is one, and many.
This Axiom
Plato
expounds at large, out of
Parmenides,
and
Timaeus Locrus
the
Pythagorean,
showing how,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One was many,
and
many one:
which ctrine, says he, we received from the
Ancient Philosophers, (i. e.
from
Timaeus
the
Locrian,
and
Parmenides
immediately, but from
Pythagoras
originally) and they originally from the God's who taught them thus to Philosophize, and teach others. What
Plato
's opinion of Ideas was, we shall reserve for its proper place; we are now to treat only of the
Pythagorean
Doctrine concerning Ideas founded on this great Axiom, That
all is one, and many.
This
Pythagorean
Principle
Parmenides
(who was of the
Eleatick
sect, a branch of the
Italic,
and
Pythagorean
) much Philosophized on,
as the foundation of his Ideas. Him therefore we shall chiefly follow in the explication of this
•
ythagorean
Doctrine, as we find his opinions explained by
Steuch. Eugubinus,
by
Ludovicus Vives,
and
Serranus. Steuchus Eugebinus, de Peren. Philos. l.
3.
c.
8. says,
That the
Unity,
and
Being
was styled by the Ancients, with a certain great and deep mystery,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
very Universe. Aristotle
in his first Book of the Principles of Philophie, delivers,
that the Ancients affirmed,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That one was all.
Therefore they said, God was that
All.
This in what follows he applies to
Empedocles, Parmenides, &c. Lud. Vives
in
August. civit. Dei l.
8.
c.
1. gives us this general account of
Parmenides
's (and so of
Pythagoras
's)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
One, &c.
There are not wanting some (says he) who conceive that
Parmenides
himself in his Poems, in which he comprised his Philosophy, affirming all things to be
One,
understood that
One
to be
God
; of which number is
Simplicius.
Neither is it likely that
Parmenides
an acute, and wise man could be ignorant of the
Division,
and
Multiplicity
of things, which in plain words he asserted in his Poems. For when he had versifyed much, and enough on that
One first Being.
Hitherto says he of these true, and supreme Beings; now of
Mortals,
and
confused Beings, &c.
But
Serranus
does more fully, and clearly expound unto us this Doctrine of
Parmenides
touching Ideas (in
Plato
's
Parmenides fol.
124.)
This says he, was the opinion of
Parmenides
concerning Ideas. In the Universe of things there is nothing that happens unadvisedly, or by chance; but all things depend on the force, and efficacy of their Ideal
causes. Of these Ideas he makes two sorts. 1. One he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Infinite, Immovable, Eternal, Simple,
and
Causative
of all things. This he calls the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The primary Idea,
which being
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
gives being and virtue to all things.
2. As for the Secondarie
Ideas,
they are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
God's works,
or second natural causes depending on God. He denies therefore that anything happens
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of itself, without the Divine mind influencing it.
The same
Serranus
(in
Plato
's
Parmenides, fol.
130.)
Parmenides,
says he,
teacheth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that all is
One,
and that this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One,
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Archetype Idea,
and thence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That one is many, and many again one.
Where he notes the power, and force of the
One
in the
Ideas,
in which it is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The proper form, or exemplar,
and thence to know the nature of any intelligibles, we must reduce them to the Unity of Idea.
Thus
Serranus
of the original of these Ideas. The plain mind of this dark Oriental Tradition is this; That the
Divine Essence,
which in itself is but one; in respect of it's Divine Ideas, or Decrees may be looked on as many; and thus
one becomes many,
and
many one.
Thus
Plato,
and
Serranus
on him (
fol.
134.) explain
Parmenides
his Ideas.
Parmenides
saith
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That God has the most accurate Knowledge
;
and that this Knowledge he has by his Ideas; and that these Ideas arise not from us, (
i. e.
external objects) but from Himself, from his own Infinite Essence, (the glass of all those Ideas which represent things Possible) and from his Sovereign, Absolute will, (which is the glass wherein he contemplates the Ideas of things Future) for otherwise, says
Parmenides,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The God's would not be our Lord's, neither would they know Human affairs, should their Ideas or Knowledge arise from us, and not from themselves.
How Divinely does
Parmenides
here Philosophize on the Absolute, Independent, Sovereign Ideas, or Decrees of God, to the confusion of that great
Jesuitical Idol
of
Scientia Media,
which is the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of all
Pelagianism
: of which more when we come to
Plato,
&c.
§. 8. Besides
Parmenides,
there were other
Pythagoreans
who Philosophized largely on this Doctrine of
Ideas
: as
Epicarmus,
or
Cous,
and
Timaeus Locrus,
both famous Philosophers of the
Pythagorean
Sect, from whom
Plato,
as 'tis conceived, received much of his Philosophy touching
Ideas.
So
Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. l.
8.
c.
11.
Alcimus,
saith he, in the Books which he writ to
Amynthas,
teacheth us, that
Plato
borrowed his Opinion of God being
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as also that of
Ideas
from the Books of
Epicarmus,
who was
Cous
a Philosopher of the
Pythagorean
Sect most famous:
Timaeus
also the
Locrian
has writ of
Ideas
in his Book of the
Universe.
But all these things,
Plato
being of a more accurate Wit, and assisted with a deeper, and more Divine Doctrine, has more largely, and clearly explained. Though I doubt not, but
Pythagoras
had before learned these things from the
Sacred Scriptures,
&c.
As for
Timaeus Locrus
the
Pythagorean,
we have his opinion of
Ideas
laid down at large by
Plato
in his
Timaeus,
or Dialogue of
the Origin of the Universe,
which, I presume he calls
Timaeus,
because he received the main Principles, and Materials of it from this
Timaeus
the
Pythagorean.
The sum of this Discourse in
Plato
's
Timaeus,
about
Ideas,
may be reduced to this Scheme.
God in the Production of the Universe acted as a skillful wise Artificer, according to the
Ideas
of his own eternal Wisdom.
These
Ideas
existing in the mind of God, he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-subsisting,
or
independent, eternal, indivisible, immaterial,
and
simple.
These first original
Ideas
seem to answer to those
Divine Ideas,
w
ch
the Schools suppose in the Divine
Essence,
and
Power,
w
ch
is the glass of
things possible,
the object of God's
simple Intelligence.
Besides this original simple
Idea, Plato
brings in
Timaeus
discoursing of another kind of
Idea,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an exemplar,
or
image,
which he makes to be the first
foetus,
impress, or offspring of the former
original Idea.
This
Exemplar,
or
Image,
as it is conformed, and exactly answerable to the first original
Idea
; so likewise is it a lively delineation or representation of the
future
work or thing to be made, whence the
Divine
Agent, having got his
Exemplar,
proceeds to the production of his
work
answerable thereunto. His words are these,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, where he distinguisheth his
Idea
from his
Exemplar,
making the former to be first, and productive of the latter. Unto this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Exemplar,
or
Image,
the
Divine Idea's
of things
future,
or the Decrees of God, which the Schools suppose to be seated in the Will of God, the object of God's Science of Vision, seem to answer.
Laertius
says, that
Plato
makes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Idea,
and
Exemplar
Synonymous, I conceive he is mistaken. This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Exemplar,
or
intelligible
Image.
Timaeus (Edit. Steph. fol.
30.) calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
the
Animal, Living, Intelligible World,
which is elsewhere called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Ideal World,
the
self Liver,
the
always Liver
; and by the
Pythagoreans
it is generally styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
intelligible World,
which they place in the middle, betwixt the Supreme World or the Divine Essence, and the Sensible World, or Universe.
This Exemplar
Serranus
(on the fore-cited place of
Timaeus, fol.
30.) makes to be
that eternal
Image,
or
Exemplar
in the mind of God, delineated, or drawn according to the
Idea
of his eternal Wisdom, according to which all things are produced.
Yea, thus
Plato
seems to express
Timaeus
's mind,
fol.
29.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. If the World be beautiful, and it's Maker good, it is evident, that he eyed some internal
Exemplar, &c.
So before (
Timaeus fol.
28.
)
Wherefore, says he, if he that undertakes to effect anything, regards this invariable Exemplar
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
it cannot be but that the work should be exactly formed.
Thus
Timaeus
the
Pythagorean
in
Plato
's words, which indeed seems exactly to answer that of
Moses, Gen.
1.31. and
God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good.
So says
Augustine (de Civit. Dei.
l. 11. c. 21.) on this place,
hereby is understood God's approbation of his work made according to Art, which is the wisdom of God.
Yea
Timaeus,
according to
Plato
's relation,
(fol.
30.
edit. Steph.
) speaks more fully and openly the sense (almost in the very words) of
Moses, Gen.
1.31. Thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
For
God willed, that all things should be good, and nothing bad, neither is it lawful, says he, to suppose that God, who is best, should make the World but in the best and most beautiful manner: then he concludes,
fol.
37. Thus, after the Father of the Universe had beheld his Workmanship,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the framed a visible Image of the eternal invisible God's, he recreated and reposed himself therein,
i. e.
God was delighted in his own works, because they were exactly conformed to, and so sensible
Ideas,
or visible
Images
of that eternal
Exemplar,
and those invisible
Ideas,
or
Decrees
lodged in his own sovereign Will, and Essence.
Does not
Plato
here speak plainly,
not only the mind of
Timaeus,
but of
Moses
also? This is not mine own conjecture only, but
Philoponus
(otherwise
Johannes Grammaticus
) also that great
Christian Philosopher
has long since observed the same, in his Book of the
Worlds Creation,
lib. 7. c. 11, 12.
Moses
therefore concluding the production of the World, says rightly (
Gen.
1.31.)
God saw,
&c. Moreover
Plato
in this again imitating him, and showing how the
Universe
was made by God, says, That the Father when he beheld this moveable and living Image of the eternal God's, which he had made, he
rejoiced
and
recreated
himself,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, so much the more when he considered, that it was made according to that great
Exemplar
of his own
Idea's,
or
Decrees.
Thus
Philoponus,
who was well skilled in the mind of
Plato,
as well as of
Moses.
But of these things more in their place.
§. 9.
Pythagoras
held God's
production
of,
and
providence
over all things. So
Timaeus
(in
Plato
fol. 12.) says, that God
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. adorned
and
disposed
the World into the most perfect Form and Order; whence it was by
Pythagoras
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e. Order,
and
Beauty. Diogenes
tells us,
Pythagoras
asserted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
that
Unity
(by which he understood God)
was the principle of all things.
He held also God only to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the animation and vivisick principle of all things
; according to
Gen.
1.2.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters
: whence
Pythagoras
defined God
a
mind, which communicateth, and diffuseth himself through every part of the Universe, from whom all Animals receive life,
&c.
which accords with
Plato
's
Anima mundi.
He also called God one entire Being within himself, in a complete Circle,
i. e.
shedding abroad the influential lines of his
Providence
throughout the Universe.
The
Pythagorean
Conception (as
Iamblichus
) touching the Providence of God in general, was this,
That we have need of such a Government, as we ought not in anything to contradict, which alone proceeds from the Deity, who deservedly may challenge a
sovereign Dominion
over all. For man being,
say the Pythagoreans,
shamefully variable, and fickle in his appetites, affections, and other passions, needs such a Government, from which proceeds moderation, and order.
But
Pythagoras
affirmed the God's to have a peculiar Providence towards Men, such as were at Friendship with them. So
Diogenes Laertius
says,
Pythagoras
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That Men are ak
••
to the God's, and therefore God has a special Providence over us,
as
Gen.
1.
26. so says
Iamblichus, Pythagoras
demonstrated there is a friendship of the God's towards men,
&c. Grotius
on
Matth.
10.29. tells us, that some of the
Hebrews
held God's providence about men, but not about beasts: which
Pythagoras
seems to have learned from them, and to have taught the
Grecians.
§. 10. Hence
Pythagoras
was a great
Devoto,
or Advocate for God, his Worship, and sacred Institutes. So
Iamblichus
tells us,
That
Pythagoras
proposed, that all things we resolve to do, should tend to the solemn acknowledgement of the Divinity; that the whole of man's life should consist in the following God, which is the ground of all Philosophy. For since there is a God (says he) we must acknowledge it is in his power to do us good. Now all give good things to such as they love, and delight in: therefore it is manifest that such things are to be performed, in which God delights, from whom alone good is to be sought for.
The like foundation of Divine Worship
Plato
(who did in this point greatly
Pythagorize)
asserts, of which in it's place. And as to the Mode of
Divine Worship, Pythagoras
and his Adherents, give us many wholesome Institutes, such as these.
1. That God being an Incorporeal, and Spiritual Being, should not be Worshipped under any Corporeal Form, or Visible Likenes. Thus
Plutarch
in the Life of
Numa Pompilius,
tells us,
That
Numa
forbad the
Romans
to believe, that God had any Form, or likeness of Beast, or Man, which is agreeable to the
Pythagoreans,
who thought the God's Invisible, Incorruptible, and Intelligible Beings only: so that in these former times there was in
Rome
no Image of God, either painted, or graven for
170
Years,
&c. Some think that
Numa
had this Institute from
Pythagoras
; but
Ludo. Vives
(on
August. Civit.
l. 7. c. 35.) refutes this; showing, that
Numa
died many Years before
Pythagoras
was born. We may therefore more fitly with
Clemens Alexander.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. and out of him
Selden (de Jure Gent. Hebr.
l. 1. c. 2.) affirm, That
Numa
received this by Tradition originally from the
Jews,
though perhaps immediately from the
Phoenicians,
who frequented
Italy
in, and before his time. That
Pythagoras
had it immediately from the
Jews,
and particularly from that great Moral Command,
Thou shalt not make any graven Image,
&c. is most likely. Conformable whereto is that great
Pythagorean Symbol [Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e.
says
Iamblichus, Philosophize, and above all things conceive that the God's are incorporeal.
This Symbol is (saith he)
above all other the Seminary of the
Pythagorick
Doctrines,
&c.
2. Hence
Pythagoras
instituted,
that God should be Worshipped with a
pure mind
; and such
decent Ceremonies,
as were by him appointed. So
Diogenes Laertius: Pythagoras,
says he, held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
That honors are to be performed to the God's according to their own appointment, with a white garment, and chaste body, and soul, which purification is acquired by expurgations, washings, sprinklings, and separation from what ever is unclean,
&c. I know
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is rendered by the Latin Version
cum laudibus, with praises
; which agrees well enough with our present design: but yet that it signifies in this place such a Worship, as was appointed by the God's, I gather by the like usage of the Word in
Plato
his
Alcibiades,
fol. 149. where bringing in the
Athenians
complaining to
Ammon
their Oracle, that their Enemies the
Lacedemonians,
who offered few, or no Sacrifices, should prevail against them, who offered such costly Sacrifices:
The
Oracle
makes answer,
that the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
plain simple instituted worship
of
the Lacedemonians,
was more acceptable to the God's than all their pompous will-worship.
This we need not doubt, but that
Pythagoras
learned from the
Jews,
as
Plato
also, who in his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
fol.
6. tells us, that all Divine Worship must be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
saith
Serranus, measured by the will, and good pleasure of God.
And whereas
Pythagoras
required his Followers to worship in a
white Garment,
that is apparently a
Jewish
Rite, answerable to the
Ephod.
Such were also all those
•
urifications, Washings, Sprinklings, and Separations from all unclean things, which
Pythagoras
enjoined.
This likewise is affirmed of
Iamblichus,
that
Pythagoras
said Purity is acquired by Expiations, Bathings, Sprinklings, Abstinences from the flesh of things, that die of themselves, and viperous Creatures,
&c.
which were all
Jewish Ceremonies.
Laertius
also informs us, that
Pythagoras
held
things dedicated to God were holy, and not to be used for common use: thence he forbad the eating of Fishes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, in as much as they were holy: for it was not meet that what was proper to the God's should be common to Men. Farther
Vossius de Philos. sect. l.
2.
c.
6. §. 5. tells us, it appears out of
Clemens Alexandrinus,
that
Pythagoras
was circumcised,
&c.
which if true, gives us a great demonstration, that he was initiated in the
Jewish Ceremonies,
which agrees with what was before mentioned out of
Diogenes Laertius,
that
Pythagoras,
whilst he was in
Babylon,
was cleansed from the Pollutions of his life past, by one
Zabratus,
who according to
Selden (de Gente
Hebr.
l. 1. c. 2.) was
Ezekiel.
See more of this in
chap.
6. §. 6, 7, 8. of
Pythagoras
's symbolizing with the
Jews
in Rites.
3.
Pythagoras
required of his Disciples a very great exactness, and solemnity in the Worship of God. This is evident by many of his Symbols, and
Iamblichus
's explication thereof. As Symbol 1.
[
When you go to the Temple to Worship, neither do, nor say anything concerning life] i. e.
saith
Iamblichus,
Worship the Deity after such a manner as
is most pure, and immixed. He takes care, that no worldly affairs insinuate into Divine Worship. So Symbol 2. [
If a Temple lie in your way, go not in: No, though you pass by the very doors] i. e.
says
Iamblichus,
the Supreme Being ought to have the Principal Worship: but if any Man doth it upon the occasion of any other thing, he makes that the
second,
which is the
first,
and
chiefest
of all; and by that means he subverts the whole
order
of
Worship.
The most excellent Good ought not to be ranked in the latter place, as inferior to human Good. Again Symbol 3. [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Sacrifice and Worship bare-foot.] i. e.
says
Iamblichus,
serve the God's 1. decently, and orderly. 2. Being free from fetters: this is to be observed not in the Body only, but in the acts of the Soul also.
Now that this
Pythagorean
exactness in Divine Worship had its original from the
Jewish
Church, is observed by Mr.
Mede
(on
Eccles.
5.1.
of the reverence of God's house,
pag. 104.) where citing this very Symbol of
Pythagoras, [offer Sacrifice and Worship with thy shoes off.
]
This, says he, alludes to
the
Jewish
Custom of
Discalceation,
which was used by the
Jews
in going to the Place of Worship, and from them derived to the
Gentiles,
when they worshipped their God's.
We might add to these
Pythagoras
's seventh Symbol, [
Above all things, govern your tongues following the God's.] i. e.
saith
Iamblichus,
nothing renders the mind so perfect, as when a Man in following the God's reflects in upon himself by serious Meditation. The whole of which Symbolic Doctrine, touching the Worship of God, seems very correspondent with Scripture Precepts, touching God's Worship; especially
Eccles.
5.1.
§. 11. Another part of
Pythagoras
's Theology consisted in the knowledge, and worship of the
Daemons.
For the understanding whereof, we are to remember, that as
Augustine (de Civit. Dei,
l. 6.
c.
5.) hath long since observed, out of
Varro,
and
Seneca
; the Pagan
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was three-fold.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mythick.
or fabulous, which was that of the Poets. 2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Politick,
or
Civil,
which was (as is supposed)
taken up, and imposed by their Law-givers, and Politicians,
and so followed by the Priests, and People in their worship. 3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Natural Theology,
which the Philosophers taught, as that, which suited best with the
Light of Nature,
and
Principles of Reason,
in distinction from the two former. For the wiser of the Philosophers,
Thales, Pythagoras, Plato,
&c. utterly rejected the fabulous
Theology
of the Poets: Neither did they generally approve of that
Politick Theology,
which States-men had invented, and the Priests with the People embraced, in order to the promoting their
Politick Interests.
But these Philosophers, by what Oriental
Jewish
Tradition they had received, together with the Improvements of their own Reason thereon, found out a more
Natural,
&
Rational
kind of
Theology
; which was briefly this. They held only one Supreme, Eternal Being, which they called
God
: This God the
Phoenicians
called
Saturn,
or
Molech,
from the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
King
; but the
Grecians
generally styled him
Jupiter,
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Father Jah,
which was one of God's names. Now this supreme God
Jah the Father, Saturn,
or
Molech,
was, as they supposed, at such an infinite distance from poor Mortals, and Sinners, as that there could be no approach to Him, or communications of good things from Him, but by some
Mediators,
or middling God's. These middle God's, or Mediators, were no other than their great Heroes, or Persons, who had been greatly famous in their Age for some
noble Exploits,
or
virtuous Acts,
and after their Death were by common consent
Deifyed,
or made God's, and called by some from their office
Medioxumi,
from the place of their main residence (which was supposed to be in the Stars)
Deastri,
from their relation to the superior God, the
lesser God's,
the
made God's
; from their knowledge of human Affairs,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Daemons
; also from their sovereigntie over Men,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Baalim Lord's.
Who was the first of these
Daemons,
is not determined: some think 'twas
Joseph,
whom the
Egyptians
worshipped under the Symbolic names, and Images of
Apis, Syrapis, Hermes,
&c. Others make
Belus
a
Phoenician
King, the first of them; whence they were by the
Phoenicians
called
Baalim
: whoever was the first, it matters not, so long as we have such probable conjectures, yea strong presumptions, that their original
Idea,
or
Exemplar,
was conveyed by some imperfect Tradition from the
Jewish Messias.
This seems evident by that account we find of these
Daemons
in
Plato,
who discourseth professedly, and at large concerning them, in his
Politicus
; but more
particularly in his
Symposium,
as also
de legibus,
where 1. Touching their
Natures,
he terms them to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. made
God's
visible God's: Idols,
and
Images
of the great God, who was Maker of all things.
Plato de Legib.
13. 2. Touching their
Office,
he says, they were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
placed in the middle 'twixt the great God, and man, to be Mediators, or Porters, for the conveying the Sacrifices, and Prayers of men to the God's; as also for the
transmitting gifts,
and all good things from God to Men; together with an Interpretation of the
mind, will,
and
precepts
of God to men: Whence 3
lie
, says he, by the mediation of these
Daemons
there is a communion, and friendship maintained betwixt God, and men, which otherwise could not be: so
Plato, Sympos.
fol. 202,
&c.
4. As to the
dignity
of these
Daemons,
he makes them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Co-rulers
with the great God: so
Plato, Politicus
fol. 251. By all which I think, it plainly appears, that these
Daemons
had their original from some
Scriptural
Tradition of the
Messias,
unto whom
Plato
's Characters of them seem fully to answer. That
Pythagoras
held these
Daemons,
we are informed by
Diogenes Laertius,
who tells us, that
Next to the supreme God,
Pythagoras,
and his followers placed
Daemons,
and
Heroe
's:
see more of these
Daemons
in
Lud. Vives, in August. Civ. Dei, lib.
8.
cap.
14, &c.
§. 12. Another piece of the
Pythagorean Theology,
is that which treats of their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Aeones,
who were distinct from their
Daemons,
and much the same with our
Scripture Angels,
for they looked upon these
Aeones,
as
Divine immortal
Powers, amongst whom there were divers degrees; some inferior, some superior, who had their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, their conjunctions, and
Genealogies, &c.
These
Aeones
the
Gnostics
(who much imitated the
Pythagoreans
) transmitted into their
mystical Divinity,
applying them to the Angels: of which see more in our account of the corruption of the
Pythagorean
Philosophy.
§. 13.
Another part of
Pythagoras
's
Metaphysics
concerned the
human Soul,
which (says
Stobeus
)
Pythagoras
defined a
self-moving number
: who held also, that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was induced into the Soul from without,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
by a Divine efficacy (so
Plato
understands this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) delibated of the universal mind, whence also she became immortal.
Diogenes Laertius
likewise acquaints us, that
Pythagoras
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
that the Soul was
immortal,
because
that, whence it was derived, was
immortal.
And this some give as the genuine import of
Pythagoras
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Metempsychosis,
which by some was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by others
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by
Laertius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
Metempsychosis,
or Transmigration of the Soul from one Body to another, was also asserted by
Plato,
and, as it is supposed, taken up both by him and
Pythagoras
from some broken Tradition they had received from the
Jews,
touching the
Resurrection.
This is observed by
Serranus
in
Plato, Repub. lib.
10.
Plato,
says he,
teacheth us, that the Bodies of the Pious, should
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
be raised again to life. And the Comment, or Invention of the
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] Transmigration of Souls,
was but a corrupt derivation from this Truth of the Resurrection.
That the
Jews
had the like persuasion touching the
Transmigration of Souls,
appears from that of
Herod,
who thought that
John the Baptist
's Soul revived in Christ. That the
Pharisees
held this Opinion, is affirmed by
Josephus, l.
18.
Antiq. c.
2. and 'tis possible the more ancient
Jews
held the same, and
Pythagoras
from them, though
Vossius
denies it. That
Pythagoras
's, and
Plato
's
Metempsychosis,
or Transmigration of the
human
Soul after death, was by them taken up, to signify the Souls first infusion into,
and thence by death separation from, and at the Resurrection re-union with the Body, is asserted by
John Reuchlin, Art. Cabal. l.
2.
This is (says he) the meaning of
Pythagoras
concerning his
Metempsychosis,
or Transmigration of Souls after death, and their descension into life. Others thought the Soul
educed
out of
Matter: Pythagoras
thought it
infused
by God into the Body, and therefore before it, not in
time,
but in
dignity,
and
purity
: This infusion he termed
the descent of the Soul,
&c. or if he meant historically,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the Soul separate from the Body, may by the power of God be brought the same, into the same body; whence he acknowledgeth God only to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the animation of all things.
God infuseth the soul into every man, and being infused taketh it away, and being taken away restoreth it, when, and as oft as he pleaseth.
Thus he; some understand this
Pythagorean Metempsychosis,
Symbolically, with relation to the several
passions, dispositions,
and
morals
of men, as hereafter.
§. 14. Lastly, To give a general
Idea
of
Pythagoras
's
Theology
;
we must know, that it was
Mystical
; much the same with that of
Pherecydes
his Master; as also with that of
Orpheus,
from whom he
borrowed much of it: who all affected a
mystical
mode of
Theologizing,
partly from their own
Ignorance,
being unacquainted with the true import, or meaning of those
Jewish
Traditions, which were very imperfectly delivered to them; and partly from an affected
Singularitie,
they being unwilling that any should be acquainted with their
Mysteries,
but such as were of their own
Tribe,
and
Sect.
This is the meaning of many of
Pythagoras
's Symbols, whereby he strictly enjoined his Disciples not to communicate his Mysteries to Strangers, and those without; as before from
Grot. Matth.
7.6,
&c.
That
Pythagoras,
and his Adherents, were generally sensible of their great Ignorance of
Divine
Mysteries,
appears by several of his Symbols, as that [
Look not in a Glass by Candle-light.] i. e.
says
Iamblichu
•
, Philosophize, pursuing not the fantasies of sense, which gives a kind of light to comprehensions, like a Candle, neither natural, nor true,
&c. This answers to
Prov.
13.9. Thence another of his Symbols runs thus, [
Discourse not of Pythagorean things without light.] i. e.
(says
Iamblichu
•
) because it is impossible to understand
Pythagorean
Doctrines without light.
But that which was the foundation of all the
Pythagorean mystical
Theology, and a great argument of their sense of
Ignorance
in
Divine
things, was their credulous inquisitive humor, which inclined them to receive every Tradition, though never so broken, or corrupt, touching
Divine
things. This is fully expressed by that great Symbol of
Pythagoras, viz. [Concerning the God's dis-believe nothing wonderful, nor yet concerning Divine things
]
This (says
Iamblichus
) declareth the superlative Excellence of God's instructing us, and puts us in mind, that we ought not to estimate the Divine power by our own Judgment: which Comment of
Iamblichus,
if applied to Divine
Revelation,
is excellent, and excellently useful; the same with what the
Scripture
universally teacheth us;
viz.
that concerning God, and Divine things, we should dis-believe nothing though never so wonderful, if we have a Divine word for it.
But the
Pythagoreans
stretched this excellent
Scriptural
Rule beyond the line of Divine
Revelation,
even to the belief of every corrupt
Oriental
Tradition, as hereafter.
§. 15. We should now proceed to the
black,
and
Satanick
part of
Pythagoras
's
Metaphysics,
or
Supernatural Philosophy,
namely his
Magic,
or
Art of Divination
: But this we shall refer to
Chap.
10. Touching the
Vanity,
or corruptions of the
Pythagorean
Philosophy.
Only in
general
: that this black Art of Divination, wherein the
Pythagoreans
were greatly versed, had its original from
Satanick
imitation of God's sacred
Oracles,
and the various ways of his revealing himself in the
Jewish
Church, I think will be very evident, when the parallel is drawn betwixt the one, and the other: For as God revealed his
Oracles
by
Dreams,
and
Visious
; so the Devil's were frequently delivered in the same manner. Of which more in its place.
CHAP. IX. Of
Pythagoras
's Symbols, and their
Jewish
Original,
&c.
Pythagoras
's Symbols from the Jews.
1.
Give thy right hand to none but
Pythagoreans;
as Gal.
2.9.
Abstain from the dead,
Matth. 8.22.
Set down Salt,
Lev. 2.13.
Ethick Symbols
Jewish. Pythagoras
's Metempsychosis Symbolical, from
Dan. 4.32, 33. Pythagorean
Abstinences from
Jewish
Symbols.
Pythagorean
Numbers Symbolical.
Pythagoras's
Symbols of Divine Worship of
Jewish
extract; particularly that Worship bare-foot, from
Exod. 3.5. Eccles. 5.1.
Of
Pythagoras
's Works, that he left nothing in Writing. The
Pythagorean
Sect, their ruins.
Pythagoras
's Followers, and their Writings.
Pythagorizing
Philosophers,
•
lato,
&c. The pride of the
Pythagoreans,
and all other Sects.
§.1. HAving finished our Discourse touching the
matter
of the
Pythagorean Philosophy,
we now proceed to its
Form,
or
Mode,
together with its
Traduction
from the
Jewish
Church.
Porphyry,
in the Life of
Pythagoras,
informs us,
that he used a twofold
Form,
or
manner
of
Philosophizing
:
the one
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which was more
open,
and
easy
: the other
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which was
mystick,
and
obscure.
The choicest parts of
Pythagoras's Philosophy,
especially his
Theology,
was wrapped up, and expressed in a
Symbolic Form,
or
Mode.
Thus
Iamblichus
in the Life of
Pythagoras, l.
1.
c.
29.
Pythagoras
(says he) used by short sentences to express various significations to his Disciples, after a Symbolic Mode, as
Apollo
by short
enigmatick Oracles,
vaticinated many abstruse things, and Nature by little seeds exhibits difficult effects. the same
Iamblichus, lib.
1.
cap.
5.
Thus also
Clemens Alexandrinus,
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. attributes to
Pythagoras
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a Symbolic Mode of teaching. So
Justin Martyr,
in his cohortation to the
Greeks,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Pythagoras
the son of
Mnesarchus,
who delivered the Dogmas of his Philosophy Mystically by Symbols, as the Historiographers of his Life manifest.
§. 2. That
Pythagoras
traduced this his Symbolic Form, or Mode of Philosophizing originally from the Scriptures, or Jewish Church is not without good grounds affirmed by the Learned, and will farther appear by inquiry into particulars. We find a rational affirmation hereof in Learned
John Reuchlin
his Explication of
Pythagorick
Doctrine,
Artis Cabal. lib.
2.
The way of teaching (says he) by Symbols, and Silence (as other things)
Pythagoras
brought into
Greece,
from the
Hebrews,
with whom it was the custom, that the Disciple being to ask some sublime questions, should hold his peace, and being questioned should only answer
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thus the
Cabalists
answer
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Wise said.
Moreover all the
Pythagorick
Philosophy, especially that, which concerns Divine things, is
mystically
expressed by
Enigmes,
and
Symbols,
because 1. The
Ancients
used to deliver Wisdom by Allegories: all their Philosophers, and Poets are full of Riddles, avoiding by obscurity contempt.
2. It oft happens that abstruse things are best expressed by such short Enigmes.
3. As
Generals
use watch-words to distinguish their own Soldiers, so the
Pythagorean
Symbols were as distinctive marks of their Society. 4. They used Symbols also as Memorial notes. For in treating of things Divine, and Human, the vastness of the subject require
•
short Symbols, as conducing much to memory.
So
Stanly
of
Pythag
•
fol.
136. wherein we have a full account of the original of Symbols as also of their proper use, both amongst the
Jews,
and also the
Grecians.
As for the
Jews
it's evident, that God made use of this Form or Mode of teaching them Heavenly, sublime Mysteries by terren
•
Figures, Symbolic Images, Types, or Shadows out of condescentio
•
to their Infant State; which manner of teaching continued even to our Savior's time, who delivered the chief of his Doctrine concerning Heavenly Mysteries, under Earthly Parables, and Symbols, thereby to render them more plain and familiar; as he himself signifies,
John
3.12.
If I have told you Earthly things, &c.
The
Jewish Types,
and
Symbols
were also as distinctive marks of God's People, and Church,
whereby they were distinguished from all the world besides, (so the Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Symbol
signifies a distinctive mark, or watch-word) which I suppose made
Pythagoras
the more ready to embrace the like garb, as that, which was of Divine original, and so most honorable: The great Maxim, on which the
Pythagorean,
as well as the
Jewish
Symbols were founded, was this,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Things corporeal are imitates (or images) of spirituals.
That
Pythagoras
received this Symbolic mode of Philosophizing originally from the
Jewish
Church, is farther confirmed by
Serranus,
who on
Plato
's
Symposium
speaks thus:
It was the manner of the Ancient Philosophers to shadow forth the truth by Symbols. These
Plato
followed, as it appears by this disputation. And this mode of Philosophizing was accurately framed by the
Pythagoreans,
the whole of whose Philosophy was couched under the covert of Symbols, and Allegories,
&c.
But more particularly
Serranus
in his Preface to
Plato
's Works, lays down this general assertion,
That it is the opinion of all Learned Christian Antiquity, that this Symbolic manner of Philosophizing came originally from the Jewish Learning, delivered by
Moses,
and the Prophets, though whether immediately, or mediately by the
Egyptians,
is not determined. Clemens Alexander.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. inclines to the latter, namely that
Pythagoras
received his Symbols immediately from the
Egyptians,
though originally from the
Jews.
We have the Testimony of
Grotius
to the same purpose, on
Mat.
7.6. and on
Mat.
8.22.
§. 3. The full proof of our assertion touching the
Traduction
of the
Pythagorean
Symbols from the
Jewish
Church,
depends upon the consideration of particulars, and their parallel with
Jewish
Symbols of like import.
Pythagoras
's Symbols related either to such, as were
aliens
and
strangers
to his school, and Philosophy, or to such, as were
within,
and
Disciples
thereof. As for those, who were without, and Forreiners,
Pythagoras
had many Symbols to express their state, and to prohibit his Disciples conversation with them. For
Pythagoras
esteemed all that were not of his College as profane, wicked, dogs,
&c.
whence
that Symbol,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To give the right hand of fellowship to none but Pythagoreans.
Which Symbol was plainly of
Jewish
extract. For amongst the
Jews,
to give the
right hand
was an ordinary Symbol of Friendship, and Communion, as
Gal.
2.9. therefore they esteeming the
Gentiles
as Profane, and Vnclean, would not salute them with the
right hand of fellowship,
i. e. they would not have Communion or Friendship with them.
Hence also it followed, that the
Pythagoreans
forbad the Revealing of their Mysteries to such Profane Dogs; which also was of
Jewish
extract, as it appears by that
Jewish
Symbol, cited by St.
Mat.
7.6. [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:] where
Grotius
observes,
that amongst the
Chaldeans, Hebrews,
and
Egyptians,
their ancient Professors of Wisdom, delivered their Precepts
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in Symbols,
as
Clemens Alexand.
teacheth us.
Pythagoras
brought this mode into
Greece,
either from
Egypt,
where
he lived some while, or from
Syria,
whence his Master
Pherecydes
was, and as some think
Pythagoras
himself. For that he was a
Tyrrhenian
many have affirmed: others say, he was a
Tyrian.
And indeed the
Tyrrhenians,
as we have said, were originally
Tyrians.
But
moreover he went to the
Jews,
as many writers have reported. Thus
Grotius.
See more of this Symbol,
chap.
6.
parag.
8.
§. 4. But the most livelie Symbol, which
Pythagoras
had to express the Wicked, and Miserable state of profane sinners, was That
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To abstain from things Dead, or Mortal.
By which
Hierocles
says,
Pythagoras called off his Disciples from things dead, or mortal. Iamblichus
also tells us, that
Pythagoras said purity was acquired by abstaining from things that died of themselves.
This Symbol, we need not doubt, was of a
Jewish
origination. For we know the
Jews
in general were forbid to eat the flesh of any creature, that died of itself. And particularly the
High Priests,
and the
Nazarites
were forbid to come near, or touch a dead body, as
Num.
6.6.
Lev.
20. And the proper import of this divine Symbol seems this; That Sacred, and Holy persons, are not to have Conversation, or Communion with persons, or things spiritually deadly, or dead. That it was common amongst the
Jews
to look upon wicked men as dead in sin, is evident from what has been observed from
Luke
15.24. (
chap.
7. §. 13.) Thus also
Philo
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Wicked men are dead in their souls.
And that
Pythagoras
did really traduce his Symbol,
of abstaining from the dead,
from this
Jewish
Symbol is positively affirmed by
Grotius
on
Mat.
8.22. [
Let the dead bury the dead.
] This also, as other Symbols,
Pythagoras
drew from the Oriental Philosophy, who was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an imitator of Jewish opinions,
as
Hermippus
writes of him. For
Pythagoras,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
went to the Hebrews,
as
Malchus
(i. e.
Porphyry
) writes out of
Diogenes.
Whence it was the manner, that such who were expelled out of the
Pythagorean
Schole, had
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a Coffin
made, and placed in their room, which we read was executed on
Hipparchus. Arrianus
in
Epictetum
4.5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
Jewish,
and
Pythagorean
Symbol, of
abstaining from the dead,
we find in the Books of
Chrysippus
thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 5. As
Pythagoras
had Symbols to represent the Spiritual death of Wicked men, and the Duty of his Scholars,
to separate from them. So likewise to represent the strict, and holy communion which ought to be amongst his Collegues, he made use of this lively
Jewish
Symbol
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
set down Salt.
We have already proved that
Pythagoras
traduced this Symbol from the
Jewish
Church, (
chap.
6.
parag.
6.) where it has been shewn, how Salt was by God's institution, a Symbol of their Holy Confederation, and Communion with God, and amongst themselves, as
Numb.
18.19. 2
Chron.
13.5.
&c.
And to make this a little more evident, we must know (according to
L' Empereur
of the
Jewish Temple
) the
Jews
had their
Store-houses
of
Salt
in, or about, the Temple, for the seasoning of their Sacrifices. We find frequent references in the
New Testament
to to this Symbol, as before; and
Luke
14.34.
Lev.
2.13.
And as in God's Sacrifices there was ever
Salt
to be used, so the like was usually observed in Heathen Sacrifices, as appears by that of
Pliny
The great authority of
Salt
is discovered by the Sacreds of the Ancients, amongst whom there were no Sacreds performed without
Salt.
And that Salt was used in those
federal Sacrifices,
as a Symbol of Friendship appears by that Proverbial saying of
Tully, There must be many Bushels of Salt used before there can be a full friendship completed.
To the same purpose is that of the Scholiast on
Homer Iliad.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
because Salt is a Symbol of friendship.
Lastly that this
Pythagorean
Symbol of
Salt
implies farther an
Holy Confederation,
or, according to the scripture Dialect, a
Communion of Saints,
is manifest by
Laertius
's interpretation of this Symbol.
Pythagoras,
says he, bid
men make use of
Salt
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
as a memoire of righteousness,
for
Salt preserves all things.
This was the proper signification of this Symbol of
Salt
in the
Jewish
Church, unto which
Christ
alludes in
Mark
9.49, 50.
Mat.
5.13. and we have sufficient evidence from what has been observed, that
Pythagoras
traduced this his Symbol from the
Jews,
and used it in the same sense that they did; namely to express that holy, and strict
confederation,
and
Friendship,
which ought to be amongst his
Collegues.
§. 6.
Pythagoras
had some
Symbols
relating to his Philosophy in general, especially his
Theology,
it's mystical nature, and difficulty to be understood, without some Interpreter, or Divine light: Such were those Symbols forementioned.
[Discourse not of Pythagorean things without Light.] [Look not into a Glass by Candle light.] [Concerning the God's disbelieve nothing wonderful.]
all which, according to the Interpretation of
Iamblichus,
seems to be of
Jewish
original, as has been observed (
chap.
8. §. 14.)
I shall add only one more, which seems to be the Foundation of all
Pythagoras
's Symbols, according to
Laertius
's interpretation, thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To have Tapestrie always bound up,
i. e. says
Laertius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a man
's
speech
should not be always spoken out,
so as to have the meaning, and form of it fully appear, but like
Tapestrie
when rolled up, the Form, and Figure of it should be concealed.
This
Pythagoras
seems to have learnt from the
Jews,
who rolled up all their mysteries under Symbolic Types, and Figures, as before.
§. 7· As to the Matter of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy, he had many
Ethick
Characters, or Symbols of Moralitie, whereby he excited his Scholars to Virtue, and discouraged them from Vice. Such as these, [
Receive not a Swallow,
(i. e.
a slothful person) into your house.] [Stir not the Fire with a Sword]
i. e. provoke not a wrathful, or potent person. [
Eate not the heart.
] i. e. by distracting cares. [
Passe not over the Ballance.
] i. e. do justice.
Pythagoras
also called Virtue
harmony,
which is a
symbolick image
of its Beauty, Order, Amiablenes,
&c.
as before
chap.
7. §. 13. There were other
Ethick
Symbols, by which
Pythagoras
allured his
Disciples
to the embracing of Virtue, as that, [
Eate not the Brain.
] i. e. says
Iamblichus,
destroy not your principal instrument of Wisdom. Agen, [
Sleep not at noon.
] i. e. (according to
Iamblichus
) Shut not your eyes against the light, when it is most manifest▪ Farther, [
When it Thunders touch the earth.
] i. e. (says
Iamblichus
When a King is angry humble thyself. Agen, [
Pluck not a Crown
] i. e. Offend not the King. Lastly
Pythagoras
said, [
Declining high ways, walk in path ways.
] i. e. (as
Iamblichus
will have it) Leave the popular course of life, and pursue that, which is separate, and divine, answerable to that of
Christ, Mat.
7.13.14. That all these
Pythagorean
Symbols have their parallel in the Scriptures, and
Jewish
Doctrine, might with ease be proved.
§. 8. Yea some make the
Pythagorean Metempsychosis
to be but a Symbolic Image, or
Ethick
Character. Thus
Velcurio
in his Physicks,
lib.
4.
cap.
38.
I would think (says he) that
Pythagoras
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Metempsychosis,
and
Redintegration of the soul,
did belong to the Variable morals, Affections, and Habits of the Soul.
For as a man is variously affected, or moralized, so he acts the part of a Lyon, of a Bear, of a Wolf,
&c.
according to the variety of his conditions. Thus is
Ovid
's
Metamorphosis
referred to Morals. Yea
Plutarch
gave this Interpretation of
Pythagoras
's
Metempsychosis,
and out of him the French
Montaigne Essaies livre
2.
chap.
11.
Pythagoras emprunta la Metempsychose &c.
That is in
English, Pythagoras
borrowed his
Metempsychosis
from the Egyptians, but since it has been received by other Nations, and particularly by our
Druids.
The Religion
of our ancient
Gauls
supposed the Soul to be Immortal, and thence, that it never ceased to move from one body to another. If it had been Valiant, it moved to the body of a Lyon: if it had been Voluptuous, it then creeped into that of a Swine: if Timerous, into that of an Hart,
&c.
And the Interpretation, which
Plutarch
gives to this Error, is very apposite: for he says, that it was not the Cat, or the Ox (for example) that the
Egyptians
adored, but some images of Divine powers which they conceived to lodge in these beasts, as in the Ox they adored
Divine patience,
and
Usefulness,
as in the Cat
vivacitie,
&c.
Thus
Flutarch,
and
Montaigne.
That the
Egyptians
were the first, that taught this Doctrine of
Metempsychosis,
is affirmed by
Herodotus in Enterpe.
Where he adds,
That the
Greeks
(meaning the
Pythagoreans
) first received it from
Egypt,
though they delivered it as their own
dogme
:
So
Vossius de Philos. sect. lib.
2.
cap.
6. §. 3.
That
Pythagoras
took up this
Metempsychosis
only as an
Ethick
Symbol, is the judgment of
John Reuchlin Artis Cabalist. lib.
2. where
he tells us, That
Pythagoras
in affirming that the Soul of a
Timerous
person went into a woman, and of a
Cruel
man into a Lyon, and
of a
Libidinous
man into a Sow, and of a
Vain, Light
person, into a Bird, as of a
Sloathful
person into a Fish,, from their resemblance in manners; he did not speak thus, as if he thought so, but only to affrighten the vulgar sort, by such kind of Fables, from Vice, as we were wont to affright Children by Bugbears.
That the
Egyptians
(from whom
Pythagoras
is said to have received this Symbol) understood their
Metempsychosis
in a Symbolic, Hieroglyphic sense, seems very probable: and that they traduced it originally from the
Jewish
Church, appears as likely. For that the
Pharisees
asserted this
Metempsychosis,
is affirmed by
Josephus de Bello Jud. lib.
2.
cap,
8. And we may presume the
Jews
before them held the same. Yea some, and that not without probable conjectures, make the whole story of
Nebuchadnezzar
's being
Transformed
into a Peast,
&c. Dan.
4.32, 33. to be
Symbolical
of his Brutish life, separate from human society. For that he was not really transformed into a Beast, is most likely. And hence it is supposed, this
Egyptian Pythagorean Metempsychosis
had its original, even from
Nebuchadnezzar
's Symbolical Transformation into a Beast: and that which gives this conjecture the more likelihood;
is that this Transformation of
Nebuchadnezzar
into a Brutish condition was but just before, if not at the very same time, that
Pythagoras
lived at
Babylon.
For whether it were in
Ezekiel
's time, as
Selden,
or in
Daniel
's time, as
Wendelin
(of
Pythagoras
's
Tetractie
) that
Pythagoras
was in
Babylon,
yet it could not be long after this
Metamorphosis,
or, as we may truly style it,
Metempsychosis
of
Nebuchadnezzar's.
Neither can we imagine that
Pythagoras,
who was so curious an Inquisitor into all the works of Divine Providence, should let pass this stupendous, and amazing Providence of God on
Nebuchadnezzar
(which made all the Empire ring of it) without observation. Why therefore may we not conclude, that both
Pythagoras,
and the
Egyptians
derived their Symbolical
Metempsychosis
from this
Metempsychosis,
or Transmigration of
Nebuchadnezzar
into the Symbolic Form of a Beast. Or, if we had rather, we may suppose
Pythagoras
's
Metempsychosis
to be a Symbolic image of the Souls Divine Original, and Infusion into the body by God, as also of it's Separation by death, Reunion at the Resurrection,
and immortal estate: so
Plato, Serr
•
nus,
and
Reuchlin
seem to incline, as before,
chap.
8.
parag.
13.
§. 9. We have also good conjectures to persuade us, that
Pythagoras
's precepts touching
Abstinence
from Flesh were muchly Symbolical,
and that his followers did not abstain from all kinds, or all parts of Flesh, but only from such as were of Sacred use, or of Symbolical signification, answerable to the
Jewish
Abstinences. For first, That
Pythagoras
himself abstained not wholly from Flesh, we have for it the Testimony of
Aristoxenus
the
Musician,
Disciple of
Aristotle,
quoted by
Gellius lib.
4.
cap.
11.
That
Pythagoras
(says he) did eat of young Pigges, and tender Goats is affirmed by
Aristoxenus,
which he seems to have learnt from
Xenophilus
the
Pythagorean,
his familiar, and from some others more ancient, who lived not much distant from
Pythagoras.
And that
Pythagoras
ate of Animals,
Alexis
the Poet teacheth in the
Comedy
of
Pythagoras
's Life.
Thus
Gellius,
who, in what follows, relates, that
Aristotle
affirms, the
Pythagoreans
abstained not from all Flesh, but only from some parts, namely the Heart, Brain,
&c.
which were of Symbolic use. And
Porphyry
in his first Book of
Abstinence
from
Animals,
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
They say, that the
Pythagoreans
themselves abstained not from all Flesh, when they sacrificed.
So
Athenaeus lib.
7. says, That the
Pythagoreans
eat but moderately of some flesh, and some they sacrifice, but of Fishes they taste not,
&c.
and he gives a Symbolic reason why they eat not of Fishes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
For silence, which they esteem as Divine. Diogenes Laertius
gives the like Symbolic account of their abstaining from Fishes. And we need not doubt, but that the main of their Symbolic Abstinences from Flesh, and Fish, had it's original from the
Jewish
Symbolic Abstinences from things unclean,
&c.
Though we may not deny, but that
Pythagoras,
and his Followers were very abstemious as to Flesh, upon a Medicinal, and Natural account, thereby to keep their mind, & body, in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a good Habitude, and disposition of Health, as before.
§. 10.
The like Symbolic account some give of
Pythagoras
's precept for Abstinence from
Beans
; the which we find mentioned in
Clemens Alexandrinus, lib.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. in this verse
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
It is an equal crime to eat a Bean, as to eat the heads of Parents.
This
Lucian
brings in
Pythagoras
asserting in Hell, and
Chrysostom
in his 1.
Homil.
on the Gospel of St.
John,
attributes the same to
Pythagoras. Gellius, lib.
4.
chap.
11. cites a Verse, which is supposed to be one of
Empedocles
's (who was a
Pythagorean,
and Auditor of
Pythagoras
) to the same purpose
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
O ye miserable wretches touch not Beanes with your hand.
Yet some think this
Pythagorean
prohibition against eating Beans, ought to be understood Symbollically, and Enigmatically only; in as much, as some of great authority affirm, that
Pythagoras
himself abstained not from Beans. Thus
Aristoxenus
the Musician in his Book of
Pythagoras,
as
Gellius lib.
4.
cap.
11. and
Voss. de Philos.
l. 2. c. 6. §. 39. Others by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
understand the Testicles, and so by
Pythagoras
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, conceive the illicite use of Venerie to be forbid; as
Hornius Hist. Philos.
l. 7. c. 12. 'It is possible it was both Physical, and Symbolical, as the former of these.
§. 11. As
Pythagoras
had many
Ethick Symbols
to express his
moral
Precepts by; so also his
Theologick Mysteries
were in a more particular manner couched under, and expressed by
Enigmatick, Symbolic Images,
especially by Numbers, and Figures, which, as he conceited, had an Analogy, and consent with all things: Whence he expressed
Apollo
by
Unity, Diana
by the number
Two, Minerva
by the number
Seven
; and
Plato
in his
Timaeus
seems to imitate him. That
Pythagoras
expressed God by Unity, appears by that of
Laertius,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Unity is the Principle of all things.
Whence the
Pythagoreans
accounted the number of
Two
accursed, because it was the first departure from
Unity.
And the reason why
Pythagoras
expressed
God
by
Unity,
is given us by
Reuchlin (Art. Cabal.
lib. 2.) thus,
The Divine mind, the receptacle of Principles,
Pythagoras
Symbollically calls
Number,
saying,
Number is the principle of all things.
So
Plutarch, de Philosoph. Placit.
By Number
Pythagoras
understands the mind; a very proper
Symbol
: for in Incorporeals nothing more Divine, than the mind; in Abstractions, number is most simple: thus he.
All this was couched under that great
Pythagorean
Maxim,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
one and many
; of which before.
§. 12. The
Symbols,
whereby
Pythagoras
expressed that
Spiritual Divine
Worship due to God, were such as these [
Grave not the Image of God in a Ring] i. e.
worship not graven Images. Agen, [
When you go to the Temple-worship, neither do, nor say anything concerning this life.] i. e.
let not the world mix with your hearts,
&c.
of which see
Chap.
8. §. 10. And more particularly that great
Pythagorean Symbol,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, [
Sacrifice, and Worship bare-foot
] which was but an imitation of the
Jewish
Custom of
Discalceation,
when they went to
worship
; as
Mede
on
Eccles.
5.1. or else 'tis possible
Pythagoras
might derive this Symbol immediately from God's command to
Moses
Exod. 3.5.
Put off thy shoes from off thy feet,
&c. For
Pythagoras
(as we have before observed,
Chap.
5. §. 8.) having acquired the
Egyptian,
and as we may presume the
Chaldean
Languages, was thereby enabled not only to converse with the
Jews,
but also to read the sacred
Scriptures
in their
Original,
the
Egyptian,
and
Chaldean
Tongues differing only in some
Dialect
from the
Hebrew.
And this may serve us as a Key to this whole Discourse touching
Pythagoras
's traduction of his
Philosophy,
both
Matter,
and
Form
from the
Scriptures,
and
Jewish
Church: Namely, his skill in the Oriental Languages, especially the
Egyptian,
and
Chaldee,
which gave him an huge advantage for his more thorough searching into the
Sacred Oracles,
and
Jewish Doctrines.
§. 13. Having discoursed of
Pythagoras
's
Philosophy,
both as to
Matter,
and
Form,
its traduction from the
Jewish
Church: before we shut up this Chapter, we shall a little touch on his
Works,
and
Disciples,
which gave foundation to most of the following
Sects,
and their
Philosophy.
Touching
Pythagoras
's
Works,
it is a great controversy amongst the Learned, whether
Pythagoras
left anything in Writing.
Laertius
makes mention of three Pieces of
Pythagoras
: his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Heraclides
in
Sotion
's
Epitome,
attributes more to
Pythagoras,
as
Laertius
affirms, who also upbraids those, as Fools, who think that
Pythagoras
left no Works behind him, whom he confutes out of
Heraclitus
the
Physiologist,
who quotes some things out of
Pythagoras
's Works. Yet
Augustine
(lib. 1.
De Consensu Evangelist. cap.
7.) denies that
Pythagoras
left any
Writing
behind him.
Cedrenus
makes mention of an
History
compiled by
Pythagoras,
touching the War betwixt
Cyrus,
and the
Samians
his Country-men, but this is rejected by
Vossius, de Histor. Graec. l.
4. As for the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Golden Verses
which pass under
Pythagoras
's name,
Laertius
assures us, that they were not made by him, but by
Lysis
the
Pythagorean.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
As for the Golden Verses which pass under the name of
Pythagoras,
they are
Lysis
's a
Pythagorean
of
Tarantum.
This also is affirmed by
others.
We have an excellent Comment on these Golden Verses of
Lysis,
by
Hierocles,
who though a
Stoic,
yet exactly expresseth the mind of the
Pythagoreans.
That
Pythagoras
indeed left nothing in Writing behind him, is also asserted by
Lucian,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Divine
Pythagoras
vouchsafed not to leave behind him any part of his Doctrine in Writing.
So
Josephus, lib.
2.
Ant.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. There is no
Writing
of
Pythagoras
owned; of which see
Vossius, de Histor. Graec. lib.
4.
pag.
435. As for
Pythagoras
's Symbols, which contained the choicest part of his
Philosophy,
there have been Collections, with Interpretations made of them by many; particularly by
Laertius
in his Life; by
Iamblichus
; by
Plutarch
; and amongst
Modern Writers,
by
Erasmus
in the beginning of his
Chiliads
; especially by
Lilius Gyraldus,
who has written an accurate Treatise of
Pythagoras
's Symbols. Touching
Pythagoras
's Philosophy,
Eusebius
on
Hierocles
tells us,
that
Philolaus
had committed his chiefest Dogmas to Writing.
'It is said also, that
Aristotle, Androcydes, Antiphanes, Alexander, Didymus,
and
Mederatus Gaditanus,
writ professedly of
Pythagoras
's Philosophy: but the most that we have now extant of it, is in the Historiographers of
Pythagoras
's Life,
Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry,
and
Iamblichus,
besides what is mentioned by
Cicero,
and
Plutarch.
That
Aristotle
writ a Book,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; as also another,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, is affirmed by
Laertius. Porphyry,
in the Life of
Plotinus,
tells us, that
Plotinus
did more clearly explicate the Principles of the
Pythagorick
Philosophy, as well as of the
Platonic.
Of which see more,
Vossius de Philos.
l. 2. c. 6. §. 12, 44.
§. 14. As for
Pythagoras
's Schole, and Disciples, there succeeded him,
Theano
his Wife, and
Telauges
with
Menaxarchus,
his Sons, as
Euseb. lib.
10.
praepar. cap.
3. There flourished of his Disciples,
Ocellus, Architas, Philolaus, Parmenides. Ocellus
was the glory of
Italy
: whose Book,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, full of ancient mysterious erudition, is yet extant: out of which
Aristotle
borrowed not a little.
Architas
the
Tarentine
was also one of the most ancient Philosophers of
Italy.
'Twas he, who by Mechanic Art, made the volatile or sling
wooden Dove,
as
Gellius, lib.
10.
cap.
12.
Parmenides
is said to spend 18 whole years in a Rock, feeding his mind with Logic Contemplations. As for
Philolaus,
of what great repute he was, is evident by the esteem
Plato
had of him, who purchased his Books at 10000
Denaries
; as
Gellius,
lib. 10. c. 17.
Diogenes
saith, that his College continued for nineteen Generations. Yet
Moderatus Gaditanus
saith,
that the
Pythagorick
Sect was extinguished for the obscurity of their Philosophy.
Justin. lib.
20. tells us,
that 300
Pythagoreans
being under a strict Confederation, and Separate Life, were accused of a secret
Conjuration against the City, and thence, when they were met in their College, 60 of them were destroyed, and the rest banished.
Porphyry,
and
Iamblichus
mention the same, & say, that there sled only two,
Archippus,
and
Lysis
the Preceptor of
Epaminondas.
And
Iamblichus
adds,
that when the Innocence of the
Pythagoreans
appeared to others of the City, they stoned those who destroyed the
Pythagoreans.
We find both these reasons joined together by
Carion,
in his
Chronicon, l.
2.
The
Italic
Philosophy, says he, being obscure, and full of
Enigmes,
and the
Pythagoreans
having their private Meetings, and peculiar Rites, they were destroyed upon suspicion of the Tyrants,
&c.
§. 15. Although
Pythagoras
left nothing in Writing behind him,
yet what his Philosophy was, may be gathered by those of his Sect, who followed, of whom we have many things extant. As
Hippodamus
the
Thurian
his Tract of
Felicitie. Euryphamus
of
Life. Hipparchus
of the
mind's Tranquilitie. Archytas
of a
good Man,
and of the
Doctrine of Moralitie. Theagis
of
Virtues. Clinias
of the
causes
of
Virtue. Crito
of
Prudence,
and
Felicitie
: with
Polus
of
Justice.
Besides, we have
Lysis
's Golden Verses, who sling to
Thebes,
was Preceptor to
Epaminondas
the most famous of his Age. We must reckon also amongst the
Pythagoreans, Epicarmus,
otherwise
Cous,
who for his repute amongst the Philosophers, was esteemed as the Sun amongst the Stars. He writ of
Being,
of
Ideas,
and of
the nature of Things.
Also
Timaeus
the
Locrian
was a
Pythagorean,
who writ a Book of the
Universe,
of
Ideas,
&c. as
Lud. Viv. in Aug. l.
8.
cap.
11. We may add to these the two great
Law-givers, Zaleuchus
who gave Laws to the
Locrians
; and
Charondas
to the
Thurians
: both
Pythagoreans.
Lastly,
Sextus
the
Pythagorick
Philosopher, who writ an
Enchiridion
of Sentences, which
Ruffinus
translated into Latin.
§. 16. There were other Philosophers, who did very much
Pythagorize,
although they were not altogether
Pythagoreans.
Of this number was
Parmenides
of the
Eleatick
Sect, who did
Pythagorize
in the Doctrine of
Ideas,
for which he was so eminent, though some make
Parmenides
a more complete
Pythagorean,
as before §. 14. Also
Empeodocles
the
Agrigentine
Disciple of
Pythagoras,
and
Parmenides
wh
•
Symbolized with
Pythagoras
in the Doctrine of the
Metempsychosis,
the prohibition of Beans,
&c.
and is by
Laertius
supposed to be the first Inventor of
Rhetoric.
But amongst the differing Sects, there
was none that did
Pythagorize
more then
Plato,
especially in
Divine matters,
as
Aristotle,
and
Laertius
have observed. Yea the choicest of his
Metaphysick Contemplations
seem to be traduced from
Pythagoras,
and his Followers; besides what he brought out of
Egypt. Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
his
Ideas,
his Discourse of the
Universe,
his
Metempsychosis,
and
Daemons,
were all asserted by the
Pythagoreans.
Yea many of the
Hellenistick Jews
did greatly
Pythagorize,
as
Philo Judaeus
the
Alexandrine,
who (saith
Euseb. Hist. l.
2.
c.
4.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, greatly burning with love of
Platonic,
and
Pythagorick
Philosophy,
&c.
§, 17. Lastly, Albeit the
Pythagoreans
were thus famous for
Judaic mysterious
Wisdom, and many Moral, as well as Natural Accomplishments, yet were they not exempted from Boasting, and Pride, which was indeed a Vice most
Epidemick,
and as it were Congenial among all the Philosophers; but in a more particular manner among the
Pythagoreans
: so
Hornius, Hist. Philos. l.
3.
c.
11.
The manners of the
Pythagoreans
were not free from boasting: They were all
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, such as abounded in the sense and commendation of their own Excellences, and boasting even almost to the degree of immodestie, and impudence, as great
Heinsius ad Horat.
has rightly observed.
Thus indeed does proud Nature delight
to walk in the sparks of its own fire.
And although many of these old Philosophers, could, by the strength of their own Lights, and Heats, together with some common elevations, and raisures of Spirit (peradventure from a more than ordinary, though not special, and saving assistance of the
Spirit
) abandon many grosser Vices; yet were they all deeply immersed in that miserable cursed Abyss of
Spiritual pride
; so that all their Natural, Moral, and Philosophic Attainments, did feed, nourish, strengthen, and render more inveterate this hell-bred pest of their Hearts: Yea, those of them that seemed most modest, as the
Academics,
who
professed they knew nothing
; and the
Cynics
who greatly decried, both in words, and habits, the pride of others, yet even these abounded with notorious, and visible pride. So connatural, and morally essential to corrupt Nature is this envenomed root, fountain, and plague of Spiritual pride, especially where there is any Natural, Moral, or Philosophic Excellence to feed the same: whence
Austin
rightly judged all these Philosophic
Virtues
to be but
splendid Sins.
CHAP. X. Of the Elatick Philosophy,
&c.
Of the
Eleatick
Sect, and its first Institutor
Xenophanes.
Of
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
the first Inventor of Logic.
Leucippus
his Dogmas of Atoms, and
Democritus
's emproving the same.
Democritus
's skill in Physicks, Medicine, Ethics, Mathematics, and all the Liberal Sciences, with Mechanic Arts. His Travels, and Conversation with
Egyptians, Chaldees, Jews,
&c. Of the
Heraclitians, Epicureans,
and
Skeptics.
§. 1. THe
Pythagorick Sect,
termed
Italic,
included under it the
Eleatick,
the
Heraclitian,
the
Epicurean,
and the
Sceptic.
The
Eleatick
Sect had for its first Founder
Xenophanes
the
Colophonian
;
but its denomination, and name, it had from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Elea,
or
Velia,
a Town of the
Lucans
in
Magna Greece,
of which
Parmenides, Zeno,
and
Leucippus
were; who being eminent persons of this Sect, from them the Sect itself was termed
Eleatick.
Thus
Cicero, lib.
4.
Acad. Qu
•
st.
I find that
Xenophanes
was the Prince of this Noble Discipline: him
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
followed; from them this Sect was termed
Eleatick, &c.
§. 2.
Xenophanes
lived about the time of
Hieron
King of
Sicily,
and of
Epicharmus
the Poet; namely, about the LX
Olympiad.
Some affirm, that he had no
Praeceptor
; others say, he heard
Boto
the
Athenian,
or
Archelaus
the Master of
Socrates
: or as others,
Parmeniscus,
and
Orestades, Pythagoreans.
He approved not fully of the
Ionick,
or
Italic
Sect, but delivered many
Dogmas
contrary both to
Thales,
and
Pythagoras
: Yet his Disciples
Parmenides,
and
Zeno,
did in many things
Pythagorize,
and the whole Sect is reckoned but a Branch of the
Italic,
or
Pythagorick
Sect.
Xenophanes
writ his Philosophy in Verse; yet was he a professed Enemy to the
Mythologic
Philosophy of the Poets. For he writ against
Homer,
and
Hesiod,
and derided them for uttering such Fables of the God's. He held, First, all things to be incomprehensible, wherein he agreed with the
Skeptics.
Secondly, That God is
one, Incorporeal, Eternal Being,
having nothing common
with Men, yet
all-seeing, all-hearing, all-wise,
&c. Thirdly, He held also the Soul to be of a
Spiritual
Nature. Fourthly, That the
Sun
consists of a collection of little Fires,
&c.
see more of his
Dogmas
in
Sextus
the Philosopher, and
Athenaeus.
§. 3.
Parmenides
was the Disciple of
Xenophanes,
who yet differed from his Master in some things; and in many things
Pythagorized.
For he held only two Elements,
Fire,
and
Earth,
whereof the former he made to be the
Active,
the latter the
Passive,
or
Material
principle of all things. By the Fire
Vossius
supposes he meant the
Sun,
and
Stars,
which have an Active Influence on all Generations, wherein he symbolized with the
Pythagoreans,
who held Fire to be the active, productive cause of all things; and that the Sun and Stars were of a
Fierie Nature,
as before,
chap.
7. §. 10.
Parmenides
asserted also, that the
first Principle
of all things is
One,
and that this
One
is
immovable,
and that this
One
is
all
: which assertion was the foundation of all his
Dogmas
concerning
Ideas,
for which he was so famous: the sum whereof was this,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that
all is one,
and
many
: which Principles, and Opinions were evidently
Pythagorean,
and originally
Scriptural
; as before,
chap.
8. §. 7. That
Parmenides
by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
one,
meant
God,
is affirmed by
Simplicius,
and others, as
Lud. Viv. in Aug. Civ. l.
8. c. 11. His
Philosophy
was delivered in Verse, yet not
Mythick, &c.
§. 4.
Zeno
the
Eleatick
was Disciple of
Parmenides,
but originally of
Tarsis,
or according to others of
Sidon,
as
Soudas
: whence we may presume, he could not but have some Traditions or Notices of the
Jewish Mysteries.
This
Zeno
is said to be the first that Invented
Logic:
So
Aristotle
in
Sophista,
and
Laertius
in
Zeno
the
Eleatick
; so
Galen,
or
Aëtius
in his Book
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Zeno
the
Eleatick
is reported to be the first Author of Contentions, or
Dialectick Philosophy
:
Yet others make
Euclid
the
Megarick,
(Scholar to
Socrates,
and first Institutor of the
Megarick
Sect) to be the Author of
Eristick,
or
Dialectick
Philosophy: But the Reconcilement is easy. For although
Parmenides,
and his Scholar
Zeno
the
Eleatick,
were the first who brought up
Dialectick,
or
Logic
Disputations; yet
Euclid,
who (as
Diogenes
reports) was much versed in
Parmenides
's Books, might much improve the same, and commend it to those of his Sect: so
Voss. de Phil. l.
2.
c.
11.
Parag.
3.
§. 5. Next follows
Leucippus
Disciple of
Zeno
the
Eleatick,
whom some make to be an
Eleatick,
others a
Milesian,
others an
Abderite.
He is said to be the first amongst the
Grecians,
that asserted
Atoms to be the first principles of all things.
So
Laertius
in
Leucippus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Leucippus
first laid down Atoms as the Principles,
&c. where
Laertius
more fully explains this Doctrine. Thus also
Galen,
or
Aëtius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, having spoken of
Zeno
the
Eleatick,
adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Of this man
Leucippus
the
Abderite
being hearer, first conceived the Invention of
Atoms. Clemens Alexandrinus
calls him a
Milesian,
and says, that he placed, as first Principles,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Epiphanes,
says he, was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Lactantius lib.
3.
Institut.
makes him
the first that dreamt of
Atoms,
from whom
Democritus
received them, as
Epicurus
from him.
Yet
Aristotle, lib.
1.
de Generat.
says, that
Empedocles
(Disciple of
Pythagoras,
and
Parmenides
) held the same Opinion of
Atoms.
The same is affirmed by
Plutarch. de Placit. Phil. l.
1.
c.
24.
Laertius
also tells us, that
Anaxagoras
asserted the same. And 'tis probable that
Pythagoras,
and
Parmenides (Empedocles
's Preceptors) held
Atoms
to be the first Principles: which
Dogmas
they received (as we may presume) from
Mochus
the great
Phoenician
Phisiologist, who was the first among the
Pagan
Philosophers, that asserted this Doctrine of
Atoms,
which he received by Tradition from
Moses
's story of the Creation, as before,
Book
1.
chap.
3.
parag.
18.
§. 6.
Democritus
the
Abderite
(as to
Physicks
) Disciple of
Lencippus,
followed him in this Doctrine of
Atoms
: for he held, there was an infinity of
Atoms
scattered up, and down the
Vacuum
(which the
Phoenicians
called
Chaos
) which being coagmentated, or semented together, were the
material
Principle of all
Bodies,
yea of the
human Soul
; and that all Motion was caused by these
Atoms
: to which he ascribed three
Properties.
First,
Magnitude,
though the least, yet some. Secondly,
Figure,
which was various, and infinite. Thirdly,
Pondus,
or
impetus,
which caused their swift Motion,
Lud. Vives in August. Civit. l.
11.
c.
5. gives this account of these
Dogmas.
Democritus,
says he, affirmed,
that the first Principles of Nature were little Bodies flying up, and down through the immense
Vacuum,
which had
Figure,
and
Magnitude,
yet were indivisible; wherefore he called them
Atoms,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Epicurus
followed him, who added to
them
Pondus, weight
(or
impetus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) Thus these small individuous Bodies, being endowed with various
Figures,
or
Forms, Magnitudes,
&
Pondus
's extremely divers, as also by a
fortuitous
agitation tossed up & down through the immense
Vacuum,
were by various chances mixed together, and coagmentated into infinite
Worlds,
produced, increased, and destroyed, without any certain
Cause,
or
Counsel.
Thus
Lud. Vives.
Of which more hereafter in
Epicurus.
§. 7.
Democritus
writ also, according to
Soudas,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of the
greater World
its Government,
&c.
(but this Piece
Theophrastus
ascribes to
Leucippus
) Likewise
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a Tract of the
nature of the World. Laertius
adds, amongst the genuine Works of
Democritus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, his
little Government of the World.
He had an excellent skill in the
Experimental
part of
Natural
Philosophy.
Plin. lib.
21.
c.
11. says, he left behind him many things of
Plants. Petronius Arbiter,
says of him,
That he drew forth the Juices of all Herbs; neither was the virtue of Stones hid from him.
That he was an excellent
Anatomist,
appears by
Hippocrates
's Character of him, who being sent for by
Democritus
's Friends to cure him of a Frenetick Distemper, which they fancied him, by reason of his continual Smiling, to labor under:
Hippocrates
found him busied in the Anatomizing of
Animals,
and skillful therein, so that ever after they contracted an intimate Friendship, and correspondence by Letters.
Democritus
was exactly skilled in
Medicine
also, wherein he writ
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an order for
Diet,
and
Cures.
For which skill
Democritus
is greatly extolled by
Celsus, lib.
2.
cap.
5. what his opinions were see
Laertius, Sextus Empericus,
but principally
Stobaeus
in his
Physicks.
§. 8.
Democritus
was in like manner skilled in
Ethics
; wherein he made the end of human life to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Tranquillitie,
which he called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good, perpetual state of things,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, See
Hesychius,
and
Soudas
in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, yea
Democritus
seems to be well skilled in the whole
Encyclopaedia,
or body of Philosophy.
Laertius
says, he was accounted in Philosophy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as having joined together,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Physicks, Ethics, Mathematics,
the
Circle
of the
Liberal Sciences,
& all
Mechanics.
He was a great Traveler in the
Oriental parts
; He went to
Babylon,
and there conversed with the
Chaldeans
(and as it's likely, also with the
Jews,
who were called
Chaldeans
) as
Aelian. Uar. Hist. lib.
4.
c.
20. from whom he learned
Theology,
and
Astrology.
He is said to have written a book
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of the
sacred letters
in
Babylon
(perhaps from
Jewish
traditions) and another called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Laertius.
He was also in
Egypt,
whence he had his
Geometry,
and as we may suppose, many
Jewish
traditions also, especially concerning
Solomon
's experimental Philosophy, wherein
Democritus
excelled. He flourished about the LXXV.
Olympiad
; and was contemporarie with
Socrates.
§. 9. There were other branches of the
Italic,
or
Pythagorick Sect
; as the
Heraclitian
instituted by
Heraclitus
an
Ephesian,
a person of a great spirit, who flourished about the 69
Olympiad,
and was famous for his skill in Natural Philosophy, from whom
Plato
is said to have derived his Physicks. He in some things
Pythagorized,
especially in that great
Pythagorean
Principle,
That Fire is the Principle of all things.
They reckon also as branches of the
Pythagorick
Sect, the
Epicurean,
which sprang immediately from the
Eleatick
: and so originally from the
Italic
: as likewise the
Sceptic,
which had its foundation in the
Eleatick
Schole from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
contentious dialectick disputations of Parmenides,
and
Zeno,
which were taken up, in the old
Academie,
instituted by
Plato,
and called therein
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Probationarie,
or
Problematick Disputations
; wherein the Matter being only things
dubious,
they disputed
pro,
and
con.
as they listed. Which way of
dubious
Disputation, was so well improved in the
New Academies,
and by
Pyrrho,
and his followers, as that they came to deny that anything was certain, or knowable; whence they are called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. But of these in their places.
BOOK III. Wherein more briefly of
Socratick,
more largely of
Platonic
Philosophy.
CHAP. I. Of
Socratick
Philosophy, its Original, &c.
Socrates
brought in Moral Philosophy, and why: His Metaphysics from the Scriptures,
viz.
That Uirtue and Knowledge of God comes by Divine infusion: His Daemon, &c.
Socrates
's Philosophy how far Contemplative: All true Philosophy Active: His Moralitie, particularly his endeavors to strip men of vain conceits touching their own knowledge, & to reduce them to the Knowledge of themselves. The Form of
Socrates's
Philosophy was partly Rhetorical by Irony, partly Dialectical, by Introduction, and Interrogation, according to the
Jewish
mode of Disputing,
Mark. 8.11. Luk. 11.53. Socrates
's Death, and Character: the many Sects, that sprang from his Schole, and their differences about the chiefest Good, &c.
§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of the
Italic
Philosophy founded by
Pythagoras,
and its
•
raduction from the Divine Oracles: We now return to the
Ionick,
and its Advances under
Socrates,
and by his Scholars,
Plato, &c.
We have afore in the Story of
Thales,
shewn how he, who was the Founder of the
Ionick
Sect, traduced the Choicest parts of his Philosophy from the
Jewish
Church. We are now to demonstrate, what emprovment the
Ionick
Philosophy received from the said
Jewish
Philosophy, and Sacred Oracles. The
Ionick
Schole (as we before
hinted) was Transplanted from
Ionia
in
Asia,
unto
Athens
by
Anaxagoras.
as
Vossius
will have it; or by his Successor
Archelaus,
as
Ludovicus Vives. Socrates
was Scholar to both: First to
Anaxagoras,
and after his departure from
Athens
to
Archelaus,
who was called the
Physiologist,
or
Naturalist,
because he (as all his Predecessors of the
Ionick
Schole) wholly addicted himself to Natural Philosophy.
§. 2. But
Socrates,
being disgusted at the vain Ph
•
losophizings of these proud daring Naturalists, considers how he might reduce Philosophy to a more Practical usage. For observing what small advantage Contemplative Philosophy brought to Human Life, he reduced her to a more Active Science; and so pared off in every Science what he conceived less useful,,
valuing Speculation no farther, than it conduced to Action. Thus
Cicero Acad. Quaest.
1.
Socrates
(says he) seems to me, as it is manifest to all, to be the First, that called off Philosophy from occult things, and such as were involved, in Nature, in which all the foregoing Philosophers were Versed, and to reduce her to common Life, that so men might inquire about Virtue, and Vice, and altogether of things Good, and Evil. As for
Celestial
bodies, he judged them altogether above the knowledge of Nature, or if they might be never so well known, yet did they no way conduce to our well living.
Thus
Cicero.
We find the like account in
August. Civit. Dei lib.
8.
cap.
3. Of
Socrates
's Philosophy.
Socrates
(says he) therefore was the first, who is mentioned to have turned the whole of Philosophy, for the correcting, and composing of manners: whereas before him all employed their chiefest endeavors in Physicks,
i. e.
in natural Enquiries.
Thus we see, that
Socrates
was the first, who rejecting
Astronomical,
and
Physic Contemplations,
brought in
Moral Philosophy
into the Schools: whence he is said to call down Philosophy from Heaven to Earth.
§. 3.
August.
also (
de Civ. l.
8.
c.
3.) enquires into the reasons, which might induce
Socrates
to reject the Speculative Disquisitions, which were then most in vogue, and to turn his Philosophizing wholly to Moralitie.
And he concludes that 'tis not clear, whether it proceeded
from an irksome sense he had of the obscurity, and uncertainty, which attended such Natural Philosophizings: or (as some more favourably judge) whether it were, that he judged men not fit to meddle with such sublime Mysteries, before they had gotten minds
purified, and clarified from terrene affections,
&c.
So
Lactant. lib.
3.
I grant (says he) that
Socrates
was a little more discreet than the rest, who fancied, they could comprehend the Nature of things by their Ingenie, wherein I conceive them to be not only foolish, but impious, in that they dare thurst in their curious eyes into the secrets of that
Celestial Providence
: yea I count them much more wicked, who seek to profane the secrets of the World, and this Heavenly Temple, by their impious disputes, than he that would endeavor to enter into the Temple of
Vesta,
or
Ceres, &c.
Put the genuine account seems this; that
Socrates
having inquired into all kinds of Philosophy then in vogue, he found little of certainty, and less of usefulnes therein; whereupon he made it his design to reduce
speculation
to
practice, &c.
The like inducement drew
Padre Paul
that
Venetian
Reformer to quit
speculative
Philosophy, and turn to
Moralitie,
as it's well observed by the Author of his Life
(English, pag. 69.)
About that time (says he) Father
Paul
changed the quality of his studies (excepting
Ecclesiastical,
and
Profane Stories
) to the study of
Moral
Philosophy. Peradventure that which is written of
Socrates
is no singular, or voluntary Act, but is, as it were natural to all those understandings, which have anything of transendent, who, after they have made a discovery of what they can arrive to upon
Universalities,
transport themselves totally to
Moralitie
; which study (as to inferior things) is the only
speculation
of Humanity. This ariseth either from a desire more intense to better itself, or from some incomprehensibilitie, or from a solid judgment of the vanity of Sciences,
&c.
§. 4. Though
Socrates
addicted himself chiefly to
Moralitie,
yet was he not without skill in other parts of Philosophy, and Learning.
Plato
in his Epistles Attributes some parts of Natural Philosophy to
Socrates.
Xenephon
his Scholar (as also
Cicero
) affirms,
that he was excellent in all kind of Learning, as well in Wisdom, Acutenes,
Politenes, and Subtlety; as in
•
loquence, Varietie, and Copiousnes: to whatsoever piece of Learning he addicted himself; he was without exception Prince of all.
So much also is expressed in that answer, which the
Oracle
made to him, who inquired who was the wisest m
•
n?
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Of all men
Socrates
is the wisest,
said the Oracle. He made man the entire subject of his
Philosophy. For, according to the twofold
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or regard of man, 1. To
Divine Contemplation,
or, 2. To
Human Conversation,
he divided his Philosophy into Metaphysick or Contemplative, and Moral or Active.
1. As to his Metaphysics, or Divine Contemplations, he took it for granted, whilst man was subject to, and under the impression of
corporeal
Images,
sensible
Forms, and
terrene
Affections, he was not rightly disposed for
Divine Contemplation,
which required a mind defecated, and separated from
corporeal
Phantasms, and Passions. This some give as the reason, why in his Philosophic Institutes he so much addicted himself to
morality
; because he found his Scholars not capable of those more sublime Metaphysick Contemplations, therefore he endeavored to prepare them for the same by
Moral Institutes.
This he made the chief subject of his last Philosophic Lecture to his Scholars, after he had taken his
Poison,
immediately before his Death, as we find it related at large by
Plato
in his
Phaedo
; where he gives us
Socrates
's Dying Philosophizings
touching the souls immortality, and separate state; and particularly, that none could rightly Philosophize of these Divine Mysteries, but such as had their souls stripped of, & abstracted from all Corporeal images, impresses, and affections: for 'till the soul was loose from the prison of the body it could not be free for the Contemplation of God
&c.
Whence he defines Philosophy
a mediation of death
i. e. of the separation of the soul and body, in which state the soul being purged from those corporeal dregs, by which it was contaminated, whilst confined to the body, it is rendered capable of contemplating God, and Divine things. For (says he) it is great impiety to suppose that the Most Pure Divine Truth, and Being, will be touched by an impure mind. Thence he judged, that the Friends of God knew more of him, and his Divine Mysteries, than impure souls, who followed not God.
And
Plato
in his
Cratylus
brings him in affirming, that only
Good
men were
Wise,
and skillful in Divine Mysteries,
&c.
So
August. de civit. Dei l.
8.
c.
3. giving a reason, why
Socrates
Philosophized so much on Moralitie, he says,
Socrates
would not, that minds clogged with terrene passions, should extend themselves to contemplate Divine things, which he conceived could not be comprehended but by a refined judgment: and therefore he thought men should be very intent on getting a reformed Life, that the mind being exonerated of its depressing Lusts, might by a natural
vigor, lift up itself to Eternals, and by that purity of
Intelligence
contemplate the Nature of that Eternal, Incommutable Light, where the causes of all created Natures live in stability,
&c.
Thus
August.
Whereby we are informed, why
Socrates
was so sparing in communicating his Divine Contemplations to his Scholars: though it seems to me very evident by what I find ascribed to him by
Plato,
that of all the
Grecian
Philosophers (
Pythagoras
not excepted)
Scocrates
had as (if not more) clear Notions as any touching God, his
Nature, Unity,
and other sacred Mysteries, which he could never have attained unto, but by some borrowed Tradition originally
Jewish,
or
Scriptural.
Particularly
Socrates
asserted. 1. The Spiritual, Infinite, Eternal Nature of God, and his
Unity,
which was the great
Article,
for which he suffered a kind of Martyrdom. 2. The cor
•
uption of Human Nature, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
3. A Native blindness, in which all men were inveloped
&c.
4. That Virtue was not teachable, and acquitable by
Nature,
or
Art,
but the product of
Divine
inspiration.
Thus
Plato
in
Meno. fol.
89. brings in
Socrates
thus discoursing
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
Having therefore often sought if there were any
Praeceptors
of Virtue, after all my endeavors I could find none:
so,
fol.
99.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is neither teachable, neither gained by science.
Then he brings in
Socrates
concluding more positively, thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue then is neither from Nature, nor Teachable; but it comes by a divine inspiration, without the concurrence of human understanding in those to whom it is communicated, &c.
Thus
Plato.
Yea he adds (in the same
fol.
99.)
That God useth the most unskillful instruments, in communicating this Grace to men, &c.
5. When also
Socrates
asserted, That all true knowledge of God came by Divine Infusion. So
Plato
in his
Alcibiad. fol.
124.
brings in
Socrates
thus bespeaking
Alcibiades,
We have need of a Common Council, by what means we may become best. Neither do I affirm this only of thee,
Alcibiades,
that thou wantest Discipline, but that I myself, mostly need it. Neither do I at all differ from thee, this one thing being excepted;
•
hat my Tutor, namely
God
is better, and Wiser than thine,
viz. Pericles.
So again
Plato Alcibiad. fol.
135. brings in
Socrates
thus Dialogizing with
Alcibiades. Socrates
:
Dost thou know by wh
••
me
•
ns thou mayst avoid this inordinate motion of thy mind?
Alcibiades
: Yes:
Soc.
How?
Alcib.
If thou wilt
Socrates. Socrat.
Thou speakest not rightly
Alcibiades. Alcib.
How then must I speak?
Socrat.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, If God will,
&c.
Again,
Plato
in his
Theaet. fol.
151. brings in
Socrates
alluring
Theaetetus
(a young man of an happy ingenie) to his Philosophy: in order whereto he affirms, that he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e. endowed with a
Midwifes
faculty to draw forth the conceptions of men's minds. But withal he adds that God alone was the
Efficient,
and he only a
Midwife
employed by God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
God has compelled me to play the Midwife, but forbad me to generate.
and
fol.
210. he expressly says,
I and my Mother received this Midwifes faculty from God, &c.
6. Hence
Socrates
pretended to have a familiar
Daemon
always attending, and inspiring of him. So
Plato Theagnes.
128. brings in
Socrates
thus discoursing,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
There is by Divine Grace a
Daemon,
which has follo
•
ed me from my Childhood. This
Daemon,
is a voice, which signifies to me what I must do, yet it does not compel me to do everything: But if any of my friends communicate somewhat to me, and that voice d
•
hort me me from the same,
it also suffers me not to do it,
&c.
So it's said of
Socrates
that when one of his Scholars offered him Money for instructing him, he refused it, saying, his
Daemon
would not permit it. And
Plato
in his
Symposion,
brings in
Socrates
discoursing at large of this
Daemon,
his Office,
&c.
And
Serranus
in
Plato
's Apology for
Socrates
tells us,
That
Socrates
called his Divine Inspiration
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Daemon,
a
Voice,
and a
Sign.
And by the assistance of this tutelary
Daemon Socrates
affirmed, that he instituted his whole life even from his childhood. Wh
•
t this
Daemon
was, whether a good, or bad Angel (whereof the latter is most probable) it concerns us not to debate: only this is evident from the whole, that
Socrates
acknowledged a necessity of a
supernatural, Divine,
assistance for instruction, and direction
&c.
7.
Socrates
acknowledgeth a necessity of some Divine Purgatory, or purgation to expel all noxious humors from the soul: So
Plato Charmides
154.
Socrates
artificially feignes himself (says he) a
Physician
; and testifies, that his Medicament would be ineffectual unless there precede some
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, preparatory Pill, or enchantment, by the words whereof the disease may be driven out. This he illustrates by an excellent similitude
drawn from Medicine, which teacheth that general purgatives are to precede particulars:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
So agen
fol
157. he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Socrates
said, that the soul was to be purged by certain
Epoda
's, or preparatories, and these
Epoda
's were Good, and Divine words.
8.
Socrates
seems to have some imperfect notices of
Faith,
and
Prayer,
according to the
Scriptures
notion thereof. So
Plato Epinom. fol.
980.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Trust on the God's, and pray unto them,
that meet apprehensions of the nature of the God's may come into thy mind. 9. Lastly that
Socrates
had very clear apprehensions of the
soul's immortality,
and it's
separate
state, will be evident to any, that views his dying discourse of this Theme, as related by
Plato
in his
Phaedo.
By all which laid together it's evident: that
Socrates
had very
Metaphysical
contemplations of Divine Mysteries, and that originally from the
Jewish
Church,
§. 5 Though
Socrates
was not without sublime,
and deep contemplations of Divine things, yet the most of his Philosophical discourses in his Schole concerned
Morals,
and that for the reasons afore mentioned. So
August. Civit. l.
8.
c.
4.
In as much as the study of wisdom consists in Contemplation, and Action,
Socrates
is said to excel most, in Active Philosophy, whereas
Pythagoras,
insisted more upon Contemplative,
&c.
Not but that
Socrates
spent much time in Contemplation, as well as
Pythagoras,
for so
Plato lib.
7.
de Repub.
brings in
Adimantus
thus speaking unto
Socrates, Thou hast consumed thy whole life in nothing else but
Speculation;
&c.
Only herein lay the difference:
Socrates
made all his
Contemplations
subservient unto
Action,
and valued not
speculative sciences
farther then they conduced to
practice
: for he made
Man
the whole subject of his philosophy. So
Plato
in his Apology for
Socrates,
tells us, how much time he spent in
Contemplative
Inquisitions; but only so far, as they referred to
Action
: whereas
Pythagoras,
& so
Plato
in many of their inquiries made
Truth
the ultimate Object or End of their Contemplation, or Motion. Now it's well known, that the specific differrence betwixt Contemplative, and Active Philosophy ariseth not so much from their different
Acts,
as Objects, and Effects; for Active Philosophy supposeth some Contemplation of Truth, as well as
Contemplative
; only in the latter,
Truth
is the ultimate Object, and sole Effect; whereas the former considers
Truth
only as influential on
Practice,
according to that ancient
determination,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Practick Philosophy is effective of Virtue, but Theoretick of Truth.
Thus we see how
Socrates
's Philosophy may be termed
Active,
though not exclusive of
Contemplation.
Namely as it is not only
speculative,
and
apprehensive
of
Truth,
but also
practic,
and
causative
of
Virtue
: wherein he was followed by the
Cynics,
and
Stoics,
who acknowledged a Fraternitie, as being both descended from
Socrates
's school, and herein agreed with him in making the chief end of Philosophy to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To live according to Virtue.
So
Plato,
who according to universal consent, received his Morals from
Socrates,
follows his Master therein, telling us, that
Philosophy is the way to true
Felicitie,
which has chiefly these two Offices, to Contemplate God, and to sever the mind from Corporeal Phantasms. So agen
Plato
in his
Euthydemus
tells us, that Use in things holds the principal place, and the possession of anything, & therefore of
science
itself, which without the use thereof, is vain: So that if there could be a
science,
which should give us Immortality, yet were it of no value, if we understood not how to use it: whence he concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Wisdom therefore always makes men to live happily.
Agen he says,
That he deserves very ill of Philosophy, who lives not Philosophically.
i. e.
according to the precepts of Philosophy.
And elsewhere he give us this principally as the spirits of all his Philosophy,
To Philosophize is to know, to love, and to imitate God.
Yea
Aristotle
his scholar who abounds in speculation, does yet herein symbolize with him, and
Socrates
his Master: affirming that he alone is a true Philosopher, who lives Philosophically: So
Arist. Eth. l.
2.
c.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Many do not these things, but flying to their reason they think to Philosophize, and so to be virtuous, doing like to sick men, who hear their Physician diligently, but yet do nothing of what he prescribeth. As therefore these playing thus the Physicians, will never cure the body, so the other, thus Philosophizing, will never cure the soul.
But the
Stoics
(as it has been already hinted) follow
Socrates
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, foot by foot reducing all Philosphie to Moralitie. So
Epictetus
bid his Disciples
Not to tell the world they were Philosophers by words, but by deeds
:
to act as Philosophers, As (says he)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c. The sheep do not bring their grass to the shepherd to show how much they eat, but digesting their food within, they bring forth a good Fleece, and Milk. And so do you; donit teach men, how they ought to eat, but eat as you ought,
&c. So
Seneca
Epist. 75.
He is not blessed, who knows these things, but who does them.
Epist. 94.
What else is Philosophy, but a law of Life?
The like
Seneca
Epist. 90. Wisdom
sets deeper, neither does she teach the hands, but is the Mistress of Minds: she is a Queen, and Governess, Arts serve, but wisdom governs the life,
Seneca
Epist. 117.
The mind is wont to delight, rather then to heal itself, and to make Philosophy a Recreation, whereas it ought to be a Remedy. &c.
To which we may add that of
Plutarch de placit. philos. l.
1. It behooves (says he) a man (truly wise &) blessed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
To be not only Theoretick of Beings, but also practic of things wanting as to well-being.
By all which we see what a general reception this
active,
and
moral
Philosophy, which
Socrates
first brought into the Schools, found amongst all the following
Sects,
especially the
Stoics.
That
Socrates
reduced the whole of his Philosophy to an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Uirtuous operation,
is evident,
by what is mentioned of him in
Stobaus
Serm. 1.
fol.
29.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Some one asking Him
(i. e.
Socrates) what seemed to him the best instruction? He answered
Eupraxie,
or
Well-doing—
For he said they were best, and most grateful to God in husbandry, who transacted their husbandry affairs well; In Physicks, who acted as good Physicians; In Politicks, who dispatched the Politick concerns well.
But he, that does nothing well, said he, is neither profitable, nor (
Theophiles
) grateful to God. Thus
Stobaeus,
who also in what follows,
serm.
1.
fol.
29.) tells us out of
Xenophon, lib.
2.
de Secrat.
that
Socrates
made this his practice wheresoever he came to do Good,
&c.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Thus
Socrates
was in every affair, and according to every
respect useful, wherefore nothing was more beneficial than to have conversation with
Socrates,
and conference with him in every place, and matter: for he profited those, who conversed with him, no less in recreation, than in serious studies, and conferences:
Thus
Stobaeus.
So
Plutarch
acquaints us, that
Socrates
taught not only in the Chair, but even in his recreations, in his eating, in the Field, in the Market, finally, when he was in Prison; thus he made every place a Schole of Virtue,
&c.
As for the severals of
Socrates
's Moral Philosophy, we have no exact account thereof, because he left nothing in Writing; only we may look upon most of
Plato
's Moral Philosophizings as extracts (though with some flourishes, and intermixtures of his own) of
Socrates
's Principles; for it is a received opinion amongst the Ancients, that
Plato owes the original of his Moral Philosophy to Socrates,
as
Augustine. &c.
But yet we shall give one or two particulars of
Socrates
's
Morals, &c.
1. He made it a great part of his design to strip men of their affected conceited opinions of their own wisdom. He seemed to have some kind of feeling sense, how apt men are to be their own flatterers, to abound in the sense of their own parts and sufficiencies, and therefore he lays this as the first principle, and foundation of all Philosophy
Know thyself
: So
Plato (Alcibiad.
24) brings in
Socrates
advising
Alcibiades
to the study of himself thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
But believe me, and the
Delphic
Oracle,
Know thyself.
He tells us (
fol.
134) that they who know not themselves, know nothing of their own goods, or ills, nor of any such thing, that belonged to them, yea that they knew nothing of other affairs; and therefore could never make good
Politicians,
or
Governors
of Families. He also affirms, that all sin proceeds from a conceited ignorance, which makes men presume they know, what indeed they are ignorant of. He shows how many have erred from the best Mark, because they trusted to their own opinion; whereas those, who are conscious of their ignorance, will commit themselves to the teaching of others. He says this is the best Modestie, and Wisdom
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to know a man's self. He gives us the root of this Self-knowledge, namely the knowledge of God,
&c.
He also informs us touching its true Object, and Act:
viz.
that it is a reflex knowledge of the soul, its Habits, Acts,
&c.
And the more effectually to convince
Alcibiades
of his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
proud arrogance,
Socrates
draws a parallel 'twixt him, & the
Persian Monarchs
thereby to show him how inconsiderable he was: so
Plato Alcibiades, fol.
102.
2.
Socrates
gave many excellent precepts for the government of the Tongue as
Stobaeus
Serm. 3.44.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to be a lover of hearing, more than a lover of speaking. Agen
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Seal thy words with silence, and thy silence with opportunity, wherein he
Pythagorized.
Lastly, albeit
Socrates
gave many excellent Moral Institutes, yet was he greatly defective both as to Principles, and Practice: as hereafter.
§. 6. As for
Socrates
's
Mode,
or
Form
of Philosophizing,
it was in the general suitable to his matter,
natural, familiar,
and plain, not
artificial.
He suited his
Form
to his
Matter,
according to the method of Nature, not his
Matter
to his
Form,
as the
schools
now do. For the
matter
of his Philosophy being chiefly
Moral,
he fitted his
form
thereto. In particular, the
Socratick
Mode, or Form of Philosophizing was Twofold, 1.
Rhetorical,
or
Suasive,
2.
Dialectick,
or
Persuasive.
1. As to
Socrates
's Rhetorical mode of Philosophizing,
it was by
Irony
: and indeed his whole life was but a kind of
Irony,
or dissimulation, whence he was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
i. e.
One that acts the part of a Fool, though most Wise.
Cicero (de orat.
2.) tells us
That
Socrates
exceeded all men in this
Ironical dissimulation,
mixing a sweet Urbanitie, and pleasantness with his discourses: so
Stobaeus
says, that his Jests were instructive.
2. As for
Socrates
's
Dialectical Demonstrative,
and
Persuasive
Mode of Philosophizing, it was also Natural,
and Familiar, not Artificial, as that in
Aristotle
's school.
In brief,
Socrates
's natural
Logic
consisted in
Induction
; which
Cicero [de Iuvent.
1.)
defines a Discourse, that gains assent to things doubtful, by the assent which is yielded to things not doubtful.
Lud. Vives (in Aug. Civ. l.
8.
c.
7.) acquaints us, that this
Socratick
Induction is of all most powerful; which none used more happily than
Socrates
; whence
Quintilian
commends it to his
Orator
; whence also
Plato
borrowed his Mode of
Dialogizing, &c.
This kind of reasoning
Socrates
affected, because he would not himself use any arguments of persuasion, but rather work somewhat out of what was granted. This is discursive Induction
Socrates
formed into, and expressed by
Interrogations,
as it's evident to any, that shall consider his discourses in
Plato.
So
Hornbeeck summa Controvers.
pag. 56.
Always (says
Hornbeck
)
approved the
Socratick
mode of Disputing, wherein, by continued, & pressing interrogations, and answers, the truth at last is so certainly gathered, and concluded, that it easily gains an assent from all; which as elsewhere, so especially in
Plato
's
Hippia
he observes,
&c.
Socrates
made use of this kind of Argumentation by Interrogations, thereby to draw forth the conclusion he aimed to prove, even from the gradual concessions of his opponents: for he was wont to say he knew nothing himself, only like a barren Midwife he was endowed with a particular gift for the assisting others to bring forth their own conceptions. So
Plato Theaet. fol.
210.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
This Midwifes Art, I, and my Mother received from God, &c.
In these
Dialogizing
disputes
Socrates
attributed more to his opponents, detracting from himself, for he pretended still to know nothing, and therefore refused to take Money of his Scholars. Thence
Aristotle,
2
Elench. Sophist. cap.
8. says.
That
Socrates
always interrogated, but never replied, because he professed he knew nothing.
This Natural and familiar mode of reasoning by
questions
and
answers
used in
Socrates
's Schole seems an exact imitation of, and derivation from the
Jewish
mode of Disputation. So
Mark
8.11. 'It is said the
Pharisees
came forth, & began to question with him,
&c.
'tis so in the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to dispute with him by questions
: So
Grotius
on this place:
The ancient manner of Disputing,
says he,
was by Interrogations.
But more expressly
Luke
11.53. 'It is said the
Scribes,
and
Pharisees began to urge him vehemently,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
by Interrogations, unto which they required an extemporary answer, so it follows,
and to provoke him to speak of many things,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
word (says
Grotius
) was taken from the Schools, where the Masters were wont to set the riper Scholars to pose the younger by Interrogations,
whence in the
New Testament
the words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
usually signify to dispute,
i. e.
by
Dialogues,
or
questions,
and
answers,
which was the mode of disputing in the
Jewish
Schools, and thence traduced unto the
Grecian,
and continued amongst them till
Aristotle
reduced this natural
Logic
to an
Artificial
way of
Syllogizirg
in
Mode
and
Figure,
of which more hereafter, in
Plato
's mode of Philosophizing. In these disputations of
Socrates,
he intends more the drawing forth,
•
nd revincing the opinion of his Opponent, than the delivering and establishing of his own. For he conceived it not his concern, who affirmed he knew nothing, to assert anything, as he
himself declareth in
Plato
's
Theaetetus.
And this his modest suspension, or conceling his own opinion, laid the Foundation of those differing Sects, which sprang from him; especially of the
Academical
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension
: of which hereafter. Howbeit
Socrates
's modesty would not permit him to assert, and confirm his own
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Hypotheses,
yet was he very bold, and Ironical in refuting the proud assumings of such as pretended they knew all things. So
August. de Civit. l.
8.
c.
3.
It is apparent (says he) that
Socrates
did in his very Moral questions, whereto he seems wholly to addict himself, either by his confessed ignorance, or dissembled knowledge, with an admirable pleasantness, and most acute urbanitie agitate, and overturn the folly of unlearned persons, who thought they knew somewhat,
&c.
All these Philosophic Contemplations of
Socrates
laid together, sufficiently argue their original to be Divine, and Sacred. Yea
Justin Martyr,
and other of the
Fathers,
conceived, that he lived
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, & that he did
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in part acknowledge
Christ.
So
Justin Martyr Apol.
ad
Senate. & Anton. Hornius Hist. Eccles.
l. 3.
c.
13. 'It is possible that
Socrates
's Daemon might be no other, than the Divine
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or Spirit of God.
§. 7. This fervor of
Socrates
mixed with an Ironical facetiousnes in overturning the proud conceited ignorance of some,
who fancied they knew all things, is supposed to give the occasion of his condemnation, and death.
So
August. de Civit. l.
8.
c.
3.) in what follows says, that from
these endeavors of
Socrates
to discover the folly of these ignorant
Sophists,
enmities being stirred up, he was by a calumnious crimination condemned, and punished with death,
&c.
Plato
in his Apology for
Socrates
affirms, that these
odiums,
and feudes befell
Socrates
by reason of his disputations against these proud
Sophists.
The same
Laertius
:
There were three, that accused
Socrates Anytus, Melitus,
and
Lycon
the
Orator,
who was the Actor;
whereas
Anytus
defended the rout of
Artificers,
and the rest of the Athenians, whom
Socrates
often derided; and
Melitus
defended the
Poets,
when
Socrates
had condemned, and judged to be expelled the City. The main crime they accuse him of was his denying a multiplicity of God's
&c.
for which he was condemned by 281 suffrages. Immediately before his death, after he had taken the poison, he makes a learned, and undaunted discourse about the
immortality
of the
Soul,
and its state in separation from the body
&c.
and when he felt the pains of Death growing upon him, he
takes his leave of his Scholars,
enjoining them to go, and Sacrifice a Cock to
Esculapius
the
Daemon-god
of
Medicine,
as a thankful acknowledgement for so sweet, and noble a death: of which see
Plato
's
Phaedo
about the end; also his, and
Xenophon
's Apologies for
Socrates,
with
Diogenes Laertius,
where we find
Socrates
pleading, that his Enemies overwhelmed him not with Crimes, but envy only,
&c.
And the
Athenians
were so greatly affected with the injury done to
Socrates,
that a little after they caused all their Schools to be shut, and punished
Melitus
with death,
Anytus
with banishment, erecting a brazen Statue to
Socrates,
as
Austin
: and
Ludov. Vives
in
Aug. Civit. l.
8.
c.
2. gives him this great Character.
This is that
Socrates
of whom nothing can be sufficiently said for his Dignity, who, as it's manifest, was the wisest of all the
Gentiles,
and came nearest of all to the Christian Wisdom: He was borne at
Athens, Sophroniscus
being his Father,
&c.
He was a Man temperate, chaste, just, modest, patient of injuries; not greedy of riches, pleasures, no nor yet of glory, for it's certain he writ nothing. He was the first, who whilst others professed to know all things, professed himself to know nothing.
Thus
Lud. Vives.
To which may be added that of
Hornius, Socrates erat vir acutus, festivus, laborem tolerans, non tam praeceptis quàm exemplo docens: quem, & Lactantius caeteris non paulo cordatiorem fuisse concedit. Socrates
was eminent for his Acumen, Eloquence, Diligence, Instructing, as well by his Example as Precepts; and such as
Lactantius
also acknowledgeth to have far surpast others
(Heathen Philosophers)
for Wisdom,
Horn. Hist. Phil. lib.
3.
cap.
13. Yet some say,
Socrates
was not exempted from that great
Gentile
uncleanness, which the wisest and best of those
Gentile
Philosophers were guilty of, mentioned
Rom.
1.21, 27. as elsewhere.
§. 8. Though
Socrates
writ nothing himself, yet his Disputes were committed to Writing by his Scholars: amongst whom
Xenophon
was the first, and most punctual; for
Plato
useth a great liberty in interlining his own Sentiments with his Masters
Dogmas.
And albeit
Socrates
confined himself to
Morals,
and in his Philosophizings thereon used a plain method, yet after his death, his Scholars fell into several Factions, and Sects, which sprang from their differing Apprehensions about the
chiefest Good,
and the
chiefest Evil.
So
Austin (Civit. l.
8.
c.
3.)
Therefore
Socrates
by reason of his so great Fame, both living, and dead, left behind him many Sectator
•
of his Philosophy, whose
Eristick study was to be versed in the Controversies of Moral Questions, wherein the
chiefest Good
consisted? which not evidently appearing in
Socrates
's Disputes, whilst he started, and asserted, and destroyed everything, everyone formed such a chief Good, as seemed most pleasing to him. Thus had these Socraticks differing persuasions about this last end; some placing the chiefest Good in Pleasures, as
Aristippus
; some in Virtue, as
Antisthenes, &c.
Indeed all the Sects of the
Ionick
Philosophy, seem to owe their Original to
Socrates
's Schole, especially the
Cyreniack, Cynic, Eleatick, Megarick, Academic, Platonic, Stoic.
1. Of
Socrates
's Scholars,
Xenophon,
and
Aeschinus,
the Socratick clave fast to their Master, without founding a new Sect.
2.
Aristippus
the
Cyrenian,
another of
Socrates
's Scholars founded the
Cyreniack
Sect, whose main Principle was, that the
chiefest Good
lay in
Pleasure,
whence the whole Sect was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as the
Epicureans
after them.
3.
Antisthenes
another of
Socrates
's Scholars,
founded the
Cynic
Sect. His chief Position was, that
Virtue
was the
chiefest Good,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, wherein he was followed by
Zeno
his Scholar, who was the Founder of the
Stoic
Sect, which as to Morals held a great communion with the
Cynics,
and they both with
Socrates, &c.
4. Another of
Socrates
's Scholars was
Euclid
the
Megarick,
whose Followers were thence called
Megaricks,
and afterwards
Eristicks
; and by some
Dialecticks,
because they exercised themselves chiefly in Dialectick Questions, which humor
Euclid
sucked in, not from
Socrates,
but
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
the
Eleatick.
5.
Phaedo
of
Elia,
another of
Socrates
's Scholars,
established the
Eleatick
Sect. He writ many of
Socrates
's Elegant Speeches.
6. But the most renowned of all
Socrates
's Scholars, was
Plato,
that famous Founder of the old Academie, whence the new Academics descended; as the
Platonists
: as it follows.
CHAP. II. Of the
Platonic
Philosophy, its traduction from the Jews.
That
Plato
borrowed his Philosophy from the
Jews,
proved by the universal consent,
1.
of
Pagans. Plato's
own Confessions, that he received his choicest Principles from the
Barb
•
ri
•
ns, Phoenicians,
and
Syrians, i. e.
the
Jews. Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, some
Jewish
Traditions: His Traditions of the Divine Ideas, Providence, Immortality of the Soul, and Origin of the Universe from the
Jews.
The Testimony of
Numenius. 2.
The Testimonies of
Jews, Aristobulus, Josephus. 3.
Testimonies of
Christians. 1.
More ancient, as
Clem. Alexandrinus, Just. Martyr, Jo. Grammaticus, Ambrose, Austin. 2.
Moderne,
Lud. Vives, Selden, Jackson, Cudworth, Stillingfleet,
and
Hornius.
§. 1. HAving given some cursorie account of the
Socratick
Philosophy,
we now proceed to the
Platonic
(the main Branch of the
Socratick
) to demonstrate its traduction from the
Jewish Divine Oracles.
And herein we shall take up the same method we laid down in our Discourse of
Pythagorick
Philosophy; namely, first, to give that, which the Schools term
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a Demonstration that '
tis so
; and then to proceed to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the several
Causes, Methods,
and
ways
by which
Plato
traduced his Philosophy from the
Jewish
Church, and Oracles. As for the first Branch of our Demonstration, to prove the
quod sit,
that
Plato
indeed borrowed the choicest parts of his Philosophy from the
Jews,
and
sacred Scriptures
; we shall endeavor to make it good by an universal consent, or Testimony, w
ch
though but (as they phrase it) an
inartificial Argument,
yet will it prove strong, and binding as to our present design: For we shall produce Testimonies from all parties, both
Pagans, Jews,
and
Christians,
and those most able and faithful Recorders of, and Searchers into Antiquity: so that there will not be place left for doubting; so far as such an human Faith will reach; that parties so diametrically opposite in their inclinations, persuasions, humors, principles, spirits, and interests,
should universally conspire to impose a cheat, and falsity, on all their posterity in a matter concerning which they had sufficient advantages to satisfy themselves, and their posterities. That
Grecian
Philosophy in general was traduced from the
Jewish
Church, we proved by universal consent,
Book
2.
Chap.
1. which might serve as to our particular case. But we shall now give you some particular Testimonies to prove, that
Plato
derived his Philosophy from the
Jews,
and
Scriptures.
And amongst those from
Pagans,
we shall begin with some Confessions dropt from
Plato
's own Pen, which seem to give some grounded evidence, if not full conviction to our Conclusion.
1.
Plato
confesseth ingeniously, that he,
together with the rest of the
Grecians,
received their choicest Traditions, and Learning, from certain
Barbarians
more ancient than themselves. So in his
Cratylus, fol.
426. (
edit. Steph.) Plato
acknowledgeth,
That the first Institution of Letters was from the God's, by certain
Barbarians,
&c.
so in his
Epinom. Plato
says,
What the
Greeks
received,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
they put into a better mode,
that is, they clothed in a
Greek
fashion, thereby to disguise it. That by
Barbarians
can be meant no other than the
Hebrews,
we have endeavored to prove out of
Justin Martyr,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Epiphanius, Nicephorus,
and
Serranus,
before
Part.
1.
Book
1.
Chap.
2. This is farther evident by what we find in
Tatianus (contra Graecos Oratio.
) thus translated.
It becomes not you, O
Grecians,
to prosecute the
Barbarians
with so much enmity, and to be so invidious against their Placits: For what is there of Study among you, which drew not its Origin from the
Barbarians,
&c.
Then having largely explicated the chief parts of the
Grecian
Learning, he proceeds to demonstrate, that the
Mosaic
Wisdom, which he calls
Barbarick,
was most ancient.
Therefore, saith he, I have bid adieu to the vain Glory of the
Romans,
to the frigid Eloquence of the
Athenians,
and their contentious Studies: and have embraced our
Barbarick
Philosophy, which how it is more ancient than your Disciplines, I now proceed to explicate.
This he demonstrates very accurately, by evincing, that
Moses
was more ancient than
Berosus,
who writ the
Chaldean
Annals, yea then
Cadmus, &c.
whence he concludes thus.
Hence it appears, that
Moses
was more ancient than those ancient
Heroes
: and it is but equal, that we give credit to the elder, rather than to the
Grecians,
who drew their Dogmas, not rightly understood, from the others Fountain. For many of the
Grecian
Sophists, being induced by a certain Curiositie, endeavored to deprave, and pervert whatever they learned from
Moses,
or the like wise Men; which they did partly, that they might make that their own, which they drew from others; partly, that under a feigned Composition of Speech, conceling what they understood not, they might corrupt the Truth by their Comments.
Thus
Tatianus.
2.
Plato
makes mention of certain
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Syrian,
and
Phoenician
Fables, which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, ineffable,
&c.
So
Plato (de repub. l.
3.
fol.
414.) tells us,
of a
Phoenician
Fable touching the Fraternitie of all men made out of the Earth,
&c.
where
Serranus
observes, that this Fable is but a footstep of the Primitive Truth, touching the formation of
Adam
out of the Earth, and that by the name of the
Phoenician
Doctrine is noted the
Jewish.
So
Plato
in his
Symposium,
speaks of a
Phoenician
Fable touching the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
man, and woman conjoined
; which
Cudworth,
with others, makes to be but a
Jewish
Tradition of
Eves
formation out of
Adam
: Yea, the
Jews
themselves had this
Cabbalistick
Fable of an
Androgynon
common amongst them, as
Grotius
has observed on 1
Tim.
3.4. as afore.
And
Hammond,
on
Matth.
15.22. tells us in express terms,
that when the Heathens speak of the Original of their Literature from the
Phoenicians,
they mean the
Hebrews.
Bochart (Phaleg. l.
4.
c.
34.) tells us, that
Herodotus
calls the
Jews Phoenicians.
So
Xenophon
tells us, the
Jews
were called
Syrians,
as before,
Part
1.
Book
1.
Chap.
•
.
Parag.
9.
3.
Plato
makes mention of a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an ancient Discourse,
o
•
Tradition, which he elsewhere calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Divine Word,
o
•
Tradition, received from the Ancients who lived near the God's,
&c.
which cannot be understood of anymore probably, then of some
Jewish
Traditions, as appears by particulars.
1.
Plato
in his
Philebus, fol.
17. confesseth, that
The knowledge of the (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
) one infinite Being was from the God's, who communicated this knowledge to us by a certain
Prometheus,
together with a bright Fire: and then he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
This Story of
One, and many
is a Tradition, which the Ancients, who were better, and dwelt nearer the God's than we, transmitted to us,
&c.
This Tradition of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
One, and many
was Originally traduced from the
Jewish
Church, and the
Scripture
account of God; the Unity of his
Essence,
and the Pluralitie of his
Decrees,
which
Pythagoras
first brought into
Greece,
and after him
Parmenides
assumed the same, as the foundation of his
Metaphysick
Philosophizings about the Divine
Ideas
: as before,
Part.
1.
B.
1.
C.
2. §. 6.
2.
Plato, de leg. l.
3. makes mention of a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an
Ancient Tradition,
which affirmed God to be the
beginning,
the
end,
and
middle
of all things,
&c.
This
Plutarch
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the old Faith
; which surely could be nothing else, but the old
Jewish
Tradition, which they had received touching God's
Creation
of, and
Providence
over all things. Thus
Steuchus Eugubinus, de Peren. Philos. l.
2.
c.
2. Justin Martyr
conceiveth, that where you find in
Plato,
or other Philosophers, mention of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the
Ancient Fame,
they meant it of
Moses. The like
Plato
in his
Philebus
affirms, that all wise Men grant,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that the Divine mind is to us King both of Heaven, and Earth
; neither does anything happen
fortuitously.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he elsewhere calls the Soul of the World, informing, and governing all things, as the Soul the Body: which the Learned suppose to be but a Tradition, from
Gen.
1.2.
The Spirit, &c.
3.
Plato,
in his
Phaedo (fol.
85.
) treating of the immortality of the Soul, confesseth, that the safest, and most certain way to prove it, was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
by some Divine Word, or Tradition.
Now what this
Divine Word
should be, if not some
Jewish,
or
Scriptural
Tradition, cannot be imagined. This
Divine Word
he elsewhere calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Traditional Knowledge, &c.
Of which see more,
Part
1.
Book
1.
Chap.
2. §. 5.
4.
Plato
in his
Timaeus, fol.
29.
being about to treat of the Origin of the Universe, lays down this preliminarie Conclusion:
It is just that both I, who discourse, and you, that judge, should remember, that we have but human nature, and therefore receiving
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
probable Fable,
or
Mythologic Tradition,
it's meet, that we inquire no farther into them.
That this
probable Fable
was some
Jewish,
or
Scriptural
Tradition of the Origin of the Universe, will be sufficiently evident, when we come to prove, that all
Plato
's Philosophizings, touching the Origin of the Universe, were but Traditions from
Moses
's description of the Creation.
5.
Plato
in his
Politicus, fol.
272.
gives us a large account of
Adam
's
state of Innocence,
under the Symbolic Image of
Saturn
's Golden Age: he tells us,
the Fruits of the Earth grew of their own
accord, without labor; that Men were naked, and had conference with the Beasts. And then he concludes, But these things we must omit,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, until there appear to us some fit Interpreter.
Serranus
on these Words,
fol.
251. tells us, that
Plato
acknowledgeth, he received this Narration from elsewhere, in that he calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a Fable; for the unfolding whereof, he expected a fit Interpreter.
Wherefore he signifies, that the truth hereof was delivered to him by Tradition from the Primitive Times,
&c.
And I think it will appear very evident to any, that considers the whole Story, that
Plato
refers to some
Jewish
Records, or Traditions, whence he traduced these his Notions about the Golden Age. So in like manner
Plato
in his
Symposium,
describes the fall of Man under the Fable of
Porus,
&c.
And I conceive, where ever we find
Plato
making mention of any
Barbarick, Egyptian,
or
Phoenician
Fables handed over to him from the Ancients, especially if they relate unto any Scripture Narration, we may safely conclude, that by these
Ancients
he meant the
Jewish
Church, or
Patriarchs,
whose names he concealed; as also clothed those
Jewish
Traditions with a
Grecian Mythologic habit,
thereby to avoid that odium, which lay upon the
Jewish
Nation; as also to gratify the curiosity of the
Fabulous Greeks,
and render himself more esteemed amongst them. That this was the reason why
Plato
disguised his
Jewish
Traditions, and concealed the names of the
Jews,
whence they came, is asserted by
Origen
against
Celsus, lib.
4. of which hereafter. Thus Sir
Walter Raleigh, Hist. Part.
1.
B.
1.
C.
6. §. 7.
But whether it were out of the same vanity, which possessed all those Learned Philosophers, and Poets, that
Plato
also published not under the right Authors names those things, which he had read in the Scriptures; or fearing the severity of the
Areopagites,
and the example of his Master
Socrates,
by them put to death by Poison, I cannot judge.
Justin Martyr
(as it seemeth) ascribeth it wholly to
Plato
's fear, whose Words are these:
Plato fearing the Areopagites, thought it not safe for him among the Athenians to make mention
of Moses,
that he taught there is but one God.
But for that Divinity, which he hath written in
Timaeo,
he
discoursed, and taught the same of God
(saith
Justin Martyr) which
Moses
did.
6. Yea farther
Plato
seems to use the very same expressions (though in another Tongue, that
Moses
does in his Description of God: For whereas
Moses
describeth God,
Exod.
3.14.
I AM, Plato
terms
him,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
which differs only in Gender, not really from
Moses
's description. Whence the Learned, both Moderne, and Ancient have concluded, that
Plato
drew this Notion of God out of
Mose
•
.
So
Justin Martyr,
and
Ludovicus Vives
after him; as also
Raleigh, Hist. Part.
1.
B.
1.
C.
6. §. 7. For where it pleased God, by his Angel to answer
Moses, Ego sum existens,
which is,
I AM
; and
existens misi
•
me ad vos, I AM hath sent me unto you,
herein did
Plato,
saith
Justin Martyr,
no otherwise differ, than that
Moses
used the Word [
Qui
] and
Plato
the Word [
Quod] Moses enim qui existit
(inquit)
Plato quod existit.
For
Moses
saith,
He who is: Plato, That which is,
&c.
7. To these tacit acknowledgements of
Plato,
we may add the full Testimony of
Numenius
the
Pythagorean
Philosopher,
quoted by
Clem: Alexandrinus, lib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. But
Numenius
the
Pythagorean
Philosopher plainly Writes:
What is
Plato,
but
Moses
Atticizing.
§. 2. Amongst the
Jews
we have the testimony of
Aristobulus,
who flourished about 200 years after
Plato,
cited by
Clemens Alexand.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. (as also by
Eusebius Praep. Evang. l.
9.
c.
6.) where he brings in
Aristobulus
thus speaking of
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
He followed our Law, or Institution, and diligently inspected, or searched into all those things mentioned therein.
The same is mentioned by
Ludov. Vives in Aug. Civ. l.
8.
c.
11.
Aristobulus
the
Jew
to
Philometor lib.
1, as
Eusebius
cites him, saith, that
Plato
in many things followed our Law; for he seems in many things to have diligently examined every particular. For
Moses
's books were translated before
Alexander,
and before the
Persian
Empire, whence this Philosopher, as well as
Pythagoras,
received many things.
Thus
Ludov. Vives.
I am not ignorant, that his opinion about the translation of
Moses
's books into
Greek
before the
Persian
Empire, is rejected by some Learned men, therefore I shall not lay much stress on it, yet why may we not assert with
Eusebius,
that
Plato
(as
Pythagoras
) might have a sight of
Moses
's writings (not as translated into
Grerk,
but) by reason of his skill in the
Oriental
Languages, especially the
Egyptian,
which was but a Dialect of the
Hebrew,
as has been before mentioned Book 2.
ch.
5. §. 8. of
Pythagoras,
of which more hereafter. To this
testimony of
Aristobulus
is consonant that of
Josephus
the
Jew,
as
Selden de jure Nat. Hebr. l.
1.
c.
2.
§. 3. To these Testimonies of
Pagans,
and
Jews,
we may add many of the learned
Christians,
both Ancient, and Moderne. As for the Ancients
Clemens Alexandrinus
does once, and agen inculcate, that
Plato
derived his Philosophy from the
Jews,
so
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1.5. and he expressly calls him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Hebrew Philosopher
: and in many places he does affirm this,
That the
Greek
Philosophers generally were
Thieves,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. That they took the choicest of their Dogmas from
Moses,
and the
Prophets
without thankful acknowledgement.
So
Justin Martyr Apol.
2.
(and after him
Theodoret
) assimeth
that
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
drew many things from the Hebrew Rivulets; yea, and that whatsoever he said devoutly of God, or of his Worship, he stole from the
Hebraick
Philosophy.
The same
Johannes Philoponus
frequently asserts.
So of the Creation of the world,
l.
6.
c.
21.
pag.
249. he tells us, that what
Moses
affirmed of
man,
that he was made after the Image of God,
Plato
transferred to the whole visible world, calling it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a visible image of the invisible God.
The like he mentions
lib.
7.
c.
11, 12, where he shows, how
Plato
imitated
Moses, Gen.
1.31. in bringing in God rejoicing, and recreating himself in the works of his hands, as very good,
&c. Eusebius lib.
2.
praep. Evang.
conceives, that
Plato
learned from the
Mosaic
doctrine, both the Transmutation of the world, and the Resurrection, and the last Judgment,
&c.
Amongst the
Latin
Ancients
Ambrose
gives a full Testimony hereto,
who affirms, that
Plato
for Learning's sake took a journie into
Egypt
to inform himself touching the things done, and written by
Moses,
the Oracles of the Law, and the sayings of the
Prophets, &c.
of which see
Selden de Jure Nat. l.
1.
c.
2.
But amongst all the Ancients, none speaks more fully to this, than
Augustine de Civit. Dei lib.
8.
cap.
11.
Some says he,
joined to us in the grace of Christ, wonder when they hear, and read, that
Plato
conceived such things of God, which they acknowledged are most congruous to the truth of our Religion. Whence some have thought, that he, when he went into
Egypt,
heard the
Prophet Jeremiah,
or that he read in his peregrination the Prophetick Scriptures, whose opinion I have laid down in some of my Books: But the account of times being diligently computed according
to the Chronick history, it appears, that
Plato
was born almost 100 years after
Jeremy
prophesied; wherefore
Plato
in that his pergrination could neither see
Jeremiah,
who died so long before, nor yet read the same Scriptures, which were not as yet translated into the
Greek
Tongue: unless peradventure in as much as he was of a sharp judgment, he by an Interpreter learned, as the Egyptian mysteries, so the sacred Scriptures, not that he did by writing translate them, as
Ptolemy
by the LXX, but by conference he understood what they contained, so far as his capacity would reach. That which inclines us to this persuasion, is, that the book of
Genesis
begins (
chap.
1.
v.
1.)
In the beginning God made Heaven and Earth &c.
which
Plato
in his
Timaeus
also declares.
God
saith he, in
that work, first joined Earth, and Fire.
For it's manifest that by
Fire
he understands the
Heaven
: Thence those two middle Elements, which by their interposition join together with these extremes, he calls
Water,
and
Air
; whence tis thought he understood this from what is written,
Gen.
1.2. The
Spirit of God moved upon the Waters.
For he little attending in what manner the Scripture was wont to style the Spirit of God, and because the
Air
is called a Spirit, he thought that the Four Elements were mentioned in that place. Agen, in that
Plato
says a Philosopher is a lover of God, nothing is more manifest in the sacred Scriptures. And especially that which has almost brought me fully to assent that
Plato
was not without those sacred books, when it is said to
Moses (Exod.
3.14.)
I am that I am.
He that is has
sent me, &c.
This
Plato
vehemently held, and diligently commended,
&c.
Thus
August.
By which it's evident, what a full conviction he had of the truth of our conclusion.
As for the particulars, of these
Platonic notions,
we shall hereafter, we hope, examine them, and prove that they were traduced from the sacred
scriptures.
As for Moderne Christians, we have the most learned of these last Ages of this persuasion, that
Plato
derived the choicest of his Contemplations, both
Physical,
and
Metaphysical
from the sacred
scriptures,
&
Jewish
Church. So
Lud. Vives
on this text of
August. Civ. l.
8.
c.
11.
Justin Martyr
(saith he) in
paraclesi ad Gentos, & Euseb.
in
praeparat. evang.
; and
Theocritus
of the
Greek
affections write, that
Plato
translated many things out of the
Hebrew
books into his own.
Hence
Numenius
the Philosopher said, what is
Plato,
but
Moses
Atticizing?
&c.
The same is affirmed by
Steuchus Eugubinus
on
Plato
's
Timaeus,
and
Selden de jure Natur. Hebr.
l.
1.
c.
2. Where he proves our conclusion at large. Thus
Luther, Tom.
1.
Genes.
1.
a. in cap.
1.
Plato,
saith he, while he was in
Egypt
Collected
as it were some sparks out of the Speeches of the Fathers, and Prophets, therefore he comes nearer (than
Aristotle
) as to the Origin of the Universe,
&c,
Also Dr.
Jackson
of the
Scriptures fol.
55. speaketh thus.
That
Plato
had either read, or been instructed by some, who had read the books of
Moses,
will easily appear,
&c.
The like we find asserted by
Cudworth
in his Discourse of
Union with Christ pag.
22.
I cannot (saith he) consent with
Eusebius,
that
Plato
had seen
Moses
his works, but that he certainly received by Tradition many things,
when he was in
Egypt,
or some other of those
Oriental
parts bordering upon the
Jews, &c.
But Sir
Walter Raleigh. Hist. of the World part
1.
Book
1.
c.
6. §. 7. speaks more Categorically thus.
As
for
Plato,
though he dissembled in some things, for fear of the Inquisition of the
Areopagites,
yet Saint
Augustine
hath already answered for him as before,
Et mirifice iis delectatus est, quae de uno Deo tradita fuerant,
And he was greatly delighted in the Doctrine of one God, saith
Justin Martyr.
Now howsoever
Lactantius
pleased to reprehend
Plato,
because (saith he)
Plato
sought knowledge from the
Egyptians,
and the
Chaldeans,
neglecting the
Jews,
and the Books of
Moses; Eusebius, Cyrillus,
and
Origen
find reason to believe the contrary, thinking that from thence he took the grounds of all by him written of God, or savouring of Divinity: the same opinion had Saint
Ambrose
of
Pythagoras.
Thus
Stillingfleet Orig. Sacr. Book
3.
chap.
3.
pag.
502.
The
Platonists
of
Alexandria
(saith he) stole their choicest Notions out of the Scriptures, but would not acknowledge it: which was the grand artifice of their Master
Plato,
who doubtless by means of his abode, and acquaintance in
Egypt,
about the time when the
Jews
began to flock thither, had more certain knowledge of many truths of grand importance concerning the Deity, the nature of the Soul, the Origin of the World, then many other
Greek
Philosophers had; but yet therein lay his great fault, that he wrapped up, and disguised his Notions in such a fabulous, and ambiguous manner, that partly it might be less known, from whence he had them, and that they might find better entertainment amongst the
Greeks,
than they were ever like to do in their plain, and Native dress, which
Plato
himself seems to intimate, when he saith, that what the
Greeks
received from the
Barbarians,
they put
into a better fashion,
i. e.
they disguised it by a
Greek
habit, that it might never be suspected for a Forreigner,
&c.
The Testimonies of
Origen,
and
Vossius,
see §. 4. of this next Chapter.
I shall conclude this Argument, with a pregnant Testimony of
Hornius Hist. Philos. l.
3.
c.
14.
It was an ancient opinion, and now very much inveterated, that
Plato
drew many things out of
Moses,
and inserted them into his Writings. For
Numenius
of greatest Authority amongst the
Pythagoreans,
says that
Plato stole out of Moses
's
Writings, whatsoever he has of God, and the Universe.
To whom the more sage Fathe
•
s giving heed, hence it came to pass, that the
Platonic
Philosophy was of highest Authority among them. For it was the common vogue, that it differed little from
Moses.
Yea
Caelius Rhod. l.
16.
cap.
65. thinks, that
Plato differs little from Christ
's
Placits.
And
Eusebius lib.
13.
praep. c.
1. writes,
that the Platonic Philosophy was as it were translated out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek.
Justin Martyr, in Apol. ad Anton.
will needs show, that
Plato
borrowed, whatever hath any verisimilitude, or shadow of t
•
uth, from the sacred Scriptures. The same
Eusebius
attempts in his book against the
Philosophers.
Thus
Hornius.
As for the manner how
Plato
transferred his
Jewish
Traditions from
Hebrew
into
Greek
I shall show in the following Chapter, §. 4.
&c.
CHAP. III. Of
Plato
's Life, and Travels for Oriental Traditions.
Plato's
Original, and Instruction under
Socrates:
his travels into
Italy,
to acquaint himself with the
Pythagorean
Philosophy, which he was instructed in by
Archytas
the
Tarentine, Timaeus
the
Locrian, Epicarmus,
&c.
Plato
's travels into
Egypt
where he informed himself in the
Jewish
Wisdom, and Mysteries,
viz.
touching the Origin of the Universe, the Immortality of the Soul, the Fall; also concerning God, his Nature, Ideas, Providence, &c. That Plato
might receive information from the
Jews,
and
Jewish
Oracles, whilst in
Egypt,
by reason of his skill in the
Egyptian
tongue, or by some Interpreter. What emprovement
Plato
received as to
Jewish
Traditions from the
Phoenicians,
their Theology, and Philosophy, &c.
Plato's
Academie, his Character, and Works.
§. 1. WE have in the foregoing Chapter by
inartificial Demonstration,
or
Testimonies
proved, that
Plato
traduced the choicest of his
Contemplations
from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scriptures.
We now proceed to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; to demonstrate the same from the
causes, means,
and
ways
by which
Plato
gained these
Jewish traditions.
For the clearing whereof we shall give some brief historical relation of
Plato's Life, Praeceptors,
and
Travels,
whereby it will be manifest, what advantages he had to acquaint himself with the
Jewish
Philosophy, and Mysteries.
Austin de Civit. l.
8.
c.
4. gives us this good, though short
account
hereof.
But amongst the Disciples of
Socrates, Plato
indeed, who altogether obscured the rest, deservedly shines with most excelling glory. Who being an
Athenian
of a good family, & of an admirable ingenie, far excelled his Condisciples: yet counting his own capacity, & endeavors, with the emprov
•
meant of
Socrates's
Instructions insufficient for the perfecting of Philosophy, he travelled far, and near, where ever the fame of gaining any noble Science led him. Therefore in
Egypt
he learned whatever was greatly esteemed, and taught there; and thence coming into those parts of
Italy
where the fame of the
Pythagoreans
was celebrated, he learned there the whole of
Italic
Philosophy, which then flourished, having heard the most eminent of the Doctors thereof, &c.
Thus
Austin,
wherein he gives us a full relation of
Plato
's travels, though he differs somewhat from
Laertius,
and others, as to method,
&c.
as hereafter we shall consider this general story in it's severals.
§. 2.
Plato
was born at
Athens
in the 88th.
Olympiad
(as
Ludov. Vives in August. l.
8.
cap.
4.)
Apuleius l.
1.
de Dogm. Plat.
tells us,
That
Plato
was so Sirnamed from the large habitude of his body (which was the common opinion) for he was at first called
Aristocles,
though some think, he was called
Plato
from the amplitude of his Speech, and Eloquence.
His Parents were
Arist.
and
Perictione,
his Fathers stock related to
Codrus
the last King of
Athens,
his Mothers to
Solon,
that famous
Athenian Legislator,
whence
Plato
(as I take it in his
Timaeus
•
peaking of
Solon,
calls him his Kinsman,
&c. Plato
's first
Praeceptor
was
Socrates
with whom it's said he lived Eight years,
in which time he committed the substance of
Socrates
's discourses to writing, but with great mixture, and addition of his own; which gave much offense to
Xenophon
his
condisciple,
who in an Epistle to
Aeschines Socraticus
(mentioned by
Eusebius Praepar. Evang. l.
24.) upbraids
Plato
for corrupting
Socrates
's Philosophy by
Pythagorean, Barbarick, Egyptian,
and his own intermixtures.
And
Diogenes lib.
3. writes, that there
was little friendship, but much emulation 'twixt
Plato,
and
Xenophon.
For they both writ their
Symposium,
their Apology for
Socrates,
and their Moral Commentaries.
Plato
in his books of
Laws
says, that
Xenophon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was fictitious. Though they both greatly extol
Socrates,
yet they make little mention each of other.
From
Socrates
it was, that
Plato
received the chiefest of his Morals, as 'tis generally confessed; and shall be hereafter mentioned. After
Socrates
's death
Plato
applied himself to
Cratylus,
the Diciple of
Heraclitus,
from whom we may presume he received good instructions, for he makes him the chief subject of one of his Dialogues.
Plato primitus Heracliti secta imbutus, postea vero Socratis Disciplinae traditus, Clarissimus omnium Philosophorum evasit. Plato
being first of all of the
Heraclitian
Sect, and afterwards determining to be of the
Socratick
Discipline, became the most famous of all the Philosophers.
Apul. l.
1.
de Philos. Plato
afterward addresses himself to
Hermogenes,
who followed
Parmenides
's Philosophy, from whom we may suppose he borrowed many of his
Metaphysick Contemplations
about
Divine Ideas,
of which he discourseth at large in his Dialogue called
Parmenides.
After these
Plato
had recourse to
Euclid
the founder of the
Megarick
Sect: whence he went to
Cyrene
to be instructed by
Theodorus
the Mathematician,
&c.
§ 3.
Plato
having a natural affection,
and strong inclination unto the
Pythagorick
Philosophy, as that which carried with it most of
Divine Mysteries,
& therefore suited best with his luxuriant Phansie, he travels into
Italy,
that part which was called
Magna Greece,
where
Pythagoras
had Philosophized, and left behind him many Admirers, and
Sectators
of his
Discipline.
Amongst these
Pythagoreans Plato
heard at
Tarentum Archytas
the Elder, and
Euritus.
Amongst the
Locrians
he heard
Timaeus
the
Locrian,
from whom he is supposed to have borrowed many of his traditions touching the
Origin
of the
Universe,
its parts,
&c.
So
Ludov. Vives
on
Aust. in Civ. lib.
8.
c.
11.
Speaking of
Plato
's
Timaeus,
says
he, called this book so, because
Timaeus
the
Locrian
is induced disputing of the
Universe,
whom he heard in
Italy,
who also writ in the
Dorick
tongue of the
Universe,
from which Book
Plato
borrowed many things. Thus
Ludov. Vives.
Yea indeed
Plato
's very Dialect in his
Timaeus
is
Dorick,
(differing from his other Dialogues) which argues, that not only the matter, but also the very words, and style were taken from
Timaeus
his Book of the
Universe.
So also
Jerome
in his
Apology
against
Ruffinus
tells us, that
Plato
was instructed in the
Pythagorean
Learning by
Archytas
the
Tarentine,
and
Timaeus
the
Lorian.
Farther, at
Croto Plato
heard
Philolaus
the
Pythagorean.
Besides,
Plato
received light, and instruction from other
Pythagorean
Authors, namely,
Lysis
the
Pythagorean,
whom he makes the subject of his
Dialogue
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: also from the Books of
Epicarmus,
alias
Cous
that famous
Pythagorean
Philosopher. So
Lud. Vives in Austin Civ. l.
8.
c.
11.
Alcinus
(says he) in his books, he writ to
Amynthas
teacheth, that
Plato
borrowed his opinion of
Ideas
out of the Books of
Epicarmus,
who was
Cous
a Philosopher of the
Pythagorean
Sect, whom in times past they make to excel others of the Learned, as the Sun amongst the Stars, and the Sea amongst the Rivers:
He writ of the
Nature
of things,
&c.
From
Plato
's great affectation, and imitation of the
Pythagorean
Philosophy it came to pass that in the writings of the Ancients, the Names of
Platonists,
and
Pythagoreans
are oft confounded. So
Eusebius lib.
14.
Praecep. ca. considering
Plato
himself in himself, we call him a Pythagorean.
The like
Apuleius Flor.
15. Plato
differing little, or nothing from this Sect does Pythagorize.
And the same
Apuleius lib.
1.
de Philos.
gives this account of
Plato
's diverting from the
Socratick
Philosophy to the
Pythagorean.
When
Socrates
had bid farewell to Human affairs,
Plato
deflected from the
Socraticks,
whose affairs were then doubtful, to the
Pythagoreans,
seeking what proficience he might gain among them. And he went twice into
Italy,
where he heard the
Pythagoreans Euritus,
and
Archytas
the Senior. Thus
Hornius Hist. Phil. l.
3.
c.
14.
And that
Plato
indeed greatly valued
Pythagorean
writing, is evident by what
Laertius
relates, namely that three
Pythagoreans
Books cost him no less than One Hundred
Attick
Pounds,
i. e.
3000.
Karoles
; for an
Attick
pound consists of 20
Karoles,
as
Vossius de Philos. Sect. cap.
12. §. 3. As for the time of
Plato
's abode in
Italy, Cicero
in
Catone
writes, that
Plato
came to
Tarentum
when
L. Aemilius,
and
Ap. Claudius
were Consuls: though according to
Livy
this account will not hold. Now that the
Pythagorick
Philosophy was traduced from the
Jewish
Oracles we have before sufficiently proved, Book 2.
chap.
5. §. 2.
§. 4. But the greatest advantage,
that
Plato
had to inform himself in the
Jewish wisdom,
and
mysteries,
was his travels into
Egypt,
which
Laertius
makes to have been after his departure from
Italy,
though
Austin
in what was before cited, supposeth him to have travelled from
Egypt
into
Italy
: Others reconcile both, by
affirming
that
Plato
went first unto
Italy,
thence into
Egypt,
from whence he returned back again into
Italy.
Plato
non contentus disciplinis quas praestare poterant
Athenae,
non
Pythagoraeorum,
ad quos in
Italiam
navigaverat,
Aegypti
quo{que} Sacerdotes adiit, at{que} eroū arcana perdidicit.
Quincil.
lib.
1.
cap.
19.
Plato
not satisfied with what Learning
Athens
could afford, nor yet with that of the
Pythagoreans,
to whom he had made a Voyage into
Italy
; had recourse also to the Priests of
Egypt,
and became thoroughly acquainted with their Mysteries, Thus
Quintil.
But the account of
Laertius
seems most probable, (which
Vossius
adheres unto) who supposeth, that
Plato
's last Voyage was into
Egypt,
wherein he was accompanied with
Euripides,
or, as
Vossius,
with
Eudoxus,
where he had 13 years conversation with the
Egyptian Priests,
as
Strabo lib.
17.
Cicero
tells us, that
Plato
's design in Travelling to
Egypt,
was to inform himself in
Arithmetic,
and the
Celestial Speculations
of the
Barbarians, &c.
That under this notion of the
Barbarians
must be understood, if not exclusively, yet, inclusively,
the
Jews,
is a common received persuasion of the Learned, both
Ancient,
and
Moderne,
as
Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Epiphanius, Serranus, &c.
And this is most certain, that about the time of
Plato
's abode in
Egypt,
there were great numbers of the
Jews
who resorted thither, and we may no way doubt, that he, who had such an insatiable thirst after
Oriental
Traditions, and Mysteries for the satisfying whereof he left no Persons, Places, or Records unexamined, would let pass such a considerable party of men, as the
Jews
were, who pretended unto, and that upon good grounds, the most ancient Records, Traditions, and Mysteries. Surely we cannot rationally judge, that
Plato
's
curiosity,
or
humor
so greedy after
mysterious wisdom
would neglect so great opportunity, as he had for the instructing himself in the
Jewish Wisdom,
whilst he was in
Egypt.
Besides, we have before, (
Book
1.
Chap.
3.) proved, that the choicest parts of the
Egyptian
Philosophy, were of
Jewish
extract; so that what
Plato
gained here, may well be reckoned to be of
Jewish
Original.
This will be farther evident, if we take a view of some particular Collections which
Plato
made whilst he was in
Egypt.
We are told. 1.
(Epist. Socrat.
26.)
that
Plato
having taken a view of the chief parts of
Egypt,
at last settled himself in the Province of
Sais,
where he was instructed by the
Wise men,
touching their Opinions of the
Universe,
whether it had a beginning?
&c.
Now that all
Plato
's Traditions about the
Origin
of the
Universe
were of
Jewish Origination,
we shall hereafter prove. 2.
Pausanias
affirms, that
Plato
learned also from these
Wise men
of
Sais,
the immortality of the Soul,
&c.
which was evidently a derivation from the
Jewish
Oracles. 3.
Origen
(against
Celsus, lib.
4.
pag.
189.) conceives,
that
Plato,
by converse with the
Jews
in
Egypt,
received some notices of
Adam
's fall, which in his
Symposiacks,
he Symbolically sets forth under the Fable of
Porus (i. e. Adam
) his being Drunk with Nectar, and going into
Jupiter's Garden, (i. e. Paradise) &c.
This he conceives more probable, because of
Plato
's manner,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to hide
his great
Phenomena
's, or
Dogmas,
under the Figure of some Fable by reason
of the vulgar.
And in what follows, he makes mention of
Plato's
Artifice in discolouring, and disguising those Traditions he received from the
Jews,
lest by owning them, as the Authors of his Learning, he should disgust the Fabulous
Greeks,
who had no respect for the
Jews, &c.
4. Yea, indeed the chiefest part, if not the whole of those Divine Mysteries touching God, his
perfection,
and
unity
; his Divine
Ideas,
and
Providence
; also concerning the
Universe,
its
Origin
from God, its formation, and animation by the
Spirit
of God, which he calls
Anima Mundi
: in like manner, touching the
Soul,
its
Nature, Perfection,
in
Innocence,
and
corruption
by the
fall,
and such like Divine Traditions, which
Plato
pretends to have learned from the
Egyptians, &c.
are plainly
Jewish,
as hereafter.
Plutarch de Iside, & Osiride,
tells us, that
Plato,
whilst in
Egypt,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, is said to have heard
Chonuphis
the
Memphite.
Clemens Alexandrinus
says, that he did
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, use
for his Praeceptor Sechnuphis the Egyptian,
perhaps the same with
Plutarch's Chonuphis,
and both one and toother refers to
some
Jewish
Master he found in
Egypt, Austin lib.
2.
de doct.
makes mention of
Plato
's converse with
Jeremiah,
the
Jewish
Prophet in
Egypt,
where he went with the Tribe of
Judah,
and
Benjamin, &c.
but this Opinion he in his
de Civit. l.
8.
c.
11. refutes,
for that
Jeremiah
died before the
Persian
Empire began, whereas
Plato
's being in
Egypt,
was about the end of the
Persian
Empire.
Yet we need no way doubt, but that the memory of
Jeremiah,
who was so famous a Prophet, and had foretold such great events of Providence, even the destruction of his own People,
&c.
could not but remain very fresh and illustrious, even to
Plato
's time: especially if that story prove
true, that
Jeremiah
being buried under a heap of stones at
Tanis
in
Egypt,
was worshipped by the Inhabitants for a present remedy they found at his Sepulcher against the biting of
Serpents.
Eusebius
refers the beginning of
Jeremiah's
Prophecy to the 36
th
Olympiad
; and
Plato
's birth to the 88
th
Olympiad
: so that we may better, with
Lud. Vives,
suppose
Pythagoras
whilst in
Egypt,
to have had conference with
Jeremiah,
as before.
Yet may we safely conjecture, that
Plato,
whilst in
Egypt,
received some notices of
Jeremiah
his Fame, and Prophecy, which might engage him to inquire thereinto, as also into the
Mosaic
Books. So Learned
Vossius, de Philos. sect. par.
2.
cap.
2. §. 3. having shown the invaliditie of that Opinion touching
Plato
's personal Conference with
Jeremiah,
adds thus:
Plato
might notwithstanding read
Moses,
if there were any Version of him before that Translation of the LXX: of which we have elsewhere debated. And although this might not be, yet it is granted, he might have conference with the
Hebrews,
and be taught by them; which is made very likely by that Agreement there is of
Plato
with
Moses
in many things: whence that of
Numenius
the Philosopher,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
?
Thus
Vossius.
1. We shall not insist upon any Version of
Moses
's Books into Greek as ancient as
Plato,
though
Lud. Vives
asserts it, as before,
chap.
2. §. 2. yet may we, and that upon warrantable grounds, suppose, that
Plato,
(as
Pythagoras
before him) had some sight of, and capacity to read
Moses
's Books, with
Jeremiah
's Prophecy,
&c.
not by means of any
Greek
Version, but by virtue of the skill he had in the
Egyptian
Language, which differed from the
Hebrew
only in some
Dialect,
as has been before once, and again asserted, and proved. Neither can we well imagine, that
Plato,
who is said to have continued in
Egypt
13 Years, could be unacquainted with the
Egyptian
Language: who knows not, but that a Scholar when he Travels for Learning, the first thing he does, is to get the Language of the
Country
? Thus, as we afore observed,
Pythagoras
did in his Travels into
Egypt,
and
Chaldea
; and this we need no way doubt,
Plato
made his first business after his coming into
Egypt.
2. Yea, it seems to me somewhat probable, that
Plato
wanted not skill in the
Hebrew
Tongue: For in his
Cratylus,
where he gives us the Origination of many
Greek
Words, he says such, and such came from the
Barbarians,
implying (as before) the
Jews.
Amongst many others, he mentions these,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies darkness, and is evidently derived from the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Gen.
1.2, 5. for so
Plato
useth the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to express the
Chaos by.
The like he says of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which came from the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
exploration: and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from the
Heb.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
as
Serranus
in his Preface to
Plato
's
Cratylus.
Now how could
Plato
so exactly know, that these, with other
Greek
words, were of
Barbarian,
or
Hebrew
origination, if he had not some skill in the
Hebrew
Tongue. This is the Opinion of
Augustine, de Civit. Dei, l.
8.
c.
18. where he shows, that
Plato,
while he was in
Egypt,
learned the
Hebrew
Tongue. But this is refuted by some, as
Hornius, Hist. Phil. l.
3.
c.
14. 3. Farther, there is very great ground to think, that
Plato
had skill in the
Phoenician
Tongue, by those many Fables, and Traditions he quotes thence. Now the
Phoenician
Tongue was evidently the same for substance with the
Hebrew,
as before. That
Plato
drew much of his Philosophy from the
Phoenicians,
is the Opinion of
Scaliger, Exer.
61.
sect
3. and of
Serranus,
according to the Citation of
Hornius, Hist. Philos. l.
3.
c.
14.
Joh. Serranus
will have it, that
Plato
spake many things, which he understood not, drawn out of the
Theology,
and Commentaries of the
Phoenicians,
which seems most probable to me. For as to the
Phoenicians,
they were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, given to
Mercature,
familiar to the
Greeks
: also they sent several Colonies into various parts of the World. Nothing hinders therefore, but that
Plato
might attain to a more intimate Knowledge of their
Theology.
Now the
Phoenicians
had many things common with the
Hebrews, &c.
see more of this,
Book
1.
Chap.
3, §. 19. That
Pythagoras
was rendered capable of understanding the sacred
Scriptures,
by reason of his skill in the
Egyptian
Language, see
Book
2.
Chap.
5. §. 8. which is also applicable to
Plato
; or else, if this may seem to bold, because a
novel
Assertion, 4. We may with
Austin,
and other Learned, both Ancient, and Modern, groundedly conclude, that
Plato,
whilst he was in
Egypt
(amongst those many
Jews
who had recourse thither) learned by an Interpreter, or by personal Converse with the
Jews,
many of their
Divine
Doctrines, and Mysteries, though he understood not the genuine import thereof: as in the fore-going
Chap.
§. 3. This is the Opinion of Learned
Serranus,
in his Preface to
Plato, Truly
(says he) Plato,
while he was in
Egypt,
might have conference with the
Jews,
who were there in great numbers after their dissipation, and transmigration,
&c. Though he conceives, that
Plato
could not read the Scriptures in his own
Greek
Idiome, into which they were not Translated, till after
Alexander
's time: of which more hereafter.
§. 5.
Though we find no express mention of
Plato
's Travelling to
Phaeniciae,
yet that he visited that Country also, either in his Travels to, or from
Egypt,
seems very probable. For the
Phoenicians
being every way well furnished with
Jewish
Traditions, and Mysteries, we cannot conceive that
Plato,
who was so great an Admirer thereof, would let pass such an opportunity for satisfying his Curiositie therein: At least, that he had some view of Traditions from the
Phoenician Philosophy,
and
Theology,
seems more then probable from
Plato
's own Confessions; for he oft makes mention of a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Syrian,
and
Phoenician Fable or Tradition,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
ineffable,
because he neither understood, nor could express the mind thereof. These
Syrian,
or
Phoenician
Fables, which
Plato
gathered out of the
Phoenician Theology,
I have before proved to be of
Jewish
extract, and therefore
unintelligible
by the wisest
Heathens
; and thence 'tis no wonder, that
Plato
calls them
ineffable Fables.
Indeed, the most of his
Jewish
Traditions, which he gleaned up in those
Oriental
parts, especially such as referred to the
Jewish Mysteries,
and
Divine Worship,
were to him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
ineffable,
and
unintelligible,
and therefore he calls them,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Fables
: for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, according to its
Philosophic notion,
signifies some
Philosophic Mystery
traduced from the
Ancients,
the reasons whereof were concealed, or hidden; and because the first Philosophers, especially
Pythagoras,
and
Plato,
were great admirers of these Oriental
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Fables,
they are called by
Aristotle,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Philomythists, Lovers of Fables,
or
Mystical Traditions,
which
Aristotle
rejected, because his Reason could not comprehend them. These
Phoenician
Fables
Plato
much studied,
and recreated his curious humor withal, which gives us some ground to conjecture, that he was not without skill in the
Phoenician
Tongue, and so by consequence in the
Hebrew,
which differs only in some Dialect therefrom.
That
Plato
took many things out of the Phoenician
Theology,
which he himself understood not,
is an assertion of the learned
Julius Scaliger, Exercit.
61. I suppose he means out of the Theology of
Sanchoniathon,
and
Mochus
the
Physiologist,
wherein he follows the steps of
Pythagoras
; as before,
Book
2. Some tell us, that
Plato
had designed a journey to visit the
Persian Magi,
and
Chaldeans
(as
Pythagoras
before him did) but was prevented by the War, which happened betwixt the
Grecians,
and
Persians.
By all which it is most evident, what an infinite thirst
Plato
had after Oriental Wisdom, and Traditions originally
Jewish:
also, what an huge advantage he had for the gratifying his Curiositie herein, first, by his Travels into
Italy,
and conversation with
Pythagoreans
there; and thence into
Egypt,
and as we may presume into
Phoenicia
also, where he met with many
Jews,
and
Jewish
Records, or Traditions touching
Divine Mysteries,
which he greedily embraced, without any real understanding of their genuine import and sense, whence he turned the glory of God into a
Fable,
as he calls his Traditions: or as the Scripture terms them, a
lie, Rom.
1.25.
who changed the truth of God into a lie.
We have a brief
Synopsis
of
Plato
's Travels, and peregrinations, given us by
Hornius, Hist. Philos. l.
3.
c.
14. out of
Madaurensis,
thus:
Plato
went to
Theodorus Cyrenes
to learn
Geometry
; and he went so far as
Egypt
to fetch
Astrology,
as also to learn the
Rites
of the
Prophets.
He came again into
Italy,
and followed
Euritus,
and
Archytas
the
Pythagoreans.
He had also bent his mind towards the
Indians,
and
Magi,
had not the
Asiatic
Wars hindered him. He also went some time into
Sicily,
to understand the cause of
Aetna
's Fire, and to learn their Laws
§. 6.
Plato
having collected what stock he could of
Oriental Wisdom,
and
Jewish Traditions,
he returns home laden (as a Be with thyme) to
Greece,
where he institutes his
Schole
in a Village near
Athens,
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Academie,
which was, as
Laertius
tells us, a
woody,
and
marshy
place, and so very unhealthie; in former times possessed by one
Ecademus
an
Heroe,
who after his death became a
Daemon,
for
Eupolis Comicus
calls him a
God. Plutarch
in his
Chesew,
tells us, that this
Ecademus
was the first who made discovery of
Castor,
and
Pollux,
of
Helena
stolen away by
Theseus,
whence the
Lacedemonians
had him always in great honor. From him this Place was called first
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Laertius, Hesychius,
and
Stephanus
in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; whence afterward, by the change of a Letter, it was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Academie
(though
Hornius
derives it from
Cadmus.
) Here
Plato
sounded his Schole, which after the
new Academie
was raised, received the style of the
old Academie,
as hereafter.
Laertius
writes, that
Plato
was honorably Buried in this
Academie,
and that
Mithridates
King of
Pontus,
when
Athens
came under his Jurisdiction, dedicated
Plato
's Image to the
Muses
in this place. And
Aelian, lib.
3. says,
That the ancient Philosophers so reverenced this place, as that they counted it not lawful to laugh here, because they would have it kept pure from all dissolution of mind.
There were at
Athens
besides the
Academie,
other Schools, the
Lyceum, Prytaneum, Canopum, Stoa, Tempe, Cynosarges,
&c. as
Lud. Vives, in August. Civit.. l.
8.
c.
12.
Athens
was indeed the Eye of
Greece,
thence called by
Euripides,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Greece
of
Greece
; by
Diadorus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; by
Thucydides,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; by
Strabo,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
§. 7. As for
Plato
's
Character,
we find him greatly,
and I think too greatly extolled by some:
Lud. Vives in Aug. Civit. l.
8.
c.
4. says of
Plato,
that many have written his Life, and famous Acts: many place him for his Wisdom and Morals, above all human elevation; but truly I would count them so far short in their Estimation, and love of him, as that if I were not assured they were greatly addicted to him, I would suspect they envied his praises. He is deceived in my
•
pinion, whosoever he be, that counts
Plato
not something more than a Man, or truly not of the best and rarest so
•
t of Men.
Thus
Lud. Vives.
So again, in
Aug. Civi
•
. l.
22.
c.
28.
There are three things (says he) which gained not only
Greece,
but the whole World to
Plato
; namely, his
Integrity of Life,
his
Holy P
•
ecepts,
and his
Eloquence.
Seneca, Epist.
44. gives
Plato
this concise Character,
Platonem non accepit nobilem Philosophia, sed fecit.
Philosophy found not
Plato
noble, but made him so.
Eusebius lib.
10.
praep. c.
3. says,
that
Plato
excelled all that went before him in Philosophy, also in Eloquence, and in Prudence.
The usual Title they gave him, was
the Divine,
which was the highest Honor. Others there are, who depress him as much. But it is most certain,
Plato
was a Person of vast
Naturals
: he had a Spirit sublime, penetrant, and comprehensive, even to marvel: a Phancie most luxuriant, and pregnant; a Conception ready, and vivid; a Discourse mature, yet weighty; a Reason harmonious, and masculine; a Pen polite, and flourishing. In brief, his
Natural Capacitie
seems clothed with many eminent Qualities, seemingly opposite with
great Lights
and heats, force and stability, moderation and promptitude, extension and profoundnes,
&c.
Yet was he not, as to
Morals,
without great Blemishes, which stained all the Glory of his
Intellectuals.
Pride, which is the Philosophers Original Sin, had a great predominancie on his Spirit: whence
Antisthenes,
seeing a Vessel wherein
Plato
's Vomit lay, said,
I see
Plato
's bile here, but I see not his pride
; meaning, that his pride stuck too close to him to be vomited up. So
Diogenes
the
Cynic
coming into
Plato
's Schole, tramples upon his Bed, saying,
here I trample on
Plato
's vainglory
&c. He seemed also addicted to covetousness, which he is accused of for receiving 80 talents from King
Dionysius
(contrary to the practice of his Master
Socrates
) which occasioned that question
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
whether a wise man should study gain? &c.
§. 8. Touching
Plato's works
they are common, and well known. There are ten
Dialogues
in which the whole of his Philosophy is thought to be comprehended. In which we must distinguish betwixt
Plato's
proper opinion, and the opinion of others. His own he lays down in the person of
Socrates, Timaeus &c.
other men's opinions he lays down in the person of
Gorgias, Protagoras &c.
Amongst these
Dialogues
some are
Logical,
as his
Gorgias,
and
Eutydemus.
Some are
Ethical,
as his
Memnon, Eutyphro, Philebus, Crito:
some are
Political,
as his
Laws,
and
Common-wealth
: some are
Physical,
as his
Timaeus
: some are
Metaphysical,
as his
Parmenides,
and
Sophista,
which yet are not without somewhat of
Logic.
His
Epistles
are by some thought spurious. The
Platonic
Definitions, adjoined to his Works, are supposed to be compiled by his Successor
Pseusippus:
of which hereafter.
CHAP. IV. Of the
Academics,
and New
Platonics
of
Alexandria.
The difference 'twixt the Old, and New Academics, as to their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Plato's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
limited to matters only doubtful. Whether
Plato
Dogmatized? The New Academies, and their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The difference betwixt the New Academics, and the Skeptics,
&c.
The Original of the New
Platonists,
and their famous Schole at
Alexandria.
Of
Potamon, Ammonius, Plutarch,
and
Philo
the Jew. Of the great
Ammonius,
the head of the sacred Succession at
Alexandria.
How he borrowed the choicest of his
Platonic
Notions from the Scriptures, and the advantages he had for such a design. Of
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, Proclus, Johannes Grammaticus.
These New
Platonists
chose out the best of all Sects, & were thence called
Electicks.
The general design of these New
Platonists
to reform Philosophy.
Ammonius
the head of these Reforming
Platonists.
The defects of this
Platonic
Reformation, with its evil Effects.
1.
In delivering Scriptural Mysteries, as the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. under a concealed Form of
Platonic
Traditions.
2.
Too great Idolizing
Platonic
Philosophy more particularly. The sad Effects of this
Platonic
Reformation.
1.
As to the strengthening of Paganism.
2.
As to the corrupting of Christianity.
§. 1. HAving given some relation of
Plato
's Travels,
and the various ways by which he informed himself touching the
Jewish Wisdom,
and
Mysteries
; we now proceed to his
Schole, Disciples,
and
Successors,
and the ways by which they gained further information in the
Jewish Doctrine,
and
Institutes.
The Schole where
Plato
Philosophized, was, (as we have observed) styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Academie
; whence his Sect was called
Academics:
amongst whom there was a considerable difference, which arose from the firmness of their Assent, or
Suspension,
as to the truth of things. The Original of this difference was laid in
Socrates
's Schole, who out of his modesty, pretending to know nothing, would not in
matters dubio
•
assert anything peremptorily,
but left his Scholars to dispute
pro
or
contra,
as they listed. This
Problematick mode
of Philosophizing, was followed by
Plato
in his
Academie
; yet with a considerable difference from the
New Academics.
For in
Plato
's
Academie
they affected not an universal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
suspension,
but limited the same to things
disputable,
and
dubious. Plato
(and the Old
Academists
) held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That Being was always one and the same without generation,
and that therefore it was truly
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
knowable.
In which rank he placed all notions of God, of happiness, of the other Life, wherein there is a discrimination of good from evil Men. Of these matters
Plato
allowed not a liberty of Disputing
pro
and
contra
; but either lays them down peremptorily as certain, and indubitable
Principles,
or else from infallible
Principles
proves the same infallibly, whence he draws down true and eternal
Conclusions.
But as for things
natural,
and
sensible,
wherein there was little Certainty, or Evidence, he taketh, and alloweth his Scholars a Latitude of asserting, and denying things; which laid the foundation of the
Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension.
And that
Plato
made this difference betwixt assent to things
certain,
and things
dubious,
is evident from his distinction,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of
Opinionative,
and
Demonstrative Character.
He held, that all things were not to be believed, not all things to be disbelieved; but that things certain were certainly to be believed, and things dubious to be left
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, undetermined; wherein he allowed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Problematick Liberty
of disputing
pro
or
contra.
This gives us a good decision of that great question amongst the Ancients:
Whether
Plato
Dogmatized?
By
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
they mean to impose a
Dogme,
as
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to impose a Law
: in which sense 'tis used,
Col.
2.20. where it signifies not only a
Dogme
decreed, but the Decree itself, and its imposition.
Laertius lib.
3. gives us a good solution hereof.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, those things
Plato
comprehended, he asserts; those things which are false, he refuted; and about those things which are uncertain, he suspended. We find much the same mentioned by
Sextus Empericus
the
Sceptic, cap.
31.
Some says he) hold
Plato
to be
Dogmatick:
others conceive him to be
Aporematick,
or
suspensive
: others think him in some things
Dogmatick,
in some things
Aporematick
: For in his
Gymnastick Discourses,
where
Socrates
is brought in disputing with the
Sophists,
they affirm,
he has a
Gymnastick,
or
Aporematick
Character; but when he declareth his own opinion, he is
Dogmatick, &c.
We have this more particularly expressed by
Diogenes Laertius
lib. 3. where he distinguisheth betwixt what
Plato
asserted as true; and what he left uncertain by the persons whom he brings in disputing
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
Concerning the things, which he asserted, he produced his opinion by four persons,
Socrates, Timaeus,
his
Aethenian Host,
and his
Eleatick Host.
But in the refuting of falsehood he introduceth
Trasymachus, Callicles, Polus, Gorgias,
and
Protagaras
: add moreover
Hippias,
and
Euthydemus, &c.
By all which we see, how far the Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
suspension
was allowed in the
Old Aecademie
instituted by
Plato,
who was succeeded therein by
Speusippus
his Sister
Potona
's son, who taught in the Academie 8 years, but for Hire, contrary to the practice of
Socrates,
and
Plato,
for which he was upbraided. This
Speusippus
is supposed to be the compiler of the
Platonic
Definitions subjoined to, and (as I gather by comparing them) abstracted from
Plato
's Works. After
Speusippus
succeeded
Xenocrates
the
Chalcedonian,
who was of a dull wit, wherefore
Laertius
tells, that
Plato
should say,
Xenocrates wanted Spurs, but Aeristotle a bridle.
Unto
Xenocrates
succeeded
Polemo,
who was followed by his Disciples
Crates
the
Aethenian,
and
Crantor,
who is said to be the first, that Commented on
Plato
: so
Proclus in Timaeus l.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. And thus far continued the
Old Aecademists,
who insisting on
Plato
's steps, neither asserted, not denied all things; but what they comprehended, they affirmed, and what they found uncertain, they left so, without any peremptory definition.
§. 2. After
Crantor
succeeded
Arcesilaus,
or (as the
Latins) Arcesilas
who founded the second
Academie,
wherein they maintained an universal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incomprehension,
and
suspension.
The ground, which
Arcesilas
proceeds upon to defend his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
cohibition of assent,
was indeed originally laid in
Socrates
's Schole, and therefore he makes use of
Socrates
's Authority to defend himself, who affirmed he
knew nothing,
that so by this his modest concession, he might refute the immodest, and proud assumings of his Adversaries, who pretended to know all things. So
Lud. Vives in August. de Civit. lib.
8.
cap.
12.
This (says he)
is the old Academie which by
Polemon
the disciple of
Xenocrates
was delivered over to
Arcesilas,
who
essayed to reduce the mode of disputing to the
Socratick
manner, to affirm nothing himself, but to confute what others maintained: which was called the
New Academie
; whence the name Academic was appropriated to
Arcesilas, &c.
It cannot be denied, but that
Socrates
(and
Plato
after him) especially in his
Gymnastick disputes
used, and allowed a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
probationarie mode
of diputing, for, and against both parts; but yet his design was not to introduce an
universal suspension
in things certain, but only to beat out Truth in things uncertain. For it is most certain that
Socrates,
and
Plato
both asserted, and determined many things, whence they are generally accounted
Dogmatick,
though in things doubtful they used to suspend, and allow a Liberty, as before. But now these
New Academics Arcesilas,
and his adherents asserted, that all things were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incomprehensible,
and therefore, that there was no room for a firm assent, but that we ought
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to suspend
in all things; wherein they differed greatly from the
old Academics
instituted by
Plato
: though it must be still confessed, they received their original from them, as it is well observed by
Serranus in his Preface to
Plato.
There is no doubt, says he, but that the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
dubitations
of the
New Academics
were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
corruptions
of the
old opinion, &c.
This Old Opinion he elsewhere acquaints us withal, showing how it was the mode in
Plato
's
Academie,
in
matters sensible,
such as were only probable, and doubtful, to give, and take a Liberty of disputing for either part, the
Affirmative, or Negative,
so that the Position was still left
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
undetermined,
whence by these, and such like
Quodlibetick Disputes,
or
Sceptic Questionings
of everything, men at last began to believe nothing: for nothing is more natural, saith
Jansen, than for men from Peripatetics (i. e.
contentious disputers)
to become Academics.
But that which superadded much strength to this
Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
or suspension,
was the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Eristick Logic,
founded in the
Eleatick
Schole, and assumed by the
New Academics,
of which before. Unto
Arcesilas
succeeded
Laeys
his Disciple, who had for his successors,
Telecles, Evander,
and
Hegesippus,
the last of this
second Academie.
For
Carneades
the
Cyrenean,
who succeeded, is made the Institutor of a
Third Academie,
which differed from the Second Instituted by
Arcesilas
in two Points: 1. In that
Carneades,
acknowledged something true and something falls, only he affirmed there was not in us a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or skill to difference the truth from falsehood. 2.
Carneades
though he asserted an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, yet he denied not, but somewhat was probable, or not. Others there be, who add a Fourth, and Fift
Academie.
We have a good account of all in
Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. lib.
1.
cap.
33. There were
Academies,
as they say, more than Three.
The first, and most Ancient of
Plato
: the second, and middle of
Arcesilas
: the third, and new of
Carneades,
and
Clitomachus.
There are who add a fourth of
Philo,
and
Charmidas,
and a fifth of
Antiochus, &c.
As for
Philo
's
Academie,
it came near the old, in that it allowed a Wise man to Opine or Entertain some opinions, which
Carneades
denied. And
Antiochus Philo
's hearer, who lived about
Cicero
's time, seemed wholly to restore the
old Academie
save only in this, that as to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
faculty
of
Judging,
he inclined to the
Stoics.
But these four last
Academies
are usually comprised all under the style of the
New Academie
(though some came nearer to, and some were more remote from the old) which some confound with the
Skeptics
: but
Sextus Empiricus (cap.
13.) gives us this difference.
Those of the
New Academies
(says he) though they affirm
all things are Incomprehensible,
yet they differ from the
Skeptics,
perhaps in saying, that all things are
Incomprehensible
; for they assert this: but the
Skeptics
admit it possible, that they may be
Comprehended.
We differ also from the
New Academie
as to what belongs to the end. They use in the course of life what is credible: we following Laws, Customs, and Natural affections, live without engaging our opinion,
&c.
§. 3. After various transformations of the
Academie,
those who adhered to
Plato
's
Dogmas,
rejected the name of
Academics,
and espoused that of
Platonics,
so that the style of
Academics
was confined to the Sectators of
Arcesilas,
who maintained
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
Incomprehension,
and
Suspension
: thus
Lud. Vives
on
August. Civ. l.
8.
c.
12.
Arcesilas
who attained to bring in the
Socratick
mode of disputing, to affirm nothing, but to refute the affirmations of others,
constituted the
New Academie.
Hence they, who illustrated things, and asserted certain Dogmas which they conceived to be the opinions of
Plato,
these were called
Platonics,
not
Academics
; for I conceive, the name
Academic
stuck too fast in the Schole of
Arcesilas
: thus
Lud. Vives.
The first revivings of the
old Academie,
or
Platonic Philosophy
seems to owe it's original to the famous Schole of
Alexandria
in
Egypt,
instituted by
Ptolomaeus Philadelphus,
who out of his great zeal for the advancing of Learning, caused the
Egyptian Wisdom,
which had
been before confined to the
Egyptian
Priests, and Language, to be translated into the
Greek
tongue, to which he added the
Greek version
of the
sacred Scriptures,
commonly called the LXX, which rendered this Schole of
Alexandria
most renowned. He also called hither Learned Men from all parts, as well
Jews,
as
Grecians,
erected a famous Librarie; searched far and near for Learned Records to adorn the same withal, and instituted Colleges for the encouragement of the Learned Professors, & Students. This same design was carried on by his Son
Euergetes,
who gave great encouragement to the
Jews,
and others to resort hither, to this famous Schole of
Alexandria
which proved the most flourishing, that ever was before or since, especially for
Platonic
Philosophy, which revived, and flourished here for many generations, as has been before observed,
Book
1.
chap.
3. §. 10, 11. of this second part.
§. 4. The first famous
Platonist
(according to what observation we have made) that flourished in this Schole of
Aelexandria
was
Potamon,
who lived in the times of
Caesar Aeugustus,
and
Tiberius
; as
Laertius
in his Preface: So
Soudas
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
'Potamon the Alexandrine Philosopher, who was before, and after Aeugustus, &c.
The same
Soudas
tells us that he left behind him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Commentary on
Plato's
books of Common-wealth
; and we may presume he writ other pieces, though he has nothing extant at present. To
Potamon,
we may add
Ammonius
(not the famous Master of
Origen,
and
Plotinus
but) the famous Master of
Plutarch,
who lived in the time of
Nero,
and
Vespasian.
Yea
Plutarch
himself, who had his education in this Schole of
Alexandria,
and flourished under
Domitian,
was not only famous for
Philologie,
and
History,
but also for
Philosophy,
and principally the
Platonic,
as appears by his Writings,
&c.
To whom we may subjoin
Philo
the
Jew,
who was of this Schole of
Alexandria
and drenched in
Platonic
Philosophy, as it appears by his works: So
Lud. Vives
in
August. Civ. lib.
17.
cap.
20.
This book (says he speaking of that
Apocryphous
Book called the
Wisdom of Solomon
) is thought to have been composed by
Philo
the
Alexandrine Jew,
who lived in the times of the
Apostles,
and was a Friend to them, and was so much adorned with the
Greek
speech and Eloquence, as that the
Greeks
said of him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
either
Philo
doth
Platonize,
or
Plato
doth
Philonize.
§. 5.
But
Platonic
Philosophy never flourished more than under
Ammonius,
that famous head
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of the
sacred succession
of this Schole of
Alexandria,
continued by
Origen, Herennius,
and
•
lotinus, &c.
This
Ammonius
is supposed to be different from
Ammonius
the Praeceptor of
Plutarch,
as well as from
Ammonius
the Monk, Disciple of
Proclus,
and Interpreter of
Aristotle,
as
Vossius de philos. sect. cap.
21. §. 6. There was a great Controversy betwixt the Learned
Christians,
and the latter
Platonists,
whether this g
•
eat
Ammonius
died a
Pagan,
or
Christian. Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l.
6.
c.
19. and
Jerome.
assure us he was a
Christian,
though
Porphyry
denies the same. Thus much is generally confessed, that he borrowed the choicest of his Contemplations from the
sacred Scriptures,
which he mixed with his
Platonic
Philosophizings. And indeed he had a mighty advantage to inform himself, not only in the sacred Scriptures,
of the
Old Testament
translated by the LXX, but also in the
New Testament
Records, and Doctrines propagated by the
Disciples,
and
Apostles
of Christ. For without doubt
Philo,
that learned
Jew
bred up in this Schole of
Alexandria
(& as
Lud. Vives
tells us, a friend to the Apostles) with the rest of the
Jews
there, could not but have a full relation of
Christ,
his Acts, and Doctrine. Besides there was in this Town of
Alexandria
a famous
Christian Church,
and Schole settled by
Mark
the Evangelist, and continued by
Panthenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c.
whose
Doctrine, Discipline,
and
sacred Mysteries,
we cannot conceive such a person as
Ammonius
would let pass unexamined. Yea farther, so glorious, and ravishing were the first dawnings of
Gospel light,
which brought such glad tidings of Salvation to Mankind, as that not only the
Jews,
but also some sober minded, inquisitive
Gentiles
rejoiced in this Light for a season (according to that Observation
John
5.35.) who yet never had a through work of Conversion on their hearts: amongst this number we may reckon
Seneca
(whom some think to have had conference by Paper with
Paul) Epictetus, Pliny
the younger (who Apologized unto
Trajan
in the behalf of the
Christians
) & this famous
Ammonius
of
Alexandria
with some others. Yea I see no reason to the contrary, but that we may allow these, and some other unprejudiced Noble
Gentiles,
as well as the unbelieving
Jews,
to have had some common
irradiations,
and
illuminations
of the Spirit over and above that
objective Light,
and
Revelation
of the Gospel, which shone so brightly round about them. He that shall read the Works of
Seneca, Epictetus, Hierocles,
and these
latter Platonists
of
Alexand
•
ia,
who had
the glorious beams of Gospel Light waiting on them, will find their Philosophizings about Divine Mysteries to be of a much higher Elevation, and Raisure, than any of their Predecessors; which we may impute not only to the objective
Revelation
of Gospel light externally communicated to them, but also to some internal
subjective,
though but common, and transient
irradiation
of the Spirit, which usually attends in some degree the
external Revelation
of the Gospel, especially at the first publication thereof in any place. That it was thus with many
carnal Jews
at the first publication of the Gospel by
John,
&
Christ,
is most evident: and why may we not affirm the same of many
Gentiles,
who being of more raised, and generous spirits, could not but make some
inquisition
into those stupendous Miracles, and Reports, touching
Christ,
and that Redemption brought to light by him; which Enquiries of theirs, being attended with some Common Light, and Heat of the Spirit, raised their Spirits, and Philosophic Contemplations to some higher Elevation, than what their Predecessors attained unto. And that which might animate the latter
Platonists
to such Enquiries, into those
Divine,
and
Sacred
Mysteries, was their
correspondence,
and
agreement
with the choicest of their Master
Plato
's Contemplations, who treated much (though without understanding rightly the matters he treated of) concerning
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. The very Being, Self-Being, Word, Mind, Idea of the choicest Good, Soul of the World, Chaos, &c.
And the
latter Platonists Ammonius, &c.
finding these their Masters Notions so fully, and clearly explicated in sacred Revelations, both of the
Law,
and
Gospel
; this made them more affectionately inquisitive thereinto, and after their curious inquisitions, finding a great
Symbolization,
and
Harmonie
betwixt many of their
Platonic
Principles, and the
Divine
Scriptures, they made what use they could of the Latter to
Reforme, Refine,
and
Strengthen
the Former. This design was first set on foot by
Ammonius
the chief of that Sacred
Succession,
who if he were not a real
Christian,
yet he seems to have had, with
Agrippa,
some
almost persuasions,
and
affectionate inclinations
to the
Christian Religion
; the Principles whereof he does incorporate so far as he durst with his
Philosophic Notions,
with endeavors to infuse the same into his Scholars,
Origen, Herennius Plotinus,
with the rest. Some conceive that
Ammonius
imparted those more divine Mysteries, which he collected out of Sacred
Revelations
into his
Platonic
Philosophizings, with an
adjuration
of Secrecie to his Scholars. How far this design of
Ammonius
to reform
Platonic
Philosophy by mixing
Divine
Revelations therewith took place, and what emprovement
Platonisme
received hence, together with the poisonous influences it has had on the the Christian faith, we shall hereafter show. What we have already mentioned sufficeth to prove, that
Platonic
Philosophy received a mighty
elevation,
and
advance
in this Schole of
Alexandria
under
Ammonius,
by virtue of his
affectionate searches
into, and
Collections
from the
Sacred Scriptures,
attended with some
common illuminations,
though perhaps without any saving
light of Life
from the
Spirit
of God. Whence also his Scholars,
Origen, Herennius,
and
Plotinus
together with their Successors in this sacred Schole of
Alexandria, Porphyry, Iamblichus, &c.
received their choicer, and more sublime contemplations, albeit they conceal the same, pretending, these more refined Notions to have been derived to them from the
Pythagorean,
and
Platonic source
; whereas they were indeed no other than
derivations
from the sacred fountain of
Divine Revelation,
communicated by the hands of
Ammonius
the chief of that
Sacred Succession,
as they call it.
§. 6. To
Ammonius
Succeeded
Plotinus,
born at
Lycop
•
lis
a City of
Egypt,
and instituted in the
Platonic
Philosophy at
Alexandria
under
Ammonius.
He left behind him, besides other things, 54 Books divided into
Enneades,
which though
obscure,
and
cloudy
according to the
Platonic
mode, yet are they esteemed the most exactest model of
Platonic
Philosophy extant: so
Aeugust. de Civit. l.
9.
c.
10.
Truly
Plotinus
who lived near to the times of our memory, is extolled for his understanding
Plato
more excellently than others,
&c.
So agen,
Austin lib.
3.
Acad.
writes, that
Plato
seemed to be revived in
Plotinus.
Thus was he
Plato
's most refined, and lucid Mouth in Philosophy, and abstracting the Clouds of error,
Macrobius
makes him the Prince of
Platonic
Philosophers, next
Plato,
as
Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ. lib.
9.
cap.
10.
Plotinus
had for his Disciples
Amelius,
and
Porphyry.
He lived under the Emperors
Galienus,
and
Probus.
His Life is writ by his Disciple
Porphyry,
and premised to his works.
Porphyry
gives him this Character.
Who, says he, expounded the principles of
Pythagorick,
and
Platonic
Philosophy, more clearly, as it seems, than all
•
hat went before him: neither do the Writings of
Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus,
and
Thrasyllus
come near unto the accurate diligence of
Plotinus, &c.
§. 7.
Porphyry
Disciple first of
Plotinus,
and then of
Amelius,
was Born at
Tyre,
and according to the Language of the
Tyrians
was called
Malchus
after his Fathers name, which signifies a
Prince,
or
King
: so
Soudas
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Porphyry
was properly called
Basileus.
He was a
Tyrian
Philosopher, Disciple of
Amelius
the Scholar of
Plotinus,
but the Master of
Iamblichus.
He lived in the times of
Aurelianus,
and reached even to the times of
Diocletian
the Emperor.
Soudas
here rightly translates
Porphyry
's
Phoenician
name
Malchus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a King,
for so in the
Hebrew,
(from which the
Phenecian
Language differs only in some
Dialect
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies, as
Vossius.
Yea
Porphyry
himself in the Life of
Plotinus
gives us the reason, why he was called a
King.
Amelius,
says he Dedicated his Book to me, and in the Inscription named me
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
King
: for that was my Name: and in the Language of my country I was called
Malchus,
by which Name my Father was also called. And
Malchus
translated into
Greek
signifies a
King
: thus he.
Eunapius
in the Life of
Porphyry
gives us an account, how his name came to be changed.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
According to the
Syrian
tongue, he was first called
Malchus,
which word signifies a
King,
but afterward
Longinus
named him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Porphyry.
He was called
Porphyry,
from
Purple,
which is the color of
Kings,
as
Vossius
; or perhaps because
Purple
was the great Commodity which
Tyre
afforded.
Austin de Civit. Dei
hints, That this
Porphyry
was first a
Christian,
but afterwards
apostatized,
and a bitter
Enemy
of the Christians. He was a great admirer of
Apollonius, Tyanaeus,
that
Pythagorean Sorcerer,
and endeavors to make him equal in point of Miracles unto
Christ
; wherein he was refuted by
Eusebius. Ludov. Vives in August. lib.
8.
cap.
12. doth thus Characterize him.
Porphyry
was a person of an unsound body, and mind, of a judgment inconstant, and of an hatred sharp, and cruel, even unto madness.
He had notwithstanding the name of a great Philosopher, or Sophist, as well as Historian. He writ the Lives of the Philosophers, whereof there is extant only the Life of
Pythagoras,
which was at first published under the Name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which Book
Cyril
cites against
Julian,
and ascribes to
Porphyry.
Concerning
Porphyry
see more largely
Lucas Ho
•
stenius,
and
Vossius de Histor. Gracis lib.
2.
cap.
16.
Edit.
2.
pag.
244.
§. 8. After
Porphyry,
succeeded
Iamblichus
his Disciple,
who was born at
Chalcis
in
Syria,
and flourished in the times of
Constantine the Great,
and his
Sons
; as also in
Julian
's time:
He was,
saith
Lud. Vives
▪ of a better natural Disposition, and Manners, than his Master
Porphyry.
calls him a
Platonic
Philosopher, though
Lud. Vives
says (according to
Jerome
) he was not so much a
Platonic,
as a
Pythagorean
: Yet he confesseth, that as
to
Divine
matters, all the
Platonists
did
Pythagorize.
There are extant two of his
Protreptick Orations
for Philosophy; also his History of
Pythagoras
's Life, wherein he follows his Master
Porphyry,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; out of whose Book he transcribes many things with very little, if any alteration of the words. There are three Epistles of
Julian
the
Apostate
to
Iamblichus
yet extant, which argues a Friendship betwixt them, and 'tis likely the same continued even whilst
Julian
made some profession of the
Christian
Religion.
Soudas
tells us out of
Damascius,
that
Isidorus
esteemed
Iamblichus
the most excellent of Writers after
Plato.
We have
Iamblichus
's Life described by
Eunapius,
also by
Vossius, Hist. Graec. l.
2.
c.
10.
p.
208.
August. de Civit. l.
8.
c.
12. says, that
amongst the
Platonists
the
Grecians, Plotinus, Iamblichus,
and
Porphyry,
were greatly noble,
&c.
§. 9.
Syrianus Alexandrinus,
Fellow-Citizen, and Sectator of
Iamblichus,
follows next in this Sacred succession of
Platonic
Philosophers. He lived about the Year, 470. and writ four Books on
Plato
's Common-wealth; also on all
Homer,
with other things, as
Soudas
relates.
Isidorus
the Philosopher had a great esteem for him, who after
Plato,
next to
Iamblichus,
placeth
Syrianus
his Sectator as the most excellent of Writers. So
Soudas
out of
Damascius.
§. 10.
Proclus Lysius,
Disciple of
Syrianus,
succeeded him in this famous
Platonic
Schole. This
Proclus
flourished about the Year 500.
as 'tis evident, though some, upon a great mistake, make him to have lived almost 300 Years before.
Soudas
calls him,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Platonic Philosopher.
He was usually called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Diadochus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by reason of his succession in the
Platonic
Schole. He writ many things; as ten Books of the Agreement betwixt
Orpheus, Pythagoras,
and
Plato
in Oracles; also six Books of
Platonic
Philosophy, which are yet extant: likewise a Commentary on
Plato
's
Timaeus,
and on his Books of
Common-wealth,
yet extant also; with other Pieces lost, of which
Soudas
makes mention.
Proclus
's Life was writ
by his Scholar, and successor
Marinus,
who tells us, that he had some taste of
Aristotle
's Philosophy from
Olympiodorus,
which he cursorily ran thorough in two Years space. The same
Marinus
tells us also,
that he was accurately skilled in
Grammar, History,
and
Poesie,
in the
Mathematics
perfect, and well versed in
Platonic
Philosophy.
His Mode in Philosophizing is cloudy, and obscure; as that of
Plotinus,
and the rest of the
New Platonists
: He endeavors, according to the Symbolic mystical manner of
Platonists,
to reduce all things to their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Trinities.
He took (as
Vossius
thinks) the occasion of heaping up so many
Trinities,
from
Plato
's
lib.
2.
de Repub.
where he treats of those three Types of God,
Bonity, Immutabilitie,
(or
Unity
) and
Veritie.
Whence
Aristotle
also received his three affections of
Eus, Bonity, Unity,
and
Veritie.
This
Proclus
was a bitter enemy to the
Christians,
and the first after
Porphyry,
that turned his Pen dipt in Gall against the
Christians.
He is answered by that great Christian Philosopher,
Johannes Grammaticus,
as hereafter.
Proclus
in his
Platonic Theology, lib.
1.
cap.
1. gives us some account of this
Sacred Succession
in this Platonizing
Theologick Schole; how that after many Ages,
Plotinus
the
Egyptian
succeeded therein, who was followed by
Amelius,
and
Porphyry
his Disciples; as also these by
Iamblichus,
and
Theodorus
their Successors,
&c.
§. 11. We may not omit here the mention of
Johannes Grammaticus,
alias
Philoponus,
that famous Christian Philosopher, who, though the most of his Works extant are Commentaries on
Aristotle
's Text, yet it's evident, that his Spirit was deep drenched in
Platonic
Philosophy, especially as it was refined by
Ammonius
that famous Head of the
sacred succession at Alexandria
: For so the Title of his
Commentaries
runs,
Extracts out of Ammonius,
&c. Indeed most of those
Greek
Philosophers, who take
Aristotle
's Text for their subject; namely,
Porphyry, Proclus,
with his Scholar
Ammonius,
and
Simplicius,
were in their Spirits
Platonists.
For
Aristotle
came not in to be Master in the Schole, till
Abenroes,
and the rest of the
Arabians
advanced him in
Plato
's Chair. Such was this
Johannes Grammaticus,
who for his unwearied Studies, was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Philoponus.
He follows exactly the Design of
Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius,
and more particularly of the great
Ammonius
(whom he owns as the source of his Philosophy) in endeavoring to prove, that
Plato
borrowed his choicest Notions touching the Origin of the World,
&c.
out of
Moses,
and the
Prophets
: he gives sundry Instances herein, as that of
Plato
's calling the World
a visible Image of the invisible God,
which, says he, was but a mistaken Tradition of
Gen.
1.27.
Also he makes
Plato
's Discourse of God's beholding the Works of his hands as very perfect, and rejoicing therein,
&c.
to be taken from
Gen.
1.31. This
Johannes Grammaticus,
in his excellent Treatise of the
Soul (proaem. ad Arist. de anima)
endeavors to prove, that
Aristotle
asserted God to be the first Mover, and Cause of all things,
&c.
Also he proves out of
Aristotle
's
Canons
touching the
Soul,
its
immaterialitie, spiritualitie
in operation, and
immortality,
&c.
Proaem. fol.
6.
&c.
In his choice Piece of the
Creation,
he proves the World's Origin by God out of
Plato, &c.
And whereas
Proclus
endeavors to reconcile
Plato
with
Aristotle,
showing how
Plato,
when he treats of the World's Origin, meant it not as to time, but
Causalitie, &c.
This Learned
Philoponus
writes two Books against
Proclus,
confuting these his false Impositions on
Plato, &c.
§. 12. To the fore-mentioned
Greek Platonists,
we may add
Maximus Tyrius,
who flourished in the time of
Commodus
the Emperor, as
Soudas,
and was well versed in
Platonic
Philosophy, as it appears by his Writings, wherein we have many of
Plato
's choicest Notions delivered to us more clearly, and nakedly, than in other
Platonists
of greater vogue.
§. 13. Neither must we let pass
Alcinous,
another
Greek Platonist,
who hath left us a short Abstract of
Platonic
Philosophy, on which
Jacobus Carpentarius,
that
Claromontane
Professor (an inveterate Enemy of
Ramus,
and, as it's said, the Original of his being Massacred) hath given us a good Commentary. In what Age this
Alcinous
lived, it's not certain.
Eusebius de Praeparat. Evang. lib.
11. cites a good part of this
Alcinous
's
Epitome,
under the name of
Didymus
: whence it is conjectured, that
Didymus Alexandrinus
was the Author of this Book; or that he transcribed that place quoted by
Eusebius
out of
Alcinous
: so
Vossius de Philos. sect. cap.
16. §. 5.
§. 14. Amongst the Latin
Platonists,
we may reckon
Apuleius,
whose Book
de Dogmate Platonis,
is yet extant,
August. de Civit. Dei, l.
8.
c.
12. tells us, that
Apuleius
the
African
Platonist, grew very famous in both
Tongues, &c. Augustine
often quotes him, and makes much use of his Notions, and Testimony to confirm the Christian Religion. To him we may add
Chalcidius,
another
Latin Platonist,
whose Commentary on
Plato
's
Timaeus
is yet extant. Neither should we forget
Marsilius Ficinus,
who though but a Moderne Author, and
Roman
Catholic, yet deserves praise for his elaborate Studies, and endeavors to explicate
Platonic
Philosophy, especially for his Treatise
de Immortalitate Animae, of the Soul's Immortality,
which he proves by strong convictive Arguments, wherein he takes occasion to illustrate the chief Points of
Plato
's Philosophy.
§. 15. Thus we see how the
Old Academie
or
Platonic
Philosophy was revived by the New
Platonists,
especially those of the
Sacred Succession
in the Schole of
Alexandria,
where the
Platonic
Philosophy was mostly in vogue, though not exclusively, as to the other Sects. For we must know these
New Platonists
did not, at least the most of them, wholly devote themselves to
Plato,
so as to exclude all other
Sects
; but made it their business to choose what they found excellent in any other Sect: whence they were called,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
Elective Sect
; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Electicks,
because, says
Soudas,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
They chose out their Placites from every Sect.
Thence
Festus Pompeius
calls them
Miscelliones. Potamon Alexandrinus
is said to be the first of this
Sect.
So
Diogenes Laertius
in his Preface,
There is,
says he,
of late an
Elective Sect,
introduced by
Potamon Alexandrinus,
who chose what he pleased out of every Sect. Sotion, Seneca
's Preceptor, was of this Sect, who, though he past under the name of a
Stoic,
yet was he a great Admirer of
Pythagoras, &c.
as
Seneca, Epist.
58.
I am not ashamed to confess, what a love of
Pythagoras Sotion
infused into me,
says
seneca,
who was also of this Sect. The like may be said of
Hierocles,
who though mostly
Stoic,
yet was he a great esteemer of
Pythagorean
Philosophy, as appears by his Commentary on
Lysis
's
Golden Verses,
which pass under the name of
Pythagoras. Ammonius, Plutarch
's Master, is said to be of this
Elective
Sect. That
Plotinus
affected an universal mixture of all Philosophy, is evident, partly by what was before mentioned, §. 6. how he mixed
Platonic,
and
Pythagorick
Philosophy,
&c.
as also by what is mentioned of him by
Porphyry
in his Life,
That he mixed in his Writings the secret Dogmas of the
Stoics,
and
Peripatetics. So
Iamblichus
mixeth
Pythagorean,
and
Platonic
Philosophy.
Porphyry, Proclus, Johannes Grammaticus,
and
Symplicius,
mix
Platonic,
and
Aristotelian
Philosophy. And it is an Assertion generally owned by the Learned, that all those
New Platonists
of this
Alexandrine
Schole, did, as to
Theology, Pythagorize
; wherein they did no more than their Master
Plato
: for
Proclus
spends ten Books in drawing a parallel betwixt
Plato, Pythagoras,
and
Orpheus,
as to Divine
Oracles, &c.
This
Elective
Sect of Philosophers, is mostly approved by
Clemens Alexandrinus, lib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
I call Philosophy not the
Stoic,
neither the
Platonic,
or the
Epicurean,
and
Aristotelick,
but whatever is said to be taken from each of these
Sects
rightly, teaching righteousness with pious Science,
this altogether selected,
I call Philosophy. Origen
also seems to have been of this same persuasion: And that, which made these generous Spirits to keep themselves disengaged from any particular
Sect,
was their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
love to Truth,
commended so much by
Plato.
So
Ammonius
on
Arist. Categor. pag.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. It was
Plato
's Speech:
Socrates
truly is dear, but truth is dearer to us: And elsewhere, we must regard
Socrates
in some things, but Truth much more. Thence
Porphyry
in the Life of
Pythagoras,
tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that Truth only can make men near to God.
So
Iamblichus,
expressing the mind of the
Pythagoreans,
says, that
next to God, Tru
•
h is to be worshipped, which alone makes men next to God.
Yet in as much as they thought Truth was nowhere so fully, so lively represented to them, as in
Plato
's Works, they judged it their interest, and honor to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Philoplatonists
; wherefore they usually pass under the name of the
New Platonists,
though indeed their Principles were not so clung, but that they could embrace Truth, where ever they found it amongst any of the other Sects; especially the
Pythagoreans,
with whom they ever held an intimate Fraternitie, or Consociation. See more of this
Elective Sect
in
Vossius de Philos. sect. cap.
21.
§. 16.
What has been mentioned gives us some discovery of the general Design of these
New Platonists
; which was not to espouse any particular Sect so far as to exclude all the rest, but to make an universal Inquisition into all Opinions, which carried a show of Wisdom. This Noble Design, had it been as nobly managed as they pretended, without prejudice, and private affection, it had led them into higher
discoveries of Truth, than ever they attained unto. For they had the greatest Advantages that might be (as before §. 5.) to inform themselves fully touching the great
Doctrines,
and
Mysteries
of Sacred Philosophy, or Wisdom, that shone so brightly in the
Christian
Churches: but this was too glorious, and dazzling an object, for their carnal and weak minds to gaze long upon: only some of the more Noble, and Ingenuous of that
Sacred Succession
at
Alexandria,
seemed pretty willing to be dis-abused from some of those grosser Conceptions they had sucked in together with their
Platonic
Infusions: in order whereto, after inquiry made in the Sanctuary of
Sacred Scriptures,
they find a necessity of
Reformation.
The head of these
Reforming Platonists
was that great
Ammonius,
Master of
Plotinus,
and
Origen,
who if he were not really, and altogether a
Christian,
yet certainly he had a great kindness for those of the
Profession,
and a particular affection for their
Sacred Oracles
; which put him not only upon the study of the same, but also on this great design of Collecting what he could out of these
Holy Scriptures,
and
incorporating,
or contempering the same Collections with the
System,
or
Body
of his
Platonic
Philosophizings. And certainly these endeavors of his could not but give a great
sublimation,
refinement, and advance to
Platonic
Philosophy, though all proved but a bitter, yea poisonous root of those dangerous Errors, and Apostacies, which have ever since befell the
Churches
of
Christ
; besides the advantages, which those of that
Alexandrine Succession,
who continued
Pagans,
got hence to refine, and strengthen
Paganism.
The evidence both of the one, and the other, will follow upon some particular reflections on this
Platonic Reformation.
§. 17. First,
Ammonius
the great Promoter of this
Platonic
Reformation, if he were really a
Christian
(as
Eusebius,
and
Jerome
affirm him to be) was in this greatly blameable.
1. That he durst not make open
Profession
of the
Christian Religion,
which he believed to be the true. But more particularly,
2. For bringing the
Sacred Scriptures
into one, and the same
contemperament,
or
composition
with
Platonic
Philosophy, whereby the former was greatly
adulterated,
though the latter received a great
emprovement.
This
Tertullian
takes special notice of, with complaints, that such stripped
Christianity
of her mantle, to clothe
Philosophy
therewithal; or plundered
Divine Truth,
to maintain, and enrich
Philosophy
; with such like Expressions.
3. But
Ammonius
was yet farther blameable, in that he following
Plato
's steps, concealed, at least from his
Pagan
Disciples, and Successors, the Sacred Fountain, and Original from whence he derived his more sublime, and choicer Notions, which he delivered over unto them as
Platonic
Derivations; whereas they indeed owed their Original to the
Divine Scriptures.
'It is possible, his design in thus conceling the Sacred source of his Philosophizings, if it proceeded not from carnal fear, might be pretty tolerable, though the effects of it were very sad. For hereby, First, Many of those more sublime, and mysterious Revelations, which he got from the
Sacred Scriptures,
and foisted into his Philosophy, passed for
Platonic Contemplations.
In this
series,
I presume, we may rank the
Platonic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Trinity,
on which
Plotinus
his Scholar, and
Proclus
after him, spend such
Mystical,
and
sublime Discourses.
It's confessed, that
Plato
gave some foundation for such an
imaginary Trinity
: for he makes mention of,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
The Father,
the
Word,
or
Mind,
and the
Universal Spirit,
or
Soul.
Also in his
Rep. l.
2. he speaks of
Bonity, Immutabilitie,
and
Virtue,
as before; which
Mystical Contemplations
I have elsewhere proved were traduced to him originally from the
Jewish Church.
But yet I cannot remember, that I ever met with, in any part of
Plato
's Works, any particular express mention of a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Trinity,
in such a sense as
Plotinus,
and the rest of the
New Platonists
Philosophize thereon; and therefore we have ground sufficient to conclude, that this
Platonic Trinity
was traduced to these latter
Platonists,
not from
Plato,
but from
Ammonius
their more immediate Master, who had it from the
Sacred Scriptures
; though conceling the same, and finding some imaginary Conceptions thereof in
Plato,
he delivers it over to his Disciples as a
Platonic
Tradition. The like may be said of many other of those more refined, and raised Notions, which we find amongst the
New Platonists,
which were communicated to them by
Ammonius
under the form of
Platonic Derivations,
though they were Originally
Christian Traditions.
2.
Whence followed another general Evil of this Concelement, which
Ammonius
made touching the
Sacred Fountain
of his choicest Notions; namely, hereby
Platonic
Philosophy, being clothed in the beautiful dress of
Divine Revelations,
and
Mysteries,
grows more desirable in the eyes, not only of
Pagans,
but also of some
carnal Christians,
than her Mistress the
Divine Scriptures,
clothed only in her
own naked garb of Gospel simplicity. And in truth, this Idolizing humor of crying up
Platonic
Philosophy, and making it equal to, if not above the
Scripture,
did not only diffuse itself amongst the
Pagan Platonists,
but had too great influence on many of those whom we count
Christian Fathers,
especially
Origen
; and does continue to this very day among many
Platonists,
who finding many excellent Notions amongst those
Alexandrine Platonists, Plotinus, &c.
and some affinity betwixt their
Philosophic Contemplations,
and
Scripture Revelations,
are very apt, at least in their inward esteem, to equalize, if not prefer their
Platonic
Philosophy to the
Sacred Scriptures,
as it has been excellently well observed by Learned
Stilling fleet, Origin Sacr. Book
3.
Chap.
3. §. 13.
§. 18. We have shown what are the general Evils, that attended this
Platonic Reformation,
begun by
Ammonius
in the Schole of
Alexandria:
we shall proceed to Particulars, with endeavors to demonstrate what sad Effects this mixture of
Divine Revelation,
with
Platonic
Philosophy, had both on
Pagans,
and
Christians.
First, as for
Pagans, Plotinus, Amelius, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Hierocles, Syrianus, Proclus, Marinus, Damascius,
and the rest of that
Sacred Succession
in the Schole of
Alexandria,
all the use they make of this
Platonic Reformation
begun by
Ammonius,
is, First to enhance, and greaten the value of
Platonic
Philosophy. 2. To cast the greater slur, and contempt on the
Christian Religion,
and
Scriptures,
as wanting those Flourishes which their Philosophy was adorned withal. 3. Following
Ammonius
's steps, they pick out of the
Christian
Faith what ever might suit with their
Platonic Contemplations,
or any way serve their turns: and to conceal their stealth, they artificially disguise their stol'n Notions, by wrapping them up in a
cloudy Symbolic Form,
after the
Platonic mode
; as also by professing
inveterate prejudices
against, and
opposition
to the
Christian Religion.
4. But the worst use they made of this their
Platonic Reformation,
was thereby to refine, and reform their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Natural Theology,
commended to them by
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
; especially their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Daemon Worship.
For these
New Platonists
of the
Alexandrine
Schole, observing upon daily contests with the
Christians,
many things in their
Natural Theology
grossly absurd, and contradictory to the remainders of
Natures Light,
they endeavor to remove these
prejudices
by some
gradual refinement,
or
partial reformation
of
their
Daemon-Worship,
which carried in it the Spirit of their
Natural Theology.
Hence they contract the infinity of their fictitious God's unto a small number; asserting but one supreme God, whom they make to be the
Sun
; which seemed to them the most glorious Being, and that which influenced all lower affairs, as it appears by
Julian
's Oration to the
Sun.
As for all other God's, they esteemed them no other, than the Papists do their
Saints, Daemons,
or
Mediators
betwixt them, and the Supreme God,
&c.
Thus they pare off many luxuriant branches, which their
Natural worship
had in the course of time produced, and reduce it to a more
natural,
and as they conceive,
rational
account, and all this by virtue of that
Platonic Reformation
begun by
Ammonius, &c.
§. 19. Neither did the noxious influences of this
Platonic Reformation
seize on
Paganism
only, but also on the
whole body,
yea (may we not say) on the
vitals
of
Christianity.
For
Origen,
Scholar to this famous
Ammonius,
though a professed
Christian,
yet he follows his Master's steps, in mixing
Platonic
Philosophy, and the Doctrines of the
Gospel
together, hoping thereby to gain credit to the
Christian Religion,
though indeed it proved only the
sophistication
thereof, and an effectual door to let in all the great errors, and
Antichristian Abominations,
which have lain in the bosom of the Church ever since. For so long as the
Christian
Religion kept herself in her own native beauty, and virgins Simplicitie, she was not troubled, with these great errors, which befell her upon this cursed mixture of
Platonic
Philosophy with
Christianity.
Had these Christian
Platonists Origen,
and his followers, made it their design to reduce their
Platonic
Notions unto, and reform them by
Scriptures,
they might have proved useful; but on the contrary they rather affected to reduce the
Scriptures,
and make them stoop to
Plato
's Dogmas, and Schole, which proved a mighty honor, and emprovement to
Platonisme,
but a reproach, and corruption to
Christianism,
of which see
Stillingfleet
's
Orig. Sac. book
3.
c.
3.
sect.
13. The full demonstration hereof is a main subject of the following book, where we endeavor to prove, First that the great corruptions amongst the Fathers, had their original from this
Platonic
Schole at
Alexandria,
as
Book
5.
chap.
5.
sect.
8. 2. That
Samosetanus
received his poison from
Plotinus
's Philosophizings in this Schole about the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Arius
his.
Book
5.
chap.
5.
sect.
9. 3. That all
Pelagianism
had it's rise from this Schole.
Book.
5.
c.
5. §. 10.
4. That all
Antichristianism
received it's rise from this Schole, as
c.
6. 1.
Monastic
Life, and Institutes, as
chap.
6. §. 1.15. 2. All their
Mystical Theology
Ib. 3. All
Antichrists
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Daemon,
or
Saint-worship. chap.
6. §. 4,
&c.
4. All
Popish
Abstinences, Satisfactions, Merits,
&c. chap.
6. §. 16. 5.
Purgatory. chap.
6. §. 17. 6. All
Papal
Hierarchy had it's foundation here.
chap.
6. §. 18. By all which we see, what cursed fruits followed this un-Christian design, of drawing the
Christian Religion
into one System with
Platonic Philosophy.
CHAP. V.
Plato
's Pythagorick, and Socratick mode of Philosophizing, with the Original of both from the
Jewish
Church.
Plato
's Pythagorick, and Symbolic mode of Philosophizing: The advantages of Symbols, as well for the illustration of truth, as for the delighting of fancy, and fixing the memory. The regular use of Symbols, not so much for pleasure, as truth.
Plato's
Symbolic mode of Philosophizing from the
Jews.
How far
Plato
affected the Socratick mode of Philosophizing, with his differen
•
e there-from.
1. Plato
was more Dogmatick than
Socrates. 2. Plato
's mode of Dialogizing was more Symbolic, and Metaphorick than that of
Socrates. Plato
's mode of Philosophizing by Dialogues of
Jewish
original. Luke
5.21.22.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Luke
6.8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Luke
11.35.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to dispute by Questions. Luke
22.68
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
if I propose any Arguments, &c.
§. 1. HAving given some Historical account of the
Platonists,
both
Old,
and
New,
with the particular advantages they had to acquaint themselves with
Jewish,
and
Christian
Mysteries, we now proceed to the
Essential
parts of
Platonic
Philosophy, and their
traduction
from the
sacred Scriptures.
First, as for the
Form,
or
Mode
of
Plato
's Philosophizings, it is partly
Pythagorick,
or
Symbolic
; partly
Socratick,
with somewhat peculiar, and proper to himself: Of each
distinctly. 1. That
Plato
abounded much in the
Pythagorick,
or
Symbolic
mode of Philosophizing, is evident to any, that is verst in his Philosophy. So
Vossius de philos. sect. cap.
12. §. 16.. Plato
according to the
Pythagorean
mode, very oft abounds in Symbolic Philosophy.
The like
Cael. Rodig. lib.
9.
cap.
12.
He is no
Platonist,
who thinks that
Plato
must not be understood Allegorically, unless he will with
Aristotle
triumph over
Plato
's words, and not regard his profound sense.
So
Serranus
on
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
symposium,
or
Dialogue of Love.
It was (says he) the mode of the Ancient Philosophers to represent Truth by certain
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Symbols,
and hidden Images. That
Plato
followed these, is put beyond doubt by this his
Symposiack
Disputation, in which he makes express mention of
Hesiod,
and
Homer,
with whom we find the first true rudiments of Ancient Philosophy. And truly this mode of Philosophizing was accurately polished by the
Pythagoreans,
the whole of whose Philosophy was wrapped up in the covert of
Symbols,
or
Allegories.
The like he mentions in his Preface to
Plato,
where he also gives us the advantages of this
Symbolic
mode of Philosophizing.
It was (says he) the Ancient manner of Philosophers, to set forth Truth by
Symbolic Images.
That
Plato
followed this custom is no way to be doubted, whilst he discourseth of Learning received from them. Neither are there wanting reasons which incline unto such a method of teaching: For
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, such a Symbolic Image of things, is exceeding efficacious to strike men's minds, who are greatly moved with such Images. For seeing the truth of things lies wrapped up in much obscurity, we more compendiously, and safely arrive unto it by such Corporeal gradations; she lying couched under these shadows, does more powerfully insinuate into men's minds. Neither is there wanting pleasure (the guide, and promotor of Disquisition) in such Symbolic studies, and indagations. These Corporeal Images, and designations of things by their Notes, do very much conduce in like manner to Memory, which being excited by the Novitie, Beauty, and matter of admiration which it finds in these Symbols, receives a more deep, firm, and constant impression of these things wrapped up therein.
The like he mentions again in
Plato
's
Symposium, fol.
167. showing how this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Image-coining Philosophy,
leads men gradually, and sweetly, yet most powerfully towards the contemplation of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
First Being, &c.
And indeed
Plato
himself gives us the
best account of the many excellent advantages,
which accrue by this
Symbolic imitation,
if duly regulated, and managed: so
Plato Phaedr. fol.
229. tells us,
that under the covert of his Fables, Ttuth lay wrapped up, and therefore we must not acquiesce in the Symbol, or Fable, but make inquiry after that truth, which lay hid under it. So in his
Repub.
6.
fol.
510.
Plato,
admonisheth us so to read his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Allegorick Images,
as not to terminate in the Images themselves, but to penetrate unto the things couched under, and represented by these
Symbolic
Images. But more fully in his
Repub.
10.
fol.
598,
&c.
he acquaints us that this his
•
ymbolick imitation did only represent the Image, or Shadow of the thing which is far remote from the truth, as a
Limner
gives the Picture of a man; and therefore he, that would get the true knowledge of the thing, must not acquiesce in the
Symbolic
Image, but search after the thing itself.
The same he inculcates often; as in his
de Legib.
2.
fol.
669. where he lays down, and insists much upon, this general Principle, that in
such Symbolic Imitations,
Truth,
not
pleasure,
or
delight
must be the measure of our disquisitions,
&c.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, All Imitation must be judged not by
pleasure,
or
opinion,
but by
Truth.
So in his
de Legib.
5. as elsewhere,
&c.
§. 2. That
Plato,
as
Pythagoras
before him, traduced this
Symbolic mode
of Philosophizing from the
Jewish Church
originally, is a general presumpion of the Learned. So
Serranus,
in his Preface to
Plato
's
Images,
adds:
All which
Plato
uttered not from himself, or his own human reason, but from the more happy doctrine of
Moses,
and of the
Prophets, &c.
And more particularly he concludes thus; That
Plato
drew these Symbols from the doctrine of the
Jews, i. e.
from
Moses,
and the Prophets, all Antiquity of Christian Doctors hath judged. But that he abstained industriously from naming the
Jews,
because their name was odious among other Nations. Although he sometimes makes mention
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of a
Syrian,
and
Phoenician fable,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
an ineffectual Mystery,
to show, that he designed not the
Egyptians
only, but also their neighbors the
Jews.
Truly
Plato
might, when he was in
Egypt,
have conversation with the
Jews,
of whom there were great numbers in
Egypt
after their dissipation, and transmigration-. Lastly, whereas in those
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
ineffable Mysteries
he recites, there lies some footsteps of truth mixed with many trifles, who would not judge, he derived them immediately from the
Egyptians
rather than from the
Jewish
Monuments? But that the
Egyptians
retained many things received by tradition from the
Patriarchs, Moses
's most ancient History demonstrates. Neither is it to be doubted, but that they drew many things also from the clear fountains of the
Sacred Bible,
which yet they Contaminated with their own muddy mixtures. Hence
Plato
acquired the name of the
Allegorick
Philosopher, because he used that peculiar way of teaching by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Symbols,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Idols,
and from their more abstruse doctrine asserts many Paradoxes.
Thus
Serranus
: wherein he fully grants, that
Plato
's Symbolic mode of Philosophizing came originally from the
Jews,
though immediately from the
Egyptians.
And the reason he gives, why
Plato
could not derive them immediately from the
Jews,
is because the
Scriptures
were not translated into
Greek
'till after
Alexander's
time. But this being granted (which
Lud. Vives
denies) why might not
Plato
by reason of his skill in the
Egyptian,
and
Phoenician
tongues understand the
Scriptures,
as well as the
Egyptians?
or else might he not understand them by an Interpreter, as
Austin
seems to grant, as before
chap.
3. §. 4. That
Plato,
as
Pythagoras,
received this
Symbolic
mode of Philosophizing from the
Oriental
parts, is well observed by
Cudworth, Union of Christ pag.
28.
The
Oriental
Nations were wont to couch their greatest Mysteries, and pieces of Wisdom, which they conveyed by tradition one to the other, in the covert of some Fables, & thence
Pythagoras,
&
Plato
afterward brought that manner of Philosophizing into
Europe,
&c.
And the same
Cudworth
elsewhere gives some particular Fables, which
Plato
traduced from the
Jews,
as that of his
Androgynon,
or Conjunction of man and woman, as one flesh, which he makes to be but an imitation of
Eve's
being taken out of
Adam
's side, and joined to him in Marriage,
&c.
Yea
Serranus
is inclined to think that
Plato
's whole
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Love Dialogue,
was but an imitation of
Solomon's
's Song. So
Serranus
on
Plato
's
Symposium fol.
176.
Hence (says he) as the holy Writer had his
Epithalamium,
namely his
Canticles,
so
Plato
his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Love Dialogue,
not that I would seem willing to compare
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Love Songs
with Sacred
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Love Songs,
but I am only willing to show, that this manner of Teaching things otherwise true, and certain by Symbols, and Mysteries, was not unusual,
&c.
See more of this
Symbolic
mode of Philosophizing, and it's traduction from the
Jewish
Church,
Book
2.
chap.
9. §. 2.
touching
Pythagoras
's
Symbolic
Philosophy,
&c.
Only there lay this difference betwixt
Pythagoras
and
Plato,
as to their use of
Symbols. Pythagoras
's Symbols were for the most part
Enigmatical,
answerable to the
Egyptian Hierogliphicks,
and the
Jewish Enigmes,
or
Riddles
: But
Plato
's Symbols are not so
Enigmatick,
and obscure as those of
Pythagoras
; but only
Metaphorick,
and
Allegorick,
answerable to the
Jewish Types,
and
Parables.
See more of this difference
Book
2.
chap.
2. §. 6, 7.
§. 3.
Plato
abounds also much, yea mostly in the
Socratick
mode of Philosophizing. So
August. de Civit. l.
8.
c.
4.
And because
Plato
loved his Master
Socrates
with such a singular affection, he brings him in speaking almost in all his Discourses: yea those very things, which he had learnt from others, or had acquired by his own intelligence, he tempers with, or wraps up under his Master
Socrates
's
Ironick
mode,
&c.
Thus
Austin
; and more particularly, some few lines after he adds; And seeing he affects an observation of his Master
Socrates
's known mode of dissembling his own knowledge, and opinion, because this manner pleased him so much, hence it comes to pass, that it is very difficult to perceive
Plato
's opinion even concerning the most Weightie matters.
Touching
Socrates
's Dissimulation in conceleing his own sentiments, without
positive affirmation,
or
Negation,
under pretence of knowing nothing, thereby to draw forth (in an inductive way) and to confute the opinions of his oponents, see what precedeth touching the
Socratick
Philosophy,
chap.
1. §. 6.
This Mode of Discourse
Plato
very much affected, as it appears in his
Dialogues,
where he brings in
Socrates
discoursing after his o
•
n
form,
yet not without a considerable difference from, or superaddition to his Masters Method: For first
Socrates
in his own Schole very seldom, or never asserts anything
Dogmatically
; but under a
modest pretension
of ignorance he conceles his own judgment, with endeavors to evince, and confirm the Hypotheses he designs to prove from the concessions of his
Opponents,
which he draws forth by a powerful
Induction.
Hence
Arcesilas
the founder of the
New Academie
defends his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
by the Authority of
Socrates,
as before
chap.
4. §. 2. But now
Plato,
though he allowed in many natural, and abstruse Questions, an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension,
and thence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
probationarie mode
of disputing
pro, & con.
yet he greatly asserted some things, and
strongly proved others, as necessarily true; whence the
New Academics,
and the
Skeptics
ever reputed
Plato,
and his Successors of the old Academie, as
Dogmatists,
as before
chap.
4. §. 1, 2. Yea
Ammonius
on
Aristot. Categor.
tells us, that
Plato
himself confuted this
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
as that, which was most irrational, and absurd:
of which else where. Secondly,
Socrates
's mode of Philosophizing was more
plain,
and
familiar.
'It is true, it had much of
Irony
mixed with it, especially as to
moral conversation,
yet it did not render it cloudy, and obscure. But now
Plato,
though he imitates his Master in
Dialogizing,
yet he mixeth therewith so many dark
Symbols
and
Poetic Metaphors,
as that he seems to act the part of a
Poet,
or
Orator,
rather than of a
Philosopher.
'It is confessed, such
Poetic,
and
Metaphorick
flourishes, wherewith
Plato
's
Dialogues
so much abound, are extreme useful to illustrate, and brighten Truth, yet it cannot be denied but that
Aristotle
's
Syllogistick, naked,
and closer mode of Disputing more conduceth to the
Conviction,
and
Demonstration
of Truth. Whence that old saying,
Plato Teacheth,
and
Aristotle Proves.
Hence also the
Greeks
usually styled
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Divine,
and
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Daemon.
And they say, if
Jupiter
had been minded to discourse in
Greek,
he would have used
Plato
's tongue; so eloquently, and floridly is he conceived to have
Philosophized.
Yet learned
Vossius de philos. sect. cap.
12. §. 15. gives him this dash.
Mean while (says he) the discourse of
Plato
is less proper for Philosophy, For he fails in this (
some
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
must pardon me) that he much delights in Metaphors, and those not beseeming, but presumptuous, and altogether
Poetical,
whereas a discourse more proper, or Metaphors more received, and common, agree better with Philosophy,
&c.
But to give a just Character of
Plato
's mode of Philosophizing. It's evident, he had a most prodigious, and luxuriant Phansie, which could not confine itself to the severe Rules of
artificial Logic,
and
method
; neither indeed was it the mode, or fashion of those times to dispute in
Mode,
and
Figure
; for this
Form
of
Syllogizing
owes it's original to his Scholar
Aristotle,
that great
artificial Methodist.
Before
Aristotle,
the great
Logicians
were those of the
Eleatick
Schole,
Zeno
the
Eleatick,
and his successors, whose mode of Disputing was by
Dialogues,
or
Interrogations,
and
Answers,
as it is evident by the Dialogues, which
Zeno
the
Eleatick
writ. This mode of Disputing was followed by
Plato
(who derived much of his
Logic
from the
Eleatick
Schole) only to render his Philosophy more
Beautiful,
and
grateful,
he clotheth her after the
Oriental
fashion, with many Metaphorick Images, and
Symbolic
shadows. For that this
Symbolic
way of Philosophizing was most in fashion amongst all the
Oriental
Philosophers, especially the
Jews, Egyptians,
and
Phoenicians
has been before proved. This garb
Plato
(as
Pythagoras
) most affected, as that, which suited best with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Pregnant Mimetick Phancie,
which greatly recreated itself in those
Jewish
Mysteries, he had gleaned up in his
Oriental travels,
but not thoroughly understanding the same, he wraps them up under
Symbolic,
and
Metaphorick shadows,
thereby to render them more intelligible, and delightful. That, which made
Aristotle
reject this
Symbolic
mode of Philosophizing, was the humor of rejecting all
Oriental Jewish Traditions,
which his discursive reason could not comprehend. To conclude, we have a full, though but brief Character of
Plato
's Philosophic mode given us by
Jerome. lib.
1.
adverse. Jovin.
where he stiles
Plato
's works
Divine, Profound, yet not easily to be understood by Raw, young wits,
&c.
Though
Plato
's
Mythologic, Symbolic,
and
Allegorick
Images render his Notions to such, as do not understand them, more cloudy, and dark; yet when they are understood, they give a very beautiful gloss, or amiable face unto Truth: answerable to
Christ
's
Parables,
which to the unbelieving
Jews
were but
Riddles,
yet as he explained them to his own
Disciples,
they were very lively, and significant.
§. 4. That this
Socratick, Platonic
mode of Philosophizing by
Dialogues,
or
Interrogations,
and
Answers
was exactly the same with, and, as we may presume, originally from the
Jewish mode
of
Ratiocination,
is evident by what footsteps we find hereof in the
sacred Scriptures,
where we find the words
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
frequently used to express the
Jewish mode of Disputation
: so
Luke
5. 21.
Luke
(who was exactly skilled in the
Greek
Dialect) expresseth the
Scribes,
and
Pharisees
their disputings against
Christ
by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to
Dialogize,
or to reason by
Interrogations,
and
Answers.
So agen
v.
22. 'It is said that
Jesus
knowing their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Reasonings by Dialogues,
he said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, why do you
Dialogize,
or reason by
Dialogues, &c.
The like we find
Luke
6.8.
He knew that thoughts
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, their
reasonings,
or
conferences, &c.
We might produce Multitudes of
Scriptures
of the same import, which
clearly discover, that the
Jewish
mode of Disputing was by
Dialogues,
or by
Interrogations,
and
Answers.
This is farther confirmed, not only from the import of words, but also from the thing itself. For we find those
Disputes
which were betwixt
Christ,
and the
Jewish
Doctors, to be carried on by way of
Dialogue,
or
conference,
by
questions,
and
replies.
So in that famous
Disputation
betwixt
Christ,
and the
Pharisees, Luke
11.53. 'tis said
the Scribes and Pharisees began to urge him vehemently,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
to urge him
vehemently
for an extemporarie reply to their
interrogations.
Thence it follows [
and to provoke him to speak.
]
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This word, says
Grotius,
is one of those wherein
Luke
discovers his intimate skill in the
Greek
: for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is a word evidently taken from the Schools, where the Masters mere wont to place their riper Disciples over the younger, that so the former might pose the latter by Interrogations, which was styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Therefore
Luke
does Learnedly use this word to show, that the
Pharisees
used all endeavors to draw from
Christ's
Mouth many replies. The
Syriac
does rightly express the sense by a word that signifies to
Ensnare,
and the
Arabic
by a word that imports
to make one Dispute.
What they designed thereby is evident by what follows,
verse
54. Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) something out of his mouth. By which it's apparent, this their dispute was managed by
Interrogations.
So agen
Luke
22.68. says
Christ, If I ask you, &c,
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] which
Grotius
renders [
If I propose any argument
]
For (adds he) the
Hebrews,
as well as the
Greeks,
were wont to dispute by
Interrogations.
But more of this, when we come to
Plato
's Logic.
CHAP. VI. The several Distributions of
Platonic
Philosophy.
Platonic
Philosophy, as to it's Matter distributed into
1. Pythagorick. 2. Heraclitick. 3. Socratick. 2.
Into Contemplative, and Active.
3.
Into Moral, Natural, and Rational.
4.
Into Theoretick, and Practick. This distribution suits not with
Plato
's Philosophy.
5.
The Adequate division of
Platonic
Philosophy,
1.
Into Organical, which is Logic, and
2.
Essential, which is
1.
Natural, wherein is comprised
1.
Physicks, both Contemplative, and Active, and
2.
Mathematics.
2.
Moral, which is either Ethick, Oeconomick, or
3.
Politick.
3.
Supernatural, or Theologick.
§. 1. HAving discoursed of
Plato
's
Form,
or
Mode
of Philosophizing; we now proceed to the
Matter
of his Philosophy, with it's
traduction
from the
Jewish Church,
and
sacred Scriptures. Plato
's Philosophy, as to it's
Matter
in general, admits of sundry
distributions.
1. As to it's Original, it was reduced by the Ancients unto the
Pythagorick, Heraclitick,
and
Socratick.
So
Laertius
in the Life of
Plato,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
He mixed the Discourses, or Reasons of the
Heracliticks, Pythagoricks,
and
Socraticks.
For in
sensibles
he follows
Heraclitus,
in
Intelligibles Pythagoras
in
Politicks, Socrates.
1.
That
Plato
collected the choicest materials of his Philosophy, especially of his Theology, out of the
Pythagorean,
has been before demonstrated
chap.
3.
sect.
3. where we have shewn, how he was instructed by
Archytas
the
Tarentine, Timaeus
the
Locrian, Epicarmus,
and other
Pythagoreans,
whilst he had his
•
bo
•
e in
Italy
; besides the Instructions he gained from
Pythagorean Books. Aristotle
in his
Metaph. lib.
1.
cap.
6. stiles the
Platonic
Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in many things conformable to the Pythagoreans.
And
Lud. Vives
tells us, that the
Platonists,
as to
Theologicks,
do generally
Pythagorize.
More particularly;
Plato
Symbolizeth with, and therefore seems to have derived from
Pythagoras
these following
Notions
: namely, 1. That
God
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
according to his description,
Gen.
3.14. 2. That
God
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Unity, &c.
3. That
God
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One, and many; One
in
Divine Essence,
and
many
as to his
Divine Ideas,
or
Decrees.
4. That all things are made, Governed, and Ordered by God. 5.
Plato
follow's
Pythagoras
exactly, as to the constitution of
Divine Worship,
and its Regulation by the
Divine Will,
and
Rites,
against all
Images, Superstition,
or
Will-worship.
6.
Plato
Symbolizeth with
Pythagoras
in
Daemons,
and
Daemon-worship.
7.
Plato
held also with
Pythagoras
the
Soul
's
Immortality, Metempsychosis,
with other opinions, of which see
Book
2.
chap.
8. Now that all these
Pythagorick
Principles were of
Jewish origination
has been sufficiently proved. 2. As to
Sensibles Plato
is said to follow
Heraclitus,
whose Philosophy, as we may presume, he sucked in from
Cratylus,
Heraclitus
's Disciple, whom
Plato
after
Socrates
's death heard. The main Principles, that
Plato
imbibed from the
Heraclitick
Philosophy, referred to the first Principles of the
Universe,
especially touching Fire, which
Heraclitus
made to be the first great principle of all things: wherein
Plato
very far Symbolized with him, asserting, that the Heavens were
Fire
; of which hereafter. Now that
Heraclitus
was (according to
Aristotle
's Character of those Ancient Philosophers)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, one that greatly affected, and admired
Oriental, Jewish Traditions,
touching the first Origin of the
Universe,
is evident by what
Plutarch
in the Life of
Coriolanus
reports of him; where, having discoursed of God's
Omnipotencie,
and man
's Incredulity
thereof, he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Many of the Divine operations, or traditions, according to
Heraclitus,
fly from our notice by reason of unbelief.
By which it seems evident, that
Heraclitus
had some notices of, and great reverence for the
Oriental Jewish Traditions,
which I suppose he received, if not immediately from these
Oriental parts,
or
persons,
from the
Pythagoreans
; for he was but a branch of the
Italic
Sect, with whom he Symbolized in many principles, especially in that of
Fire to be the great principle of all things
: as before
chap.
7.
sect.
10.3.
Laertius
tells us, that as to
Politicks,
Plato
followed his Master
Socrates. Apuleius de dogm. Plat.
adds, that
Plato
received not only
Moral,
but also
Rational
Philosophy from
Socrates
's fountain. Yea
Plato
himself in his
Dialogues,
attributes unto
Socrates
some of his
Natural Philosophy.
By which it's evident, that this Distribution of
Plato
's Philosophy is not to be taken strictly, but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: for it's evident, that he received also from the
Pythagoreans
not only
Theologick,
but also some
Politick,
and
Natural
Principles, as his
Communitie
from the
Pythagorean
Schole; his Notions about the Origin of the
Universe
from
Timaeus Locrus,
of which more hereafter. Yea in all these, both
Sensibles, Intelligibles,
and
Morals, Plato received
much emprovement from
Egypt, &c.
as before.
§. 2. A Second Distribution of
Platonic
Philosophy is into
Contemplative,
and
Active
: so
Austin de Civit. Dei. lib.
8.
cap.
4.
Therefore (says he)
seeing the study of Wisdom consists in
Action,
and
Contemplation,
hence one part thereof may be said to be
Active,
the other
Contemplative,
whereof the
Active
appertains to the government of Life,
i. e.
the institution of Manners, but the
Contemplative
to the inspection of
Natures causes,
and the most sincere Truth.
Socrates
is reported to have excelled in the
Active,
but
Pythagoras
to have insisted, so far as his Intelligence would reach, on the
Contemplative.
Thence
Plato
joining both together, is commended for having perfected Philosophy: thus
Austin.
Indeed this Division of Philosophy into
Contemplative,
and
Active,
seems to have had it's foundation in the
Jewish
Schools under their
Babylonian transmigration,
especially amongst the
Essenes,
who seem to have been the first, that addicted themselves to
Monastic life
(occasioned from their persecution) which drew on this distribution of their life into
Active,
and
Contemplative,
whence
Pythagoras
traduced the same; as before
Book
2.
chap.
6. §. 7.8. Though we must confess that none of the Ancients treat so fully, and distinctly of
Contemplative,
and
Active
Philosophy as
Plato.
So in his
de Repub.
2. he distributes Discipline into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Gymnastick,
or
Active,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Music,
whereby he expresseth
Contemplative Sciences.
Under the
Gymnastick,
or
Active Discipline
he rangeth such virtues, as conduce to
practice,
or
morality
; as
Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, &c.
Unto
Music,
or
Contemplative Discipline
he reduceth the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Musical Theoretick
virtues, which consist
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in Contemplation
; and the Queen of all he makes to be
Religion,
whence he calls the
Contemplation
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of the Idea of the chiefest good,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the highest Discipline, &c. Philo Judaus
that great
Platonist
discourseth at large
partly on
Jewish,
partly on
Platonic
principles, touching
Contemplative,
and
Active
Philosophy:
Aristotle
also seems to approve of the same distribution, though under different terms of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Practick,
and
Theoretick
Philosophy. The Original of this distinction came from the different products, and objects of the one, and other, according to that famous Maxim,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Practick
philosophy is effective of
Virtue,
but
Theoretick
of
Truth.
As for the subdivisions of this distribution, they are comprehended in what follows.
§. 3. But the chief
Distribution
of
Platonic
Philosophy in regard of it's
matter,
is into
Moral, Natural,
and
Rational
:
which also comprehends the foregoing, of
Contemplative,
and
Active
: so
Austin de Civit. lib.
8.
cap.
4. Having spoken of
Contemplative,
and
Active
Philosophy.
Thence (says he)
Plato
by joining both together, is said to have perfected Philosophy, which he distributes into three parts; One
Moral,
which chiefly consists in
action,
another
Natural,
which is deputed to
contemplation,
and a third
Rational,
whereby Truth is differenced from falsehood; which though it be uncessary both for Contemplation, and Action, yet Contemplation chiefly appropriates to herself the consideration of Truth, wherefore this threefold partition of Philosophy is not contrary to the foregoing, whereby it is distinguished into
Contemplative,
and
Active
:
thus
Austin.
That this partition of
Platonic
Philosophy was of
Jewish
origination, is affirmed by
Eusebius, l. praeparat. Evang.
where he tells us,
That this Section of
Plato
's Philosophy had it's derivation from the
Hebrews
; for the proof whereof, he brings the opinion of
Atticus
a Philosopher, who opens this division more fully, and shows how
Plato
connected all the parts of Philosophy into one body, which lay before dispersed, like
Pentheus
's Members. For
Thales,
and his Disciples addicted themselves wholly to
Physicks
: the Six other Wise men to
Ethics, Zeno
the
Eleatick,
and all his adherents, to
Logic. Plato
collected all these together, and brought forth to men a Philosophy not broken, but entire, and absolute. Whereunto accords
Aristotle
himself,
lib. philos. Laertius
in
Plato.
Philosophy in times past was employed only about
Physicks: Socrates
came, and added
Ethics; Plato
added a third part to Philosophy, namely
Logic,
whereby he gave a full consummation thereto.
Apuleius (in
Dogmate Platonis
) speaking of
Plato,
says, wherefore he exactly inquired into the inventions of
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
: thus he filled his Books with whatever was singular, and admirable, so that he was the first, who connected a threefold Philosophy, & shown that these parts, so mutually necessary each to other, did not only not differ amongst themselves, but also afforded mutual assistance each to other.
Thus he; as
Lud. Vives in Aug. Civ.
l. 8. c. 4. after him. This distribution of
Plato's
Philosophy seems very
natural,
and
comprehensive
of all parts of Philosophy, as it is easy to demonstrate: for
Natural Philosophy
takes in
Physicks,
and
Mathematics,
(or else we may reduce the
Mathematics
to
Rational Philosophy) Moral Philosophy
comprehends
Ethics, Economics,
and
Politicks, Rational Philosophy
according to
Plato
takes in, not only
Logic,
but
Metaphysics,
or the Contemplation of the
first truth,
and
principle, &c.
§. 4.
Ammonius
(the Disciple of
Proclus
) in his Comment on
Aristotle's Categories pag.
11. distributes Philosophy in general into
Organick,
and
Essential,
or
Principal.
By
Organick Philosophy,
he understands
Logic,
or (as he stiles it from the principal part)
Demonstration,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,,
a Diacritick,
or
discretive Organ,
whereby
Truth
is severed from
Falsehood
in
Contemplatives,
and
Good
from
Evil
in
Actives,
As for the
Essential,
or principal Members of Philosophy, he divides it first into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Theoretick,
or
Contemplative
; and
Practick,
or
Active. Theoretick Philosophy
he makes to be that, which regards
Truth,
and
Falsehood; Practick
that which considers
Good,
and
Evil.
1.
Theoretick
Philosophy he subdivides into
Physiologick,
which is the
Contemplation
of Sensibles, not in their
Individuals,
but as they lie in their abstract specific
Idea,
or
univocal
common nature, and principles. 2
Mathematick,
which is the
Contemplation
of
Sensibles
in their Quantitie chiefly, and as abstracted from their
Materialitie.
3.
Theologick,
which is the
Contemplation
of Beings
Metaphysical,
and purely abstracted from all
Corporeitie,
and
Matter.
2. As for
Practick,
or
Active
Philosophy; he subdivides it into, 1.
Ethics,
which respects men in their single capacities,
or
personal
Morals. 2.
Economics,
which respects men's Morals, as in
Family consociation,
or capacity. 3.
Politicks,
which considers men under
City,
or
National confederation.
This
Distribution
of Philosophy, though it seem more Comprehensive, and Artificial, yet it suits not so well with
Plato's
Philosophy,
as the forementioned, but seems rather to be calculated for
Aristotle's
method as hereafter. For
Plato
though he makes use of this Distribution of Philosophy into
Contemplative,
and
Active,
yet he seems to make these members, thus distributed to be as Disparates only, not as
diametrically opposites, i. e.
he makes
Contemplation
though different from, yet not opposite unto
Action.
Yea following the design of his Master
Socrates
(of which before
chap.
1. §. 5.) he reduceth all
Contemplative Sciences
unto a
subordination,
and
subserviencie
unto
Active
: he accounts no speculation regular, but what ends in
practice
; no
Contemplation legitimate,
but what ends in the admiration, affection, and imitation of God: whence he calls the knowledge of God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
supreme Discipline,
and his
Logic
he stiles the Introduction of the Soul, from it's night ignorance to the knowledge of the
first Being,
as
Repub.
7. Hence also he makes the end of his Philosophy to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
assimilation
to God, so far as 'tis possible: This he makes the
Form, Spirit, Soul,
and
Measure
of his Philosophy, which ought to inform, and influence all
matters, parts,
and
things,
as the Soul the Body. So
Ammonius
in
Arist. Cat. pag.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Matter of Philosophy is things, but the end is assimilation to God.
By which it's evident, that the common distribution of Philosophy into
Theoretick,
and
Practick,
as understood by
Aristotle,
and the
Schools
for a division of the whole into opposite parts, is no way agreeable to
Plato's
Philosophy, who following
Socrates
herein, makes
Contemplative
Philosophy subservient unto
Active,
especially to Divine
affection,
and
assimilation
to God. And thus indeed
Grotius in Epist.
16.
ad Gallos pag.
39. giving his advice about the study of Philosophy, adds this caution:
Whereas Philosophy is divided into
Contemplative,
and
Active,
you ought chiefly to study the latter; and the former no farther than it subserves this latter. The common Instrument of both is
Logic,
with which you are to begin,
&c.
A Golden Rule indeed for young students.
§. 5. Having laid down these Four Distributions of Philosophy,
we shall take up the Fifth, which seems most
Platonic,
and native, as the frame of this discourse, yet not without some addition from the
•
est, so far as it may conduce to our more methodical procedure. For whereas
Plato
seems to reduce the contemplation of
God, &c.
to
Dialoctick,
or
Rational Philosophy,
we shall give it a distinct place of
it's own, confining rational Philosophy unto
Logic.
And so
Platonic
Philosophy may be distributed into
Organick,
or
Rational,
and
Essential,
or
Real.
1.
Organick
Philosophy is
Logic,
which
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Dialoctick
(from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to
dialogize,
which was his mode of
disputing
) and sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
manuduction
of the Soul, as also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
way,
or
method,
with other such expressions; which supposes it to be a
rational organ,
or Key to all other parts of Philosophy, whence it is rightly styled by
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Logic, Diacritick,
or
discretive
organ. 2. As for
Essential,
or
Real
Philosophy, it may be according to
Plato
's mind, distributed into
Natural, Moral,
and
Supernatural.
§. 6. As for
Natural Philosophy,
it either regards things Natural,
as Natural,
under that
reduplication,
or
mode of consideration
; or else it regards things
natural,
as abstracted from their
naturalitie, materialitie,
or
sensibilitie,
with respect only to their
Quantitie.
1.
Natural
Philosophy, that considers things Natural
as natural, i. e.
under that
reduplication
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or mode of considering, it may be subdivided into
Contemplative,
and
Active.
1.
Contemplative
Natural Philosophy is commonly styled in the Schools
Physicks,
or
Physiologie
(from the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Nature
) whereof they constitute two parts, one
General,
which treats of
Natural
Bodies in
general,
their first
Principles, Affections, Generations,
and
Corruptions
▪ another
particular
; which discourseth of particulars, as 1. touching the
Heavens.
2. The
Inferior World.
3. The
Meteors.
4.
Inanimates,
as
Minerals, &c.
5.
Animates,
or Vegetables, which have a growing Life, but no sense, as
Plants, &c.
6.
Animals,
which have not only growth, but also
Sense,
and
Motion,
though without Reason. 7. The
Rational Soul,
and human
Body,
their
nature, parts, affections,
and
operations.
There are the particulars which come under
Contemplation
in
Physiologie.
Though
Plato
seems to make the main of his
Physicks
to be no other than a
Natural History
of the
Creation,
or
Origin
of the
Universe,
as it appeareth by his
Timaeus,
which is the seat of his
Physiological Philosophizings.
As for the
Human Soul,
that is reduced to his
Metaphysics,
or
Supernatural Philosophy. Active,
or
Operative Natural Philosophy
(which is the end of
Contemplative
) refers either to
Plants,
and
Animals,
and thence is styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Agriculture, &c.
or else to the
Human body,
and so 'tis styled
Medicine,
whereof
Plato
does much
Philosophize.
2.
Natural Philosophy,
as it considers
Naturals,
under an Abstraction
from their
Naturalitie,
and
Materialitie,
with respect only to their
Quantitie,
is commonly styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Mathematics,
which regard, 1. either the corporeitie, Dimensions, and Figures of Bodies, and so 'tis called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Geometry,
from the measuring of Grounds at first in
Egypt
: 2. or the description of
Countries
and
Places,
and so 'tis named
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Geography
: 3. or the account of
Numbers,
and so 'tis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Arithmetic
: 4. or the
Situations, Constellations, Motions, Conjunctions, Influences,
and
Effects
of
Celestial
Bodies; and so they call it
Astronomy,
or
Astrology.
5.
Opticks,
which regards Vision. 6.
Music,
which refers to sounds. 7.
Navigation.
8.
Tacticks,
or
Militarie Discipline.
9.
Architecture,
with other
Mathematick
Sciences:
Plato
studied the
Mathematics
under
Euclid,
and
Theodorus, &c.
§. 7.
Moral Philosophy
respects Men:
1. in their
individual,
personal capacity, in relation to their
Morals,
and so 'tis termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Ethics
: or 2. it considers Men in their Family-
relation,
and thence 'tis styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Economics
: or 3. it refers to Men's
Politick capacity,
as under civil
combination,
and
confederation,
and so they call it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Politicks. Plato
discourseth of each, but most largely of
Politicks.
§. 8. As for
Supernatural Philosophy,
commonly called
Metaphysics,
or
Natural Theology, Plato
abounds mostly herein. 1. He treats very
Metaphysically
of God, whom he terms, 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
according to
Exod.
3.14. 2. He asserts also the
Unity, Simplicitie,
and
Immutabilitie
of
God.
3. He proves likewise the
Eternity
of God from this, that he was the first Principle of all things. 4. He demonstrates the
All-sufficiency
of God from his being
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 5. Whence also he stiles God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Superessential
; and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Infinite.
6. Hence also he demonstrates the
Incomprehensibilitie,
and
Omnipresence
of God. 7. He also clearly proves the
Holynesse, Justice,
and
Faithfulness
of God. 8. He makes some mention of God's
Omnipotencie,
as also of his
Goodness, &c.
9. He treats very largely, and
Metaphysically
of the
Divine Ideas,
and
Decrees
of God, with his
prevision
of all things resulting thence. 10. He discourseth very Divinely of God's
production
of, and
Providence
over all things; as also of his particular regard to
good Men.
2.
Plato
seems to have had very great notices of
Religion,
and
Divine worship,
according to the Scripture notion. He positively affirms, 1. That the Divine
Will
▪ and Pleasure, is the only rule and measure of Divine
Worship.
2. Hence that an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Worshiping of God accordingly
is more acceptable to God than all the pompous inventions of Men, whereby the superstitious (
Heathen
) endeavored to pacify the
angry Deity.
3. That none can worship God aright but the
pure,
and
holy.
So in his Book
de Legibus, Parmen. &c.
3.
Plato
Philosophizeth very
Metaphysically
of the
human Soul,
its resemblance to God,
immaterialitie, infinite capacity, immortality,
and
perfection
: likewise of its
faculties, offices, objects, acts, &c.
4.
Plato
in like manner seems to discourse, though imperfectly, and under
Symbolic Images,
of the
state
of
Innocence
; the
fall
of
Adam
; the
restauration
of Mankind by
Daemon Mediators
; the
infusion
of
Divine knowledge,
and
Grace,
against
Freewill, &c.
5. Yea,
Plato
seems to give some hints of the
Divine Scriptures,
which he expresseth by
Divine Oracles, Enthusiasmes, Traditions.
6. Lastly,
Plato
is supposed also to discourse of the
last Judgment,
and
future state,
which he expresseth under
Symbols.
CHAP. VII. General Ideas of
Platonic
Philosophy, and Philosophers.
Plato's
Ideas of Natural Philosophy.
1.
Its Genus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
2.
The object
1.
Complex Science.
1.
Intelligence,
2.
Science,
3.
Faith,
4.
Imitation.
2
Simple.
3.
The Act
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
4.
The End, Truth.
2.
Of Moral Philosophy.
1.
Its Genus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which connotes Prudence: wherein consider, its Objects, Offices, and Acts, which are,
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Dexteritie,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sagacitie,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
2.
The subject of Moral Prudence,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and particularly the Conscience:
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Law of Conscience.
1.
In the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which is a seat of Principles.
2.
In
Syneidesis,
which is a reflective Light, and springs from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, sensation.
3.
The Rule of Moral Prudence is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which is either subjective, or objective,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, what
Rom. 2.14, 15. James
•
.8. 3. Plato's
Idea of Divine Philosophy, in the contemplation of
God,
&c.
which he stiles,
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: which is,
1.
The supreme,
2.
most ravishing,
3.
genuine,
4.
affective,
5.
transformative. Characters of a Philosopher.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
2.
good institution,
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
4.
devotion to Philosophy,
5.
Liberal.
6.
Music, &c.
§. 1. BEfore we enter upon the
Severals
of
Platonic Philosophy,
we shall give some
general Characters
of
Philosophy,
and
Philosophers,
according to what we find laid down in
Plato. Philosophy,
according to
Plato
's mind, has not one and the same
Idea,
but may be distributed according to its
object
into
Natural, Moral,
and
Divine.
The Idea of
Natural
Philosophy,
is thus given us in the
Platonic Definitions
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Philosophy is the appetition of the Science of Beings always the same, Theoretick (or contemplative) of Truth, as Truth.
In which Definition we find as Considerables, a
Generick Notion,
an
object,
a
Specifick Act,
and a
Terme,
or
End.
1.
The Generick notion of Philosophy
is an appetition,
&c. and so much the very Notion
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
imports; as also that other Terme
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, whereby
Plato
expresseth it. This
Plato
in his
Parmen.
stiles a Divine
impetus,
or
impulse,
towards the study of Sciences,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
There is a beautiful, and Divine impulse, by which men are impelled towards reasonings.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
appetition,
is well defined by
Simplicius, in Epict. cap.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the extension of the Soul towards its object desired
; which, as applied to our present purpose, implies the natural inclination of the mind to knowledge. For the mind, as 'tis observed, has it's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
extension,
or inclination to its object, as well as the
Will
:
Yea, as
Aquinas
notes,
every
Form
has some inclination appendent to it; and by how much the more perfect the
Form
is, by so much the more impetuous, and strong is the
inclination:
whence the mind, which is a
Rational Form,
must needs have a very strong impulse, or inclination to its
object,
which is the knowledge of things.
§. 2. The object of this appetition appendent to Philosophy,
is [
the Science, or knowledge of things always the same
] wherein we have somewhat
complex,
or
notional
; and somewhat
simple,
and
real.
The
complex notional
object of Philosophy, and its appetition, is expressed in that notion
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of
Science,
or
Knowledge.
Now the Sciences,
which Philosophy is conversant about, are either
contemplative,
or
active.
So
Plato
acquaints us, that the mind's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
chiefest incorruptible beauty
consists
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, in
Theorie,
and
Practice, Theoretick,
or
contemplative
Sciences are such, as properly refer to
Truth
: whereof
Plato, de Repub.
6.
fol.
511. gives us these four
Species,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
And take from me these four affections in the Soul: give to
Intelligence
the supreme place: the second to
Discourse
or
Science
(properly so termed) the third to
Faith
: and the last to
Imitation.
1. The first piece of Knowledge
Plato
here mentions, is
Intelligence,
which in the
Platonic
Definitions is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the beginning of Science,
i. e.
(as
Aristotle
interprets his Master's mind)
The Knowledge of first Principles
: These first Principles are called by
Plato,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Hypotheses,
which he makes to be certain indemonstrable Principles, on which Sciences are founded: So in
Platon: desini
•
.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
An
Hypothesis
is an indemonstrable Principle, or the sum of an argument,
i. e.
it is a first Principle, which gives evidence to all following Conclusions, but receives evidence from none, being in its self most evident,
&c.
2. Next after
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, according to
Plato
's order, follows
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Discourse,
or
Science,
properly so called, which he thus describes,
de Repub.
6.
fol.
510.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. Science is that, which proceeds from simple Principles,
&c.
Plato
here makes Science, or Discourse, to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Demonstrative Philosophy,
which proceeds from firm, and immobile Principles, to the first
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
indemonstrable principle,
which no way depends on the foregoing
Hypotheses, &c.
This is well explained by
Johan. Grammaticus,
in
Arist. Anim. proaem.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Discourse is a progress from Principles to Conclusions, whence the very name,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
q. d.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, passing through the understanding.
Then he gives us the office of this Discourse,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
By this Discourse our Soul is raised up to the contemplation of In
•
ligibles, which is the Souls perfection.
3. Next to
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Plato
adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Faith,
which is an assent to a Conclusion upon the Testimony, and Authority of some person; whereby 'tis differenced from the fore-going
Science,
which is an Assent to a Conclusion, as grounded on some certain immobile Principles. 4. Lastly, after
Faith
follows
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
fantastic▪ Imagination
(which elsewhere
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Imitation
) which is nothing else,
but the lively representation of notions, or things, by sensible Forms, visible Images, or any other Symbolic shadows, whereof
Plato
discourseth at large in his
de Repub.
6.510,
&c.
also
de Legib.
2.
fol.
669,
&c.
as elsewhere. But so much for the
complex Object
of
Natural Philosophy.
2. As for its
simple real Object,
'tis expressed under the notion [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
of things always the same
: whereby we must understand, 1. That Philosophy is employed not only about the shadows of things, but about the things themselves. This
Plato
everywhere inculcates; namely, that the Object of true Philosophy, is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that which truly is: wherefore he stiles those, who are verst only,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
about that, which is not,
or the shadows of things,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
false Philosophers.
2. Whereas these real Beings, as the object of Philosophy are said to be [always the same.] Hereby we must understand them as existing in their
specific
Nature, not as subsisting in their
Individuals,
for so they are variable.
§. 3. Having finished the
Generick Notion,
and
Object
of Philosophy, we now proceed to its Specifick Act, expressed under the notion [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
Theoretick,
or
Contemplative
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to contemplate,
according to its native origination, imports
steadfastly to behold. Plato
discourseth very much of
Contemplation,
which he makes to be the
proper Motion,
as Truth is the proper food of the Soul: so in his
de Repub.
2. he divides Disciplines into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Gymnastick,
or
Active
; and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Musical,
or
Contemplative.
These
Musical Disciplines,
he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Theoretick,
whereof he makes
Religion
the head; whence he affirms, that the Contemplation
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
of the chiefest Idea
of
Good
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme Discipline.
Agen he tells us, that God is the
first Beauty,
the Contemplation whereof makes us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
friends to God.
Yea, he says, that by Contemplation a man makes God familiar to, and in-dwelling in him. And lastly, he says, the best
Exemplar
of Contemplation is in Heaven. As for the
Qualities
of this Contemplation, it must be according to
Plato
's Doctrine, and mind. 1.
Congenial,
and
Natural,
not forced, or strained: whence he stiles a Philosopher,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
one akin to Truth
:
for (saith he) as there is in our Eyes a congenial kind of cognation, or similitude to the Light, which renders the Contemplation thereof very pleasing; so 'twixt the
Mind,
and
Truth, &c.
2. This Contemplation of
Truth
must be
distinct,
and
evident
: so in his
Rep.
6.
fol.
504.
Plato
tells us, that a dark adumbration of things may not suffice, but there must be a perfect
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or exact
Form,
and
Image
of the thing impressed on the mind. 3. This Contemplation must be
firm,
and
steadfast.
This follows upon the former: for what is pleasing, and distinct, is not soon worn off. Thence, says
Plato, Rep.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Science forced upon the Soul is no way permanent.
Hence also in his
Meno, fol.
98.
Plato
makes this difference 'twixt
Scientifick,
and
Opinionative
Contemplation; that the former is
fixed,
and
permanent,
whereas the later is only
fluid,
and
transient.
Fourthly, This Contemplation must be
intuitive,
and not only
abstractive, i. e.
a true Philosopher contemplates the things themselves in their proper existences, not only their abstract
Species, Forms,
or
Images.
§. 4. As for the term, end, and effect of this Contemplation, it is
Truth,
as
Truth
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] under that reduplication whereby 'tis differenced from active Philosophy, which also contemplateth
Truth,
yet not as
Truth,
but as conducing to Action. That the great scope and design of Philosophy is to discover, and contemplate
Truth,
is evident from the whole of
Plato
's Philosophizings. So in his
de Repub.
6.
fol.
490.
Plato
tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
by Truth the mind truly lives, and is nourished
: whence he calls
Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a love of Truth
; and a
Philosopher
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a friend and kinsman of Truth:
also he makes this the main office of a
Philosopher,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to
serve Truth.
Hence also
Plato Timaeus, fol.
9. calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Philomathist,
or
Philosopher,
one that burns with impetuous desire after Truth, having this petty god indwelling in him, which renders him happy.
Whence he concludes,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The universal Medicine of everything is only this, to render to all their proper foods, and motions: the proper food and motion of the soul, whereby it most resembles the Divine Being, is the contemplation of Truth,
&c.
This (adds he) we lost in our Head (I suppose he means
Adam
) but we have it restored by
Intelligence,
or Divine Wisdom,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
according to our old nature.
Yea
Plato (de Repub.
5.
fol.
475. affirms,
that those only are true Philosophers, who are versed about the contemplation of the highest Truth,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thence he makes the mind to labor under an infinite thirst after Truth, which is never satisfied till it arrive to the contemplation
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of very Being, or the supreme Truth: as in his
Phaedr. fol.
251. and in his
Sympos. fol.
206,
&c.
Thus much for the Definition of Philosophy, as it regards natural contemplative Sciences.
§. 5. We find another
Idea
of
Philosophy,
as it relates to
Morals,
and
active Sciences
in the
Platonic
Definitions,
fol.
414. thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Philosophy is a prudent, or studious consideration of the Soul according to right reason:
wherein we may consider. 1. The
Genus.
2. The
Subject.
3. The
Measure,
or
Rule.
1. The
Genus
in this
Platonic Definition
of
Moral
Philosophy,
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies a prudent Inspection, studious Consideration, or solicitous Care, commonly styled by
Plato,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Prudence,
or
Moral Wisdom,
which we have thus copiously described in the
Platonic
Definitions:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
·
Prudence is a faculty of itself effective of human happiness.
Wherein we have, 1. The
Specifick reason,
whereby it is differenced from
Contemplative Science,
expressed by that notion
Effective.
2. Its
Ultimate End,
which is to make men happy. Again,
Prudence
is defined in the same
Platonic
Definitions,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Science of Good, and Evil.
Agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Disposition whereby we judge what is to be done, and what is not to be done.
In all which Definitions laid together, we have these Considerables.
1. The
Ultimate End,
and
supreme object
of
moral Prudence,
or
Philosophy,
namely
human Happines,
which is the measure of all
moral Acts,
and the first thing treated of in
moral
Philosophy, according to that of
Aquinas: The end of moral Virtues, is the chief principle of Prudence,
as
Luke
10.41.
2. We have here the
intermediate Objects
of moral Prudence, which are in general all
Agibles,
or
Practicables
; that is, 1.
Singulars.
2. Things
present.
3. Things in
our power.
4. Things
good,
or
evil.
5. The
subjects
of good, and evil; the
Affections.
3. Here is also considerable the
proper Exercises,
or Offices of
Prudence,
which are according to
Plato
(in his
Charm.
) 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to do what belongs unto us.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to understand a man's self.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to use all things well, i. e.
with respect to our supreme end. 4. Rightly to distinguish 'twixt good and evil. 5. To conserve the rectitude of the will. 6. To moderate the Affections. 7. To govern the whole Life.
4. This
moral Prudence
may be considered in its
Integrals,
which are according to the
Platonic
account three;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Providence,
which in the
Platonic
Definitions,
fol.
414. is thus described,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Providence is a preparation (or provision) for somewhat future
: which implies, 1. An universal Comprehension of all Circumstances, means, difficulties, encouragements, which may make for, or against our
End.
2. Serious consultation about, and prudent determination of what is to be done. 3. Prudent precaution of what may impede,
&c.
this is termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
caution,
according to that of the
Stoics,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a wise man ought never to fear, but always to use caution,
&c. 2. Another part of
moral Prudence,
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a dexterity,
or
sagacity
in judging things, which in the
Platonic Definitions, fol.
413. is thus defined,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
facility of judgment is a connate ability of reasoning, or discerning.
And
Plato, de Repub.
4.
fol.
428. says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
facility of judgment is certainly some kind of Science,
&c. This
perspicacitie
of finding out things,
Plato
makes to be an excellent kind of Prudence, or a
natural Invention,
which directs the Reason to find out things wrapped up in Nature: which he elsewhere calls a
sagacity of Nature
: so in his
Epino. fol.
976.
There remains (says
Plato
) a marvelous faculty, whereby we easily, and expeditely learn anything; and having learnt it, can faithfully commend it to memory, and, as occasion serves, by an happy celerity recall it, which some call
Wisdom,
others
good Nature
; but others,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
sagacity of Nature.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
natural sagacity, Plato
makes to be the same with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
good nature
: So
Plato, Defin fol
412.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Sagacitie is a natural generositie of mind, whereby a person is enabled happily to conjecture what ought to be done
: agen 'tis styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an acumen of Judgment.
This
Natural Sagacitie, Plato Repub.
2.
fol.
376. makes very
essential
to a
Magistrate,
in order to his more exact judging of persons, and things, and final decision of Controversies.
Solomon
we know was endowed with this
Natural sagacity,
even to admiration; which discovered itself in the decision of that arduous case between the two
Harlots,
1
Kings
3.23, 24,
&c.
as also in resolving the Queen of
Sheba's
Questions, 2
Chron.
9 1. which kind of sagacity
Politicians
call
King-Craft.
This
Natural sagacity
is elsewhere styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a facility of Judgment,
which in the
Platon. Definit. fol.
414. is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good judgment apprehensive of what is most eligible.
Agen, this Natural sagacity passeth sometimes under the notion of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which is defined (
Platon. Defin. fol.
412.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an habit elective of what is best.
One great office of this Natural sagacity, consists in the knowledge of
Men
their several Humours, Inclinations, Designes, Interests, and Combinations,
&c.
3. Another part of
Moral Prudence
is
Experience,
which
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and makes very essential to a true Philosopher. So
Plato, Rep.
9.
fol.
582.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The experienced person, endowed with Prudence, is the only true Philosopher:
then he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thence (in the same Book,
Rep.
9.) he joins
Prudence,
and
Experience
together with
reason,
which he makes the best Judges of human Affairs,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
We rightly judge by Experience joined with Prudence, and Reason.
And
Plato
in his
Gorgias
gives us the reason, why Experience is so essential to Prudence,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Experience makes our life to pass away according to rules of Art, whereas inexperience makes us live casually.
Then again;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
There are many Arts experimentally found out among men, from several Experiments,
&c. And because
Experimental Prudence
is gained by sense, and sensible observation: thence
Plato Timaeus, fol.
103. defineth it a
subtlety of sense,
or
good sensation
of the Soul,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Experience is indeed
the main
Seminary
of human Prudence. 1. In that it furnisheth us with the choicest Observations of past and present
times, whereby we are capacitated to make some prudent conjecture of what is likely to succeed. 2. Experience draws down general Rules, and Precepts of Wisdom, to particular, and proper use. 3. Experience gives men a more inward feeling, and lively apprehension of themselves, and others. Thence
Plato
makes this
self-knowledge
the highest piece of Prudence, which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
good sensation.
4. Experience does much greaten, and add to the quantity of our knowledge, by furnishing the mind with fresh Observations; whence
Plato
brings in
Solon
speaking thus (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The longer I live, the more I know, and teach.
5. Experience adds not only to the
quantity,
but also to the
quality
of our knowledge, by rendering it more clear, and distinct. For experience reduceth particular Observations in themselves confused unto a regular Series, and Order, whence general Rules are framed, which makes our knowledge more distinct, and certain. 6. Experience greatly fixeth, and confirmeth our Notions of things.
§. 6. Having finished the
Generick Notion,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which connotes
Moral Prudence,
we now proceed to the subject thereof, expressed in the
Platonic
Definition by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Soul:
for indeed
Moral Prudence
moveth, and influenceth the whole Soul, and therefore it is not unjustly seated therein; though the proper seat thereof be the
Practick Judgment,
which Divines term
Conscience,
which is as a
Pettie God,
or
God's Vice-gerent,
and
Vicar
in the Soul, to command, or threaten; to accuse, or excuse; to justify, or condemn. This Vicarious Divine office of Conscience,
Plato
seems to have had some
Traditional Notices
of, whence he terms Conscience
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Fame,
and makes it to be a kind of
Daemon,
or
Pettie God
in Men. So
Plato, de Leg.
8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This Law of
Fame
partakes of a marvelous faculty, seeing no one durst to breath otherwise, than according to the Dictates of her Law.
Serranus
here acquaints us,
that
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, his Law of
Fame,
that Imperial power of Conscience well known to all; which comprehends those common Principles, that
God is to be feared,
&c. This Law of Conscience he says is unwritten, yet notwithstanding there is in all Men's minds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Sacred Law,
whose force, and efficacy tames every Soul, and compels it by few to obey positive Laws. From the authority of this Law it is, as the Philosopher
teacheth, that Men come to understand the difference of good, and evil.
Again
Serranus
adds,
Our Philosopher calls this Divine Law of Conscience,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Law of Fame
; and says, that it is connate in all Men, it being a Science that teacheth the difference of good, and evil; and the conservator, and vindictor of all Laws; and the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Precursor
of that most excellent Chorus of Virtues: whose admirable faculties, and actions, slow from no other Fountain, then the sparks of this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
This Law, or Light of Conscience
is twofold.
1.
Habitual,
which is called in the Schools
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Synteresis.
2.
Actual,
which is termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Syneidesis.
1. The
Synteresis,
or
habitual Light
of Conscience,
is defined in the Schools a
natural habit of active Principles.
For as
speculative
Reason discourseth of
Speculatives,
so
Practick
Reason of
Practicks
: as therefore there are naturally implanted in us certain
speculative Principles,
which appertain to
Intelligence,
so also are there certain
active Principles,
which belong to that
natural habit
of Conscience, called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Synteresis,
as
Aquinas, Part.
1.
Q.
79. And this
habitual Light,
or
Law of Conscience,
is the same with
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Law of fame,
which is elsewhere by him termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Right reason,
as anon. 2. The
Actual Light,
or
Law
of Conscience called by the Ancients
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, is Conscience strictly taken. So So
Aquinas part
1.
Quaest..
79.
Art.
13.
Conscience taken properly is not a power, but an Act, whereby we apply our Science to what we undertake; which application is followed by Testification, or Ligation, or Excusation, and Accusation.
By which it appears, that the proper office of this
Syneidesis
is
self reflection,
whence follows accusation, or excusation,
&c.
as
Rom.
2.15. And because this Reflexive Light of Conscience does necessarily suppose
inward sense,
hence 'tis oft called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
sensation,
also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
synesis,
or
sensate judgment
: So
Aquinas,
Synesis,
or
sensate judgment
imports a right judgment about particular operables.
So
Plato
in his
Th
•
aet.
makes all true Science to be a kind of
Sensation,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; and more particularly (in his
Timaeus fol.
103) he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Prudence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
good sensation
: which exactly answers to the
Scripture
Phraseologie, which sets forth this reflexive act of Conscience by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
Phil.
1.
•
.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: and thence
Heb.
5.14. we read of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
The life of the
new Creature,
as well as of the
old,
, consists in these
self-reflective
Acts of Conscience which
spring from inward sense, and feeling.
And
Plato
in his
Alcibiad. fol.
133, 134. tells us
That he, that reflects upon himself, his own Soul, and Wisdom, thereby becomes as it were
omniscient
; whereas they, who know not themselves, know not what is good, or evil for them, nor yet what belongs to themselves, or to other men: such therefore can never make good Politicians, or Oeconomicans,
&c.
In brief;
Self-reflections,
or our actions upon ourselves, are of all the highest, and noblest, and those by which we live, and work as men, and perfect that part of the Soul called
Conscience,
which directs all we do according to Right Reason,
&c.
Thus much for the
Subject
of Prudence.
§. 7. As for the
Measure,
or
rule
of Moral Prudence, we find it expressed in the forementioned
Platonic
definition under this notion [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
according to right Reason.
This
Platonic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(which is asserted in like manner by the
Stoics,
and others)
right Reason
is the same with the
Light,
or
Law of Nature,
which is twofold. 1.
Subjective.
2.
Objective.
1. As for
Subjective Right reason, Light,
or
Law of Nature,
it is no other, than those common Principles of
Moralitie
seated in that part of Conscience, which they call
Synteresis,
of which in the foregoing §. 6. This
seminarie
of engrafted
active
notions, or
moral
Principles is styled by the
Stoics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Common Law,
also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
right Reason,
against which, say they, nothing is to be done;
As
Diog. Laert.
in
Zeno.
'tis termed by
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Law of Being
: so
Plato Minos fol.
315. [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] where says
Serranus,
by this appellation
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Plato
understands
the Eternal law of
Nature,
which amidst the various laws of
Nations,
and their vic
•
ssitudes continues uniform, and the same; and thence is truly termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Being
; therefore he calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
right Reason
of the Eternal Law: and because our actions are to be measured by the Rule of these common notions, therefore
Plato
names this Law
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Royal Law.
So agen,
Serranus
in
Plato de Legib.
8.
The
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
delineation
of this Eternal Law is this. There is in the minds of all, as soon as they are borne, a certain
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sacred Law.
2. He, that consecrates this law in his mind as a certain
sacred,
is thereby furnished with an excellent remedy against the insolence, and impotence of human lusts, as it was said of the
Tyrant
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. These
Active principles,
contained in this internal law of conscience, are generally styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
common notions
:
they were named by
Zeno
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Comprehensions,
because they comprehended the first seeds, or principles of knowledge.
Cicero
tells us, that
Epicurus
called them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Anticipations
(as he translates the word) because they supposed a
Previous formation of things in the soul.
The
Stoics
used the same term likewise.
Chrysippus
defined this
natural law,
or conservatorie of
common principles,
a natural Intelligence of those things, which universally are.
Cicero
stiles these
common notions, Inchoate Intelligences,
of which see
Lud. Vives in August. Civ. lib.
8.
cap.
7. The
Scripture
also stiles these Common principles fixed in Conscience, a
Law
; so
Rom.
2.14, 15. where the
Gentiles
are said to be a
Law to themselves, &c.
And indeed these common seeds of natural light are a private Law, which God has deeply engraven on men's Consciences, and is universally extensive unto all, though with a latitude of degrees; it being in some
more,
in some
less,
but in all in
great
measure obliterated, and defaced since the
fall.
It is also by
Divines
generally termed the
Light,
or
Law of Nature,
because it slows in, and with, and from Human Nature, either immediately, or mediately.
2. As for the
Objective
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Right Reason
(which
Plato
seems to have had some traditional notices of) it contains those broken traditions of the
Moral Law,
which were scattered up and down amongst the
Gentiles.
That
Plato
had received some fragments of God's Law; and that by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Right Reason,
he does import the same, seems very probable, both from that expression in his
Minos fol.
315.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Law of Being, i. e.
of the
first Being,
as he usually stiles God: as also from that other expression of his,
Minos
317
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
This Right Reason is the Royal Law, i. e.
God's
Divine
Law, which is so styled
Jam.
2 8. In this sense Right Reason may be said (as the
Schools
will have it) to give
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
esse morale,
or morality to human Acts: so
Stobaeus de Virtu Sera. fol.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Virtue is a conformity according to Right Reason, and Sin is a transgression against Right Reason. Where by Right Reason we must understand not the
subjective light,
or Law of Conscience, which is imperfect, but the
objective light
of Nature comprised in the
Moral Law.
In this sense we must understand that
Principle
in the Schools, that
Right reason gives the
esse morale
to moral Beings.
Thus much for the
Platonic
Definition of
Philosophy
relating to
Morals.
§. 8. But if we will have the Genius, and Spirit of
Plato
's Philosophy, it seems evidently resolved into the
Contemplation, Affection,
and
Imitation
of God: for says
Plato
to
Philosophize, is to know, to love, to imitate God.
This affectionate active knowledge of God
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Idea of the chiefest Good,
also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme Science
: and more particularly he stiles it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the genuine Philosophy,
which he thus describes,
Plato Repub.
7.
fol.
521.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The traduction of the soul from a kind of twilight
(or natural darkness)
to the true knowledge of the first Being
(or God.) This genuine
Divine
Philosophy
Plato
supposeth to be
affective, effective,
and
transformative
of the Soul into the image of God, which renders men
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Theophilos,
or
friends to God,
and so 'tis opposed to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Je
•
ne, empty Speculations,
as also to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
twilight Philosophy
of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. This
Divine Philosophy Plato
sometimes stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Dialectick,
because it does by a Divine kind of Ratiocination,
or Discourse reason men out of their dreaming ideas, or apprehensions into clear discoveries of God: So in his Book
de Repub.
7.
fol.
521.
Plato
tells, that
those, who are bound in the chains of their native ignorance, contemplate only the shadows of things, whereas his
Dialectick
is a Science, that leads men from their night dreaming knowledge, to the contemplation of the First Being.
Agen,
Plato
sometimes terms this his
Divine Philosophy,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intelligence.
So in his Book
de Repub.
7.
fol.
513. he makes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intelligence,
to be the
supreme
Science, which is conversant
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, about the
First Being,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
namely from firm, and eternal principles,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
having banished the Ministry
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of
Idols,
it quits not it's contemplation, until
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
it grasp by its
Intelligence
the chiefest Good.
Serranus
on this place observes,
that
Plato
makes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intelligence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the most perfect, and supreme Science, which is conversant
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
about Being itself,
and all other Arts, even
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Science itself,
are but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
subservient thereto.
Hence
Definit. Platon. fol.
513.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intelligence is the Principle of Science.
Agen, sometimes
Plato
makes his Divine Philosophy the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Prudence
; so
Plato Repub.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This Art of Prudence has of all the most Divine nature, which never loseth it's efficacy.
But the most proper notion, whereby
Plato
expresseth his Divine Philophie, is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Wisdom,
which in the general is thus defined.
Defin. Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Wisdom is an indemonstrable Science
: agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Science of things always the same,
and Lastly 'tis desined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Theoretick Science of the causes of Beings,
i. e. of God. And
Plato
treating of the
One Infinite Being,
tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. He that once has tasted of this one Infinite Being, having got a Treasury of Sapience, is filled with joy.
Hence also
de Rep.
5.
fol.
475.
Plato
defines a Philosopher
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
one that thirsts after Sapience,
i. e. adds he, not of any
particular,
but of
Universal Sapience,
which he makes chiefly to consist in the Contemplation of God, which (says he
Phileb.
16.) gives light, and evidence to all other
Arts,
and
Sciences.
Agen,
Plato
terms his Divine Philosophy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the knowledge of the First Being, i. e.
God, as he explains it,
Thaeet.
176.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The knowledge of this first Being God is Sapience, and Virtue, &c.
And he gives this reason why
true Philosophy
is most conversant about God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
as very Being,
because
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which always is, is always most knowable
; and therefore adds he, they who contemplate
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Many Beauties, but not this first Beauty, or supreme Being,
they can be said only
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to dream about all things, but to know nothing
; whereas a true Philosopher contemplates
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the first Being,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
not by opinion only,
as other Arts,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
but essentially
; that his Soul may be converted to, yea transformed into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Idea of chiefest good.
This
Divine
Wisdom,
consisting in the contemplation of God,
Plato
calls, 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme Science.
2. Agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the best of all Exstacies.
3.
Farther he calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that genuine law,
which leads the Soul to true Felicitie. 4. Agen,
Plato Repub.
9.
fol.
586 acquaints us, that this contemplation of God brings
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. the proper, best, and truest pleasures.
5. Lastly he affirms, that this
Divine Philosophy
makes men not only
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Theophilos,
lovers of God, but also one, and the same Idea with God so
Rep.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The Philosopher contemplating on this Divine Beauty,
becomes, so far as man is capable,
Divine, and Beautiful.
And then he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
he becomes an imitator of, and alike to those things Divine.
whence
Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The matter of Philosophy is things, but the end is assimilation to God.
§. 9. Having given some general account of
Platonic Philosophy,
in regard of its
Natural, Moral,
and
Divine Idea
's; we now proceed to
Plato
's Character of a
True Philosopher,
his Qualities, and Offices.
1.
Plato
requires, that a Philosopher have
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good natural ingenie,
which in the
Platonic
Definitions is thus defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Good nature is a quickness in learning
: agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a natural virtue,
which is also styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a facility in learning,
which is defined thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. So
Plato Rep.
6.
fol.
486. tells us, that a Philosopher must not be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
un
•
but prompt to learn.
This
good natural ingenie,
or
promptitude of nature to learn, Plato
makes to consist in a
natural acumen,
or sagacity of judgment, & a good memory. So
Plato Epino. fol.
976.
There remains an admirable faculty, which some call
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
nature,
others
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sapience,
which consists in this, that a man learns with facility and expedition, faithfully committing to memory what he has learned, and as occasion serves recalling it again with an happy promptitude; all which some call
wisdom,
some
nature,
others
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sagacitie of nature.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
sagacity
is defined,
defin Plat.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good nature of Soul, &c.
also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an acumen of judgment.
And touching the pregnancie of
memory
requisite to a Philosopher,
Plato
tells us,
Repub.
6.
fol.
547.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
2.
Plato
requires in a Philosopher good
Institution.
So
de Repub.
6. reckoning up the causes whence Philosophy comes to be corrupted,
he mentions this as the main,
viz. evil Institution of youth
For (saith he) by how much the more generous their naturals are, by so much the worse Philosophers are they, if ill instituted,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, may we not therefore say that the best natured Souls by reason of ill institution become most wicked?
3.
Plato
will have his Philosopher to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Philalethes,
a lover of truth.
So
Rep.
6.
fol.
485. This (saith he) is the nature of Philosophers, that they hate
falsehood,
but love
Truth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. And it being natural to him that loves, to love all that is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
akin, & proper to what he loves; and because nothing is more proper to wisdom than Truth, it is therefore impossible, that the same should be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Philosopher & yet a lover of falsehood.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. He therefore, who will be a true Philosopher, ought even from his youth greatly to thirst after all truth. And
Plato
in what precedes
Rep.
6.
fol.
484. limits this love of Truth to such Truths as are
invariable,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
True Philosophers are conversant about things always the same.
i. e.
about
first truths.
whence
Plato
makes his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Philalethia
to consist not in any lower
Acts,
or
Contemplations,
but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
in Contemplating very Being,
and
the first Beauty.
Thence, says he, they who contemplate beautiful Pictures, and shadows of truth, but delight not in Beauty, and Truth itself, such are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
lovers of opinion,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
lovers of pleasure,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Pseudophilosophers,
not true Philosophers.
4.
Plato
requires in a Philosopher, that he devote himself to the study of Philosophy, so
Rep.
6.
fol.
485.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
He that wholly gives up himself to discipline, and is conversant about the pure pleasures of the soul, being abstracted from corporeal pleasures, he is truly a Philosopher,
&c.
5. Another Character of a Philosopher is, that he be not
covetous, &c.
so
Plato Rep.
6.
fol.
485.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, for adds he, when the affections are vehemently carried to one thing, they are more infirm in other.
6.
Plato
will have his Philosopher to be of a Noble, not Sordid, Servile disposition: so
Rep.
6.
fol.
486.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Servilitie,
and
Sordidness
is contrary to the Soul, that would contemplate,
&c.
7.
Plato
requires in a Philosopher Courage; that he be not timorous, or fearful of Death,
&c.
so
de Rep.
6.
fol.
486.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Therefore this Philosopher must not count death terrible; for a timorous, and servile nature never, as it seems, partakes of true Philosophy, whence Philosophy is made a Contemplation of Death.
8.
Plato
in the same place requires that a Philosopher be not
morose unsociable, unjust, &c.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
9.
Plato
will have his
Philosopher
to be a good
Musician,
of a Musical, Harmonious nature, thereby to allure men to the contemplation of the first Being,
&c.
so
Rep.
6.
fol.
486.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. He must not be of an Immusical, in
•
e
•
ent nature, and he gives the reason because
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Truth is akin to
•
mmetrie; whence he concludes,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We seek for one, that is harmonious, and compleasant to win others to the contemplation of the first being.
This he explains more fully in his
Timeus, fol.
104. where he makes Philosophy to be
the Music, and Harmonie of the soul, appointed by God for its emendation, which sweetly compels the irrational part to obey the rational, so that the affection; neither move, nor stand still, but according to the dictates of reason, whence follows a Divine
Chorus
of Philosophy, and Virtues.
Hence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the soul's traction, &c.
10. Lastly,
Plato
makes this an essential Character of a Philosopher, that he be
Virtuous
: so
de Repub.
6.
fol.
489,
&c. Plato
examining the ground, why Philosophy proved so
useless,
and even
•
nxious,
resolves all into some defect, not of
Philosophy,
but of the
Philosopher.
Wherefore
fol.
490.
Plato
requires, that a Philosopher be
pious,
and
good
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Truth must first lead the way, which the
Philosopher
must follow step by step, till he arrive to goodness: for he that is vain, and futile can never be partaker of true
Philosophy.
Whence he adds; that everyone, who is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
true Philosopher,
must affectionately aspire to the knowledge of the first Being; neither must he acquiesce
in mere opinions, but with a courageous mind pursue truth itself; neither must he desist from such a famous enterprize, until he has arrived to the same,
&c.
Whence he concludes:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Truth leading the way, we cannot conceive, that the
Chorus
of evils will follow, but wholesome regular manners,
&c.
And
fol.
492. he makes
Virtue
requisite to
true Philosophy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(
sc.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Whence he concludes,
fol.
494. that there are very few, who are conversant in
Philosophy,
as they ought.
CHAP. VIII. Of
Plato
's Logic, and it's derivation from the Jews.
Plato
's form of Logic consisting in Dialogues: their use in the
Eleatick
Schole, but their original use amongst the Jews. Scripture Logic in Dialogizing, as in
Job,
the
Prophets, Mark 8.11. Luke 22.68. Rom. 11.1. Luke 11.53, 54.
Logic an Organ, or key to all Sciences.
Plato
's Logic precepts.
1.
A Logicia
•
must be grave, and moderate, not contentious. Contentious Disputes the cause of Skepticism.
2.
The Matter of Disputes must be weighty.
3.
To lay down good principles.
4.
To proceed Methodically from particulars to generals, &c.
5.
To illustrate by examples.
6.
To distinguish duelie 'twixt Truth, and falsehood.
7.
To State will the affirmative.
8.
Not to expect more exactness, than matters will bear.
9.
To keep the Judgment free.
10.
To make Reason, not Authority the measure of Truth.
11.
Modestie, and Candor in Disputes.
12.
In refuting Errors to reduce to absurdity.
13.
To show the rise of Error.
Alcinous
of
Plato
's Logic.
§. 1.
PHilosophie
may be considered in it's
Essential constitutive particulars
; or else in its
introductorie universal Organ
· The
Introductorie universal organ,
or
key
to all
Philosophy
is
Logic
;
which
Plato
makes much use of in all his
Philosophizings,
though not according to the mode, as now it is in use in our Schools. For
Plato
imitating his master
Socrates
; and those of the
Eleatick
Schole,
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
(who are supposed to be the first Inventors of
Logic
) affect a
natural, plain,
and
familiar mode
of Disputing by
Dialogues,
or
Interrogations,
and
Responsions,
much like the
Scriptural,
and
Jewish
way of Disputation. That the Mode, or Form of Disputing in Plato's
Academie,
was not by way of
Syllogism
(which
Aristotle
brought in) but by Interrogations, and Answers, is apparent to any versed in
Plato
's Philosophy, which is wrapped up in
Dialogues
beginning with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or such like
Interrogations.
This is farther evident from the Origination of the name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(which
Plato
useth for the most part, if not altogether, to express
Logic
by)
Dialectick,
which is apparently derived from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the primary
notation
whereof is to Confer, or Dispute by
Dialogues,
or
Colloquies.
Thus
Alexander
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Dialectick makes discourses consisting of Interrogations, and Responses: for from these it wholly derived it's name. So
Laertius
l.
3. says,
That a Dialogue is an Oration composed of Interrogation, and Responsion, concerning matters relating to Philosophy, or Republic Affairs.
As for the Original of this
Dialogizing Mode,
'tis not certainly determined whence
Plato
had it. Some say he himself was the Author of it; others derive it from
Zeno
the
Eleatick,
others from others. So
Lud. Vives
on
August. Civit. Dei lib.
8.
cap.
7.
There are some, who refer this kind of Dialectick oration to
Plato,
as the Inventor thereof; as
Favorinus
: others to
Alexamenus Teius,
as
Aristotle
: there are not wanting some, who refer it to
Zeno
the
Eleatick.
Truly it is evident, that
Plato
polished, and adorned this mode of
Dialogizing
(or arguing by
Dialogues
) which he fills with all kind of neatnesses, and learning, wherein if the artificial formules of Dialectick (or Logic) are not delivered, yet all the precepts of this Art are really expressed, as also the method, how to use them.
Plato
gives us Demonstration in his
Timaeus
: the specimens of Sophistry are delivered in his
Eutydemus
; whence
Aristotle
translated not a few of his Sophistick Elenches, or Fallacies:
Plato
's
Socratick
Induction is of all most potent,
&c.
Thus
Lud. Vives
: wherein he gives us a good account of
Plato
's
Logic,
and its original; which as it seems most probable, was by him, or by his Master
Socrates
derived
immediately from the
Eleatick
Schole, from
Parmenides,
and
Zeno:
for the same
Lud. Vives (in August. Civit. Dei lib.
8.
cap.
4.) tells us, that
Plato
diligently examined the Inventions of
Parmenides,
and
Zeno
the
Eleaticks.
And
Aristotle in Sophista,
as also
Laertius
in
Zeno
acquaints us, that
Logic
was first found out by
Zeno
the
Eleatick.
So
Vossius de Histor. Graec. lib.
4.
cap.
2. agen,
Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. lib.
2.
cap.
11. §. 2, 3. And
Hornius
who succeeded him in his Professorship, agrees with him in his Opinion hereabout:
Plato
primus Dialogos introduxit non quod ipse primus invenerit, (ante eum enim
Zeno
scripsit) sed quod expoliverit.
Hornius
Histor. Philos. l.
7.
c.
8.
Dialogues are said to have been first introduced by
Plato,
not as if he had been the first Inventor of them (for
Zeno
writ in that way before him) but because he very much polished, and perfected that way of Arguing: to this purpose
Hornius.
But whence ever
Plato
derived this
Dialogizing
mode of
Logic,
that it came originally from the
Jewish Church,
and
Sacred Scriptures,
we shall endeavor to demonstrate both by
Artificial,
and
Inartificial
arguments.
§. 2. First, Suppose we grant, that
Plato,
and
Socrates
received this
form of Dialogizing Logic
from
Parmenides,
or
Zeno
the
Eleatick
; yet that these had their choicest notions from the
Jews,
we have afore, in our discourse of the
Eleatick
Philosophy, endeavored to prove: and particularly that
Zeno
the
Eleatick
(who is supposed to be the Inventor of
Dialectick Logic
) was originally of
Tarsis,
or as others of
Sidon,
and so a
Phoenician,
and borderer on the
Jews, &c.
2. But to come to
Plato
's own confession: In his
Thaeetetus, fol.
210.
Plato
brings in
Socrates
styling this
Art
of disputing by
Dialogues
a playing the
Midwife
:
The true way of teaching (saith he) is by apt Interrogations, and Answers to bring forth the
faetus, i. e.
the sense of our minds into light: which is in regard of Discipline a commodious
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
obstetrication,
or doing the office of a
Midwife.
This art of playing the
Midwife,
or
Dialectick
Logic,
Socrates
(in the same place confesseth) that he received from
God,
his words are,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
This Midwife art I, and my Mother received from God. i. e.
the true God of
Israel
(of whom he seems to have had some notices) by some
Jewish
Tradition, as we may presume.
3. That this
Platonic
mode of Disputing by
dialogues,
or
interrogations,
and
answers,
exactly answers to (and therefore as we may justly presume was derived from) the
Jewish
mode of disputing, will be more than probable to such, as shall consider such
disputes
as are mentioned in
Scripture.
We find in the book of
Job
(one of the most ancient pieces of Scripture) several Disputes 'twixt
Job,
and his
Friends
carried on in a
Dialectick mode,
by
questions,
and
answers.
So in like manner, in the
Prophets,
God (condescending to the
Jewish
manner of reasoning) frequently argues, and debates matters with his people in a way of
dialogue,
or
interrogation,
&c. Yea this manner of disputing, or debating matters, continued amongst the
Jews
'till our
Savior
's time, as appears by his Disputes with the
Jewish Doctors, Scribes,
and
Pharisees,
as also their reasonings with him, which were for the most part, if not altogether, managed by
questions,
and
answers
; not by
Syllogisms.
So
Mark
8.11. The
Pharisees
are said to
dispute
with Chri
•
: where
Grotius
on
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
observes,
that the most ancient mode of Disputation was by
Interrogations.
Thus in like manner on
Luke
22.68.
Grotius
renders
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, [
if I shall propose any arguments.
] for adds he, the
Hebrews,
no less th
•
n the
Grecians
were wont to dispute by
Interrogations.
So agen, on
Rom.
11.1. He with whom
Paul
disputes proposeth a
question,
to which
Paul a
•
swers, &c.
as
Grotius.
So on
Luke
11.53, 54.
Grotius
observes, that the woe
•
d
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is taken from the Schools, & signifies
to pose by questions, &c.
as before in
Socrates
's mode of Philosophizing.
Lastly, That the Ancients generally, before
Aristotle,
disputed by
Interrogations
is evident by what is observed by
Aristotle
in his
Sophistick Elenches,
where he makes mention of a Fallacie amongst the Ancients called
a Fallacie of many Interrogations.
By all
•
hich it manifestly appears, that the mode of disputing amongst the An
•
ients, particularly in
Plato
's Schole, was by
Interrogations,
and
Responsions,
conformable unto, and therefore, as we may justly presume▪ in derivation from the
Jews
their mode of
•
ialogizing.
Thus was
Logic
amongst the Ancients clothed in a more
natural, familiar, simple dress,
suitable to things, without those cloudy Niceties, and dark crabbed Termes, which serve only to breed needless, and endless contentions, as it has been well observed by
Jackson on the Scripture, fol.
57.
as all the principal heads of the
Grecian
invention were derived for the most part from the
Hebrews
; although by successive artificial
imitation, their variety grows greater, and their resemblance of Divine Truth less, so likewise were
Logical
conceits first clothed like Natures Children,
&c.
Thus much for the
Form
of
Plato
's
Logic,
and it's cognation with that in use amongst the
Jews.
§. 3. We shall proceed to make a more particular distinct inquisition into
Plato
's
Logic,
which he makes to be a key,
or induction to all Philosophy: so in
Repub. lib.
7.
fol.
518.
Plato
calls his
Dialectick
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
introductorie Art.
So agen
fol.
532. he calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the way to other Sciences
: &
fol.
533. he stiles it
a method, wherein by certain steps we at last ascend to the highest principles.
Whence
Plato
makes his
Dialectick
but a
gradation
to his
Metaphysics,
and therefore he oft confounds them, and mixeth them together in his Discourses. So in
his Pa
•
menides,
and
Sophista
he mixeth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, his
Metaphysics,
and
Dialectick discourses
together, as 'tis well observed by
Lud. Vives
•
n
August. Civit. lib.
8.
cap.
4
o
. And herein
Plato
is follo
•
ed by his Scholar
Aristotle,
who calls his
Logic
also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an Organ,
or
Instrument
for the discovery of other
Sciences
; only with this difference, whereas
Aristotle
seems to make
Logic
an
organ,
but no part of Philosophy,
Plato
〈◊〉
it to be both. So
Ammonius
on
Aristotle
's
Categor. pag.
8
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Amongst the ancient Philosophers, some made
Logic
to be a part of Philosophy as the whole
Chorus
of the
Stoa
: others made it an
Organ,
as all those of the
Paripatum
: but
Plato
makes
Logic
both a
part,
and
organ
of Philosophy,
&c.
The Ancients were wont to distribute their Sciences into three parts,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Dogme,
or
Principle,
the
Method,
the
Praxis.
The
Method
of all Sciences belongs to
Logic,
for so
Aristotle,
as well as
Plato
defines
Logic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Method for the right disposing of every Problem proposed:
only
Aristotle
calls this Method
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Syllogistick,
whereas
Plato
makes it to be Dialectick. So then we may according to
Plato's
mind, define
Logic, an organ, means, way, or method for the disquisition, and finding out of the Truth.
This fully agrees with the definition
Plato
gives of a good
Logician. Plat. Repub.
7
fol.
537.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Thou callest a
Logician
him who penetrates the essence of things. For a
Logician
is a very accurate Inquisitor, or Inspector. This being the nature of
Logic,
and office of a
Logician
to make a serious Inquisition into the nature of things, in order to the disquisition of Truth, we shall endeavor to pick up such
Methodical precepts,
and Rules as lie scattered here and there in
Plato
's Philosophy, and seem to comprize the chief of his
Logic,
or
Method
for the finding out of
Truth.
§. 4. First, as to the qualification of
Logicians,
and their regular procedure in
Logical
studies, and debates.
Plato
requireth, that a
Logician
be of a mature, and ripe judgment, moderate, and calm as to his passions, modest, candid, and ingenuous in all his disputes; not vain glorious, not contentious, but grave, and moderate in the whole of his deportment.
Thus
Plato de Repub.
7. (
fol.
539.
Edit. Stephan.
)
That the miserable issue of vain contention may be avoided, be it provided that no one under 30 years of age shall taste of
Dialectick
Ratiocination; and then not without great caution, and circumspection. Thus
Plato
; who in what follows gives his reason of such his Institute: Because young men, when engaged in Dialetick disputes do rather aim at Victory, and vain glory, than the discovery of Truth; and thence abusing this
Art
of
Logic
unto needless contradictions
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, using it always for contradiction, they like young Puppies often overcome, and are oft overcome again, so long 'till at last they come to believe nothing at all.
But (adds
Plato
) your grave person of mature judgment
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
would not willingly be partaker of this madness, because in his disputing he seeks rather Truth, than Victory, or Glory, which is the proper effect of Childish Contentious Disputes. Agen he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, The Ancient Person is more moderate, or regular, and so adorneth his Province with gravity, candor, and moderation,
&c.
Albeit
Plato
is thus severe against Contentious wrangling
Logic,
yet it cannot be denied, but that there were, at least after his death, many vexatious questions, and contentious disputes in his
Old Academie,
which laid the foundation of that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension of judgment
in the
New Academie.
For we must remember there was allowed by
Plato
in his Academie,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
peirastick,
or
probational mode
of
disputing
: the Laws whereof allowed, that in some dubious points it was free for any to dispute
pro,
or
contra,
for, or against the position, and at last to leave it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
undefin'd,
or
undetermined.
And that which gave an occasion to this
Sceptic
mode of disputing was this, that although
Plato
held some things certain, and infallibly true, which ought to be certainly assented to, as the
Existence of God &c.
yet he held also many other points, especially in
Physicks,
to be very dubious, and uncertain, wherein he presumed there might be a Liberty granted of disputing
pro,
or
contra,
without prejudice to Truth: whence sprang many contentious disputes, which at last determined in the
New Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
suspension,
or disbelief of everything. So
Serranus
in his Preface to
Plato
:
It is no way
to be doubted, but that the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and dubitations of the
New Academics
were the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and corruptions of the old opinion: for
Plato
in some Arguments disputes both ways,
&c.
And indeed nothing is more natural than that from disputes, & contentions
pro,
and
contra,
if not well mannag'd, Assent to Truth should be much weakened. This contentious kind of
Logic
made the
Stoics,
&
Cynics
('twixt whom there was a great
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or symbolization) reject
rational,
&
natural
Philosophy, because it was man's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and chief end,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to live virtuously,
as
Diog. Laertius.
§. 5. Secondly, Another
Logic Precept
laid down by
Plato,
is this;
That the matter of
Logical
discussions be weighty, and useful,
not frivolous, or unnecessary:
So in his
Phaedrus fol.
277.
Plato
compares a
Logician
to a skillful
Seedsman,
who soweth such
Dialectick artificial notions,
and
discourses,
as will bring forth the best fruit for use and advantage. This is the more diligently to be heeded, because in
Dialectick Debates
nothing is more easy to be found, than an occasion of disputing about
Chimera
's,
&c.
This
Rule
follows on the foregoing, and therefore needs not farther illustration.
3. A Third Rule given by
Plato,
in order to a
Logical disquisition
of Truth is
that we be sure to lay down sound, and substantial
Principles,
as the foundation of all following discourse, and conclusions.
Thus
Plato
in his
Philebus,
being about to dispute, he will have them first lay down by common consent some few foundation Principles: His own words are
fol.
20. these,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Let us lay down a few confessed principles before us
: and then
adds the reason
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Principles fairly granted are immovable. So
agen
Plato in Cratylus fol.
436.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
every man ought about the first Principle of any undertaking to discourse much, and to consider much whether it be rightly laid or not.
This is of great moment, because according to that measure of strength, or weakness which is in the
Principles,
such will be the strength, or weakness of the
Conclusions.
Whence that old maxim quoted by
Aristotle, The Principle is half the whole. i. e.
Lay a good Principle, and your work is half done. The first Principle gives light to all following Principles, but receives none from them.
4. Rule for Dialectick discourse is this, That there be a
methodick procedure
from certain plain Hypotheses, or evident concessions, to those things, which are more general, obscure, and of an higher contemplation.
Thus
Plato Repub.
7.
fol.
533.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, where
Plato
makes
Logic
to be nothing else than
a Method, whereby we proceed from some certain, and plain Hypotheses, by certain
medium
's or assents, to the highest, and first Principle, or Truth.
This
Method
which
Plato
commends, whereby we proceed from the
particular
to the
general,
from the
effect,
to the
cause,
and from the
end
to the
beginning,
is usually styled in the Schools
Analytick method,
whereof (as 'tis said)
Plato
was the first Inventor. Certainly such a procedure from
effects
to their
causes,
and from
particulars
to
generals
must be of great use for the discovery of Truth. For there is nothing can be rightly known, 'till the
first causes,
whence it sprang, be made manifest.
Particulars
receive strength and certainty from
generals,
out of which they grow, and
generals
receive light, and evidence from
particulars.
In all parts of knowledge things most
general
are most
firm,
on which the certainty of
particulars
depends. See
les conferences par beaux Esprits. Tom.
1.
Conf.
1. This also is commended by
Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
He that will exactly understand the nature of the whole, must exactly consider its parts.
5. Rule.
Plato
prescribeth the use of
Examples,
and clear
illustrations,
as necessary in
Logic discourse
for the evidencing of Truth. So in his
Politicus fol.
277.
It is very hard (says he) to demonstrate anything, that is great, or transcendent without Examples:
for every
ones knowledge seems to be but dreaming: we are indeed ignorant of everything. And
Serranus
on this place Comments thus,
Plato
wills, that in our inquisitions into the natures of things more obscure, we place before our understanding
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
exemplars,
and
adumbrations
of things more known, thereby to make our investigation more facile, and speedy. Therefore in searching into the natures of great things we are to make use of the examples of the least things.
Neither was this
Plato
's advice only, but his practice also. For none of the
Ancients
(yea may not we say of the Moderns also?) may be compared with him as to the use of proper, and accurate examples, and instances for the illustration of Truth. Whence that Proverbial speech,
Plato teacheth, Aristotle proveth
:
§. 6. Rule for
Logical disquisitions
is this;
'To distinguish well betwixt Truth, and Falsehood.
So
Plato
in his
Gorgias, fol.
507 tells us,
that we must be exceeding exact in severing Truth from Falsehood
; for the better performing whereof, he acquaints us (
Repub.
7.
fol.
537.) that a
Logician
must be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an
accurate Inquisitor
: and elsewhere he lays down this as requisite for one, that would exactly difference Truth from Falsehood, that he have
Sagacitie, good Disposition,
and
liberty of Judgment. Calvin
tells us,
this is the best method for avoiding Error, to consider well the danger imminent on both sides.
And
Beza
in the life of
Calvin
gives him this Character:
That amongst other excellent graces these Two shined most brightly in him;
viz.
1. A singular vivacitie to discover where the difficulty of matters lay: and 2. A marvelous dexterity to couch his responses without losing one word.
7. Rule, In order to the right distinguishing 'twixt Truth and Falsehood, it's necessary to state the affirmative well in some
Theses,
or
Suppositions.
So
Plato
tells us, 'tis but one and the same labor
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to establish the Truth, and revince the Error
: So agen, in his
Sophist. Plato
acquaints us,
that he who will understand
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Negative,
must well understand
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Affirmative.
And the reason is evident: Because no
Negative
hath in itself the
cause
of it's
Truth,
but it is so by the
Truth
of the
Affirmative
; neither was there ever any proposition
false,
but because some other was
true
: nor can the
falsity
of the one be known, but by the
Truth
of the other.
8. Rule.
In the
Definition,
or
Description
of things we may not expect more
certainty,
or
exactness
than the
matter
affordeth,
or requireth.
So
Plato
(in
Critias, fol.
107.)
When Painters (saith he) endeavor to Limne forth to us Divine things, we find ourselves abundantly satisfied, if they express but some small image of those things.
So
Arist. Ethick. lib.
1.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
It is the office of a learner to seek after so much exactness in every kind, as the nature of the thing admits. For (adds he) you must not put an
Orator
to demonstrate by
Logic,
or a
Mathematician
to persuade by
Oratory, &c. in Divinis, & maximis minimum investigare maximum est,
In great, and Divine matters to find out the least apex of Truth is of greatest moment:
as
Plato.
It is a Ridiculous superstition (saith
Cunaeus)
to be always solicitous about definitions: for some things will not admit them.
9. Rule.
In the examination of things there must be used Liberty of judgment, without partiality or prejudice:
So
Plato de Repub.
6.
fol.
494,
Truth is acquired by none
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but such as, give themselves up as slaves to be possessed thereby.
Hence that great saying; it becomes a searcher after Truth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to sacrifice to Truth, not to be enslaved to an opinion.
Whence
Aristotle
gives this good Character of a true Philosopher,
That he must yield himself up a captive to Truth,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to the extirpation of his own Phenomena.
Liberty (saith
Cunaeus
) is an inestimable treasure, which some make to be the Soul of a true
•
udgment. Indifferency of judgment (saith
Mede
) without prejudice is sufficient to discover much Truth with little diligence, and without much Learning. but the misery is, the world loves to be deceived, rather than to be taught; adds another: and yet another,
Cujus animo semel sedet pervicax opinio, definite res vere discernere,
he, whose mind is prepossessed with a pertinacious Opinion, ceaseth to be in a Capacitie for discerning of Truth.
10.
Whence it follows,
that the Authority of Persons is not so much to be valued, as the weight of their Reasons: So
Plato Phaed.
91. brings in
Socrates
advising his friends
Simia,
and
Cebes,
not to give credit to him with the loss of Truth. But do ye (saith
Socrates
) give credit to me only thus far, as to be sure ye make very much account of Truth,
but very little of
Socrates.
Agen,
Plato
tells us, that a man is soon deceived by Authority of others: there is but one good Authority, and that is of Reason.
11. Disputes must be managed with
Modestie, Candor,
and
Moderation.
So
Plato Protag. fol.
337. They must debate things with an amicable familiarity: the opinions, and reasons of Adversaries must be related
bona fide
: neither
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
must they rail, &c.
There must be modesty used, which
Plato
defines thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a voluntary yielding to what is best.
12. For refuting Errors
Plato
gives this Rule (
Hippias, fol.
362.
)
This is a commodious way of refelling Sophisters, to reduce them to absurd Consequences, whence the falsity of their Antecedents will appear.
13. To which add this. In confuting Errors, we must show
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the first rise, and spring of the Error.
§. 7. If any one expects, or desires a more
artificial account
of
Plato
's
Dialectick,
the best, that I have met with,
is that of
Alcinous
(a great
Platonic
Philosopher) in his
Institution
to
Plato
's Doctrine, where having (
cap.
3.)
distributed Philosophy
(according to
Plato
's mind) into
Contemplative, Active,
and
Rational
; and (
cap.
4.) explicated the
foundation
of
Dialectick
which has it's seat in
Nature,
he proceeds (
cap.
5.) to discourse of the proper
Elements
of
Dialectick,
which he reduceth to these 5. heads;
Definition, Division, Analysis,
or
Method, Induction,
or
Dijudication,
&
Ratiocination.
In the
Elements
of
Dialectick
(saith
Alcinous
) this was principally
Plato
's sentiment; that Firstly the
nature
of everything should be considered, and then it's
Accidents.
What the Nature of everything is, he searcheth out either from
Superiors,
by
Division,
and
Definition:
or from
Inferiors,
by
Analysis,
or
resolution.
As for
Accidents,
which inhere in
Essences,
he seeks them out, either from the
Contents
by
Induction,
or from the
Continents
by
Ratiocination.
So that
Dialectick Reasons
are deservedly comprehended under
Division, Definition, Analysis, Dijudication,
and
Raciocination. Division
it is either the Distribution of the
Genus
into it's
Species,
or the
Section
of the
whole
into it's
parts,
or the
partition
of the
word
into it's
significates.
Agen,
Division
is either of the
Accidents
into their
Subjects,
or of the
Subjects
into their
Accidents.
The Division of
Genus
into it's
Species
is useful for the finding out the Nature of everything, which belongs to
Definition.
Now
Definition
springs from
Division
thus. The
Genus
of the thing to be Defined must be taken, as
Animal
of
Homo.
Hence this
Genus
must be
divided
by it's next
difference,
'till we descend to the
Species.
And then by adding the
next
difference
to the
Genus,
the
Definition
of the
Species
is
constituted,
as
Homo est Animal Rationale. Analysis
has Three
Species
:
the one whereby we ascend from
Sensibles
to
first Intelligibles
: another whereby we proceed from
Demonstrates,
and
Sub-demonstrates
to
first Propositions,
which want a
Medium
: the Third whereby we pass from a
Supposition
to those
Principles,
which are taken for granted, without a
Supposition.
The First kind of
Analysis
is thus exemplified: as when we pass from the beauty of the Body to that of the Mind: from this, to that which appears in men's Morals, or conversations; and from this to that, which shines in
Politick
constitutions, and Administrations: from which at last we arrive to that immense Ocean of the first Beauty. See the other Two
Species
of
Analysis
in
Alcinous.
§. 8.
Thence
Alcinous
proceeds to
Induction
which (says he) is a
rational procedure
from
Like
to
Like,
or from
Singulars
to
Vniversals.
This is most advantageous to excite Notions implanted by
Nature
herself.
As for that piece of
Oration
which we call
Proposition,
it has Two
Species
: the one is
Affirmation,
the other is
Negation.
In
Affirmations,
and
Negations
some are
Universal,
as
All evil is base, &c.
some are
Particular,
as
Some pleasure is not good.
Of
Propositions
some are
Categorical,
some
Hypothetical,
or conditionate. The
Art
of
Ratiocination
is used by
Plato
in
Arguing,
and
Demonstrating.
He
Argues,
and
Confutes
what is false by
Interrogations
: but he Demonstrates by teaching what is true.
Ratiocination
is an
Oration
in which some Propositions being laid down a conclusion by force of those Propositions is drawn. Of
Ratiocinations
some are
Categorical,
some are
Hypothetical,
some
Mixt,
which have a
complexion
of both.
Plato
useth
Demonstrative Ratiocinations
in those
Dialogues,
wherein he explicates his own opinion: but against
Sophisters,
and young men he makes use of
probable
arguments: and against those, who were properly contentious, he useth
Eristick argumentation
; as against
Euthydemus,
and
Hippias.
As for
Categorical Ratiocination
(which has Three Figures)
Plato
Interrogates in each Figure. As in the First Figure thus,
(in
Alcibiades) Just things are they not beautiful? and beautiful things, are they not good? therefore are not just things good
? So in the
•
econd, and Third Figure
Plato
Interrogates in his
Parmenides, &c.
Touching
Hypothetical Ratiocinations,
we find many delivered by
Plato,
though by
Interrogations,
especially, in his
Parmenides.
He also gives some hints of
Mixt Ratiocination
— If we look for some account of
Sophismes,
and
Fallacies,
we shall find it in
Plato's Euthydemus.
Also he has given us some adumbration of the Ten
Categories
in his
Parmenides,
as in like manner in his
Dialogues.
He has comprehended the universal Form of
Notation
in his
Cratylus.
And truly this man was admirably perfect in
defi
•
ing,
and
dividing
: which declareth that he had the chiefest force, or spirit of
Dialectick.
In his
Cratylus
he queries, whether names signify from
Nature,
or from
Institution
? And he determineth, that what is right in names comes from
Institution,
yet not casually, but so as such
Institution
must be consentaneous to the nature of the thing itself. For the rectitude of names is nothing else but an
Institution
convenient to the Nature of the things. This also belongs to
Logic
to use names aright:
Thus
Alcinous.
Albeit we may allow this learned
Platonist,
that some
vestigia
of these several parts of
Dialectick
are to be found in
Plato
's writings, yet 'tis most certain, that
Plato
never intended to deliver over to posterity any such
artificial mode,
or
form
of
Logic.
All that he designs is, to give us some general
Canons
for a more
methodical Inquisition
into the nature of things, and for regular
Disputation,
or
Ratiocination.
The first, that gave us an
artificial System
of
Logic
separate from the
Praexis,
was
Aristotle
(as hereafter)
Plato
affected a more
natural, familiar,
and
simple method
of
Ratiocination
(as before) yea so far is he from delivering any exact
artificial form
of
Logic,
as that he confounds his
Dialectick
with
Metaphysics,
and other contemplations (as else where) Yet as to the
Praxis
of
Dialectick, Plato
abounds with
accurate Definitions,
and
Divisions
: also he gives an excellent
Idea
of
Analytick method,
whereof he is said to be the first
Inventor.
And as to
Dijudication,
and
Argumentation,
he seems very
potent
in the use of the
Socratick Induction.
And all this with much
harmony, simplicity,
and
plainness,
without that Artifice which
Aristotle
introduced. Amongst our Moderne Writers, no one seems to have made a better emprovement of
Plato's Dialectick Precepts,
and
Praxis,
than
Peter Ramus,
who (notwithstanding the contumelies cast upon him by his bloody Adversarie
Carpenter
) seems to have had a thorough insight into
Plato
's mind, and to have reduced his principles to the best method for the Disquisition of Truth. The Abstract of his
Logic
we intend to give, when we come to Treat of
Aristotle
's
Logic.
CHAP. IX. Of
Plato
's Physicks, and their Traduction from Sacred Story.
Plato
's Story of the Origin of the Universe, from
Gen. 1.1.
&c.
Plato
asserted the Eternity of the world, only in regard to Divine Idea's.
Plato
own's God as the first efficient, according to
Gen. 1.1.
God's Ideal efficiency..
Plato
's intelligible World. God's energetick efficiency. Of
Plato
's Universal Spirit, or Spirit of the Universe, from
•
en. 1.2. [Spirit.]
It's various regards. The body of the Universe, and its
first matter,
from
Gen. 1.2.
The Parallel 'twixt
Moses,
and
Plato
's
first matter
in Six particulars. Of the Four Elements which immediately constitute the Universe, and their traduction from
Moses. Gen. 1.1.
with it's analysis.
Plato's
Form of the Universe consists in Harmonie, and Order.
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of the Universe.
1.
Perfection, from
Gen. 1.31.
How
Plato
calls the Universe the Image of God, from
Gen. 1.27. 2.
The Unity of the Universe.
3.
Finitenes.
4.
Figure, Round.
5.
Colour.
6.
Time.
7.
Mobilitie.
8.
Generations.
9.
Duration,
&c. 2.
Of the Parts of the Universe
1.
Angels.
2.
The Heavens their substance: Fire, or Air, or Water. That the Sun, and Stars are fire, from
Gen. 1.3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies Fire, as well as Light. Arguments proving the Sun to be Fire. Of Light, and Darknes.
3.
Of the inferior world, Wind, Air, Water.
Gen. 1.9.
Meteors,
&c.
Of Active Physicks, Plants, Animals,
&c.
Of man's Original, and Formation according to the Image of God,
Gen. 1.26.27.
Of the human Soul, it's Original, Nature,
•
apacitie, Jmmortalitie, Perfection, and Faculties; the Understanding,
&c.
Medicinal Canons.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
1.
For conservation of health.
1.
The causes of diseases.
2.
The exercises of Nature.
3.
Rules for Diet.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or curative Medicine, with
Plato
's Canons, and Character of a Physician.
§. 1.
The first great piece of Philosophy in vogue amongst the Ancient
Grecians,
especially such as were of the
Ionick
sect, was
Physicks,
or
Physiologie,
commonly called
Natural Philosophy.
For
Thales
and his Successors wholly busied themselves in
Natural Inquisitions,
and Disputes. Though
Socrates
perceiving the vanity of such
Physiologick speculations,
wholly addicts himself to
Morals; Plato
affecting an universal perfection in
Philosophy
joins both
Contemplatives,
and
Actives
together. And thence his
Physicks
may be distributed into
Contemplative,
and
Active. Plato's Contemplative Physic,
or
Physiologie
is nothing else, but a
Natural History,
or
Historical account of Nature,
i. e. the
Universe,
it's
Origin, Principles, Constitution, Affections,
and
parts
; of all which he discourseth most amply, and
Philosophically
in his
Timaeus
(the chief seat of his
Physiologick
Philosophisings) and that in
imitation
of, and by
tradition
from
Moses
's
Historical Narration
of the
Creation,
as we no way doubt it will manifestly appear by these following Demonstrations, as well
artificial,
as
inartificial.
§. 2. That
Plato
derived his
Physiologick
Philosophizings,
touching the
Worlds Origin, &c.
from
Moses
's History of the
Creati
•
n
seem very probable by his own confession: for in
Timaeus, fol.
29. being about to treat of the
Worlds Origin &c.
he makes this
Prologue,
It is meet (says he) that we remember that both I who discourse, and ye, who judge
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, That we have human nature, so that having received some probable Fable, or Tradition concerning these things, it becomes us not to inquire farther.
Here
Plato
acknowledgeth, that concerning the
Origin
of the
Universe,
all the Notices they had were but some probable
Fables,
or
Traditions
; which without all peradventure were derived to them, if not immediately, yet originally from the Sacred History. This is farther confirmed by what we find in
Johannes Grammaticus,
alias
Philoponus,
of the
Worlds Creat. lib.
1.
cap.
2.
pag.
4.
It is no wonder (says he) that
Moses,
who was most ancient being about to draw men to the knowledge of God, institutes a discourse touching the Creation of the World, in this manner.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, whereas
Plato
discoursing concerning the production of the Universe by God, imitates him in this, as also in many other things,
&c.
Thus
Philoponus
: who frequently
inculcates the same, as hereafter. Thus also
Ludovicus Vives, de Ves rita
•
e fid. pag.
157. The
Genesis,
or production of the world (says he) is so described by
Moses,
that thence the greatest wits have both admired the profundity thereof, and also embraced the truth of the Narration. The
Pythagoreans,
and their follower
Plato
in his
Timaeus
have imitated that
Mosaic
Description of the Worlds procreation, sometimes almost in the same words.
So in like manner that great
French
Divine
Mestrezat
in his excellent Treatise
de la vertu, de la foy
on
Heb.
11.3.
[
Through faith we understand that the worlds were made
]
observes thus, Those extravagancies of the
Philosophers,
even of the principal of them,
Aristotle,
and the
Stoics
concerning an eternal first matter, give us sufficiently to understand, that they, who have spoken more Orthodoxly of the Creation, as
Plato
did, took what they knew thereof from those rays, which Divine Revelation had scattered in the world, by the Children of
Noah,
or by
Abraham,
and his posterity, amongst the
Syrians,
and
Egyptians.
Thus
Mestrezat
; where he also gives us some
artificial Dem
••
stration
of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or manner how
Plato
received these his traditions of the Worlds Origin from
Sacred Revelation
; to which we may add those Notices
Plato
received hereof from the
Pythagoreans
; especially
Timaeus
the
Locrian,
who writ of the
Origin
of the
Universe
; from whom we need no way doubt,
Plato
received many of his
Philosophic traditions
delivered in his
Timaeus,
as before
chap.
3. §. 3. Now the
Pythagoreans
were generally
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪ affecters of
Oriental, Jewish traditions.
The same may be said for such
Physiologick traditions,
as
Plato
derived from
Heraclitus,
who was also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as before
chap.
6. §. 1. Yea 'tis not without probability, that
Plato
might have a sight of
Moses
's own History, and read the same by virtue of his skill in the
Egyptian,
or
Phoenician
tongue, or at least that he might understand the same by an
Enterpreter
as before,
chap.
3. §. 4. That
Plato
's
Physiologick discourses
touching the
Universe,
it's Principles, Affections, and Parts, were really deductions from, and imitations of
Moses
's History of the Creation, will more evidently appear from the following
enumeration,
and explication of particulars, and the parallel 'twixt the one and the other resulting thence.
§. 3. First that
Plato
followed
Moses, Gen.
1.1. [
In the Beginning
] in asserting the beginning of the World,
&c.
is most evident to any that reads his
Timaeus, fol.
28.
&c.
where he, (according to the
Socratick
mode of disputing by Interrogations) puts this question, whether
the World had
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a beginning of Genesis,
or
creation,
yea or no? To which he reply's that the World
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was made
; and he gives the reason thereof,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, for it is
Visible, tangible,
and
Corporeal.
And he afterwards says more
Categorically,
that the World was made by God,
&c.
And that this was
Plato
's mind is evident by
Aristotle
(who knew well his masters sense in this particular) his warm disputes against him, for the
Eternity of matter.
I am not ignorant, that many of the
New Platonists,
namely
Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Apuleius, Alcinous,
and more particularly
Taurus,
and
Proclus
in their
Commentaries
on
Plato
's
Timaeus,
did all endeavor to prove with
Aristotle,
an
Eternity of Matter,
thereby to disprove the
Christians
History of the Creation. And being urged with these, and such like express quotations out of
Plato
for the Origin of the Universe; they reply, that when
Plato
discourseth of the Worlds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Genesis,
or beginning, he meant it not of a
Principle
of
Duration,
but of
causality.
So that the world though eternal, might be said to be from
God
by
Emanation,
as light from the
Sun.
Thus they endeavor to reconcile
Plato
with
Aristotle,
for the defense of the worlds Eternity, wherein they are learnedly refuted by
Johannes Grammaticus
in his defense for the
Christians
against
Proclus
; as also in his Book of the
Worlds Creation.
And whereas
Vossius de Philosoph. sect. c.
12. §. 7.
blames
Plato
for asserting, that the World was made by God out of a coeternal matter,
it seems evident, that
Plato
by his
Eternal Matter,
or World understands only that eternal
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exemplar, Idea,
or
Platforme
in the
Divine Decrees,
which he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
intelligible world,
which he opposeth to the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
sensible.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
97.
Plato
tells us,
that this Sensible Universe was created according to the pattern of the Intelligible, as time according to the exemplar of Eternity.
By which it's evident that he calls the world eternal only
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
according to some proportion, or relation to the Divine
exemplar,
or
Decrees,
not absolutely, and simply, as hereafter. Yea it seems evident by
Aristotle
's own confession, that all the Philosophers before him held the world to have had a beginning; his words are,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
they all say, that it was made. Johannes Grammaticus of the Creation
peremptorily asserts, that all the Philosophers before
Aristotle
held the beginning, and framing of all things to be from God. Mr.
Bochart
asserted the same in a Sermon at
Caen, March
2. 1664. That which made
Aristotle
oppose this generally received tradition
was his Philosophic humor of opposing everything, that would not lie level with his Reason.
§. 4. Hence
Plato
asserted God to be the first Effector, Composer, or Creator of the Universe, according to
Moses
's description,
Gen.
1, 1.
God Created.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
28.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We say, that whatever is made, must necessarily have some cause: but here lies the difficulty to find out, who this Creator, and Father of the Universe is; and having found him out, to discover him to vulgar capacities, is altogether impossible. So in his
Sophista, fol.
215. he says, that natural things could not spring up of themselves, but that they were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The products of God's efficiency,
whence he makes God to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the most Sovereign cause,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the cause of causes.
But to treat somewhat more distinctly of this Divine Efficiencie; which according to
Plato
's mind may be distributed into
Ideal,
or
immanent,
and
executive,
〈◊〉
••
a
•
sient.
As for
1. God's
Ideal efficiency,
it's well known, that none treats more professedly, and fully thereof then Plato. I shall not enter into a discourse of
Platonic Idea
's in general, because they properly appertain to
Metaphysics,
and are therefore more amplie treated or by
Plato
in his
Parmenides,
which is the seat of his
Metaphysick Philosophizings.
I shall at present discourse of these
Idea
's, only as they relate unto
Divine Efficiencie,
exerting itself in the worlds Creation, according to what I find of them in
Plato
's
Timaeus,
where he discourseth more particularly of these
Idea
's, as they are the
great exemplar,
according to which God framed the Universe. So
Plato
in his
Timaeus, fol.
49. Having discoursed of the
Universe,
he distributes it thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
There are two sorts of Worlds; one that has the form of a
Paradeigme,
or
Exemplar,
which is an intelligible subject, and always the same in Being.
But the second, which is the imitate of the exemplar had a
Genesis,
or beginning, and is visible: where it's evident,
Plato
distinguisheth the
Intelligible world,
which he calls the exemplar subsisting in the Divine mind,
from the sensible, which is but the
imitate
of the former. And it seems evident that
Plato
by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Intelligible World,
which he here calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an Exemplar,
as else where
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Ideal, self-living,
always-living world
(I say by these he) meant no other, than that
Divine Idea, Image,
or
Exemplar
inherent in the
Divine Essence,
according to which the whole Universe was delineated, and fashioned. For the more full understanding whereof, take these propositions.
1.
Plato
supposeth, that
God,
who is the most wise Agent, acted not rashly, but as a skillful
Artificer,
had
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
some most beautiful End,
or
Design,
which was the measure, rule, or square in this great work of Creating the World.
2. Hence the infinite Wisdom of God, which the
Schools
call His
Simple Intelligence,
having a full comprehension of all
possible means,
which might any way conduce to the promotion of
Divine Glory,
the supreme end of this undertaking, and the
Divine Sovereign Will,
or
Pleasure
Decreeing what it judged most expedient in order hereto, seems to pass according to
Plato
's mind, under the Form, or Notion of
Divine Ideas,
which he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
immaterial, Eternal, Immixed,
and the original
Prototype
of the Universe.
3. These original
Idea
's which comprehend the
Divine Wisdom,
and
Decrees, Plato
makes to be productive of a
Secondarie Idea
(yet still immanent in the Divine Essence) which he calls sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an Exemplar,
sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an Image.
The original
Idea
he supposeth to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the self-subsistent, indivisible,
and
eternal efficient
of the
Second Idea,
or
Exemplar,
which he makes to be the more immediate Delineation, or Image of the whole work. For thus his words run,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
making use of this Exemplar he frames the Idea, and Power,
i. e.
the sensible World.
So that 'tis evident he distinguisheth his original
Idea
from his
Exemplar,
making the form
•
to be first more Noble, and
Causative
of the l
•
tter: this seems to be much the same with that, which the
Schools
call God's
Science of Vision,
whereby he contemplates things
Future,
which is the result of his
Decrees,
and so differing from his
Simple Intelligence,
whereby he contemplates things
Possible.
I find all this excellently explicated to us by Learned
Serranus
in his Comment on
Plato
's
Timaeus, fol.
12.
whence, says he, the
first,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sovereign
cause of this whole work, which existed in the Divine mind, was his supreme End. For the effecting this end, there was an
Idea, i. e.
an
Eternal Decree
: This
Idea
delineated to itself
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an Exemplar
of the future work, which was various according to the variety of the work.
Or else we may, if we please refer this
Original Idea
of
Plato
to God's
Simple Intelligence,
and his
Exemplar
to God's
Science
of
Vision,
of which see
Book
2.
chap.
8. §. 8. of
Pythagorick Idea
's. This gives us a more full account what
Plato
meant by his
Intelligible, Ideal,
and
Eternal
World, which he so styled
analogically
only with relation to
Divine Decrees.
The foundation of these Divine
Idea
's
Plato
seems to have taken from
Moses, Gen.
1.31.
And God saw everything, that he had made, and behold it was very good.] i. e.
answerable to his own Divine Exemplar, or Platforme.
Plato
in his
Timaeus, fol.
37. speaks almost in
Moses
's words, thus.
After the Father of the Universe had beheld his workmanship, the framed image of the Eternal God's, he recreated himself, and rejoiced therein.
That
Plato
herein imitated
Moses,
see
Joannes Grammaticus
of
Creation, lib.
7.
cap.
11, 12. of which more hereafter. This gives to understand how unjustly
Aristotle,
and his followers, have with so great heat contended against
Plato
's Universal
Idea
's, as though they were but Brain-sick figments, nowhere existing, but in
Plato
's vain imagination: whereas it seems evident that
Plato
by these
Universal Idea
's, understood no other (though more darkly) than what our Divines generally understand by the
Universal Idea
's inherent in the mind of God as the Exemplar of all things created. Thus much for God's
Ideal Efficiencie.
2. As for God's
Executive,
or
Productive Efficiencie
; according to
Plato
's Philosophizing, he is in general styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme Fabricator, Perfecter,
and
Essentializer
of things. The notions, by which
Plato
sets forth this
Divine Efficiencie,
are these,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
He adorned, ordered, figured, constituted, framed all things, &c.
And more particularly as to the mode, or manner how God framed all things, we are told
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
everything was Essentialized by certain Prolifick,
or
Efformative words.
This seems exactly to answer to that of the
Psalmist, Psal.
33.6.
By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth
: which the Author to the
Hebrews, chap.
11.3. more fully explains [
The worlds were framed by the Word of God] i. e.
God's
Fiat,
or word was the
Seminal prolific
principle of all beings, as
Gen.
1.3. So the
Stoics
reducing the whole of the Universe to two
principles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the efficient,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the matter
: as to the former, they say
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, this being the Spermatick, or Seminal Word of the Universe, which forms, and shapes it, as the Seed the
Faetus.
Which suits well with the Scripture account hereof: or else we may reduce this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Spermatick Word,
which the
Platonists,
and
Stoics
speak so much of, to
Christ,
who is by
Solomon
styled
Wisdom,
Prov. 8.27, 28. and by
John
1.1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The
Essential word,
and made
Coeffector
with
God
the
Father
in the Creation of the Universe, though the former seems more adequate to the
Platonic mind.
§. 5. We may reduce also to the foregoing
Divine Efficiencie,
that which
Plato
stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the soul of the Universe,
or the
Universal spirit,
which is so much spoken of, but as little understood in the
Schools.
For the full understanding whereof, we must remember that
Plato,
according to his
Allegorick humor,
fancies the Universe to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a living,
and
intelligent creature,
composed of
body, and soul.
As for the
body
of the
Universe,
what he means thereby is evident, for he calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the visible,
and
tractable matter.
All the difficulty lies in stating what he intends by the
soul
of the World. For the understanding whereof we are to remember (which is a general
Clavis
to
Plato
's Philosophy) that
Plato
affected an
Allegorick
mode of Philosophizing; wherefore his sense is more to be attended, than his words, as
Caelius Rhodig. l.
9.
c.
40. hath well observed. And this discovers the great injustice of
Aristotle,
and his Adherents in their Disputes against
Plato
in that quarreling with, and triumphing over his words, they regard not his sense, or mind wrapped up under those
Symbolic,
and
Metaphorick
Notions. Thus here when
Plato
Philosophizeth of
the soul of the Universe,
or the
Universal spirit,
that animates this Universe, no
•
minding his hidden
sense
they cavil against his Notion, as if he did indeed make the Universe a Monstre. But to come to the right understanding of this Notion: We shall endeavor to draw forth
Plato
's mind in these Propositions.
1. The original, and primary notion,
or mind of
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Universal spirit,
or
soul of the Universe,
seems to be but a broken Tradition from
Gen.
1.2.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters
; and so an imperfect reference to the
third person
in the
Trinity,
whom
Moses makes
to be the more immediate
fomenter,
and
influencer
of all things. Hence the
Platonists
in their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Trinity,
make
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
their
Universal spirit
to be the third
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
person. That
Plato
by his
Spirit of the Universe,
or
Universal spirit,
meant the
Spirit of God,
or
God,
is evident by his description thereof in his
de Legib. lib.
10.
fol.
896.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Soul, or Spirit of all things is most ancient, and the principle of motion, and of all good: this Soul also is the cause of all things, honest, and evil, of all things just, and unjust; and of all contraries.
This is a full description of the spirit's operation, and influx on all things both good and evil
materially
considered. But
Plato
discourseth more fully, & particularly concerning this Universal Divine Spirit, his Prolifick Seminal Efformation of the Universe in what precedes,
fol.
395.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The Soul or Spirit perme
•
ting, and enhabiting all things,
&c. Plato
here proves, that God is the Soul of the World, from the Analogy, or Proportion he bears to the living Soul. For look as the
Sensitive Soul
conveyed from the Pa
•
ent, together with, and in the Seed, does by its
Prolifick Efformative Virtue
form, and shape the
faetus,
till it be perfected: So God, whom he here stiles
the Universal soul permeating, and enhabiting all things,
is the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and (as before)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the first fashi
•
ner,
or the
Efformative,
and
Spermatick principle of the Universe.
Or look as the human spirit, though precedent to, and no way depending on the body, is notwithstanding
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(as
Aristotle
phraseth it) the
perfection,
or
perfective principle
of the man; so
Plato
's
Universal Spirit,
or
Spirit of the Universe,
though it be precedent to, and independent on the said Universe, yet is it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Efformative,
and
perfective principle
thereof. This
Plato
's
indwelling soul of the Universe
is the same with that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Plastick, Efformative, Power, Spirit,
or
Principle,
which our
Chymists
take to be the
Universal spirit,
informing all things. And that all these
Platonic
•
otions
of this
Soul,
or
Spirit
of the
Universe
were but broken traditions derived originally from
Gen.
1.2.
The Spirit of God moved, &c.
will I think, be evident to any, that shall consider, how
parallel
they are. For whereas 'tis said
Gen.
1.2. the
Spirit moved
;
some will have the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to imply such a motion, or agitation as carries with it an
Efformative fomentation,
like to that of a
Broodie Hen,
fomenting her
Egges
; The
Spirit of God
as it were (to speak with Reverence) set abrood upon the Waters, till it be Hat
•
hed, and brought forth the
Universe.
To which
Plato
's
Spermatick, Efformativs spirit
of the
Universe
exactly answers, as also to that
Psal.
33.6.
By the breath of his mouth
•
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by the
Spirit
of his
Mouth.
Neither is this only a Novel Observation: for
Ludovicus Vives,
who was well veri
•
in
Plato,
is fully of this
persuasion,
as he lays it down in his Comment on
August. Civit. lib.
10.
cap.
23.
If we will (says he) more
exactly follow
Plato,
its easy to defend, that the Soul of the
world
is that
spirit which moved upon the Waters, Gen.
1.2. which they seem to make imparting life, and essence to all things through the mass of the
Universe.
Thus he; who gives us a good explication of
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
2.
Plato
's
Soul of the Universe
seems to refer sometimes to the
Divine Spirit,
his Providential influence on, and concourse with all things. This indeed follows upon, and differs not really from the foregoing notion of
Plato
's
Universal spirit.
For look as the spirit of God was the first
Fomenter, Framer,
and
Perfectioner
of the
Universe,
so does he still continue the supreme
Governor, Orderer,
and
Influencer
of it, and of all its motions,
&c.
Parallel hereto does
Plato
make his
Universal spirit
to be not only the first
Composer,
but also the
Disposer,
and
Orderer
of the
Universe,
and all its Motions: so in his
de Legib. lib.
10.
fol.
897.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
It's manifest, that we must confess, the supreme soul provides for the whole world, and acts it,
&c.
This is another reason, why
Plato
stiles the
Universe
a
living Creature,
as he himself acquaints us in his
Timaeus, fol.
30.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
we ought to say, that this world is truly a Living, and Intelligent Creature, because it comes under the Providence of God. Hence
Plato
stiles this
Universal Divine spirit,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, for that he does most wisely, and methodically dispose, and order all
Providential occurrences,
and
natural affairs.
So in his
Phileb.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
All wise men agree that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Divine mind
is King to us, both of Heaven and Earth.
So agen
Phaedo, fol.
97.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
And we judge, if it be so, that the Divine Mind adorning adorneth all things, and placeth everything in the best form, and station that may be, which is more briefly, yet fully, in the
Platonic Definitions
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, The Divine Mind is that, which adorns, and is the cause
of all things: we have all this fully expressed by the
Stoics
according to the relation of
Laertius
in
Zeno,
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
The world is enhabited by the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Divine Mind,
and
Providence
; the Mind dispensing, administrating, or ordering every part thereof, as the
Soul
in
you,
which is a full Explication of
Plato
's
Universal spirit,
and doth exactly answer to the Scripture's relation of the
Spirit
of
God,
his
preservation
of, and
providence
over all things, as
Psal.
104.30.
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, &c.
So that we need no way doubt, but that
Plato
traduced this
second Notion
of his
Universal spirit
from the
Sacred fountain.
3.
Plato
seems also sometimes under the Notion of his
Universal spirit,
or
Soul,
to comprehend that
Universal Symmetrie, Harmonie, Order, Beauty,
and
Form
•
which appears in the
Universe.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
32.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
The body of the Universe is framed by proportion, and friendship of the Four Elements,
&c.
where he makes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
analogy,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
symmetrie,
the bond of
Union, Universal spirit,
or
form
by which all the parts of the
Universe,
in themselves opposite, & contrary, by a friendly kind of discord are conjoined, and agree together.
This piece of
Plato's Universal Spirit
is but the result of the former. For the
Spirit of God
having at first framed, and still ordering the
Universe,
and all its parts according to
Eternal Wisdom, Law,
and
Contrivement,
hence flows the most exact
Order, Beauty,
and
Harmonie,
of all parts (though never so contrary) mutually conspiring, and moving according to that Law of Nature imprest upon their beings, and the particular conduct, or disposition of the
Divine Providence
to their appointed ends; so that
Plato
here puts the
Effect
for the
Cause,
namely
Order
for the
Divine Spirit
who is the great
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Orderer, Collector,
and
Conjoyner
of all these parts in the
Universe.
But of this more, when we come to
Plato
's
Form
of the
Universe.
4. Some by
Plato
's
Universal Spirit
understand that
Ignifick virtue,
or
Vivifick natural heat,
which in the first
Creation
was infused into the
Chaos,
and afterward
diffused
through every part of the
Universe
for the fomenting, and nourishing thereof. This say they,
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Fire,
or an
Ignifick Spirit,
which fashioneth
divers
Effects,
which
Moses
calls the
Spirit of God, Gen,
1.2. Thus
Beza,
and out of him
Serranus
on
Plato
's
Timaeus, fol.
10. But though
Plato
seems to own such a
prolific fire,
or
ignifick spirit
diffused through the
Universe,
yet his
Universal spirit,
or chief
Soul
of the
Universe
seems distinct here-from, as much as the cause from its effect. Of this more hereafter.
§. 6. Having endeavored to explicate
Plato
's
Universal Spirit,
or the
Spirit of the Universe,
we are now to proceed to its
body,
and
material Principle.
The proper
body
of the
Universe,
according to the mind of
Plato,
is composed of the Four Elements,
Fire, Water, Earth, Air
: but the
original matter
of these Elements he makes to be the
Chaos,
which being first in order of Nature, and existence, ought firstly to be discoursed of. It was a
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or principle universally granted by all the Ancient Philosophers before
Aristotle,
that the
Universe
had an origin; and that this Origin was from
God
: So that the great
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or question was, what the
material principle,
or
first matter
of the
Universe
was?
We find the several persuasions touching this
matter
distinctly, though concisely, given us by
Clemens Romanus Recognitionum lib
8
o
Pythagoras
said, that the Elements, or principles of all things were
Numbers; Callistratus Qualities; Alcmaeon Contrarieties; Anaximandrus Immensitie; Anaxagoras Similarie of parts; Epicurus Atoms; Diodorus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e. Impartibles,
or
Indivisibles; Asclepias
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which we call
Tumors,
or
Elations; Geometers Fines,
i. e.
Bounds; Democritus Idea's; Thales Water; Parmenides Earth; Plato Fire, Water, Air, Earth; Aristotle
also a fifth Element, which he named
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Unnameable.
Thus
Vossius de Philos. part.
1.
cap.
5. §. 13. Although this relation needs some emendation, yet 'tis the best I have met with in this kind, and therefore it must pass. Only as to
Plato,
we must know, that though he made the Four Elements before named, the complete body, yet he made them not the first original matter of the
Universe.
For
Plato
in his
Timaeus
describes his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
first matter
thus:
It is, says he,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, The
Genus,
or
Species
out of which everything is composed; and he expressly says that it is neither Fire, nor Water, nor Earth, nor Air, but the Common Mother, and Nurse of all these, which effuseth its seed, and virtue
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Watrie, Firie,
and
receptive of the forms of Air,
and
Earth.
And indeed this
Plato
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
first matter,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Chaos
seems exactly the same with, and we need no way doubt but was originally traduced from that of
Moses, Gen.
1.2.
And the Earth was without form, and void.
Thus
Richardson
in the Exposition on his Divinity Tables,
Table
5.
MSS. Materia
]
This the Philosophers did find,
stumbling upon it, but mistaking it very much.
Aristotle
had it from
Plato
; he had it from the
Egyptians,
they from the
Jews.
This will easily appear by parallelizing the affections of the one and the other: which we shall endeavor in these following Propositions.
1.
Moses
makes Divine Creation the original of his
First Matter,
or
Chaos, Gen.
1.1. So does
Plato,
as before, §. 4. answerable to that of
Hesiod,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
First of all the Chaos was made,
That
Peripatetic
dream of an
Eternal first matter
never came into
Plato
's head, though some impute it to him, as before §. 3.
2.
Moses
calls his
First Matter, Gen.
1.2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
without form,
which
P. Fagius
renders out of
Kimchi
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the very same word, which
Plato
useth to express his
First Matter
by; and little different in sound, but less, or nothing at all, in sense from
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
slime,
which
Philo Byblius
stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as Great
Bochart
conceives from the
Phoenician,
and
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mod,
which signifies
Matter,
as before,
Book
1.
chap.
3. §. 13, 14.
Aquila
on
Deut.
32.10. renders this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
confused,
or
without order,
and
Plato
describes his
first matter
by the same word, calling it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
confused,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, namely because it was without any substantial form, order, or perfection: yea
Plato
expressly stiles his
first matter
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
without form,
as
Moses.
Hence those
Peripatetic descriptions
of this
first matter,
that it is
nec quid, nec quale, nec quantum, indefinite,
and
inform, yet capable of any form,
which have caused so much dispute in the
Schools.
3.
Moses
makes his
First Matter
to be
Gen.
1.2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and void,
whence some conceive, that
Plato
with the rest of the
Greeks
traduced their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: for by an usual change of ב into ב,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is turned into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which
Bochart
makes the original of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Chaos.
But if we cannot argue fully from the
Names,
yet as to
Things
we may draw an exact
Parallel
'twixt
Moses,
and
Plato
as to this particular. For
Plato,
as well as
Moses,
makes his
first Matter
to be void of any
Form,
or perfect principles, but yet the Seminary, or Mass, out of which all
things were framed: So
Plato
tells us, that this
Chaos
was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The receptacle, and as it were the nurse of all generations, though it were nothing perfectly.
So again in the same
Timaeus
he acquaints us, that it was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i.e.
that it was a kind of anomalous thing, not clothed with Essence, yea little better than nothing, yet the common subject out of which all things were formed.
In sum, this
first matter
is according to
Plato
styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Seat, Receptacle, Mother,
and
Nurse
of the
Universe,
proportionable to that of
Sanchoniathon
(quoted by
Eusebius
) who treating of the
Chaos,
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
out of this came all the seed of the Creation; and the Generation of the whole.
So
Plato
in his
Timaeus, fol.
95. says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Matter is as the Female, and Mother, and Nurse; but the Form, is as the Male, and Father of the Universe.
Thus we see how
Plato
in imitation of
Moses
describes the
first matter
as void of all substantial
form,
and perfection; yet the seed, and receptacle of all things. Hence also we learn, whence
Aristotle
had his
Physical Privation,
which he makes one of his
Principles
necessarily antecedent to the production of Bodies. Hence also he calls his
first matter
a
passive power,
or Principle void of all forms, but inclinable to, or receptive of any form. These
Peripatetic notions,
which make so great noise in our Schools, were evidently but fragments of
Plato
's
Mosaic
traditions.
4.
Moses
describes his
First Matter,
or
Confused Mass
to be,
Gen.
1.2.
Darkness, &c.
Hence
Plato,
in imitation of him, stiles his
first Matter
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
tenebrous, obscurity.
The like we find mentioned in
Hesiod,
and by him applied to the
Chaos,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
From the Chaos sprang the Erebo, and the dark night.
And indeed both
Plato,
and
Hesiod
seem to have traduced this affection of the
Chaos
from
Sanchoniathon,
who calls it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
tenebrous Chaos,
which Learned
Bochart
supposeth to have been in the
Phoenician
tongue (in which
Sanchoniathon
writ)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Evening darkness,
which he proves was taken from
Gen.
1.2. but the word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from
Gen.
1.5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and it was Eber,
or
Evening
: this (says he)
Varro
thus imitates;
Erebo creata fuscis crinibus nox te invoco
: So
Bochart Can. lib.
2.
cap.
2.
fol.
783.
5. Whereas
Moses
says
Gen.
1.2.
[Darkness was upon the face of deep] Plato
also seems to comprehend the same under his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
first matter,
which, as we have before mentioned, is the same with
Sanchoniathon
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
watery mistion,
or
slime
: so
Orpheus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Hilus, or slime was made out of water.
This
slime,
or
fluid watery matter
the seed of all Creatures, is the same with
Thales
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
water,
which he made the
first principle,
or
matter
of all things: and all but broken traditions of
Moses
's description,
Gen.
1.2. as we have proved at large,
Book
2.
chap.
3. §. 4.
6. Lastly,
Moses
says,
Gen.
1.2.
[The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the Waters] i. e.
The Spirit of God by a Divine
fomentation, agitation,
or
motion
on this
fluid matter,
commonly called the
Chaos,
formed, and shaped every Creature, and brought it to that form, and perfection as was appointed for it, by the
Sovereign Eternal Idea, Wisdom,
and
Pleasure.
And does not
Plato
also give us a description hereof much to the same purpose? when he says as in his
Timaeus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that is (as some render it)
by an importune motion fluctuating, and not quiescing.
This Divine fomentation, and agitation of the spirit on this
fluid matter
in order to the
formation
of every Creature, is by
Sanchoniathon
styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the spirit of dark air, or a blustering wind.
To conclude;
Plato
in his
Timaeus
tells us, that God out of this
first matter
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
disorderly,
and
irregularly indigested,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
beautified, ordered,
and
configured,
or
formed
the
Universe.
Yea he undertakes to expound the
mode,
or
method,
which the
Divine Spirit
took in thus fashioning, and reducing every Creature to it's proper Form.
The matter, says he, of all things being substracted, the mind of the Divine Opisicer by a prudent kind of persuasion compelled the same, which otherwise was
tenebrous, fluid, inordinate,
and
inform,
to pass into
light,
and
order, &c.
of which see
Serranus
on
Plato
's
Timaeus, fol.
12.
By all which laid together, I think 'tis very probable, that
Plato
traduced these his
Physiologick Philosophisings
touching the
First Matter,
or
Material Principle
of the
Universe,
if not immediately, yet originally, from
Moses
's description of the Creation,
Gen.
1.2.
§. 7. Having dispatched the
Original,
and
First Matter
of the
Universe,
we now proceed to it's complete Body, which
Plato
stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the visible,
and
tangible.
This body of the world he
makes to consist of the four Elements,
Fire, Water, Air, Earth
conjoined together by a friendly proportion, or harmony. So in his
Timaeus, fol.
32. says
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
[
sc.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
By these, and of these Four Elements the body of the
Universe
is composed with an harmonious proportionable friendship,
&c.
Yea
Plato
undertaketh to give us some account of the necessity, and mutual combination of these four Elements. 1. He tells us, that the
Earth
is the most
ponderous,
least
mobile,
and the most impertransmutable of all the Elements, and therefore the
basis
of the rest. So in his
Timaeus, fol.
98.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The earth is most ponderous, and leastly mobile, & a body impertransmutable into others, by reason of its being incommunicable,
&c.
Then he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Fire, by reason of its tenuity, penetrates through everything: Air through everything save Fire: Water through the Earth: by means whereof all things being filled there is nothing left vacuous.
Whence
Plato
in the same
Timaeus, fol.
99. concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Of these Elements God composed the world, which is tangible by reason of the Earth; but visible by Fire; which two extremes are connected together by Air, and Water, with
Proportion,
that excellent bond.
Tully
interprets
Plato
's words thus. It's necessary, that the world should be corporeal, and visible, as also touchable: Moreover Fire penetrates all things, and nothing can be touched, which wants a solid
basis.
Now nothing is solid but what partakes of Earth: wherefore God being about to make the world, first joined Fire, and Earth together,
&c.
Lud. Vives in August. Civit. lib.
8.
cap.
11. gives us
Plato
's mind touching the Combination, and Proportion betwixt these Elements thus.
To make a coherence 'twixt
Earth,
and
Fire
there is necessarily required a Bond; wherefore they needed two other Elements, which of themselves, and of the other Elements, they connected, might make up one Composite, or Body. Such are
Air,
and
Water,
'twixt
Fire,
and
Earth.
For the same Analogy, or Proportion that Water has to Earth, Air has to Fire: the same also Water, and Air have amongst themselves; which as
•
onds do so copulate the extreme Elements, Earth, and Fire, that by the almost imperceptible variations of Nature, either ascendent, or descendent, there may be supposed to be one body, which waxeth hard in Earth, or is rarifyed in Fire.
Plato
also makes each of these Four Elements to have various
•
pecies, and properties. So
Timaeus, fol.
99. he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
Fire
has
flame, light,
and
splendor,
by reason of the inequality of the Triangles which are in each of these.
Air
is partly pure and dry, partly humid, and cloudy. Water also is either fluid, or congeled, as
Snow, Hail, Ice.
Humor is either fluid, or compact: Fluid as
Honey, Oil
: Compact, as
Pitch, Wax.
Compact humor, is either
fusile,
as
Gold, Silver, Brasse, Tinne, Led, Iron
; or
fragile,
as
Sulphur, Bitumen, Nitre, Salt, Alume,
and [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
Stones Homogeneous.
Also in the same
Timaeus, fol.
99.
Plato
acquaints us that heat has
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a disgregative faculty
of the most tenuous parts, but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
frigid is constrictive, and complicative of the Pores.
Lastly
Plato
informs us that the more Noble parts of the
Universe,
as the
Sun, &c.
are composed of Fire, of which hereafter.
§. 8. That
Plato
received this distribution of the
Universe
it's body composed of the 4. Elements from the
Jewish
Church, and particularly from
Moses
's description of the Creation,
Gen.
1.1.
&c.
is acknowledged, both by Ancient, and Modern Writers. So
Austin de Civit. Dei, lib.
8.
cap.
11.
Plato
(says he) in his
Timaeus
affirms, that God in the first Creation, first joined
Fire,
and earth together. It's manifest that he gives to
Fire
the place of Heaven. Therefore this opinion has similitude with that, which is said
Gen.
1.1. that
In the Beginning God made Heaven, and Earth.
Thence those two middle Elements by the interposure whereof these extremes are copulated, he calls Water, and Air: whereby he is conceived to understand what is written,
Gen.
1.2.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the Waters.
For little heeding in what manner the Scripture styled the
Spirit
of God, because the
Air
is also called a
Spirit,
he imagined the Four Elements might he commemorated in that Place.
Thus
Austin.
That
Moses
in this
Gen.
1.1, 2. describes the Creation of the Four Elements, and that
Plato
speaks conformable thereto, is affirmed
by learned
Serranus
in his Notes on
Plato
his
Timaeus, fol.
10. thus.
This is the common opinion of our Divines, that
Moses
in
verse
1. of
Gen.
1. teacheth, that the first matter was created by God: and that in
verse
2. he describeth the same by certain Notes.
Yet as to the genuine, and plain interpretation of this place, the opinion of
Theodore Beza
my most Reverend Parent and Praeceptor doth mostly please me, who supposeth, that
Moses
in this place doth not treat of the
first matter,
but simply teacheth, that the Four Elements,
viz. Earth, Water, Fire, Air,
were in their order Created of God: and he gives these Reasons of this his opinion: First that
Moses
was wont so to propose things
Physical,
that he might wholly accommodate his speech to the Vulgar Capacitie: neither does he treat of them subtly, but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
sensibly,
that they might be more comprehended by the ruder sort; wherefore the plain, and true sense of this place seemed to him this. In
verse
1.
Moses
proposeth after this manner, a sum of the whole History of the Worlds Creation, and that in an
Analytick order,
which truly is a form of Demonstration most apt for the teaching of Sciences.
Moses
therefore teacheth
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
summarily,
that in
the beginning God created the Heaven, and the Earth, i.e. Gen.
1.1. When yet nothing existed God created this
Universe,
and what ever is comprehended in its compass: which according to the common manner of speech is understood by the terms of
Heaven,
and
Earth. Moses
having laid this summary
Substratum
of his whole discourse, he then proceeds to persue each part thereof, and Firstly to treat of the
Elements
: because they are the basis of the
Universe,
and the
Matter
which the Vulgar might comprehend as being discovered by certain effects. Therefore he affirms that
Moses
in
verse
2. teacheth the Creation of the Elements
Earth, Water, Fire
: but the Creation of the
Air
in
verse
6. These Elements he describeth as Created
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
by themselves,
before their entering into the composition of
Animants.
Thus therefore
Moses
explains those first bodies, as that he first treats of the
Earth
; affirming that the
Earth was inform, &c.
Therefore there was not yet extant any certain Disposition of things; neither was there any certain form in that
tenebrous Mass
of the Elements: which notwithstanding God conserved by an infused
natural heat,
which was as it were the Seminary of all things, and nothing else but the Element of
Fire.
For the Element
of
Fire
in this first Creation was nothing else but that ignifick force, and efficacy, which is variously diffused in the symmetry of the
Universe
for the fomenting, and nourishing of things according to their nature. This
Natural,
and
Vivifick
heat dispersed in things after their mode, even in
Animants
themselves, is by
Moses
properly called the
Spirit of God, Gen.
1.2. Truly
Plato
calls this Natural heat
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e. the Opificer of various effects.
Thus, says
Beza, Moses
shows, how the
Earth, Water, Fire,
were Elements Created by God the first day. That therefore the
Air
was Created the second day, which
Moses
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Expansion.
Truly
Plato
makes mention of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
expansion,
as I conceive, in the same sense; which word is well accommodated to express the nature of the
Air
which is most liquid, and expansive,
&c.
thus
Serranus.
Which accurate
Analysis
of the first Creation, though it has something novel, and disputable, yet it gives us a good account of the Cognation betwixt
Moses,
and
Plato,
in their description of the first Elements, which constitute the System or body of the
Universe.
§. 9. As
Plato
makes the body of the
Universe
to be composed of the Four Elements,
so also the Form thereof, according to his persuasion, is no other than the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Analogy,
and
Symmetrie,
or harmonious contexture, and friendly conjuncture of these Elements, whence results the
Order, Beauty,
and
Perfection
of the
Universe.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
32.
Plato
says, that the Body of the
Universe
is constituted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
by the Friendship, and Analogy 'twixt these Elements, &c. Plato
here in pursuit of his former Allegory supposeth, the
Universe
to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a living intelligent thing consisting of body and soul: the Body he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
visible,
and
tractable
part, or the Elements themselves; but the Soul he stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that
Analogy,
and
Symmetrie
by which things in themselves contrary are friendly; and by a kind of agreeable discord conjoined together in the mass of the
Universe.
This Harmonie, Proportion, and Consent, which is found amongst the parts of the
Universe, Plato
makes to be the effect of the
Divine Spirit,
his
Disposition,
&
Providence,
which is by him on the same account, but in a more eminent manner styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Soul of the World
(as before §. 5.) But here we are to take notice, that
Plato
make a twofold
Form
of the
Universe,
the first
Intelligible,
inhering in the Divine mind: the second
Sensible,
infused into singulars consisting in their proportion, order,
&c.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
49.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Plato
here asserts a Twofold
Form
of the
Universe
; the One
Intelligible,
which is that
Idea,
or
Paradeigme
subsisting in the Divine mind proportionable whereto all things were framed: the other,
Sensible,
consisting in that Proportion, Harmonie, and Order, which God has put into every Creature, and their mutual combinations. This he more fully expresseth in the same
Timaeus, fol.
69.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
These Elements lying confusedly together, God inspired into each of them, both in regard to themselves, and to other things a
Symmetrie,
so that they are so far as 'tis possible
Analogous,
and
Symmetrous.
These
Platonic notions
of the
Form
of the
Universe
seem very proportionable unto, and therefore but derivations from
Gen.
1.31. where 'tis said, that
God saw all things that they were good, i. e.
Harmonious, and proportionable amongst themselves, as also exactly proportionable to their Divine
Idea,
and Exemplar. So
Austin de Civ. Dei, lib.
12.
cap.
5.
All Natures, says he, because
they are,
therefore also have they their
Measure, Beauty,
or
Form,
and a certain peace amongst themselves, wherefore also they are good,
&c.
Hence the Ancients made Love to be the bond of the
Universe,
namely because it's Perfection, and Goodness proceeded from the Harmonie Order, and Beauty of the parts.
All which is fully comprehended under
Plato
's
Form
of the
Universe,
whereby he understood no other, than the
Harmonie, Beauty, Order,
and
Perfection
of the
Universe,
and its parts, though never so contrary amongst themselves, answerable to
Gen.
1.31. which is also
Essentially
couched under the notion of
Form:
for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by an easy transposition of φ, and μ, is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies
Beauty, &c. Plato
never dreamed of that essential
Form
which
Aristotle
introduced as
educible
out of the
passive power
of the
first matter, &c.
No; he conforming himself to
Moses
's style by
Form
understands nothing but that Beauty, Perfection, and Goodness, which was in things resulting from their
Order, Proportion,
and
Harmonie
amongst themselves; as also from their conformity to the Divine
Exemplar,
and original
Idea.
§. 10. Having discoursed of the
Principles
of
Natural bodies,
both
Effective,
and
Constitutive
; we now proceed to their
Adjuncts,
or
Affections,
which
essentially,
and
naturally
flow from their Principles And the first great
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Affection
which
Plato
attributes to the
Universe,
and it's parts, is
Perfection,
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
32. discoursing of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Affections
of the
Universe
he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The first is that the whole
Universe,
because it is an animal greatly perfect, consists of perfect parts.
This
Perfection
of the
Universe
he had before given some intimation of under the notion of
Goodness
: So
Timaeus, fol.
30.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
God would, that all things should be good, and nothing evil: For 'twas never, neither is it now lawful for him, who is the
best Good,
to make anything but what is most beautiful, and perfect.
Plato
here showeth, how God of the first
confused matter,
and
Elements
efformed a most Beautiful World; the words he expresses this by is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
he beautifi'd, adorned
the world; whence 'twas called by the Ancients
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Agen he say
•
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, he
shaped, configured,
or
conformed
the
Universe, i. e.
made it conformable to the Eternal, and most perfect
Exemplar
of his own Decrees: whence we read 1.
Cor.
7.31. of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Scene, Figure,
or
Form
of this World. Farther,
Plato
says, that God did
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
accurately dispose, order,
or
methodize
the
Universe,
placing each part in it's proper place, and rank,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
reducing every Creature from that Ataxie, or disorder it lay under in the confused Chaos, unto an admirable order, and goodness,
which he elsewhere stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
good order,
or
right disposition
of everything. Lastly, he says, that God
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
constituted,
or
gathered into one System
each part of the Creation: whence
Aristotle
(his Scholar following his Master herein) defines the World
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
&c.
a
System,
or ordinate compages of
natural bodies, &c.
By all these expressions
Plato
sets forth to the life the incomparable
Structure,
and
admirable perfection
of the
Universe,
as it came forth of the hands of God, and that exactly conformable unto, and, as we have reason enough to judge, by traduction from
Moses
's description thereof,
Gen.
1.31.
And God saw everything, that he had made, and behold it was very good: i. e.
most perfect. Indeed
Plato
gives us an excellent comment on these words of
Moses,
wherein we have
Moses
his sense fully, and that almost in his own words laid open to us: So in his
Timaeus, fol.
37.
Therefore (says
Plato
) after the Father of the Universe had animadverted,
or considered his work [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] the made image of the Eternal God's (or Trinity) he rejoiced, and recreated himself therein.
Thus
Plato,
who does here, as the Learned conclude, speak by tradition from
Moses.
So
Jo. Grammaticus
Of
Creation, lib.
7.
cap.
11, 12.
Rightly therefore does that great
Moses
concluding the Creation of the world say
Gen.
1.31.
And God saw everything, &c.
And
Plato
here agen does imitate him, who speaking of God's making the
Universe,
says, that when the Father beheld this Mobile
Animal,
the image of the Eternal God's, which he had begotten, he rejoiced, and was recreated.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] and by so much the more, when he considered that it was made exactly conformable to it's Paradeigme, or Eternal exemplar.
Thus
Jo. Grammaticus
touching the parallel betwixt
Moses,
and
Plato. Austin de Civit. Dei. lib.
11.
cap.
21. enterprets
Moses
in the same manner, that
Plato does.
In that (says he) 'tis said
Gen.
1.31.
God saw all things that they were good.
We must understand the approbation of his work made according to Art, which is the Wisdom of God,
&c.
God's seeing all things to be Good implies their
Conformitie
to that
Original Idea,
or Eternal Platforme of Divine Wisdom, and Decrees: Whence also
Plato stiles
the
Universe
a
visible image
of the
invisible God
; namely by reason of it's exact conformity to it's
Original Form,
or
Idea
in Divine Decrees: So in his
Timaeus, fol.
92.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
[others,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
]
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Taking Animals both Mortal, and Immortal, and commixing them together, this world, thus constituted, becomes a Visible Animal comprehending things Visible, a Sensible image of the Intelligible God the greatest, and best, and most beautiful, and most perfect,
&c.
Plato
here calls the
Universe
a
Sensible Image
of the
Intelligible God,
in that it was made exactly conformable to God's Eternal Exemplar, which in his
Timaeus, fol.
69. he calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Intelligible Form,
or
Exemplar,
as elsewhere
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Intelligible Ideal World
: according to which Exemplar, or Platforme he reacheth this sensible world was made, whence it became a reflex image thereof, and so a
sensible image of the insensible Deity
: Or else we may refer this
Platonic description of the Universe
to
Moses
's
Character of
Man, Gen.
1.27.
And God created him in his own Image,
&c. So
Johan: Grammaticus
of the
Worlds Creation, lib.
6.
cap.
21.
pag.
249.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
whereas
Moses
spake properly of
Man,
that he was made after the Image of God, and according to his likeness:
Plato
translates this to
all things in the World.
Thus
Philoponus.
And indeed it's evident, that
Plato
comprehendeth under his notion of the
Universe,
as well
Rationals,
as
Sensibles
; and therefore from Man its more noble part he stiles the whole, the
Image of God
according to, and in derivation from
Moses
's description,
Gen.
1.27. We may take it either way, and yet no way doubt, but that
Plato
had this, as the former Notions touching the perfection, goodness, order, beauty, and exact proportion, or conformity of the
Universe,
from the
Mosaic
description. This perfection of the
Universe Plato
makes to be the immediate product, and first issue of its
formal constitution
; namely, the result of that
friendly proportion, sweet harmony,
and
beautiful order,
which is between all the parts of the
Universe,
though in themselves never so disagreeing.
This is fully expounded by
Austin,
(who did mostly
Platonize) de Civit. lib.
11.
c.
18. the
Antitheta,
or
opposites
(says he) are accounted most decent in the ornaments of
Elocution
: as therefore those Contraries do give a beauty to Speeches, so the Beauty of the
Universe
is composed of a certain Eloquence not of Words, but of Things resulting from the opposition of Contraries.
Thus much for the
perfection
of the
Universe.
§. 11. The second
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
affection,
which
Plato
gives the
Universe,
is
Unity
: So in his
Timaeus, fol.
33. having discoursed of its perfection, he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
To these we may add that 'tis one.
So in his
Parmenides, fol.
144.
Plato
having distinguished
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
one,
into
infinite,
and
finite
: As for
finite unity,
he makes it to be a proper affection of his
sensible Idea,
whereby he means the
Universe.
And the reason he gives why the
Universe
should be one, is this; because
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
singulars
contained therein are all determinately reduced to their proper
Classe. Aristotle
also asserted the same.
3. Another
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
affection,
which
Plato
gives the
Universe
is
Finitenes
; so in his
Parmenides, fol.
145. having spoken of his sensible
Idea,
and its
Unity,
he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Must not one be universally finite; or must not the parts be comprehended of the whole? Yes certainly. Therefore what is comprehended must be
finite
: (though
infinite
in
multitude
) and because
finite,
therefore it has extremes: If it be a whole, it must have a beginning, and middle, and end,
&c.
Thus also
Aristotle, &c.
4. Thence follows another
affection
of the
Universe,
which
Plato
calls
Figure.
So in his fore-cited
Parmenides, fol.
145.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
And this one being such, must also partake of Figure.
And in his
Timaeus, fol.
33. he speaks more particularly, and fully, thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
And he has given to it (
i. e.
the
Universe
) a Figure most becoming, and most congenial. For it is meet, that he should shape it into such a Form, or Figure, as might comprehend all other Figures. For which c
•
use the World is made
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, round, so that its whole circum
••
rence is touched with Rayes equally distant from the Centre:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This being the most perfect, and most like to itself, of all Figures. Thus
Plato,
wherein he fully informs us touching the Worlds
Rotunditie,
and the reasons thereof: namely, because it ought to comprehend all Animals. Now a round Figure is, (says he) of all 1. most
capacious,
and
perfect,
2. most
like to itself,
or
uniform
: 3. most
content with itself,
and without need of other.
Aristotle
also follows him, in asserting the Worlds
Rotunditie.
5. Another
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
attribute,
which
Plato
gives
natural Bodies,
is
Color,
which in his
Timaeus, fol.
67. he thus describes,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We call
Colors
a flame, diffusing itself from particular Bodies, having parts symmetrous to the sense.
By Flame he means Light, which he elsewhere terms a Flame: and so
Plato
is herein followed by the New Philosophers, who make
Colors
to be nothing but the various mixture of
Light,
and
Darkness.
He does farther in his
Timaeus, fol.
101. give some distribution of
Colors,
with their proper effects, thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
White Color disgregates the sight, whereas black does congregate it.
To which the Peripatetics assent,
&c.
6.
Plato
also makes
Time
another special property, or
Affection
of the
Universe,
and all
natural Bodies.
So in his
Parmenides, fol.
151. treating of the
Universe
under the notion of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
One,
he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
One partakes of
Time,
and it is younger, and elder than itself; and than other things, and it is, and it was,
&c.
His meaning is, that all
natural Bodies
admit of variations, and differences of time,
&c.
And in his
Timaeus, fol.
13. he describes time to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a moveable Image of Eternity.
Agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the definition, or boundarie of day, and night.
So agen in his
Timaeus, fol.
97. he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
God has framed
Time
together with the
World
: for it is an Image of the ingenerable time called
Eternity
: for look as this Universe is created according to the exemplar of the Intelligible Ideal World, so is this
Time
composed in some sort according to the exemplar of
Eternity.
Thus
Plato.
Lastly, as to the
formal measure,
and product of
Time,
we find a good description thereof in the
Platonic Definitions, fol.
411. thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Time is the motion of the Sun, and the measure of motion
; which agrees well with
Moses
's description in
Gen.
1.14
for seasons, and for days, and years,
&c.
7. Hence follows another
Affection,
which
Plato
attributes to the
Universe,
and
natural Bodies,
namely
Mobilitie.
So in his
Parmenides, fol.
145.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Thus therefore is it not necessary, that One (
i. e.
the
Universe
) be capable both of Motion, and Rest,
&c.
Herein also
Aristotle
follows him, making
Motion,
and
Rest,
affections of
natural Bodies.
8. Hence also follows
Generation,
which may be ranked amongst the
Affections,
which
Plato
gives to
natural Bodies,
and is thus described,
Platon. definite. fol.
411.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Generation is a motion to Essence.
Agen 'tis called,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
participation of Essence,
&c.
9. Whence lastly follows
Duration,
which
Plato
makes another
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
affection
of the
Universe.
So in his
Timaeus, fol.
32. having spoken of the Worlds perfection, and unity, he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It must also continue without old age, and sickness,
&c. He pursues his Allegory, wherein he stiles the World a Living Creature,
which (says he) must continue in youthful
vigor,
and
healthie.
His meaning is, that though
Individuals,
and
Singulars
decay daily, yet the
Species,
and whole of the
Universe
is continued
durable,
and
vigorous,
by means of
successive generations.
For they are
Individuals
only, not the
Species,
that die: thus according to
Aristotle
's Maxim,
the Corruption of one is but the Generation of another.
Thus much of the
affections
of the
Universe.
§. 12. The
parts
of
Physiologie
are either
General,
or
Particular
:
the
General
part of
Physiologie
treats of the
first Principles,
and
Affections
of
Nature,
which we have dispatched.
Physiologie
in particular discourseth of the
Severals,
or
Particulars
of the
Universe,
which make up the
whole of Nature.
Now of these in their order, so far as they come under
Plato
's
Philosophizings.
And here we may begin with
Angelic Beings,
who are called the
first-born Sons
of God, and are indeed the most noble Pieces of the
Universe,
which
Plato
makes the
first-fruits
of God's Creation. So
Lud. Vives,
in
August. Civit. Dei, lib.
11.
c.
9.
The Greek Divines (says he) will, that
Spiritual Beings
precede
Corporeal,
and that the great
Parent
of the
Universe
used them,
i. e. Angels,
as
Ministers
for the procreation of other things: which Opinion
Plato
follows in his
Origin of the Universe.
So
Sanchoniathon
sets forth the Creation of the Angels under the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Contemplators of the Heavens.
Whence also
Aristotle
's conceit of the Heavens being moved by
Intelligences,
seems to have had its origination. All which Contemplations about
Angelic natures,
and their production, seem to have been but corrupt Derivations from
Job
38.7.
When the morning Stars sang together, &c.
But, because the Discourse of
Angels
belongs not properly to
Physicks,
but to
Metaphysics,
we shall engage no farther on it at present.
To descend therefore to the
material,
and more natural parts of the Universe: and first to the
Heavens,
which
Plato
in his
Timaeus, fol.
36. describes after his
Metaphorick mode,
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Body of the
Heavens
is visible, but the Soul of these Intelligences partakes of invisible reason, and harmony.
Thus
Plato
: whence, I presume,
Aristotle
derived his
Celestial Intelligences,
which he presumed to be the
first movers
of the
Celestial Spheres.
But as to the
Matter,
and
Nature
of the Heavens what
Plato
's Opinion was, is somewhat difficult to conjecture.
Austin
affirms
peremptorily, that
Plato
made the
Heavens
to be of an
ignifick,
or
fiery nature,
and that herein he followed
Moses, Gen.
1.1. So
Aust. de Civit. Dei, lib.
8.
c.
11.
Plato
in his
Timaeus
affirms, (saith he) that God in the first Creation joined the Earth, and Fire together. It's manifest that he attributes to Fire the place of Heaven. This Opinion therefore has some similitude with what is said Gen. 1.1.
In the beginning God made heaven, and earth.
Thus
Austin.
And
Ludo. Vives
on these Words adds, that
Plato
thought the Heavens to be fiery, (though the Stars to be composed of the four Elements, because they seemed more solid) Not that the Heavens were of the same nature with our
Culinarie fire,
for he supposeth there are several sorts of Fire.
So
Lud. Vives.
And indeed that these Celestial Bodies (at least the more lightsome, and glorious, namely the Sun,
&c.
) are of an
ignite,
or
fiery
nature, seems probable from the very origination of the name
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Heaven,
which is apparently derived from the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Our,
or
Ur,
which signifies both
Light,
and
Fire,
as hereafter. I am not ignorant, that some make the Heavens to be of a fluid, watery (as others of an aerial) nature.
So
Paulus Fagius
on
Gen.
1. tells us,
that amongst the
Hebrews
the Heaven is called from its extension,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Firmament,
and from its
Waterie matter,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Waters there,
which he also gathers from
Gen.
1.6. a
Firmament in the midst of the Waters, &c.
But this being granted, that the
Firmament
is of a
watery,
or
fluid matter
see
Wendeline, de Coelo
; (which is also the Opinion of some
New
Philosophers) yet it followeth not hence, but that the
Sun,
and those other more
lightsome,
and
glorious Celestial
Bodies; may be composed of a
fiery substance
; which seemeth to have been the Opinion of the
Jews,
whence
Plato,
and other of the
Greeks
derived the same, and that on these Probabilities.
1. That the
Sun,
and
Stars
are composed of
Fire,
appears first from the very Text,
Gen.
1.3.
Let there be Light
: where the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Our,
whereby the
Sun
is expressed,
Job
31.26. signifies as well
Fire,
as
Light.
This we have proved at large out of
Richardson,
and others, in our former part of Philologie,
Book
3.
C.
3. §. 9. So
Ames,
in his
Medulla Theol. lib.
1.
cap.
8.
Thes.
50. treating of the Creation of this
Light,
says that
Light, namely
lightsome Fire,
was made out of the most subtle part of this Mass taken up,
&c,
So
Grotius
in his
Annotations
on 2
Pet.
3.7.
The Fire (says he) was not in that
first humid Mass, but afterward created by God, which
Moses
calls
Light,
because
Light,
and
Heat
are one, and the same. Out of this
Light compacted
were the
Stars
composed, whence they diffuse
Fires
upon the Earth, whence also
Fires
are generated under the Earth. From these Celestial, and subterraneous
Fires
meeting together, shall that great, and last fatal conflagration of the World arise, as the former Deluge from the conjunction of the
Celestial Waters
with those of the deep.
Caecilius
in
Minutius Felix
affirms, that these Fires threaten conflagration to the whole World, yea to the Stars themselves.
Thus
Grotius,
who in what precedes, tells us, that besides the
Sibylles, Sophocles, Seneca,
and
Lucanus
; the Astrologers (particularly
Copernicus, Revolut. lib.
3.
cap.
16.) have observed the same, and that from the daily
appropinquation,
or nearer approaches of the Sun towards the Earth. Indeed I find this to have been the firm persuasion of the
Pythagoreans,
as before in the
Pythagorean Philosophy, Ch.
7. §. 10.
Heraclitus
also received the same by Tradition from the
Pythagoreans,
affirming, that the World, as it was made of Fire, so it should again
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, be burnt
by fire.
It was the common persuasion of the
Platonists,
that the more noble parts of the Universe, namely the
Sun,
and
Stars,
were
Celestial Fires
; whence also they asserted the last
conflagration
of the World by fire, which they called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Plato
's own Words are,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In a short time there shall be a destruction of all things on the Earth by much fire.
The
Stoics
held the same, calling it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. And
Grotius
in the fore-cited place, on 2
Pet.
3.7. says,
That these Traditions came originally from the
Jews.
For there is mention made hereof in the Book called
Cedrus Libani,
that as God in times past let loose the reins to the
Waters,
so he shall again to the Fire,
&c.
But to return to our Argument.
2. That the Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Gen.
1.3.
may be rendered
Fire
as well as
Light,
is evident from the use of the word else where. So in
Gen.
11.28, 31. we read of
Ur
of the
Chaldees,
which is of the same origination, and signification: this place being (as 'tis conceived by the Learned) called
Ur,
from their Sacred Fire [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] worshipped here, as a Symbol of the Sun: of which see more of the
Chaldee
Philosophy,
Book
1.
Chap.
4. §. 6. Hence also we may add.
3. That the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which signifies
Fire,
owes its origination to the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Ur
; for cast away only π, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
(or as it was perhaps at first
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
) is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. And indeed, I find
Plato
making use of the Word
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
promiscuously to express
Light
as well
Fire
by; so in his
Timaeus
he says, the World was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
visible,
or
lightsome
by
fire,
or
light
: and in what follows he expressly says, that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Fire has flame, and light, and splendor,
which is every way as applicable to the Celestial, as Terrestrial Fires; especially if that be true which some New Philosophers, and those of greatest repute, affirm, that
Light is but a flame, &c.
yea indeed
Plato
calls the
Sun
in express terms
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Fire
(as hereafter.)
4. The
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Heaven,
seems also to owe its derivation to the
Hebrew
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Our,
whence
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as before.
5. Whereas 'tis said
Psal.
104.2.
God covered himself with Light,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, 'tis elsewhere expressed by
Fire.
6. But to argue not only from
Names,
but from the
thing
itself, we find frequent mention in Scripture of
Fire
coming down from
Heaven.
So in the burning of
Sodom,
but more particularly in that saying of the
Disciples, Luke
9.54.
That we command fire from heaven
: which though it imply a Miracle, yet it argues they conceived the heavens to be the proper seat of fire, the like
Revel.
20.6. fire out of heaven. It seems to have been a fixed opinion amongst the Jews, that the heavens were the Seat of
fire.
7. Yea,
Mark
14.54. Fire is expressly termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which properly signifies
Light of the Sun,
whereby it seems evident that
Mark,
with the rest of the
Jews
(as well as the ancient
Grecians
) judged
Fire,
and
Light
equipollent, or convertible, and therefore promiscuously used those terms.
8. Farther the
Scripture,
and
Hebrews
call the
Sun
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which properly signifies
Fire,
whence we read,
Lev.
26.30. of
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which properly denotes those
Hearths
whereon these Idolaters preserved their
Sacred Fire
as a Symbol of the
Sun,
which they worshipped after the
Zabian
mode: whence the
Greek
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and the
Latin Caminus,
a Chimney, or Hearth: as before,
Book
1.
cap.
4. §. 8.
9. That
Plato
held the
Sun
to be a
Celestial Fire
is evident from his Definitions (Collected by his Successor) where we find the
Sun
thus defined,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. The Sun is an Heavenly Fire.
So also
Xenophanes
(the Founder of the
Eleatick
sect) held the
Sun
to be
a collection of little Fires:
the like was asserted by
Heraclitus,
who both had these traditions from the
Pythagoreans,
as these derived them from the
Jews,
according to
Grotius, &c.
Neither are there wanting some of great vogue amongst the
New Philosophers,
who defend this
Platonic persuasion
; that
the Sun is Fire, &c.
So Dr.
Willis
in his Treatise
de Febribus
says,
Light seems nothing else but a flame kindled into a greater dimension, &c.
And
Comenius
in his
Physicks
makes the first Light,
Gen.
1.3. to be no other than
Fire.
10. That the
Sun,
and the
Stars
are of a
fiery
nature was the common persuasion of the Ancient Philosophers, so
Stobaeus Eclog. Phys. lib.
1.
cap.
25. gives us a large account, touching the Ignite nature of the
Stars.
He says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Thales
supposed the Stars to be Terrene, but Ignite.
And he adds the same of
Empedocles,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Empedocles
also held the Stars to be Ignite, &c. Empedocles
also affirmed that the Heaven was compacted of
Air,
and
Fire,
i. e.
Air
in regard of the
Firmament,
and of
Fire,
as to the
Celestial Lights,
as
Stobaeus Eclog. Phys. p.
52, 53.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
The like is said of
Anaximander,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Anaximander
said, that the Stars were Globes of Air full of Fire, breathing out flames on one side; and that the Sun was seated in the supreme place
; The same is said of
Parmenides,
and
Heraclitus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
And
Posidonius
defined a
Star
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Body Divine, Ethereous, Splendid, and Ignite, &c.
But more particularly touching the Ignite Nature of the
Sun, Anaximenes
affirmed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that the Sun is Ignite, or Fierie.
Anaxagoras,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that the Sun was an Ignite Iron, or Stone.
The same was affirmed by
Democritus. Zeno
also held,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that the Sun, and Moon, and each of the Stars were an Intelligent, Wise, and Ignite Fire.
The like
Chrysippus
asserted. Neither was this the persuasion only of the
Wiser Philosophers,
but also of many of the Ancient
Greek Poets; Euripides,
in
Phaenissis
says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
And
Homer
though he says not positively that the
Sun
is Fire, yet he makes it to be of like nature, as
Stobaus Eclog. Phys. fol.
57.
11. Thus also
Shepherd
in his parable of the
Ten Virgins, chap.
8. §. 2.
It is (says he) a question whether the beams of the
Sun
are Fire which some demonstrate thus.
Take a Glass, and gather together the beams and it burns
: and indeed this argument from the Ignifick virtue of Beams contracted in a Burning-glass gives us a great probability of the
Ignite nature
of the
Sun
: at least, it may suffice to balance all the seeming probabilities of other opinions. Neither may we expect in matters of this nature more than
conjectures,
and
probabilities.
But to return to, and conclude this with
Plato
; he frequently calls
Light,
Fire.
So in his
de Repub.
6. speaking of the Natural Cognation which is 'twixt the
Eye
and
Light,
he adds, that
when the
Eye
comes into darkness it looseth, or falls from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, it's
cognate Fire, Light.
Hence
Night
is defined in the
Platonic definitions
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Night is darkness, contrary to the day: the privation of the Sun.
As also Light is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Light is contrary to darkness,
which answers unto
Moses
's description,
Gen.
1.5.
And God called the Light Day, and Darkness Night.
§. 13. As for
Plato
's sentiments touching this
Lower World
I find little therein but what is common, and therefore not worthy of any
particular remark,
only he seems somewhat to differ from the commonly received opinion about the Nature of the
Wind,
which in the
Platonic Definitions, fol.
411. is thus described,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Wind is a motion of the Air round about the Earth.
As for the Air,
Serranus
(on
Plato
's
Timaeus, fol.
10.) supposeth, that
Plato
made it the same with
Moses
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Firmament, Gen.
1.6. which he expressed by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a word most proper to express the
Nature
of the
Air
by, which is most
liquid,
and
expansive. Plato
's contemplations about the
Waters,
and
Sea,
with those miraculous bounds given thereto by
Divine Providence,
I no way doubt, had their original from the
Sacred Story
▪ This we find well set forth by
Paulus Fagius
on
Gen.
1.9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Let the Waters be gathered.
The Ancients (says he) have
derived this word from the Noun
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which signifies a
Perpendicule, Square, or Rule
used by
Masons, &c.
As if God should have said
Let the Waters be gathered together unto one certain place, as by
Measure,
and
Rule,
according to the manner of
Architects,
who in the building of Houses, to the intent that they may bring the parts to a close, and firm consistence, and uniformity, measure all by their
Perpendicule,
or
Directorie.
Therefore
Moses
seems not without great Emphasis to make use of this word, thereby to express the Infinite power of God, whereby he compels that fluid, and boundless Element, possessing the whole superficies of the Earth, even as it were by a
Measure,
or
Rule
into one place. This the
Scripture
alludes unto
Job.
26.10.
He hath compassed the Waters with bounds, &c. Psal.
104.5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
Thou hast set a bound. Psal.
33.7.
He gathereth the Waters as an he
•
p, &c.
so
Job
12.15.
Behold he withholdeth the Waters, &c.
which certainly is matter of infinite admiration, that an Element so ponderous, and boundless, should be confined against its proper Nature, within such exact bounds, and measures.
Farther what
Plato
's apprehensions were about
Exhalations,
such as received some
accidental impression,
or
Form,
are commonly called
Meteors,
namely concerning
Comets, Thunder, Lightening, Clouds, Rain, Snow, Hail Earthquakes, &c.
is uncertain; yet we need no way doubt he might have (if he had not) the best information, he could expect, concerning these Mysteries of
Nature,
from
Job,
or
Solomon,
or such like
Jewish Philosophers.
§. 14. Another, and indeed the most Noble,
because most experimental, part of
Physiologie,
or
Natural Philosophy
regardeth
Plants
and
Animals,
wherein
Plato
seemeth to have had very good skill, which we have reason enough to induce us to believe he received, by tradition from the
Jewish Church,
especially from
Solomon
's Writings. For its very evident by
Sacred Relation,
that
Solomon
was the prime, and best Philosopher, after
Adam
's fall, that engaged in those
Philosophic contemplations,
as before in the
Jewish
Philosophy,
book
•
.
chap.
1. §. 11. And I think it is also evident that the choicest parts of
Democritus
's
Natural Experiments
: of
Hippocrates
's
Medicinal Aphorisms,
and
Observations
; together with
Plato
's
Physiologick Experiments: Aristotle
's
History
of
Animals,
and
Theophrastus
his
Scholar's
of
Plants,
owe their original, and first Idea's to
Solomon
his
Natural Experiments,
and
Philosophizings
on
Plants, Animals,
and
Human Nature.
And because this is the most noble, and useful part of
Natural Philosophy,
we shall endeavor to produce some of the choicer
Experiments, Observations,
and
Principles
laid down by
Plato,
with others, for the
Conservation
of
Human Nature
in health, & vigor; which indeed is the main end, and emprovement of
Physiologie
commonly called
Physic,
or
Medicine
: But before we engage herein we shall give some Historical account of
Mans Original,
& that according to
Plato
's traditions originally
Jewish.
§. 15. The Chiefest, though last part of
Natural Philosophy
respects
Man
his two
constitutive parts, Body,
and
Soul.
Plato
Philosophizeth
on both, and that as well apart, as in
Composition,
and
Conjunction.
As for the Original of
Man, Plato
tells us in positive terms,
That he made Man after the Image of God.
So in his
lib.
7.
de Legib. Plato
saith,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Man is a kind of imitation of God, and his master-piece.
So in his
Timaeus
what he mentions in general of the whole
Universe,
he, without doubt, more properly understood of
Man,
namely that he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the best, and greatest image of the intelligible God,
which description of Man, without all peradventure, was originally traduced from
Gen.
1.26.
Let us make man after our Image, &c. v.
27. Yea
Plato
seems to have had some
Scriptural
notices of
Adam
's first Creation, and
Eves
formation out of his side; which in his
Symposiack Dialogue
he expresseth under his
Cabalistick
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Man woman,
which answereth unto
Gen.
2.21, 22, 23. Yea farther
Plato
seems to have had very considerable hints, and traductions touching
Adams
happy state in Innocence, which he describes under his
Mythologic Cabale
of the
Golden Age,
and
Saturn
's Reign therein: thus in his
Politicus, fol.
272. where he says our First Parents lived in the
Golden Age
partaking of the fruits of the Earth without toil, or labor, or Apparel, having conference with the beasts,
&c.
All which were but Fables, or traditions he had received from the
Ancients,
whereby he means the
Jews,
or their neighbors the
Phoenicians,
&c. For so
Sanchoniathon
expresseth the Creation of mankind to be,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i. e.
saith
Bochart
according to the
Phoenician,
and
Hebrew
expression,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Col-ri-jah
the
breath of God's mouth,
as 'tis expressly meant
•
oned
Gen.
1.7.
breath of life.
As
Plato
had these great traditions or notices touching
man
's Creation, and happy Estate in general, so particularly touching the
Soul
of man its
Divine original, immaterial, infinite capacity, activity, immortality,
and
perfection.
As to the souls Divine original,
&c.
he says in his
Phaedrus, fol.
245
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
the Soul is ingenerable, immortal and living,
&c.
because it is a self-moving principle. In his
Phaedo,
he calls the soul
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
immortal.
In his lib. 10.
de Repub.
he says, the soul is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incomposite,
or
simple
; and in his
Epinom▪
he calls it,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incorporeal.
As to the souls capacity,
Plato
proves in h
••
Phaedo, fol.
79.
That it was infinite, or boundless
•
, never satisfied with anything but the first Truth, and chiefest good. The soul, saith he, contends towards that which is
•
ure, and always the same, & most akin unto it: so in his
Protag. fol
322. he makes the soul to be nearly allied to God, the like in his
Phaedo fol.
80.
Plato
saith,
It becomes the body to serve, but the soul to rule, because it is most like unto the Divine, Immortal, Intelligible, most uniform and first Being; he also proves the
immortality
of the soul, from its 1.
incorruptibilitie,
2.
solicitude,
3.
innate appetite,
4.
uniform self motion,
5.
connate Idea of God.
Thus
Plato
in his
Phaedo fol.
55.81. speaking of the souls disunion with,
and dislodging from the body, says,
That it returns to that
original
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
idea to which it is akin,
i. e. to God, as elsewhere. Hence
Plato
concludes the dignity and perfection of the soul; so in his
Phaedo fol.
55. he gathers up this conclusion,
That the soul is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
akin
&
homogeneous,
or alike in nature to God, and that it does in a sober sense participate of a self-goodness, and self-beauty with God.
So again
fol.
56. he says, That the soul being allied to God, becomes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a partner of the Divine Nature,
whence it is, in its manner, and according to its capacity, as God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
incomposite, infinite, incorruptible, immortal
; and thence
de Leg.
5.
fol.
726.
Plato
concludes, that of all possessions next to God, the soul is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
most
Divine
and
peculiar: Plato
gives us also a good account of the
Faculties
of the
Rational Soul:
1.
he treats accurately of the
human understanding,
which he stiles our
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Daemon,
whereby we are elevated from earth, to an heavenly alliance and conversation. He makes the mind to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a plant of the supreme Being, not earthly but heavenly.
The proper
object
of the mind
Plato
makes to be
Truth,
which he calls the
life,
and
food
of the mind: so
de Repub.
6.
fol.
490.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
by truth the mind truly lives, and is nourished.
As for the manner, how truth is conveyed to the understanding,
Plato
tells us, 'tis by
assimilation,
i. e. there are certain
Ideas,
images, or notions imprest upon the understanding, conformable to those
natural Ideas,
which exist in the things themselves which we know. He
gives us also a particular account of the several sorts of knowledge. 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Wisdom
is by him defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a knowledge of Beings Eternal, &c. 2.
Intelligence
is a knowledge of first principles. 3.
Science
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a demonstrative knowledge.
4.
Opinion
is intermedious 'twixt Science, and Ignorance; or a conjectural assent. 5.
Imitation
is an
image-framing
Art. 6.
Faith
is an assent grounded on Authority, &c. 7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Prudence is a power effective of happiness,
•
he parts whereof are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 8.
Conscience
he stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Fame.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Art
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. 2.
Plato
also discourseth of the
Will
which
Definit. Platon. fol.
413.
is thus defined:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. a rational desire, &c. That these Platonic contemplations about the
Soul,
its
original, immortality,
&c. were derived originally from the
Scriptures,
or
Jewish Church,
seems probable by
Plato
's own words in his
Phaedo fol.
85. where having proved the Souls immortality by many demonstrative arguments, he concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that we might proceed herein by a more firm & Divine word:
what this more
firm
and
Divine
word should be, if not sacred Divine Scriptures traduced to him, we cannot imagine. Thus
Plato
received these, and such like
divine contemplations,
touching the Soul, by some
Oriental
tradition derived originally from the sacred Fountain, as he himself seems to acknowledge; and I conceive it cannot rationally be denied; or if it should, 'twill not be difficult to prove the same in its proper place, when we come to treat of
Plato
's
Metaphysics,
whereunto these speculations about the Soul, its original, &c. belong.
§. 16. Having given these brief touches of man's
original,
& main
constitutive
part, his
soul
; its
nature,
&c. we now proceed to the
human bodies,
to lay down such
physic
or
medicinal Aphorisms
and
praescripts,
as are given us by
Plato
and others, for the conservation thereof in an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good temperament,
and
habitude
of health and vigor. That the
Ancients
reduced
Medicine
to
Physicks
or
Natural
Philosophy, is evident both from name, and thing.
Hippocrates
the great Master of
Medicinal
Wisdom, stiles
Medicine
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the natural Science.
And indeed there seems such an essential connection 'twixt
Medicine
and
Natural
Philosophy, as that they cannot without violence offered to both, be disjoined each from other, which
Aristotle
and others acknowledge. Whence
it is, that those great
Philosophers, Plato, Aristotle,
&
Theophrastus,
with others, mix so many
Medicinal
Aphorisms with their
Natural
Philosophizings. Hence also, says
Apuleius in Apol.
Let men cease to wonder, if the Philosophers have in their very Doctrine, discoursed of the causes and remedies of diseases.
To speak a little of
Medicine
in General; which is usually described a
practic Art of conserving, or restoring health
; whence it is distributed by some into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, others add to these parts
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: but I should rather close with that common distribution of
Medicine
in
•
o
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
conservative,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
curative.
As for
Prophylactick,
or
conservative Medicine,
we have many excellent
Praescripts
and
Rules
given us by
Plato, Hippocrates,
and others, for the right management and improvement thereof.
Plato
informs us, that an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good habitude
and
Crasis
of body, is extremely advantageous for the due motions and exercises, both of body and soul: So in his
Timaeus fol.
88. he tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
There is one preservation to both: for neither is the soul moved without the body, nor yet the body without the soul.
So again in his
Timaeus fol.
103.
Plato
assures us,
That the beginnings of all evils, are from inordinate Pleasures, Griefs, Desires, and Fears, which are kindled from the ill habitude and temperature of the body,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. the ill
Crases
of the body produce these, &c. but to descend to particulars.
1. One Rule given us for the
conservation
of health,
is to consider well, and diligently, to avoid the
causes
of diseases.
Plato
in his
Timaeus,
fol. 102. tells us, what are the principal causes of all diseases. First, says he,
The primary and principal cause of all diseases is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
assymmetrie
or
disproportion
of the first qualities; namely, if they are either redundant, or defective: This others term
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
2. Hence follows another cause of diseases, which
Plato
calls,
The
mutations,
or
alterations
of the blood,
by reason of some
corruption,
or preternatural fermentation: for hence, says he, springs
bile,
and
pituite
or
phlegm,
as all other
sick humors.
3. The last cause of diseases he here mentions, is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
Ataxie,
or
disorder
of humors; namely, when choler or bile, phlegm or melancholy, admit any
extravasasion,
or flowing forth from their proper
seats, into any other parts of the body, where fixing their seat, they cause a solution, and dissolution. To these causes of diseases, mentioned by
Plato,
we may add others, as
4. That of
Hippocrates, Aphorism.
51.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
all excess is destructive to nature.
This regards all excesses in repletions, or evacuations; sleep, or watchings, &c.
5.
Sudden mutations
are apt to produce diseases. This is im
•
lied in that
Canon
of
Hippocrates, Aphoris.
51.
Sect.
2.
Nature makes no sudden changes, and every sudden change is dangerous.
6. Another cause of diseases, is an
ill stomach,
or
concoction,
accord
•
ng to that
Canon, an error in the first concoction, is never cured in the rest.
7. Whence also follows another pregnant cause of diseases, namely
crudity,
according to that great Aphorism,
Cruditie is the Mother of all diseases.
For indeed almost all diseases, under which men labor, ordinarily spring from repletion, and indigestion; when more food is taken in than nature requires, or the stomach can digest: Yea, Physicians say, That a
Plethora,
or full estate of body, even though it be without impurity of blood, is dangerous as to health, because nature, if weak, cannot wield it. But they make
crudity
the seminarie of all diseases. For, say they, health consists in two things. 1. In the due proportion of the humors, as well in
quantity
as
quality.
2. In a certain
spongious habitude
of the whole body free from all obstructions, that so the spirits and blood, may have a free circulation throughout all parts. Now
crudity
obstructs both of these.
8. Hence follows
Obstruction,
which is reputed another seminal parent, or cause of Diseases; especially if the obstruction be seated in any principal part, as the head, heart, liver, spleen; whence flow Convulsions, Apoplexies, & Epilepsies, if the obstruction be in the head, Jandise, if in the liver, &c.
9.
Catarrhes
also are judged another fountain of diseases, &c.
10. A dislocation, or solution of parts, tends much to the impairment and affliction of the whole: according to that Physical
Canon
; all grief ariseth from the solution of the Continuum.
11. Lastly, the weakness of any part tendeth greatly to the decay of the whole: for as
Physicians
observe the stronger parts thrust their superfluities on the weaker. Thus much for the
causes
of Diseases.
§. 17.
A second great
Prophylactick Canon
for the
conservation
of health, is this,
To maintain nature in her due functions, exercises, and operations.
This is laid down by
Plato
in his
Timaeus fol.
90. where he tells us, that Medicine chiefly consists in this,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to render all their due operations. This is more fully expressed by
Hippocrates
6.
Epid. Comm.
5.
Tit.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Natures are the Physicians of diseases
: whence Physicians are stued the
Ministers of Nature, id est,
to assist her in the exerting her proper offices, and exercises; which are these.
1. One great and proper exercise of
Nature,
is a
natural excretion of humors,
which is usually accomplished by
perfective fermentation,
or
ebullition
of the blood, whereby the excrementitious parts are severed, and the whole mass of blood purified: besides natural fl
•
xes of the
haemorrhoides,
and
haemorrhages,
&c.
2. Another great
office,
or
exercise
of Nature is
Perspiration,
(insensible, or sensible) which requires a
spongious habitude
of body, free from all obstructions. And indeed no one can duly apprehend the sovereign influence
natural perspiration
has, for the conservation of health, as also for the expelling all noxious humors and malignant vapors. That which assists nature herein, is the keeping the body under exercises, & motion in the open air, whereby the pores are kept open, &c.
3. Another office of
Nature,
is to keep the spirits,
both
natural, vital,
and
animal,
in their due
vigor, activity,
and
exercises.
For it's well known, that the spirits are the great
fabricators,
and
opificers
of whatever is transacted in the body. Now the spirits are fed, and conserved by a
regular commixture
of
radical moisture,
and
congenial heat:
for bodies frigid, have but a jejune and slender spirit; whereas things moderately hot, are spirituous. Also things grateful to the spirits, do most foment and improve them.
4. Another exercise of
Nature,
consists in the due
evacuation
of
excrements,
which requires that the body be
soluble,
and
lax,
not
costive
; for costiveness of body breeds many diseases,
&c.
5. Another office of
Nature,
is to keep the body, and all parts thereof
permeable,
which is necessary, in order to a due circulation of the blood.
6. Another office of
Nature,
is to keep the Lungs in their due crasis and exercise; whence that
Canon, to live well, is to breath well.
§. 18. A third Canon for the conservation of health regards the
Non-naturals,
as they call them, namely
Aliment, Air, Exercise,
&c.
1. As for
Aliment
or food,
Plato (as Pythagoras
before him) lays much stress on a good regiment, or government in diet.
Plato
seems to make the whole of
Medicine
to consist in allowing
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
proper or due food. For the ordering whereof he tells us: 1. that by how much the more simple diet is by so much the better: so in his
de Repub.
3.
fol.
404. he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
diet
must be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
simple, not of differing sorts.
So agen he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
simple diet, & Exercise are of great moment, as to the conservation of health.
2. In the
ordering
of diet there must be due regard had both to the
quantity
and
quality
thereof, for
says Plato,
many diseases, which are instigated, and provoked by Medicaments, are cured by orderly diet.
3. In all
alimentation,
and
nutrition
there is required a due
attraction, concoction,
and
Extrusion.
For all aliment moving from the
center
to the
circumference,
requires a
regular course
in all these regards, Especially as to the first,
viz.
concoction; for as Sir
Francis Bacon
observes,
the head (which is the source of
animal
spirits) is under the tuition of the stomach having a great Sympathie there with, and all
crudities
have their rise usually from too much repletion.
Secondly, as for
Air,
and
Exercise
they greatly conduce to the conservation of health.
§. 19. 2 Plato also discourseth well of
Therapeutick
Physic in these particulars.
1 He makes a Physician to be but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Minister of Nature
to assist her in her proper offices, and operations. 2 Hence also he asserts that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Medicine
by how much the more simple, and
Connatural
it tis, by so much the better and more commodious: For those are the best Medicaments, which work with, not against
Nature
; we are religiously to observe the footsteps of
Nature.
And therefore mild
Catharticks,
which relieve, are more eligible than violent. 3. Hence adds Plato (
Timaeus
89.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The best purgation is by Gymnastick exercise.
4. Hence also in the same
Timaeus fol.
89.
Plato
adds
that Purgation by pharmaceutick, or purgative medicaments is only then Expedient, when necessary,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Diseases are not to be irritated by Pharmaceutick medicaments, unless they are very dangerous; for all constitution of diseases is somewhat like to nature.
So
Hippocrates Sect.
2. Aphorism. 50.
diseases contracted by long custom are oft better kept, than cured.
5. Whence also follows another excellent prescript of
Plato
wherein he Praefers a good diet, and exact regiment of the diseased, before all
Cathartick
or
purgative medicaments.
So in his
Timaeus fol.
89.
If any (says
Plato
) shall contend to hasten the cure of diseases before they have had their fatal course, there usually follows of small, great, and of few, many diseases:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Wherefore all such diseases must be gently corrected by diet, neither must an infest ill be instigated or Exasperated by purging medicaments. Thus
Plato.
Hence that of
Seneca.
In diseases nothing more dangerous, and pernicious then an
unseasonable
Medicine.
6. But
Plato
's great and main
Canon,
which takes in the sum both of his
Prophylactick,
and
Therapeutick medicine
is laid down in his
Timaeus fol.
90. thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
all medicine for every disease is one, to render to everyone his proper diet, and motions.
Hippocrates
in his
Aphorisms
expresseth this medicinal
canon
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, healthful exercise, moderation of diet, activity of labors. This great Physic
Canon
of
Plato
and
Hippocrates
is comprehensive of all other medicinal
Rules
: but particularly of these. 1. That the best purgation is by exercitation, or natural motion. 2. That simple medicaments (which we call kitchen Physic) are best. 3. That strong, and violent catharticks or purging medicaments are seldom or never to be used, but in cases of absolute necessity. 4. That diseases acquired by repletion or fullness are to be cured by evacuation.
Hippocrates. Sect.
2.
Aphor.
22. i. e. by fasting, perspiration, Sweating, &c. All this is comprised in the advice of
Sir Theodore Myron
a great
French
Physician on his death-bed to a
Noble
friend who demanded his advice for the preservation of health, to whom he replied
Be moderate in your diet, use much Exercise, and but little Physic.
§. 20.
Lastly because the cure of the patient depends much on the quality of the Physician, we shall give a brief character of an able, faithful physician, and that according to
Plato
's mind, with others.
1. Plato requires in a Physician great skill both speculative, and Experimental: and the reason hereof, he gives us in his
Gorgias fol.
464.
Some (says he) seem to have an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
good habitude of body, who indeed have not. Which infirmity none
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
but a skillful experienced Physician can discern.
He also Supposeth a great measure of skill as requisite to sever noxious humors from what are good: so in his
lib.
8.
de repub. fol,
567.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Physicians purging out what is worst leave what is best behind.
2.
Besides
habitual
Skill
Plato
requires an
actual
application of the same to particular cases with an universal circumspection, and inspection into all
accidents
though never so inconsiderable: so in his
de Legib. lib.
10.
fol.
902.
what (says he) when a Physician is both able and willing to cure the whole body; if he only considers greater matters, but neglects smaller, will there be an happy success of that cure?
No, &c. This rule of
Plato
regards not only skill but also faithfulness, and diligence, which implies. 1. That Physicians use not unknown remedies, when known and approved are a
•
hand; which is too common amongst many, thereby to make new experiments, or for some other ill end. 2. That Physicians may not cure one disease by causing a greater, which is too frequent. 3. That Physicians are to endeavor the removal of the cause, and not only the curing of a symptom of the disease: not to imitate him who in an
hectic
body endeavored to cure the
itch.
4. A faithful Physician will endeavor to cure a disease, not to defer it only: as many.
3. Another quality eminently requisite in a good Physician is meekness, tenderness, and condescension to the patients condition. So
Seneca
speaking of a good Physician says,
that he will not refuse the most servile offices, nor yet be moved at the impatience of his patient for his good,
i. e. he will not make his own humor or will, but his patients good the measure of his practice.
4. Lastly; every man of judgment, and experience might be his own best Physician would he heed it; for there are but 3 things made essentially requisite to a good Physician, that is, 1.
Judgment
2.
Institution.
3▪
Experience,
&c.
CHAP. X. A brief Abstract of
Plato
's Moral, and Metaphysical Philosophy.
I. Plato
's
Moral
Philosophy:
I. Ethics;
where
1.
of the chiefest Good;
2.
of Virtue;
3.
of Sin;
4.
of the Affections, and their Moderation; particularly the Affection of Love; the Virtue of Justice.
II. Plato
's
Economics;
where touching Imitation, Education.
III. Plato
's
Politicks;
where
1.
of right Constitution, and Administration;
2.
Laws, the Rule of such Administration;
3.
Magistrates, the Instruments of Administration according to Laws.
II. Plato
's
Metaphysics; 1.
of God, and his Essence;
2.
his Attributes;
1.
Unity;
2.
Simplicitie;
3.
Immutabilitie;
4.
Eternity;
5.
Omnipresence;
6.
Justice;
7.
Veracitie;
8.
Purity;
9.
Bounty;
10.
Omniscience;
11.
Incomprehensibilitie;
12.
the Divine Will the Cause of all things.
2.
the Human Soul, its Original, Immaterialitie, Capacitie, Immortality,
&c.
§. 1. HAving dispatched
Plato
's
Rational,
and
Natural
Philosophy;
we should now proceed to that which is
Moral,
and
Supernatural
; wherein indeed his excellence seems to consist. But upon Reflection, considering that this undertakement would swell this discourse before us, beyond the bounds of an History, and especially make this third Book big, and bulkie, much beyond the proportion of the rest: I have waved it at present, though not without some thoughts of reassuming the same, in an intended System of
sound Philosophy.
Only for the present take this
abstract Idea
of
Plato
's
Moral,
and
Supernatural
Philosophy. As for his
Moral
Philosophy, it may, according to the different
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
regard
it has to its
object,
be distributed into (1)
Ethick,
which respects
personal Gubernation
and
Morals.
(2)
Oeconomick,
which regards the Regiment of
Families.
(3)
Politick,
which comprehends the Government of
Cities
and
Nations.
As for
Plato
's
Ethics,
we find in him excellent Contemplations and Discourses (1) of the
chiefest Good,
which he stiles (1)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
altogether true.
(Rep. 9.)
i. e.
most
real▪ substanti
•
l,
and
so
••
.
(2)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
most proper,
Rep. 9. (3)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-sufficient
(4)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
••
mply good.
(5)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the cause of all good
(6)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the most necessary good.
(7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme idea of all good.
(8)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Infinite.
(9)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
eternal,
and
mo
•
living.
(10)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
uniform.
(11)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
pure, immixed, without sorrow.
(12)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
opp
•
r
•
unc.
(13)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Divine, and god-like good.
All which contemplation of the
chiefest Good,
are applicable to none but God: neither may we presume, that
Plato
could receive them any way, save only by some scriptural Tradition of God.
§. 2.
Plato
Philosophizeth very morally of
Virtue,
its
Divine Infusion, Nature,
and
Excellencie.
(1) Touching the
Divine Infusion
of Virtue,
Plato Meno
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
fol.
99. proves at large that
Virtue
came not by
Institution,
but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by a
Divine Infusion
; which he proves from this,
that God oft useth the most unkilful instruments in the production of Virtue.
(2) As for the
Nature of Virtue, Plato
stiles it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Harmony of the s
•
ul
; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Music of the soul
: And again,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
symmetrie,
and
good order
of the soul, whereby every faculty keeps its due
place
and
motion
: whence (3) follows the
Excellence
of Virtue; which
Plato
placeth in this; that it gives
Health, Amplitude, Liberty, Nobility, Firmitude,
and
perfection
unto the
human
So
•
l.
§. 3.
Plato
Philosophizeth very notably of
Sin,
both
ingenite,
and
acquisite.
He makes sin to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an excess, or transgression of the Law
: also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an acting against right reason
: whence he makes it to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, (as
Epinom. fol
978.)
an irrational, confused, irregular motion,
&c. And particularly, of
irregular inordinate pleasures,
he proves, Repub. 9.
That they are the greatest Tyrants; for the more indulgent the mind is to them, the more tyrannick, and insolent they are.
§. 4.
Plato
discourseth even to admiration, of that
Temperance,
and moderation, which ought to be in the
Affections,
and sensitive
appetite.
He makes
Temperance
to consist chiefly in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
certain Symphonie,
and
Harmonie of the Affections,
as Rep. 4. whence he makes the temperate man to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
stronger
than
himself: whereas the intemperate man is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
weaker and worse
than himself,
i. e.
than his
sensitive, animal part.
§. 5.
Plato
Philosophizeth very Divinely of
Love,
its sovereign Throne in, and Influence on the Soul, together with its proper
Acts.
This he discourseth of at large in his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which is wholly sper
•
in the Explication of this sovereign Affection. And more particularly,
Plato
hath admirable discourses of
Amitie,
or
Friendship
as in his
Lysis
; where he professedly sets himself to Philosophize on this
Theme,
which the Title of this Dialogism styled,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
of friendship,
plainly enough imports.
§. 6. Lastly,
Plato
discourseth most accurately of
Justice,
in its
Universal
Idea and Notion; especially in his
Repub.
4. where he explicates its
nature,
and
influence
in all affairs. So again in his
de Leg.
12. We find many other great
Ethick contemplation
•
,
and
characters,
as in other his
Dialogues.
§. 7. As for
Plato
's
Economics,
he philosophizeth incomparably of
Imitation
; which he makes to be the most
efficacious principle
of
paternal Government.
So in his
de Leg.
5. as else where, he demonstrates, that the best institution of
youth
is by example, & conversation. He treats also of
Education
more largely in his
Repub.
4.7.
De Leg.
1, 5, 7.
§. 8. But that which renders
Plato
most famous as to
Morals,
is his
Politick
discourses, which may be reduced to these three Heads, 1. Such as relate to the
constitution,
and due
Administration
of a
Republic.
2. Such as treat of
Laws
both human and Divine. 3. Such as give us the Character of a good
Magistrate,
to administer according to such Laws. Of each of these he philosophizeth at large in his Books
de Republica,
and
de Legibus,
&c.
§. 9. Touching
Plato
's
Metaphysics,
or
Supernatural Philosophy,
we are not without great notices thereof, 1 He seems to have had great
notions,
or rather
Traditions
(originally
Judaic
) of God's
Essence,
as described,
Exod.
3.14. whom, in imitation of
Moses,
he stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. 2. His
Attributes,
and 1. his
Unity
; that there is
one,
and but one
true God
: he demonstrates at large against the
Atheists,
and
Polytheists
of his Age, in his
de Repub.
10.
fol.
886. and that (1) From the nature of
Visibles,
and
the most harmonious variety of Times.
(2) From
Universal Consent.
(3) From
Motion,
and the
first Motor,
(4) From the
Soul of the Universe,
or
the providence of God Inspiring, and animating all things,
fol.
895. 1. From that great
innate Idea
of God in the soul, 899, &c. 2.
Plato
discourseth very
Divinely
of the
simplicity
of
God,
whom he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
without mixture,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to remain simple in his own form.
3. He av
•
wedly owns God's Immutabilitie.
So in his
Parmenides,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the one first Being is immobile, and the same.
Again he says, that God is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. 4.
Plato
also demonstrates the
Eternity
of God.
So
Timaeo fol.
27.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which is always the same, can have no beginning.
The same he insists on in his
Phaedrus.
5.
Plato Parmen.
1, 8. proves the
omnipresence
of God,
from his
Simplicitie,
and
immensity
: for that which has no bounds, cannot be confined. 6.
Plato
vindicates the
Justice of God.
Parmen.
134.
With God there is the most exact Government,
&c. So
de Leg.
3. He says,
That Justice follows God, as the vindicator of his Law,
so
de Leg.
10. 7. He philosophizeth also accurately of God's
Fidelitie
and
Veracitie
;
he saith, God is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Truth itself,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
first Truth.
8. He greatly defends the
purity
of God,
Rep.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
God can do no Evil, neither is he the Author of Evil.
9.
He makes mention of the
Benignitie of God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
is not God good?
&c. 10. He mentions also the
Omniscience
of God, and demonstrates the same at large,
Parmen. fol.
134. &c. where he treats at large of
Divine Ideas
; as also in his
Timaeus.
11. He discourseth also of God's
incomprehensibilitie, Parmen.
134.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. 12. He makes God's will to be the
Original, Universal,
Sovereign, and first cause of all things, as also of their futurition,
Repub.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. 13. Farther
Plato
treats largely, and accurately of the
providence
of God, of
Religion,
of the
purity
and
simplicity
of
divine Worship,
&c. Lastly,
Plato
philosophizeth very sublimely of the
Human Soul,
its
divine
origination,
immaterialitie,
infinite
capacity, immortality, perfection,
and
Activity.
These, with many other
Metaphysick
contemplations,
Plato
philosophizeth much of, which greatly demonstrate his acquaintance with, and derivations from
Judaic
Traditions, as it may hereafter farther appear.
BOOK IV. Of
Peripatetic, Cynic, Stoic, Sceptic,
and
Epicurean
Philosophy.
CHAP. I. Of
Aristotelick,
or
Peripatetic
Philosophy, it's Traduction from the
Jews.
The traduction of
Aristotle
's Philosophy from the Jews, proved
1.
By Testimonies of
Aristobulus, Clearchus, Clemens, Eusebius, Steuch. Eugub. Selden.
2. By rational Arguments; 1.
Aristotle
's converse with
Jews,
or,
2.
with their books;
3.
his chief notions from
Plato. 1.
His Physicks: touching the first matter from
Gen. 1.2.
God's being the first
mover:
the souls spirituality.
2.
His Metaphysics, object. Adequate ens, Principal God; God's providence, and the Souls separate state, why
Aristotle
rejected some Traditions of
Plato.
His Ethics, and Politicks
Jewish. Aristotle
's Life, and Character; his Parallel with
Plato.
His Doctrines Acroatick, and Exoterick. His Works, which genuine,
&c.
His Successor
Theophrastus.
His Interpreters,
Aphrodiseus,
&c. The
Arabian
Commentators followed by the Schoolmen. The general idea of
Aristotle's
Philosophy, and particularly;
1.
Of
Aristotle
's Logic.
2.
His Ethics.
1.
of man's happiness, both objective and formal.
2.
of the principles of human Acts.
1.
of the practic Judgment, or Prudence.
2.
of Volition.
3.
of Consultation.
4.
Of Election.
3.
Of Voluntariness and Liberty, their identity and combination with voluntary intrinsic necessity,
&c. 4.
Of Moral Good or Virtue, its genus, habit; its form, mediocrity; its rule,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or the Law of Nature; its definition, &c. Of Sin, its
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
anomie,
&c. 3.
His Physicks.
4.
His Metaphysics.
§. 1. NExt to the
Platonic,
we shall mention the
Peripatetic,
or
Aristotelick
Philosophy, which received no small advantage, and improvement, from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scripture
; as we may both from
Autoritative,
and
Rational
Arguments justly conclude. As for
Autorities,
we have first that of
Arist
•
bulus,
a sectator of
Aristotle's
Philosophy, mentioned by
Clemens Alexander.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 5. who brings in
Aristobulus
affirming, that
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
depended much upon
Moses
's Law, and the other
Prophets.
So again,
Clemens Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 1. and
Eusebius Praep. Evang. lib
9. Make mention of one
Clearchus Solens
•
s,
a Disciple of
Aristotle's,
who testifieth, that he saw a certain
Jew,
with whom
Aristotle
had conversation.
Eusebius
's words are these,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
Clearchus
a
Peripatetic
Philosopher, in his first Book of
Sleep,
&c.
In what follows
Eusebius,
(quoting
Clearchus
's own words) shows us,
That whilst
Aristotle
lived in the maritime Regions of
Asia,
amongst other Students of
Philosophy,
there associated himself to him a certain studious Inquisitive
Jew,
who conversing familiarly with
Aristotle,
and his
Disciples,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, (which according to
Clearchus
's relation, are
Aristotle's
words) he communicated more than he received. Then
Eusebius
adds: Honored
Clemens
makes mention also hereof in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪ 1. concerning which, he thus speaks:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Clearchus
the Peripatetic, says he,
knew a certain Jew, who had conversation with
Aristotle. Thus
Euseb. Praep. l.
9.
f.
240.
Edit. Paris
1544.
August. Steuch. Eugub.
abounds much in this argument;
Namely, that the best parts of
Aristotle's
Philosophy were derived originally from the
Mosaic Theology.
Thus
de Perenni Philosoph.
lib. 4. cap. 1.
Eugubinus
gives us
Aristotle's
confession,
That there was one God, who overraled not only heavenly Motions, but also the whole world,
answerable to
Moses
's Theology. The same he confirms cap. 7.8.9. The like he proves of the
Divine Beatitude, consisting in contemplation,
as
cap.
11.12.19.
But more particularly
cap.
20. he demonstrates, how
Aristotle
confessing,
that God created man and woman for the preservation of man-kind, marvelously accorded with
Moses
herein.
For
Aristotle in Oeconomicis, de Conjugio,
showing
how necessary Marriage is, saith,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
It was thus provided by the Divinity itsel
•
, or God, that there should be a Nature both of Male and Female for communion. Whence
Eugubinus
collects, That as
Moses
saith,
He created them male and female
: so thou hearest
Aristotle
in this place (which is a wonder) saying, That the Divinity provided that there should be Male and Female for communion, to the intent that Nature, which cannot subsist in one Individual, might be propagated by the succession of species: Thou shalt see therefore in
Aristotle,
and wonder at the same, the same
Theology
which is in
Moses,
touching the creation of man, &c.
Thus
Eugubinus
; who
lib.
9.
cap.
7. throughout Demonstrates more fully,
That
Aristotle
marvelously accorded with the
Mosaic
Theology, touching man's creation by God, the formation of the body, the difference of Sex, and the Infusion of the Soul from without.
And in what follows
cap.
8.9. He proves that
Aristotle
conceived the same, touching
the immortality of the Soul.
To which we may add the Testimony of
Selden, (de Jure Nat. Gent. Hebraeor. lib.
1.
cap.
2.
fol
14.15.) where, having cited the Authority of
Aristobulus,
for
Aristotle
's traducing much of his Philosophy from the
Jews,
he adds:
And certainly there is yet extant an old comment of some
Hebrews,
affirming, That
Aristotle
being about to die, instructed his Disciples touching the
immortality
of the
Soul,
also of its punishment, and reward, according as he had been taught by the peculiar Posterity of
Shem,
id est, by the
Jews
: all
•
o that having been admonished by
Simeon the Just
(High Priest) he changed his old Opinions,
in all points,
wherein he had formerly held against the Law, and Doctrine of the
Hebrews,
and was transformed into another man. MSS: in the
Library
at
Oxford.
But albeit there is no ground, why we should believe these Figments; yet hence it is sufficiently evident, that there prevailed an opinion even amongst the
Hebrews
themsel
•
es, of a singular communion, and commerce 'twixt them and the ancient
Greek
Philosophers, as to the Traduction, and Reception of
Sciences,
whereunto the
Christian
Fathers,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Justin, Theodoret, Ambrose,
and others, are Consonous. Thus
Selden
; who
fol.
23. adds more of like import.
§. 2. But to come to some
rational conjectures,
whence we may with great probability conclude, that
Aristotle's
Philosophy, as to its
purer,
and more
Orthodox
parts, was very much traduced from the
Jewish Church,
and
Scriptures.
If that prove true, which was even now mentioned, that
Aristotle
was in
Asia,
yea in
Syria,
and
Judea,
(as we may presume with
Alexander)
then we may easily be satisfied, how he came to acquaint himself with the
Jewish
Learning, and Records. For if
Aristotle
attended
Alexander
unto
Phenicia,
and
Judea,
we cannot rationally conceive he would let pass such a
people
as the
Jews
were, so renowned for ancient Records and Wisdom, without acquainting himself with their
Principles
and
Doctrine,
especially they being those, from whom his Master
Plato
received his choicest contemplations.
2. But on supposition, that
Aristotle
was not in
Judea
with
Alexander,
yet 'tis credibly said, that
Alexander
furnished him with all the choicest
Books
(yea, whole
Libraries)
that he could meet with in his
Eastern Expedition:
amongst which, we may rationally conjecture the
Jewish
Records, and Books were not omitted: especially if that be true, which
Josephus
mentions of
Alexander's
coming to
Jerusalem,
and vouchsafing particular honors and favors to the
Jewish
Nation,
&c.
But 3. This is certain, that
Aristotle
received the more choice parts of his Philosophy from his Master
Plato,
as we could easily demonstrate, by multitudes of particulars, both in his
Physicks, Metaphysics, Ethics,
and
Politicks,
wherein
Aristotle
follows
Plato
in many of his choicer Notions,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, though he clothes them in his own Method. Now that
Plato
received his Philosophy, both
matter
and
form,
for the chiefest part, from the
Jews,
and
sacred Scriptures,
has been proved in the former Book.
§. 4. But to give a more full Demonstration of the
Traduction
of
Aristotle's
Philosophy from the
Jewish
Church, and
Scriptures
originally, we shall give some brief touches on some of the more
principal materials
thereof. As 1. whence sprang the choicer parts of
Aristotle's Physicks,
but from some
Traditions
imparted to him by his Master
Plato.
Thus
Aristotle's
notions about the
first matter
of all
things,
and its
affections
are evidently nothing else but some broken fragments of those Traditions, which
Plato
had received originally from the
Jewish
Church, touching the first
Chaos,
or
rude Mass,
out of which all things were at first created, as
Gen.
1, 2. Hence it was
that
Aristotle
stiles his
first matter Informe,
yet capable of any form;
indeterminate,
and
indigested,
a
mere passive power,
&c. which are notions exactly conform to the
Mosaic description,
Gen. 1.2. as we have before demonstrated. The same may be said for
Aristotle
's two other principles,
privation
and
Form,
of which we have before treated in
Plato
's
Physicks.
Again
Aristotle
in his
Physicks lib.
1.
cap.
1▪ 2.3.6.7. as
lib.
8.
cap.
6.7.10. is very copious in his Philoso
•
hizings on the
first Mover
; proving,
that he is immovable, one eternal indivisible Being, void of all quantity,
&c. wherein he exactly follows
Plato,
and the Scripture Revelation of God, as
Joh. Grammaticus in Aristot. de anima.
As to the
human Soul,
(which takes up a good part of
Physicks) Diogenes Laertius,
in the life of
Aristotle,
assures us, that he held with
Plato,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that the soul was spiritual,
&c. The same is mentioned by
Johan Grammaticus
in his Preface to
Arist. de Anima.
This
Plato
received originally from the
Jewish
Church, as we have before proved, &c. Farther
Aristotle
seems to have had some
Notices
of the Soul's creation and infusion by God.
Thus
Steuch. Eugubinus de Pereu▪ Philosoph. lib.
4.
cap.
24.
As
Moses
said,
God breathed into his Nostrils the breath of life,
Gen. 2.7. So
Aristotle, in libris de Generat. Animal.
says,
that the mind came
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
from without.
So
Aristot. de Anima,
having proved that it is imp
•
ssible that the sensitive Soul should come from without, because it is contained in the seed: he concludes of the
mind.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, It remains that the mind alone be infused from without, and that it alone be Divine, whose operation communicates not with corporeous action.
Whence the same
Aristotle
calls the mind
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, most
•
kin to God. Yea,
de Anima, lib.
1▪
text.
4. He makes the soul,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to be
impatible,
and
im
••
ixt, i. e.
simple and incorruptible. So text 7. he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, but the mind is separable from the body,
i e.
incorporeous. See more Part. 1. B. 3. c. 7. §. 6. Yea, why may we not safely conjecture, that
Aristotle
received the chief
Ideas
of his
History of Animals
(which is his
Master-piece)
from
Solomon's
Books, which he writ of the
Nature
of
Animals
? 2.
But we pass on to
Aristotle's Metaphysics,
which indeed seem nothing else but some
fragments,
or miscellaneous collections he had gathered up out of
Plato
's Philosophy. For the chief
object
of his
Metaphysics,
he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
ens quatenus ens
; which is the proper
notion whereby
Plato
(as
Pythagoras
before him) expressed God,
traduced originally from
Exod.
3.14. as we have fully proved afore in
Pythagoras
's Metaphysics,
chap.
8. §. 4. The simple affections of this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Ens,
Being, Aristotle
makes to be
Unity, Verity,
and
Bonity,
which are the Affections, which
Plato
attributes unto God, and that in imitation of
Jewish
and sacred Tradition as before. B. 2. C. 8. §. 4.5. Farther, that
Aristotle
had much knowledge of God, his spiritual Nature, and Providence, and that from his Master
Plato
's Philosophizings,
we are informed by
Diogen
•
s Laertius
in his Life; where he tells us, that
Aristotle
conformable to
Plato,
defined God thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
God is a spirit.
He also tells us,
that
Aristotle
held God's Providence to reach
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
even to Celestials,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and that he was immovable, b
•
t ordered earthly affairs, according to that sympathy, or congr
•
ence they had to Celestials.
Another piece of Metaphysics regards the
Soul
in its
separate
State, whereof some think
Aristotle
had some notices.
So Sir
Kenelm Digby,
in his discourse of the
Soul, fol.
431.
first Edit. Eng.)
If we (saith he) had
Aristotle
's Book, which he wrote of the Soul, upon the Death of his Friend
Eudemus,
it's very likely we should there see his evident assertion of her
immortality,
&c.
This some gather also from that passage, which is said to drop from him whilst he lay a dying, viz.
O Being of Beings have mercy on me.
But to speak what seems to be the truth in this matter: Though
Aristotle
was ready to entertain such notions of
God,
and his
Providence,
as were agreeable to the model of his
Reason,
yet such as depended purely on
Tradition
he rejected, as not agreeable to a Philosopher. Hence, whereas
Plato
(as
Pythagoras,
and all the
Philosophers
before
Aristotle
) held the production of the
first matter
by God; he asserted an
Eternity of Matter:
and whereas
Plato
asserted that all things were made conformable to the
exemplar of Divine Ideas, or Decrees; Aristotle
not fully comprehending what
Plato
imperfectly received, and imparted, touching those Divine
Ideas,
utterly expungeth them out of his Philosophy. This therefore seemeth to be the genuine reason why
Aristotle
embraced not more readily those greater, and more
Divine
mysteries of
Jewish
Wisdom, as well as his Master
Plato,
and
Pythagoras
; because they were matters of
pure belief,
above the reach of his
natural Reason. Plato,
as
Pythagoras,
conversing much in the
Oriental
parts, and (as we have endeavored to prove) with many
Jews
in
Egypt,
&c. They much recreated themselves with any ancient
Records, Traditions,
or
Reports
of
Divine matters,
though never so mysterious, and above their capacities: But
Aristotle
giving himself up wholly to the government of his
Reason,
he confined himself to such
Tradit
•
ons,
as would suit therewith, rejecting all other, which his corrupt Reason could not comprehend, or reduce to
demonstration.
And he himself seems to give this as a reason, why he discoursed no more of things
future,
and
Divine
; because (saith he,
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
10.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
what is future, is to us uncertain.
He so much idolized his own
Reason
(which was indeed very
Masculine
and
Nervous
) as that he slighted all
Traditions,
which carried not with them evidence, and
Notices
of their
Truth.
(This made him either wholly to reject, or else miserably to adulterate the more sublime, and Divine of
Plato
's Traditions). But 3.
As to
Aristotle
's
Ethics,
there seems to be more evident Characters of their Traduction from the sacred
Jewish fountain
originally, if not immediately, for all the Characters, he gives (
Ethic. lib.
1.
cap.
1.2. &c.) of the
chiefest good,
are the same, which
Plato
lays down: so also his
Character of Friendship, Justice, Temperance,
and other
Virtues,
are for the main (though not in the same
method
) derived from
Plato,
and we need not doubt, but originally from some sacred Author,
Solomon,
or some other. 4. As for
Aristotle
's
Politicks,
great part of them seem to have much cognat
•
on with the
Jewish
Institutes, and we may rationally conjecture, had their derivation thence: So
Cunaeus (de Repub. Hebr. p.
21.) tells us,
That
Aristotle
in his Books of
Politicks,
recites certain
Edicts,
composed by the most ancient
Legislators,
which are very like to the
Mosaic In
•
titutes.
For
Oxylus,
King of the
El
•
ans,
forbids his Subjects to Morgage their Fields for money And the
Locrenses
were forbid to sell the possessions of their
Ancestors,
&c.
And in our former discourse of Philologi
•
, touching the
Original of Pagan Laws,
we have proved their
Traduction
from the
Institutes
of
Moses,
&c.
§. 4.
But to proceed to somewhat a more general account of
Aristotle,
his Life, and Philosophy, which peradventure may add some strength to our particular
Hypothesis. Aristotle
was born at
Stagira,
(belonging sometimes to
Thracia,
but at
Aristotle
's birth under the
Macedonian Empire)
his Parents were
Nicomachus,
and
Phaestis,
according to that
Greek
Hexameter
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This
Nicomachus
was
Physician
to King
Amyntas,
who was Father to
Philip,
and Grandfather to
Alexander
the
Great. Aristotle
in memory of his Father, called his Son
Nicomachus,
to whom he writes his
Ethics,
which were thence called his
Nicomachia,
to difference them from his
Eudemia,
and
Magna Moralia.
For
Aristotle
left three sorts of
Ethics,
as
Vossius.
Albeit
Cicero
doubts, whether these
Ethics
were not writ by
Nicomachus
himself: that this
Nicomachus
writ Books of
Ethick
•
,
is the affirmation of
Soudas. Aristotle
in the sevent
•
enth year of his age went to
Plato,
whom he heard twenty years. After
Plato
's death, which was in the first year of 108
Olympiad (Speusippus
his Nephew succeeding in the Academy)
Aristotle
went to
Hermias
the Eunuch, King of
Artana
of
Mysia,
with whom he lived three years. After the death of
Hermias,
upon the request of
Philip, Aristotle
came to
Macedon,
where having lived eight years with
Alexander,
he returned to
Athens
; And the Academic being praepossessed by
Xenocrates, Aristotle
made choice of the
Lycëum
(a place in the Suburbs of
Athens,
built by
Pericles
for the exercising of Soldiers) where he taught Philosophy, walking constantly every day 'till the hour of Anointing, whence his Sect was called
Peripatetic.
Thus
Laertius.
So also
Hesychius
in
Aristotle:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The
Peripatetic
Philosophy was so termed from
Aristotle,
who began it in the
Peripatum,
or
Ambulatorie.
So
Cicero Academ.
1. Those who were with
Aristotle,
were called
Peripatetics,
because they dispated
walking
in the
Lycëum.
Aristotle
taught Philosophy in the
Lycëum
twelve years. But after the death of
Alexander,
who upheld him, some of his
Emplators
conspiring against his Life, he left
Athens,
and went to
Chalcis.
He lived after the death of
Plato
26 years, and died 63 years aged: Whereof see more in
Laertius
of his life,
&c.
§. 5. As for
Aristotle
's
Character,
we find him greatly applauded by the
Ancients
for his
Universal skill in Sciences. Plato
himself (who is sometimes invective against
Aristotle
) stiles him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the
Intellect of his Schole
; as also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Philosopher of Truth. Laertius lib.
5. says,
That he was a person of great Study, and incredible Invention.
It is said also,
That he was the first that collected the dispersed members of
Philosophy
into one body, and System: he prescribed in his
Logic
a certain form of Argumentation: he perfected
Ethics
begun by
Socrates:
of
Physicks
he discoursed so accurately, as that he left all, even
Plato
himself behind him: he bestowed most profitable endeavors in searching into the History of
Animals,
of which he writ almost 50 Volumes: as
Pliny lib.
8.
cap.
16.
Quintil. lib.
12.
cap.
11.
& Hornius Hist. Philos. lib.
3.
cap.
15.
Quintilian lib.
10.
cap.
1. makes this honorable mention of him:
Why should I mention
Aristotle?
whom I doubt, whether I should account more famous for his knowledge of things, or for his copiousness of writing, or for his s
•
avitie of speech, or for his Acumen of Invention, or for his variety of Works.
Pliny
stiles him the
Co
•
yphaeus in all Sciences. Arnobius lib.
3.
adverse. Gent.
tells us,
That
Aristotle
was a person of an excellent ingenie, and surpassing in Doctrine:
Nay, is bold to style him,
One of an Universal knowledge
; yea, the
measure or end of human understanding. Hieronymus in Reg. Monach cap.
11. says,
Aristotle
was the Prince of the
Wise men,
a Prodigie, and the grand Miracle in all Nature, who seems to have had infused into him whatever the human ingenie was naturally capable of. And in
cap.
3.
Ionae,
he attests, that there w
•
re certain honorarie pieces of brass money, stamped on the one side with
Aristotle
's Image, and on the other, with this Inscription,
Naturae Miraculum, the Miracle of Nature,
as
Hornius Hist. Philos. lib.
3,
cap.
15.
See a more ample Character of
Aristotle
's glory, that he was too invective, and invidious against such as differed from him, and not so candid in relating their opinion, as he ought to have been. This is evident from his smister treating
Democritus, Parmemdes,
yea, and his own Master
Plato,
who felt the strokes of his censorious Rod, whence
Laertius
brings in
Plato,
complaining against
Aristotle,
that he was like a young Colt, that kicked against its Dam,
&c.
Indeed we have a just, and exact Character of
Aristotle, in Cas
•
speculo Moral. Quaest. lib.
1.
cap.
6.
I conceive (says he)
Aristotle
to be in refuting others a
Camel,
in Philosophizing the Prince of all. I call him a
Camel
in refuting, because he strikes them with the heels of Envy, from whose dugs he sucked the Nectar of Philosophy. In Philosophizing, I call him a Prince, because he discourseth so of the secrets of Nature, as none more acutely, he demonstrates so, as none more accurately; he defends so, as none more stoutly. Wherefore, as in ref
•
ting others, he is scarcely to be saluted: so in his demonstrating of things, I would have him to be embraced with both arms. If he refels (if I mistake not) he doth either change the word, or invert the sense, or feign a new one: and as
Hercules
with the
Pygmeys,
so
Aristotle
with a shadow, contends
de lana caprina.
§. 6. If we consider
Aristotle, comparatively
with
Plato,
we shall find the learned very differing in their comparisons 'twixt the one, and the other. Some there are, who place
Aristotle
in many degrees of
Preeminence
above
Plato,
as the
Schoolmen
universally do: Others there are, who give the Precedence to
Plato,
as some
Fathers
did. But if any degree of comparison be lawful, I think that of
Ludovicus Vives
is most agreeable, who gives them each, though in different regards, a preeminence over the other. So
Lud. Vives in August. Civ. lib.
8.
cap.
12.
The
Greeks
style
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Divine, Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the Daemon,
or
Intelligent. Aristotle,
I had almost said, excels
Plato
in the
Science
of
Rhetoric,
albeit
Plato,
without peradventure, surpasseth
Aristotle
in the
exercitation
and
use
thereof. For
Aristotle
always loved brevity, both of things, and sentences: therefore his great care was to admit of no supervacaneous word,
Plato
said, that
Xenocrates
wanted
spurs,
but
Aristotle
his condisciple a
bridle,
&c.
As for
Plato
's Eloquence, it is thus characterized by
Quintilian, lib.
10.
cap
1.
Plato
was invested with a kind of Divine, and
Homerick
faculty of Orating: He swells much beyond Prose, and that which the
Greeks
call Pedester Oration; so that he seems to me to be inspired not with the ingenie of a man, but with a certain
Delphic
Oracle.
Aristotle
used an elegant Oration, but acc
•
rate, nervous, strict, and next to an obscure mode of speech as
Horn. Hi
•
t. Phil. lib
7.
cap.
14
If we compare
Aristotle
and
Plato
in point of
Logic,
and method of
Philosophizing,
it is evident that
Plato
's
Logic,
or me
•
hod of Rat
••
cination, was more plain and familiar, mixed with many elegant illustrations and examples
whereas
Aristotle
's method was more
artificial,
and
accurate,
consisting of more exact
definitions, divisions,
and
demonstrations.
Whence that Famous saying,
Plato teacheth, Aristotle proves.
Thus
Keck. Tract.
2.
praecogn. Logic. cap.
2.
God has honored the
Peripatetic
Sect only with this glory, that what
Plato,
and others handled, and delivered confusedly, and imperfectly, without Method, and order, under the shadows of Metaphors, and Fables, the same things
Aristotle
first delivered unto mankind, under the form of a dext'rous Method well regulated, and whose parts are full, and complete.
But if we compare them in regard of
Metaphysics,
and
divine contemplations,
its evident, yea,
confessed, that
Aristotle
was far inferior to
Plato
herein: And the reason is as apparent; for
Plato
delighting himself much in
Jewish Traditions,
which he had imbibed partly from the
Pythagorean
Philosophy, and partly by means of his own personal conversation in the Oriental parts, he thereby obtained great notices of
Divine Mysteries,
especially of such as related to the
origin of the Universe,
the spiritual nature, and perfection of God, the Immortality of the Soul
&c.
But
Aristotle,
as
Simplicius
observes of him, confining himself to the sphere of his own Reason, would needs examine
Divine matters
by
Nature,
and admit nothing but what was grounded on
Natures
Light, or rather on his own
corrupt Reason.
Whence he rejected all such
Oriental
Traditions, as would not stoop to his proud
Ratiocination,
as before.
§. 7.
Aristotle
's Philosophizings were (as 'tis presumed) by himself distributed into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Acroaticks,
or
Acroamaticks,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exotericks
▪ his
Acroatick Doctrines
he taught in the morning wa
•
king in the
Lycëum,
whereunto he admitted none but the
choicer
wits, or
genuine
Disciples whence 'twas termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; the
Exotericks
he taught in the evening, whence it was called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: these were more common. His
Acroaticks
contain his more subtle Philosophy namely his
Physicks,
and
Logic
Disceptations: his
Exotericks
comprehend his more vulgar Philosophizings, and other Discourses; as his Politicks, Ethics, Rhetoric, and such like. Thus
Gellius, lib.
20.
cap.
4.
Aristotle'
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
were those his Comments, which conduced to
Rhetoric
meditatations, the Facultie of wrangling, and the knowledge of Politicks.
His
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
were those, in which more remote, and subtle Philosophy, was agitated, and which appertained to Physic Contemplations, and Dialectick Disceptations.
His
Acroamaticks
he read in the morning to h
•
s more ripe and choice Wits, but
Exotericks
promiscuously without choice: whence the former were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as the latter
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪ according to
Horn. Hi
•
t. Philos. lib
7.
cap.
9.
Lucian
in his
Dialogue inscribed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, divides
Aristotle
's Writings into
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exotericks,
&
Esotericks
; whereof the latter are the same with his
Acroaticks,
which
Amm
•
nius (in Aristotelis Categ.
) says, were so called,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
because he therein discoursed with his genuine and proper Disciples.
These
Acroaticks,
he farther acquaints us, were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
delivered in his own person,
namely
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In which he teacheth in his own proper person, his own
Phenomena,
the which he endeavors to prove by the most exquisite arguments, beyond vulgar Capacities.
Plutarch
in the life of
Alexander
tells us, that
the
Peripatetics
called these more
Mystick,
and weighty Doctrines
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Acroamatick,
and
Epoptick
: namely in allusion, unto the
Eleusinian Sacreds
; wherein those who were initiated were for the first four years called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
My
•
ticks:
who stood on the threshold before the
Sacrarie,
but in the fifth year they had the privilege of being admitted into the inner Sacracy, there to contemplate the hidden
Sacreds,
whence they were styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
contemplators.
So in like manner the Secrets of Philosophy which
Aristotle
delivered to his
genuine
Disciples were termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Epopticks.
As for
Aristotle
's
Exotericks,
we have them thus explicated by Clemens Alexander.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
His Dialogicks are such, as he writes not in his own person, but, as
Plato,
induceth other persons speaking; which are also called
Exotericks
because they were written for the benefit of the vulgar sort. See
Vossius de Philos. Sect. cap.
17. §. 9.
§. 8. By what has been mentioned of Aristotle's
Dialogicks
as also by
Laertius
's Catalogue of his
Works,
we may judge how many of his books have perished.
For amongst all
Aristotle
's Works we fi
•
d none written in a
Dialogick
Style, though it be generally confessed,
he writ many
Dialogues
: so
Cicero
to
Lentulus
says, that
he had polished his 3 books of an
Orator
in a
Dialogick
Strain, after the
Aristotelick
mode. Such also were
Aristotle
's
Sophista,
&
Menexenus,
which treated of
Morals,
and are mentioned by
Laertius
; likewise his
Nerithus,
and
Gryllus
which treated of the
Oratorian
Art: also his
Eudemus
or Dialogue of the Soul. All Which Dialogick Discourses, referred by
Cicero,
and others to
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Exotericks
are not now to be found.
Yet we may not conclude with
Caelio Eurio
the Second, that there remain extant only three genuine pieces of
Aristotle, viz
his
History of Animals,
his
book of the World,
and
his Rhetoric
to
Alexander
: For there are many other pieces of
Aristotle,
which carry with them evident notices of his
spirit
; as his book
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, also his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, both the one and the other; his books
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and those of the Soul, &c. Yet 'tis very probable, that the book of the
Universe,
reckoned amongst
Aristotle
's Works, was not his, because it has too orthodox sentiments of
God,
his
Providence,
and
Gubernation,
which
Aristotle
seems not to approve of. Also that other piece of
Rhetoric
to
Alexander,
mentioned by
Caelio Curio,
is supposed not to be
Aristotle
's but
Anaxamines Lampsacenus
's who also was master to
Alexander
the
Great,
as
Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. cap.
17. §. 13.
§. 9.
Aristotle
dying left his Librarie of books to
Theophrastus
his successor:
Theophrastus
leaves them to
Neleus
who was also Disciple of
Aristotle,
as
Laertius
tells us.
Neleus
sells them to
Ptolomaeus Philadelphus,
who transferred them into his
Alexandrine
Librarie, as
Athenaeus lib.
1. Thus
Is. Casaubon. in Athen. lib.
1.
cap.
2.
Aristotle
's Librarie was first possessed by
Theophrastus
: whence it by
Testament
descended to
Neleus.
The story is known out of
Strabo, Plutarch, Diogenes.
You may learn out of
Strabo,
how true it is, that
Ptolemy
bought the books of this
Philosopher
from
Neleus,
or his
posterity,
&c.
Thus
Casaubon.
we have the words of
Strabo lib.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Aristotle
was the first, that we know of, who collected books, and taught the Kings of
Egypt
to erect a Librarie.
That
Aristotle
was a great affector of books, appears by an observation of
Gellius lib.
3.
cap.
17. who tells us,
that
Aristotle
paid 3
Attick
talents for some few books of
Speusippus
the
Philosopher,
&c. What is said of
Ptolemy
's buying
Aristotele
's books of
Neleus
some understand of
his
Library
only: For those books, which
Aristotle
writ himself, 'tis reported, that
Neleus
retained them for himself, and transmitted them to his posterity, who being not learned kept them under keys, without use. Hence
Strabo
calls them
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, books locked up. Yea, 'tis said, that they, fearing least the Kings of
Pergamos
(who erected a great Librarie, which was afterwards by
Cleopatra
's means transferred to
Alexandria
) should take them away, hid them long under ground, which brought no small damage to these Books; for hereby they grew mouldy, worm-eaten, moth eaten, &c. After this
Apellico Teius
buys them, who being as
Atheneas
characterizeth him
more bookish then learned, causeth these worm-eaten books of
Aristotle
to be transcribed and made public, but without judgment, or fidelity. After his death
Sylla
(about 200. years after
Aristotle
's death) possessing
Athens,
takes these Books, and sends them to
Rome
(as
Plutarch
in
Sylla
) where
Tyrannio Grammaticus,
a great Student in
Aristotle,
obtained from the Keeper of the Librarie, the use of them. And the Bookselle
•
s got these books transcribed, but by unmeet Librarians, and such as would not so much as compare their
Transcripts
with the
Original
Exemplar. Whence
Aristotle
's Books received farther detriment.
This
Tyrannio
delivered over these Books to
And
•
onicus Rhod
•
us,
who was the first that took care for the more exact transcribing of
Aristotle
's Books into many Exemplars▪ in order to the publication of them. Thence men began to dispute more about
Acroaticks,
whereas in the foregoing time, even from the decease of
Theophrastus
(by reason of the scarcity of
Aristotle
's choicest pieces) they were wont to dispute only about
Exotericks
probably,
&c.
As
Vossius de Philosoph. Sect. cap.
17. §. 11. Though indeed to speak the truth,
Aristotle
came not to be in so general repute till
Alexander Aphrod seus
began to enterpret him;
as hereafter.
§. 10.
Aristotle
's Successor was
Theophrastus Eresius,
who was first called
Tyrtamus,
but afterward, by reason of his (as they phrased it) Divine Eloquence, was by his Master
Aristotle
named
Theophrastus.
Thus
Strabo lib.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Theophrastus
was first called
Tyrtamus
;
for
Aristotle
first called him
Theophrastus,
both to avoid the asperity of his former name, as also to signify the excellence of his eloquence: for
Aristotle
made all his disciples eloquent, but
Theophrastus
most eloquent.
See the same in
Diogenes Laertius, Hesychius Illustris,
and
Soudas. Theophrastus
being a person greatly esteemed for his Learning, and Eloquence, had a huge confluence of Disciples, at least Auditors, to the number of 2000, as
Laertius,
and
Hesychius.
He does in some things differ from his Master
Aristotle
: as in
Meteors,
touching the
efficient
cause of the
Rains
; also concerning the
cause
of the
Oblique Winds,
the
matter
of
hot
and
dry
Exhalations, the
original
of the
saltness
of the
Sea,
&c.
Theophrastus
seems to write of some things more exactly than
Aristotle
; as of other things, which are not mentioned by
Aristotle.
He has excellent
Physic discourses
of
Plants,
of the
Winds,
of
Fire,
besides many choice
Moral
characters. The greatness of his worth, is sufficiently discovered in
Aristotle
's choice of him for his
•
uccessor.
For
Gellius lib.
13.
cap.
5. tells us,
That
Aristotle
about the time of his departure, being demanded whom he would have for his Successor, whether
Theophrastus Lesbius,
or
E
•
demus Rhodius?
commanded them to bring him two sorts of Wi
•
e, the
Rhodi
••
,
and
Lesbian
; and having tasted of both, he reply
•
the
Rhodian
wine was very good, but the
Lesbian
was sweeter: by which lepid, and pleasant answer, he discovered his pre
•••
on of
Lesbius Theophrastus,
before
Eudemus Rhodius.
The Auditors of
Theophrastus
were
Strato Lampsacenus,
and
Demetrius Phalereus. Strato
was succeeded by
Lycon Troadensis, Lycon
by
Aristo Ceius, Aristo
by
Critolaus Phasilites, Critolaus
by
Diodorus,
and he by
Neleus.
§. 11. Amongst the
Commentators
on
Aristotle,
Alexander Aphrodiseus
has the precellence given him by the Learned, and that both for his Antiquity, th
•
re being none of
Aristotle
's Enterpreters more ancient (save
Herminus,
whose Commentaries are all, except a few fragments, lost) as also for his intimate acquaintance with
Aristotle
's mind, and firm adherence thereto. For as for the other
Commentators,
they either take part with
Plato,
wherein he differs from
Aristotle,
as
Simplicius
; or else they endeavor to reconcile
Aristotle
with
Plato,
as
Ammonito,
&c. whereas
Alexander Aphrosideus
follows
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and defends h
•
m
stoutly against the
Stoics,
and other
Sects.
Whence it was, that
Plotinus
was wont for the understanding of
Aristotle,
to consult
Alexander,
as
Porphyry
in his Life: and the Greeks call him,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
great Enterpreter. Cyril
also against
Julian,
stiles him the Lover of
Aristotle,
and the most
diligent,
and most
acute
of all the
Philosophers.
Whence also the
Arabian Commentators, Averroes, Avicenna,
&c. make most use of him in their Illustrations, and Commentaries on
Aristotle:
Yea, to give him his just praise,
Aristotle
came not upon the
Stage
to be
Master
of the
Schools,
till this
Alexander,
by his learned
Commentaries,
advanced him into the
Chair,
as it is well observed by
Lud. Vives in August. Civit. lib.
8.
cap.
10.
From the times of
Plato
and
Aristotle,
even to
Alexander Aprodiseus,
who lived under the Emperors,
Severus,
and his
Son
(about 210 years after
Christ) Aristotle
was
named,
rather than
read,
or understood by the Learned. This
Alexander
was the first that attempted to enucleate, and enterpret
Aristotle,
who greatly promoted others in their Studies of, and Inquisitions into
Aristotle.
Yet all this while
Plato
continued more frequent in the hands, and more understood by the minds of men.
But here we must know, that many of those
Commentaries,
that pass under
Alexander
's name, are spurious. His genuine Comments are on
Aristotle
's
Meteors,
&c.
§. 12. There were also amongst the
Greeks
others, who Commented on
Aristotle:
as (not to mention
Porphyry
his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
on
Aristotle,
because he was a
Platonist
) 1.
Themistius
Sirnamed by reason of his Eloquence,
Euphrades:
who lived in the times of
Constance, Jovinian, Valens,
and
Valentinian
the Emperors, to whom he dedicated several
Orations
yet extant (
Augustine
calls him his Master) 2.
Olympiodorus
the
Alexandrian Philosopher,
who flourished about the year 480, and was, according to
Soudas,
Praeceptor to
Proclus Lycius,
and Auditor to
Syrianus,
&c. 3.
Proclus Lycius
Sirnamed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, who succeeded in the
Platonic
Schole, and was (as
Porphyry
before him) a bitter Writer against the
Christians.
4.
Johannes Grammaticus
Sirnamed
Philoponus,
who answered
Proclus,
and was a great
propugnator
of the
Christian
Religion, as well as an excellent
Commentator
on
Aristotle.
5.
Ammonius
▪
who was a Disciple of
Proclus Lycius,
and a clear
Commentator
on
Aristotle,
though he does oft
Platonize.
6.
Simplicius,
who flourished under
Justinian
the Emperor, and was very invective against
Johannes Grammaticus,
yet an excellent
Interpreter
of
Aristotle,
albeit he doth
Platonize.
We find a good, though concise character of these
Commentators
on
Aristotle
in
Pici Mirandulani Apologia
90.
Philosophy
among the
Grecians
remains very beautiful and chaste; She is in
Simplicius
very rich, and copious; in
Themistius
elegant, and compendious; in
Alexander,
constant and learned; in
Theophrastus
greatly elaborate; in
Ammonius
clear, and gracious.
§. 13. After the
Grecians
followed the
Arabian
Commentators on
Aristotle
;
amongst whom the principal place is given to
Aven-rois,
or
Averroes,
who flourished in
Spa
•
n, an.
650. and had undoubtedly proved a better Commentator on
Aristotle,
had he been better acquainted with the
Greek
Tongue. He was also a Famous
Physician,
as well as
Philosopher,
but no friend to the
Christians
; yet have the
Schoolmen
made his Comments on
Aristotle,
the foundation of all their Schole-Divinity.
Hornius Histor. Philosoph. lib.
5.
cap.
10. gives us this account of these
Arabian Commentators
on
Aristotle.
We will begin with
Avicenna,
who attained unto so much by his labor, that he alone may carry the bell among
Aristotle
's Commentators: neither does any seem to reach the mind of the
Philosopher,
as
Avicenna,
whom his diligent translator
Andr. Alpagus
calls
Ebeusina.
He was so addicted to
Aristotle,
that many relate he got all his
Metaphysics
by heart. He had for his Contemporarie
Averroes
the
Arabian,
who lived at
Corduba
in
Spain,
and had great contests with
Avicenna,
and albeit both professed themselves Sectators of
Aristotle,
yet they thought nothing true, which each other affirmed.
Averroes
writ of many parts of
Aristotle,
and that with so great an
acumen,
that he hath obtained the repute of the most learned
Interpreter,
and the title of
Commentator,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. From whom the latter
Schoolmen
have borrowed many things.
That the
Schoolmen
extracted the most of their
Philosophic notions
and
distinctions
(which they make the foundation of their
Scholastic Theology
) not immediately out of
Aristotle,
but out of the
Arabians, Averroes, Avicenna,
&c. his Commentators, is evident to any that acquaints himself with the original of
Schole Divinity,
which began in the
Parisian Schools
about the twelfth and thirteen Centuries, by
Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus,
&c. amongst
whom
Averroes
was greatly in repute.
Verulam
in his
Novum Organum
speaks truly;
that these Schole-men, besides their reduction of Theology into an order, and form of Art, have over & above caused Aristotle
's
Eristick, and spinous Philosophy to have been, more than it ought, incorporated into the body of Religion. And in all Aristotle
's
name is pretended, albeit they rather follow his corrupt Interpreters
and
Commentators.
For the Arabians, from whom the
Schole-men drew all their subtleties being wholly ignorant of the Greek, and well nigh of the Latin, were fain to make use of Versions very short of, and in many points quite differing from the original sense of Aristotle,
&c.
§. 14. Having given this
general Idea
of
Aristotle
his
Life,
and
successors,
we shall now treat somewhat more distinctly and particularly of his
Philosophy,
according to that reduction and account we find thereof in
Ammonius, Jo. Grammaticus,
and others.
Ammonius in Arisiot. Categor. pag.
6. treating of
Aristotle
say
•
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Thus
Ammonius
which we may English thus.
This
Aristotle
was in his
Morals
exact even to an hyberbole; In
Philosophy
he exceeded human Measures, leaving no part thereof untouched, but adding much thereto from his own sagacity, he reformed the whole of
Philosophy,
for he added unto
Logic
by differencing, or separating the Canons from the things, as also by framing
Demonstrative Method.
For those, who preceded him, knew how to demonstrate, but how to frame Demonstrations they knew not; as it is with those, who cannot make shoes, yet can use them when made. To
Physicks
he added the
fifth Essence.
As for
Theology,
albeit he added nothing thereto, yet left he nothing unattempted therein. For he knew not
terrestial
things only, as some conceit, but also
supernaturals,
as it appears by his fifth book of
Physic Acroaticks,
where he says
that the
first Cause
is not moveable either by itself, or by
Accident
: whence he demonstrates that the
Divine Being
is neither a
body,
nor
passable.
This last expression of
Ammonius,
touching
Aristotle
's owning God to be the first immobile cause of all things, is confirmed, and explicated more fully by
Johannes Grammaticus
in his
Proaem. in Aristot. de Anima fol
10. as hereafter.
§. 15.
Hence
Ammonius
makes this the supreme end of
Aristotle
's
Philosophy
to lead men to the knowledge of the
first cause,
God, &c. so
Ammon. in Arist. Categor. pag.
11. treating of
Aristotle
's
Philosophy
he demands
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; what is the supreme end of
Aristotle's Philosophy.
To which he replies
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
we say, that the end of his
philosophy
is to know the principle of all things, the productive cause of all things, which is always the same; for he demonstrates that the principle of all things is incorporeal, by which all things are produced. Thence
Ammonius
demands
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; what are the means that conduce us to this end? to which he answers
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. We say the means conducing to this end is the doctrine or knowledge of things existing in time and mutation: for by these things, together with the
Mathematics,
we lead ourselves into the knowledge of the first cause of all things.
§ 16.
Thence
Ammonius
passeth on to discourse of
Aristotle
's
mode of Philosophizing. pag.
12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
The form of
Aristotle
's writings is every way exact as to phrase. For the
Philosopher
ever avoids
Rhetorical
flourishes, and wholly endeavors to set forth the nature of things only.
Aristotle
being resolved to reduce
Philosophy
to
rules of Art,
and
reason,
utterly rejects that
Mythologic, Symbolic mode
of
Philosophizing,
which his Predecessors
Thales, Pher
•
cydes, Pythagoras,
and
Plato
had introduced; confining himself to a more succinct, and accurate method.
Whence also he rejects all those more obscure
Jewish
Traditions, which
Pythagoras,
and
Plato
so much delighted themselves in, with resolution to admit nothing but what he could make stoop to evident reason, or clear Testimony.
So in his
Ethics lib.
2.
cap.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
we ought in matters doubtful to use clear testimonies
: whereby he cuts off all those obscure, and broken Traditions, which his predecessors admired, and together with their traditions their
Symbolic
mode of
Philosophizing
also.
§. 17. The same
Ammonius
gives us (
pag.
12.) a good character of such, as are genuine
Auditors,
and
Expositors
of
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The genuine
Auditors
of
Aristotle
ought by how much the more obscure the things spoken are, by so much the more earnestly to contend, and search into the depth thereof. An Auditor ought to be just; of a
good natural
capacity for ratiocination; virtuous in his Discourses; Exact in his morals;
and in all things very well adorned. Thus
Ammonius,
who proceeds to give his character of a good
Expositor
of
Aristotle
:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. He, that will expound the things spoken by
Aristotle,
must not through too favorable inclination, undertake to commend things ill spoken, and receive them as from a
Tripos
or
Oracle
; neither must he receive things good in an ill manner, after the
Sceptic
mode; but as to the things spoken he must carry himself as a
Judge
without Passion; and first of all he must explicate the mind of the Ancient, and expound their proper sentiment: afterward he must bring his own judgment concerning the same.
§. 18. But to come to the Distribution of
Aristotle
's
Philosophy
; which
Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag.
11. gives us thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Philosophy
is divided into two parts,
Theoretick,
and
Practick.
As for
Theoretick,
that is such, wherein he inquires concerni
•
g
Truth,
and
Falsehood: Practicks
are such, wherein he considers concerning
Good,
and
Evil.
And because there is a great dispute amongst men touching
Good,
and
Evil,
as also touching
Truth,
and
falsehood
; it seemed good to him (
viz. Aristotle
) to give us a
Diacritick
or
Discretive Instrument
to measure these things by, which is
Demonstration.
Now
Demonstration
is nothing else but a
demonstrative Syllogism.
For as the
Carpenter
useth his
Rule
as an
Instrument,
whereby to discern what timber is
crooked,
and what
straight,
and as a
Builder
useth his
Square,
to discover what walls are
right,
what not: so
Philosophers,
make use of
Demonstration
as a
Rule,
whereby to discern things.
Ammonius
having thus distributed
Philosophy
into its general parts,
Theoretick
and
Practick,
and laid down the
Universal Instrument
of both, which is
Logical Demonstration,
he thence proceeds to distribute these
Generals
into their
Severals
thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
They distribute
Theoreticks
into
Physiologicks, Mathematics,
and
Theologicks.
As for his
Theologicks,
they are such, as he writ after his
Physic Exercitations,
which he undertook after his
Physicks,
because it is proper to
Theology
to teach things above
Nature
(whence his
Theologicks
are termed
Metaphysics
) and these
Natural Sciences
are accordingly called
Physicks. Mathematics
are of a middle nature being in some regard
separate
from
matter,
and in some regard
inseparate.
As for
Practicks,
they are distributed into
Ethics, Economics,
and
Politicks.
Thus of the Parts of
Philosophy.
§. 19. Having gone through the
general
Distribution of
Aristotle
's
Philosophy,
it may not be amiss to touch a little on the
Severals,
and such
observables
therein, as may deserve a more
particular remark.
We shall begin with
Aristotle
's
Logic,
which he makes to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Discretive or differencing Organ
to all the parts of
Philosophy
; so
Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag.
8.
The
Stoics,
says he, make
Logic
a part of
Philosophy,
whereas all those of the
Peripate
make it an
Organ,
&c.
Aristotle
in styling his
Logic
an
Organ,
means nothing else, but that it is a method, or a key to all
Sciences:
so
Ammonius
in Arist. Categ. pag.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Dialectick
as
Aristotle
defines it, is a
Syllogistick
way of Procedure about whatever
Problem
proposed, from probable
Topics.
What
Ammonius
here appropriates to
Dialectick,
which the
Peripatetics
make but a
Part
of
Logic,
is equally applicable to the whole thereof.
But we have a more full, though concise, account of
Aristotle
's
Logic
given us by
Ammonius in Arist. Categor. pag.
15.16.17. Which, because the
Book
is very rarely to be found, and the
Author
scarcely known to young
Students,
we may not deem it lost labor to give them his own words, which are as follow
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
As the
carpenter
useth his
Rule,
and the
Mason
his
Squares
to distinguish what is
right,
and what is not: so the
Philosopher
useth
Demonstration
for distinguishing of
Truth,
and
Falsehood, Good,
and
Evil.
Now
Demonstration
is a
Scientifick Syllogism.
But it is impossible to treat hereof, unless we first declare what a
Syllogism
is; neither can we understand, what a
Syllogism
is, unless we learn, what a
proposition
is: For
Propositions
are certain words; and of these words a
Syllogism
is but a collection. So that it is impossible to know, what a
Syllogism
is, without understanding
propositions:
for of these it is composed. So neither is the
Proposition
to be understood without understanding the names, and words of which every discourse consists. Neither are the Names, and words without
simple voices
: for each of these is a
Significative
voice.
It is therefore necessary in the first place to treat of
simple
voices; of which
Aristotle
discourseth in the
Categories.
Thence of names and words, and propositions, as in
Aristotle
's book of
Interpretation.
After this of
Syllogism
simply considered, as in his first
Analyticks
: then of
Demonstration,
as in his
latter Analyticks.
Now the order of this Disposition is manifest from the scope: for things
simple
ought to precede things
compound:
and the Doctrine of the
Categories
is of all most
simple,
because as 'tis said, it treats of
simple voices,
signifying
simple things,
by means of
simple notions
intervening.
Thus
Ammonius
of
Aristotle
's
Logic.
§. 20. We may reduce the whole to this
Scheme.
Logic
may be considered, eith
•
r in regard of its
object,
or
formal parts.
As for the
object
of
Logic,
'tis either
material,
or
formal:
The
material object
of
Logic,
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
every Intelligible,
which is either
simple,
or
complexe.
The
simple object
of
Logic,
are all those
Notions,
both
first,
and
second,
treated of by
Aristotle
in his
Praedicaments,
and by
Porphyry
in his
Praedicabiles.
The
Complexe
object of
Logic
is composed either of
simple
notions, and terms, as a
Proposition,
or of Propositions as a
Syllogism.
As for the
formal object
of
Logic,
or the
mode
under which it considers all
Intelligibles,
it is as they are
means
to direct the
understanding
in the disquisition of
Truth,
whence result the
formal
parts of
Logic,
which may be reduced to these four general Organs. 1.
Definition,
which takes away the
obscurity
of our
simple apprehension,
by directing the understanding to penetrate into the
essences
and
natures
of things. 2.
Division,
which removes that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
confusion,
which our
compound
understanding labors under, by reducing all things to their proper
Genus, species,
and
formal differences,
&c. 3.
Syllogism,
which clears the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
discurs
•
ve Intellect
from those errors, and hesitations, which remain thereon. 4.
Method,
which directs and facilitates the understanding in all the foregoing parts; and therefore 'tis made by some of the Ancients to comprehend all
Logic, &c.
So
Aristotle:
'tis not our work to discourse accuratelie on these parts of
Logic.
It may suffice to give some glances, and that not from
Aristotle
's
Organ
(where he discourseth professedly of these
Logic Instruments
) but from other of his Works, especially his
Rhetoric,
wherein we find some oblique reflections hereon. And to begin first with
Definition; Aristotle Rhetor.
lib.
2.
cap.
13. (
pag.
218.) tells us in general;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
what is not defined, is fallacious,
and in his
Ethics, lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
They must take care, that they
define
accurately, for this has a great influence on what follows.
2. The like
Ammonius (in Arist. Categor. pag.
13.) teacheth us, as to
Division.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
He that will exactly understand the nature of the
whole,
must exactly examine it's
parts
by
division,
&c.
As for
Syllogism, Aphrod
•
seus
tells us, that
Aristotle
was the first, that reduced
Syllogisms
to
mode,
and
figure,
&c. But that which we shall chiefly fix our eye upon, is
Aristotle
's
method
; whereof we have some general account in his
Rhetor. lib.
3.
cap.
13.
pag.
217.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
A discourse has two parts; first it is necessary to
declare
the
matter,
of which we discourse; and then we must
demonstrate
the same.
Thus
Explication,
and
Demon
•
tration
seem to take in the whole of
method,
according to
Aristotle.
2. As for the
kinds
of
method,
we have an account thereof given by
Aristotle
in his
Ethics lib.
1.
cap.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Discourses begun from Principles, differ from such as tend to Principles.
By
discourses begun from Principles,
he denotes
Synthetick method,
which begins with
Principles:
by
discourses tending to principles
he intends
Analytick method,
which proceeds from the end to
Principles.
This he seems to explain more fully in his
Ethic. lib
3.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
What is last in the
Analysis,
is first in the
Genesis;
i. e.
the
Principle,
which is first in the
Synthetick method,
is last in the
Analytick.
Thus for the
kinds
of
method.
3. As for the
Principles
of a discourse,
Aristotle
tells us,
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
: We must begin with Principles
most known,
which are
twofold,
either in regard of
us,
or
simply.
By things
more known,
in regard of
us,
he means such as we know by the
effect,
more
obscurely:
by things more known
simply,
he understands such as are known from their
causes,
which give a more distinct knowledge. 4. As to our
methodical
procedure in the handling of any Theme
Aristotle
(in his
Eth. lib.
1.) gives us this good
Canon,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We ought in the first place to give an
Hypothesis,
or obscure adumbration of
the thing, and then a more
lively delineation.
His meaning is, that when we treat of a point of great moment, we may not presently fall upon the thing itself, but by little and little prepare the minds of the
Auditors,
thereby to render them more capable to attend unto, and receive the
head of the matter.
Hence in points of great moment, he allows of a
Proem,
so
Arist. Rhetor. lib.
3.
cap.
14.
pag.
220.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The most necessary and proper work of a
Proem
is this, to discover the end of a discouse: wherefore, if the matter be evident, or small, there is no need of a
Proem.
5. But one of the best rules, that I have observed in
Aristotle,
in order to a Methodical procedure in the handling of any point, is that in
Ethic. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We must remember that in all things we may not seek after the same exactness; but in everything we must content ourselves with such a
method,
as the
subject matter
will bear. Neither may we in like manner search after the
cause
in all things, but in some things it may suffice, that we well demonstrate
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that the thing is so; as in first principles; for the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
is first, and a
Principle,
and of
Principles,
some are discovered by
Induction,
some by
sense,
some by some other
usage
and
way,
&c.
This golden Rule strikes at the bold assumings of those, who expect the like
certainty,
and fullness of
demonstration
in all
subjects,
though never so
sublime.
It gives also a sharp rebuke to
Schoolmen,
who generally bring all
matters
to their
form
; whereas
Aristotle
here (as
nature
) teacheth us to suit our
form,
or
method
to our
matter.
6. But then
Aristotle
proceeds to another Canon,
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
And we must take diligent care▪ that we
define
exactly: For accurate
definitions
give an huge advantage to what follows. This beginning therefore being well laid, it seems more than half of the whole work, and there is by it a great discovery made of the things we inquire into.
21. If any expect a more full Scheme of
Aristotle
's
Logic,
the best, at least most useful, I meet with, is that of
Ramus,
who, albeit he does in many things oppose
Aristotle,
yet he seems to have done it not without grounds, but with design to render
Aristotle
's
Logic
more useful. This will appear by the following
Scheme
of
Ramus
's
Logic.
As
Grammar
(saith
Ramus
) has two parts,
Etymology,
which treats of
single words,
and
Syntaxis,
which is of words conjoined: so
Logic
consists of two parts,
Invention,
and
Judgment.
1.
Invention
is a part of
Logic
which instructs us in the mode of finding out
Arguments.
An
Argument
is that, which is
affected,
or
assumed
to argue somewhat by, which is
Artificial,
or
Inartificial.
An
Artificial Argument
is that, which argues from itself; which is either
first,
or
secondary
; an
Inartificial argument
is that,
which argueth from
Autoritie.
2.
Judgment
is the second part of
Logic,
which consists in the right
disposement
of
Arguments,
in order to a right
judgment
of things: for everything is judged by a certain
Rule
of
d
•
sposition,
whence
judgment,
and
disposition
pass for the same. And as
Invention
treats of
single
Arguments, so
Judgment
of
conjoynd.
Now
judgment
is either
Axiomatick,
or
Dianoetick.
1.
Axiomatick Judgment
is the
disposition
of an Argument with an Argument, whereby we judge, that something is, or is not; which by the
Latins
is called an
Enuntiate, Pronuntiate, Effate.
2 Hence followeth
Dianoetick judgment.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
discourse
consists in the deducing one
Ax
•
ome
from another, which is either
Syllogism,
or
Method. Syllogism
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
discourse,
wherein the
Question
is so disposed with the
Argument,
as that the
Ante
•
edent
being rightly placed, the
conclusion
necessarily follows. For when the
Axiom
is dubious, the
Question
is put, and to confirm the same, we make use of an
Argument,
which is collated with the
Question.
The
Antecedent
of a
Syllogism
has two parts; a
Proposition,
and
Assumption.
The
Proposition
is the first part of the
Antecedent,
wherein (at least) the
consequent
of the
Question
is disposed with the
Argument.
The
Assumption
is the second part of the
Antecedent,
which is assumed out of the
proposition.
The
consequent
of a
Syllogism,
is that part which comprehends the
Question
▪ and concludes the same; whence 'tis called the
Conclusion.
If any part of the
Syllogism
be wanting, 'tis called
an
Enthymeme.
A
Syllogism
is either
simple,
or
Compound,
&c.
Method
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Discourse
composed of various homogeneous
Axioms
proposed according to the evidence of their Nature whence the convenience of all amongst themselves is judged,
and comprehended in memory. And look, as in an
Axiom Truth
and
Falsehood
is regarded, and in a
Syllogism
the
Consequence
and
inconsequence
: so in
Method
it is considered, that what is more clear does precede, and what is more obscure follows; so that
Order,
and
Confusion
is wholly the
object
of this
judgment:
as
Aristotle.
By how much the more general any Rule is, by so much the more it ought to precede. The most
general
Rule must be first,
because it is first in regard of
Light,
and knowledge. Whence the most general
Definition
must be first, and then the
Distribution
must follow; which if it be various; the partition into
Integral
parts must precede, and then the
Division
into the
species
must follow. The Perfect
Definition
consists of
Essential
causes, namely of the
Genus,
and
Form.
Thus
Ramus
of
Logic.
§. 22. Having finished
Aristotle
's
Logic,
we now Proceed to his
Ethics
; the first part of
Practick Philosophy
; wherein making use of an
Analytick Method
he begins with man's
chief end,
or happiness:
so
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
Every soul desires some chief good, or last end,
&c.
Aristotle
makes two chief parts of
Human happiness, Objective,
and
Formal.
He begins with
man
's
Objective happiness,
and proves first, that there is
one chiefest Good,
and then gives some
Characters
of this chiefest Good, which may be all reduced to these several
particulars.
1
Aristotle
makes the
chiefest good
to be that, which is most
Ancient,
or the
first principal
of all things.
So in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7. treating of the degrees of goodness he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That which is the
principle
of all things is better than that, which is
not
the principle.
2.
He placeth the
chiefest Good
in the
last End
of all things. Thus
Arist. Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
And the
End
is always better than that, which is not the End: for this is always for
another
's sake, whereas that is for its
own
sake. So agen he tells u
•
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That which is nearest the end is best.
3. Hence it follows, that the
Chiefest Good
is that,
which is desired for it
self.
So
Aristotle
in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7. defines the
chiefest good,
thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The
chiefest good
is that which is desired for it
self,
and for whose sake we desire all other things.
Then he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
what is most desirable for itself, is be
•
t.
This he style
•
in what follows the
Last End.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the End is that, for whose sake we desire other things.
4. Hence it follows, that the
chiefest good
is simply,
absolutely, and necessarily good.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Arist. lib.
5.
cap.
2. Thence
Aristotle
in his
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
7. says, that tis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
simply, and of itself desirable.
5. Whence he makes the
Chiefest Good
to be the
measure,
and
Standard
of
all good.
Thus
Arist. Ethic. lib
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Of other
Goods
some exist necessarily, but others are only naturally subservient to Happiness.
This necessarily follows upon the former. For what is the
Last End,
and desirable
for itself,
must necessarily be the
measure
of all other
goods,
which are desirable only
Servato ordine sinis.
6. Whence he makes the
Chief
•
t Good,
to be our most
proper
and
connatural
Good.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the chiefest good is proper.
And in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
Aristotle
making a comparison 'twixt
lesser
and
greater
goods, says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that which is connatural, and proper is more Eligible, then that, which is adventitious.
7. The
chiefest Good
must be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
communicative,
and
diffusive
to all. Thence
Aristotle
adds
Rhetor. lib.
1
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Those things are best, which are most useful in our greatest need; as in old age,
and
Sickness. Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
1
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that is the chiefest good which all desire.
The Chiefest good though it be
proper to everyone,
yet is
common,
and
diffusive
to
all: community
with
propriety
is peculiar to the
chiefest Good,
that is best which all
need,
and all
may
have
Universal diffusiveness
with
Proprietie
speaks the object
Universally
good, as God is. 8. That is the
best Good,
which is most
Rare,
and
Choice
: So
Aristot. Rhet. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that which is more rare is better than that, which is more common, for its possession is better because of the difficulty in attaining it.
9. The
chiefest Good,
albeit it be
rare,
yet it must be
possible:
So
Arist. Rhetor. lib.
1,
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that, which is possible, is better than that, which is impossible.
10. In
Degrees of Goodness
that is
best,
which is the most
Real,
Substantial Good.
So
Arist. Rhetor.
lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Those things, which are really good, are better than things which are so in opinion only.
Again he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 11.
That is the choicest good, which is most
immobile, stable,
and
durable.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the chiefest good is immobile.
Again in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Things, that are more durable, are better than things less durable; and things more firm, than things less firm, &c.
In the series of good things, that is best, which is most
Influential,
and
Effective
of Good.
So
Arist. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
that, which effects the greatest good, is best
; and then
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 13.
Aristotle
says that is our
chiefest good,
which admits of no
excess
in the enjoyment thereof.
So
Rhet. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪
that, which admits of no excess, must needs be our chiefest good.
Then he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which may have somewhat more than it ought, that is evil.
His meaning is, we can never exceed in the enjoyment of the
chiefest good,
though we may in others. 14.
Aristotle
's main
Character
of the
chiefest Good,
is, that it be
perfect,
and
self-sufficient.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which is best, is perfect, and simply desirable; that is perfect, which is desirable for itself.
So again,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that, which is perfect, seems self-sufficient.
Farther he says, this
chiefest good,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
i
•
in nothing defective,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
for whatsoever is added, is but superfluous.
Again he says, this only enjoyed, makes the man happy. So in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That is best, which least needs one or other things; for this is most self-sufficient.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
we call that self-sufficient which alone renders the life eligible, and defective in nothing.
This
Plato
calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a sufficient Good,
(which he makes
God
to be) calling his
chiefest good
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
a good connatural, uniform, infinite, eternal, ever-being, and everliving, opportune, pure, immixed, and without sorrow.
Yea, he says, this his
chiefest Good,
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the very Divine, and Godhead
Good,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the supreme beautiae,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the only shining beauty,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
very-self-good,
&c.
§. 23. As for
Ari
•
totle
's notions of
formal happiness,
he tells us first, that it is
the gift of God.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
If the God's vouchsafe any other gift to men, it is c
•
ns
••
taneous to reason, that happiness should be a gift of God, and especially because it is the highest of human perfections:
And he gives a farther reason hereof in what follows,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
To ascribe the greatest, and most beautiful gift to fortune, is no way rational.
Having given this general account of the original of
human happiness
we now proceed to
Aristotle
's specific
Idea
of man's
Formal happiness,
which is thus defined by him,
Ethic. l.
1.
c.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Beatitude is the operation of the rational Soul, according to the best virtue in a perfect life.
In which definition there are four considerables. 1. The
formal nature
of human happiness, which consists in
Operation.
2. The
proper subject
of this
operation,
which is the
rational Soul.
3. The
qualification
of this
subject,
which is
perfect Virtue.
4. The
state
wherein this happiness is to be enjoyed,
that is a
perfect life.
1. The
formal reason
of man's
formal happiness,
is by
Aristotle
placed in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
energy,
or
operation.
This
Aristotle
proveth at large in his following Chapter,
Ethic. lib.
1.
cap.
8.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The goods of the Soul w
•
style the highest, and most sovereign, which are the Souls operations, and energies.
This he explains more fully in what followeth in the same Chapter.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
To live well, and to act well, makes an happy man: for a good life is commonly styled Eupraxie, or good action.
Thence he proceeds to demonstrate that
Beatitude,
consists not in an
habit,
but
action
▪
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
There is a vast difference 'twixt having that which is best in
possession, or use, in habit, or operation; for a good, so long as it exists in habit only, is never perfected, as it appears in him that sleepeth, but 'tis the exercise, that perfects,
&c.
Then he adds,
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
10. That these
Actions
proceeding from
Virtue,
are proper to happiness, as hereafter. This is well explicated by
Stobaeus de virtute Serm.
1.
fol.
12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Beatitude consists not in the possession of Virtue, but in the exercise thereof; for he that has sight does not always see.
So the
Schools
tell us, that every
Form
is perfected by its
Act
; and every
Facultie
and
Habit
is ordained to its
Act,
as to its
perfection.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
All things are perfected by operation
: the more
active
things are the more
perfect.
Whence again
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
8. tells us, that
virtuous actions are of themselves sweet, and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
self-sufficient
; as in its place. 2. As for the
proper subject
of this operation,
Aristotle
tells us, 'tis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the rational soul.
Thence in his
Eth. l.
1.
c.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
It seems we may not style an Ox, or Horse, or any other Animal happy
; the reason is, because they are merely
passive,
not
active
in their reduction to their
la
•
t end.
The two main
acts
of the
soul,
which
formalize
human happiness, are
Vision,
and
Fruition.
The
Schools
place
formal
happiness chiefly in the
Vision
of the mind &c. 3. The
qualification
of the Soul, and its operation, in order to human happiness,
is expressed under that notion
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
according to the best Virtue.
This is excellently explicated by
Aristotle, Eth. l.
1.
c.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪
Operations according to Virtue, are proper to beatitude; but the contrary (Vitious) actions to the contrary, (Miserie)
and then he adds the Reason,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. The reason he gives,
is because these
Virtuous
actions are more
stable,
and
sweet
so that a good man is truly
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
immovable,
&c. This is farther evident by what follows. 4. As for the state of human happiness, it is said to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in
a perfect life.
This connotes perfection both
extensive, intensive,
and
protensive.
1.
formal happiness
in a perfect state denotes
perfection extensive, i. e.
of
parts,
or
kinds
; a perfect
exemption
from all
evil,
with a perfect
enjoyment
of all
good.
Thence
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Neither can a child be happy, because he cannot by reason of his age practice such things.
This is more fully explicated
in definite. Platon. fol.
412.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Beatitude is a good composed of all goods.
Again 'tis defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a faculty self-sufficient to live well.
2. This perfect life denotes a perfection
Intensive,
or of
degrees,
i. e.
every part of this happy life, is in its
highest degree
of perfection, without the least mixture of any
degree
of
misery.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap
12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Beatitude is of things precious, and perfect: for we all undertake everything in order hereto; and that, which is the principle, and cause of all good, we account precious and Divine.
Thence in the
Platonic Definit. fol.
412.
Beatitude
is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a perfection according to virtue, a self-sufficient provision of life, &c.
3. This
perfect life
imports also a perfection
protensive,
or of
duration.
So
Arist. Eth, lib.
1.
cap.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
An happy man is not variable, or easily changeable. For he cannot easily be removed from his Beatitude.
So again,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. A
blessed man is not so for a short time only, but for a long and perfect time.
Farther he says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
a blessed man can never become miserable.
Thus much for
Aristotle
's definition of human happiness, which he himself,
Ethic. lib.
1.
cap.
7. thus explains:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Human happiness is the operation of the Soul, according to the best, and most perfect virtue: also in a perfect life; for one swallow makes not a summer.
These his contemplations about
human happiness,
agree to no state of life, but that of the
glorified
Saints, which yet
Aristotle
seems to have had no belief of, at least he seems
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to
haesitate
touching this future state of the Soul, as 'tis evident from what he lays down,
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
10. where teaching that men should endeavor to live thus happily here, and die, according to reason; he gives this as a reason
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
because what is future is to us very obscure, but Beatitude is always the end, and always perfect. Aristotle
dreamed of enjoying this happiness
here,
but
Plato
seems to refer it to the souls
future
state.
§. 24. Having done with
Aristotle
's first
Ethick-head,
touching
human happiness,
we now proceed to his Philosophizings about the
internal principles
of
human Acts,
which may be reduced to these four particulars: 1.
Universal prudence,
or
practic knowledge
in general.
2.
Volition.
3.
Consultation.
4.
Election:
Of each of which in the
•
r order, and place. The first great
principle
of
human Acts
laid down by
Aristotle,
is
universal prudence,
or
practic knowledge
in general. So
Arist. Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is very profitable for such, as would manage their affections, and actions, according to reason, to know what belongs to these things
: and
Aristotle
farther informs us, that this knowledge of things
practic,
must be not only
speculative,
and
apprehensive,
but also
practic,
and
causative,
whence saith he,
Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Many there are, who do not these things, yet flying to their reason, they would needs seem to philosophize, and so to approve themselves virtuous. These act just like some sick people, who diligently hearken to their Physicians, but follow nothing of what they prescribe. As therefore those, who thus use the Physicians, never cure their bodies: so these who thus Philosophize, never cure their Souls.
Hence that of
Ammonius (in Arist. Categ. pag.
15.)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the end of contemplation, is the beginning of practice
; and
Plutarch. lib.
1.
de Placit. Philos.
tells us, that a blessed man ought
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
To have not only a
Theoretick
knowledge of beings, but also a
Practick
of what is needful.
For
speculative
reason is only
apprehensive
of things, but
practic
is
causative
; according to that
Philosophic
distinction,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Practick
Philosophy is
effective
of
Virtue,
but
Theoretick
of
Truth
only. This
practic knowledge
is so termed, not because it immediately
acts,
but because
it is
directive
to action.
Aristotle
makes this
practic
dictate of the understanding to be a kind of
practic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
discourse,
which he supposeth to precede either
actually,
or
virtually
every
Act
of the
w
•
ll:
as for example, he that will be happy must act virtuously: I would be happy,
ergo.
Therefore says
Aristotle
Incontinent persons have knowledge only in the
habit,
not
actually
discursive: for albeit they assent to the
major,
which is universal; yet there is some defect in their assent to the
minor,
& thence they assent not
practically
to the
conclusion,
&c. This
practic discourse,
or knowledge, which necessarily precedes the wills motion, is in the general styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Prudence,
which in the
Platonic Definitions,
is thus defined,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Prudence is a Science effective of Beatitude.
So
Plato Meno. fol.
88.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Prudence conducting effects the duties of the soul, but folly the ills.
We have a good account of this Moral Prudence, and its influence given by
Alexand. Aphrodiseus
(the chiefest of
Ari
•
totle
's Commentators) as
Stobaeus de Virtut. Ser.
1.
fol.
17.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Seeing moral virtue is effective of such things, as are determined by prudence, and right reason, it's necessar
•
e, that he who has prudence, has also moral Virtue: for it is the office of Prudence to inquire by what means it is possible to attain a right Intention, which to determine, is the office of moral Virtue: for it is the virtue of the elective faculty. And this is the difference 'twixt moral prudence, and craft. Prudence searcheth out, what things are most conducing to a right Intention, whereas craft relates to any, though false, &c. Aphrodiseus
gives us here (besides other
characters
) a full
Idea
of the proper office of
moral Prudence,
which is to direct the
Intent
•
on
of the
Will
as to its end, which follows.
§. 25. The next principle of human action is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Uolition,
or
Will,
strictly so termed, which properly refers to the
end,
and so 'tis differenced from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Election,
which respects the
means.
So
Arist. Eth. lib
3.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
:
Uolition rather respects the end, whereas Election respects the means conducing to the end.
So
Plato in Gorg.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that is willed for the sake of which men act
; whereby he intends the end. We have a more large explication of the difference 'twixt
Uolition,
and
Election,
given by
Joh. Grammaticus in Arist. de Anima Proaem. fol.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Gno
•
tick, or knowing faculties of Rationals being distributed, the practic are Uolition,
and
Election. And Uolition is only of what is good
(i. e.
the end) but Election inclines both ways
(i. e.
to good, or ev
•
l as means) Again, Uolition belongs to the Rational Soul as such; whereas Election has some commixture with the irrational.
By all which it's evident, that
Uolition
is an Act of the
Will,
whereby it is extended, or carried forth to its
object,
beloved for it
self,
without respect to a
farther
end: so that the end, which is amiable for, and of it
self,
is the alone proper object of
Uolition.
Yea,
Aristotle
makes this extension of the
Will
towards its
last end
to be
connatural,
or as he terms it,
Physical
; whereas its extension towards the
means
by
Election,
is with
indifference.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
c.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Where
Lambinus
on this notion [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] thus Comments.
We must know that in practicks, the end has the place of the principle; because on it depends the necessary formation of all such things, as belong to the action.
Therefore as in
Mathematics
there are certain indemonstrable principles laid as the basis of all Demonstration: so in practicks, the end is fixed as a principle supposed not to be deliberated about; for a principle as well in practicks, as speculatives, admits not of Demonstration, but of supposition only.
So again,
Arist. Eth▪ lib.
3.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The desire of the end is not elective, but natural, &c
i. e. the
Appetite
of everything does
naturally
tend to some
end connatural
thereto, which is the measure of all things conducing thereto So
Arist. Eth lib.
3
cap.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Every thing is measured by its end.
But
Aristotle Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
2. speaks more fully thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The end is of things practic, which we will for itself, but other things for it. Neither
do we choose all things for some other (without some term) for so there would be an infinite progress. It is manifest therefore, that this end is the Good, yea the best Good. Wherefore the knowledge hereof has great influence on the life: and as Archers, who have the mark in their eye; we do hereby obtain, what is most needful.
So again,
Aristotle Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a virtuous man is naturally carried towards his end, but towards other things voluntarily, or indifferently:
then he adds,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
such as every man is, such is his end.
Whence that Maxim in the
Schools,
as the
form
is in
Naturals,
such is the
end
in
Morals,
By all which 'tis apparent, what the
proper object
of this
Volition
is, namely the
end,
to which it
naturally
extends itself, as the measure of all its acts, and lower ends. Hence also 2. we gather, that this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
volition
of the
will,
is not distinct from that Act of the Will, which the
Schools
call
Intention.
For they make
Intention
to be an efficacious willing of the
end,
together with the
means
conducing thereto: which is
formally,
or at least
virtually
denoted in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Volition,
according to that common rule in
Logic. He, that effectually wills the end, wills also the means.
'It is true, there is an imperfect
velleitie,
or
faint Volition,
which respects the
end,
without
means
; but a
complete Uolition
comprehends both. I know the
Schools
make
Uolition,
and
Intention,
different
Acts
; and the former to relate to the end
simply
considered, but the latter to the end in
connection
with the
means.
But I find no ground for this distinction in
Aristotle,
or
Nature.
3. Hence also we may farther collect, that the
end
is first in
Intention,
though last in
Execution
; and therefore ought to be greatly heeded, and made the measure, or square of all. So
Ammonius in Arist. Categ. pag.
12.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
He that is ignorant of his
mark,
or
end,
is like a blind man, that shoots at random; and he does in vain consider all things tending to his end. But the consideration of an useful end gives much diligence, and alacrity▪ For everyone, that will undertake any design ought first to learn its usefulness,
&c.
§. 26. We now proceed to the
third
principle of
human acts,
called by
Aristotle
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
consultation,
which respects the
means,
and so is distinguished from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Prudence,
or the
practic Judgment
in general, which respects both
end,
and
means
; and
primarilie
the end, and the means only in the
second
place. This
Consultation
is styled sometimes by
Aristotle,
but often by
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Counsel,
which
Plato
in
Cratyl
•
deduceth from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a ca
•
ting,
so
Lambinus in Arist. Eth. l.
3.
c.
5
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Metaphor
taken from
Archers,
who are said to cast, or shoot their Arrow towards the scope, they aim at. This Consultation is styled in the
Platon.
••
finite. fol.
413.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
good advice,
which is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a connate virtue of reasoning.
Again 'tis termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Consultation,
which is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
an exhortation to another, before he acts, how he ought to act.
But there is no definition, that suits better with the nature of Consultation, than that
Definit. Platon. fol.
414.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Consultation is a consideration of things future, so far as expedient,
i. e. for our end. For a wise man first proposeth, and wills his
end,
and then makes use of
Consultation,
as an instrument to find out
means
expedient for this end. We are to take diligent heed, that things pass not suddenly from
Imagination
into
Resolution, Affection,
and
Action,
without asking advice of the judgment, and serious consultation. A wise man, when he hath made a
judgment
about his
end,
weigheth exactly all,
that followeth from such a
Judgment,
as also all the
Antecedents,
that lead to the obtaining of it. What men
unadvisedly undertake,
they
advisedly recall. Consultation
ought to be the door to all
great resolutions,
and
undertakings.
This
Consultation
is thus defined by
Arist. Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is a virtue of the discursive faculty, whereby men are enabled to consult of good, and evil, in reference to happiness.
But the proper
Seat
of this discourse about
Consultation,
is
Aristotle
's
Ethic. lib.
3.
cap.
5. where he discourseth at large of the
Object, Acts,
and
Effects
of
Consultation.
As to its
Object,
he lays down these Rules to judge it by. 1.
Consultat
••
n
is not of things
speculative,
but of
practic.
So
Art.
21.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Consultation is not about the first Elements of Sciences,
&c. The same he adds
Art.
27.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Especially 'tis not about Arts, or Sciences.
Yea, he says expressly
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Consultation is about practicks.
2.
Consultation
is not of things
impossible,
but of things in
our power.
So
Art.
48.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
if the thing be possible, men undertake it
; and more expressly
Art.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
we consult of Practicks in our power.
This he explains more fully in his
Rhetoric, pag.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We consult about things, which appear to happen either way, not of impossibility,
&c.
•
.
Consultation
is not about the
end,
but the
means,
so
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We consult not of ends, but of things conducing to their ends: for Physicians consult not whether they shall cure, but taking their end for granted, they consult how, and by what means to cure.
So
Art.
57.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
Consultation is about things to be done by us: Now our actions have respect to some end, wherefore the end comes not under consultation, but the means.
4.
Consultation
is not about an
infinite,
but
finite
number of
means.
So
Art.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
No man consults of things infinite, because unmeasurable.
5.
Consultation
is of things
permanent,
not of things in continual
motion,
so
Art.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We consult not of things in perpetual motion. The reason is, because such fluid things cannot be brought under any regular order, or subserviencie to our end, &c.
6.
Consultation
is of things
contingent,
not of
necessaries.
So
Art.
29.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Consultation is of things doubtful, contingent, and indefinite:
For such the
means
usually are; whereas the
end
is
definite, necessary,
and more
evident,
&c. 7. Yet
Consultation
is not of things
fortuitous,
or
casual,
but of things in
our power,
which come under the conduct of human
Prudence.
So
Art.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We consult not about the things of fortune, as touching the invention of a treasure,
&c. 9. Amongst the
means,
the main work of
Consultation
is to find out such as are most
conducible
to the
end.
So
Art.
39.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
If the means be many, the best are to be chosen out.
This supposeth an universal comprehension of, and inspection into all the
means
; according to that of
Stobaeus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, consider the whole:
for
qui ad pauea respicit facile pronunciat,
he that considers, but a few things rashly determines. 9.
Consultation
supposeth a
methodical procedure
from one to another 'till we come to the first cause: So
Art.
40.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
The first cause is first in intention, but last in execution.
10 If the things we
consult
about, be
arduous,
and
difficult, Aristotle
requires consultation with
others:
So
Art.
30.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In great matters we must take unto us Counsellers, distrusting ourselves as not sufficient to penetrate, or d
•
ve into the things.
Thus much for the
object.
2. As for the
subject of Consultation Aristotle (Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
2.
) tells us, that none are fit to
consult,
but he
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
who has his wits about him
; whence he excludes
fools,
and
mad men
from this work. And upon the same account in his
Rhetor. lib.
2.
cap.
14. he excludes
young
men from any competent ability for
consultation,
because first they have
great passions.
2. and are very
inconstant.
3. and have
strong
wills. 4. also too
credulous,
and not
cautelous,
for want of
experience
of evils. But (adds he)
old
men, having
virtues
contrary to those
vices
of
young
men,
viz. suspension
of
judgment, caution, experience,
and command of passions, &c. are most fit for
consultation.
3. As to the
Act
of
Consultation,
Aristotle (Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
42.) thus differenceth it from
disquisition:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Every Disquisition is not Consultation, as it appears by the Mathematick Disquisitions; but every Consultation is a Disquisition: wh
•
re he makes
Disquisition
more
generick,
and
Consultation
to be a
practic Disquisition,
or Inquisition into
means
conducing to our
end.
4. The main
effect
of Consultation, is
Election,
as it follows.
§. 27.
Consultation
being finished▪
Election,
which is the proper
effect
thereof, begins. So
Arist. Eth lib
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
68.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The thing consulted a
•
out, and elected, is the same: for that which is prejudged by consultation, is elected. For everyone ceaseth to inquire, how he shall act when reduced to his first principle,
&c.
As for the difference 'twixt
Election,
and
Volition,
we have it in
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪ &c.
The thing willed is the end, but things consulted about, and elected, are the means referring to the end, &c. So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
4.
Art.
27.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Volition is of the end, but Election of the means referring to the end.
By which we see, that the proper
object
of
Election
is the means,
not the
end.
2.
Aristotle
tells us, that
Election
is not of
Impossibles,
but of things in
our power.
So
Eth. lib
3.
cap.
4.
Art.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Election is not of things impossible: whereby he distinguisheth it from imperfect
Volition,
or
Velleitie,
which may be of things
impossible.
So again
Art.
31.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It seems most likely, that Election is of things in our power.
3.
As for the
subject,
or seat of
Election,
it belongs to the
rational Appetite:
thence says
Aristotle, Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
4.
Art.
9.
Election
is not
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
of irrational appetites
; whence 'tis differenced from
Concupiscence,
which belongs to the
Irrational
appetite. So
Art.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Concupiscence is contrary to Election,
because 'tis common to
Irrationals,
as well as to
Rationals,
whereas
Election
is proper to
Rationals.
So that the proper
seat
of
Election
is the
Will
; whence
Aristotle
makes it inclusive of
Voluntarie
▪ though it be not sully extensive thereto:
Ethic. lib.
3.
cap.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Election
seems to be Voluntarie, though with some difference
4. Hence follows the
Act
of
Election,
which according to
Aristotle, Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5. is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a consulted, or judicious appetition.
Thence
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
4.
Art.
32.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Election is not a mere opinion, or imagination; and more fully
Art.
53.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Election proceeds from reason, and discourse.
Neither is it sufficient, that this
act
of
Election
be
rational,
but it must also be
determined,
and
fixed
;
whereby the
object
of
Election
seems somewhat differenced from that of
Consultation,
which leaves the
determination
of the
object to Election:
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
63.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The thing consulted, and elected, is the same, but the thing elected is more determinate, or fixed: for what is judged by consultation
is elected, and so fixed.
Lambinus
here on this notion,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, comments thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
signifies to
determine,
and
define:
when we consult, we have as yet nothing certain, or determined: but the end of
Consultation,
is a
definite, certain Election.
As therefore in
Theoreticks, Aphorisms
are said to be certain determinate conclusions, or sentences, whose truth is both by reason, and long experience evident (as
Hippocrates
's
Aphorisms
) so in
Practicks▪ Aphorisms
may be styled
Counsels
drawn forth after long consultat
•
on.
Thus
Lambinus,
who yet hath not fully hit the mind of
Aristotle,
who by
Aphorism
understands the
object,
or
means
determined by
Election.
Whence
Aristotle
tells us, that 'tis not a mere
fluid
volition, or
Uel
••
itie,
th
•
t will make a
vit
•
ous
man
virtuous,
but there must be a
dete
•
mined
Will, or
Election
of all
means,
&c.
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
43.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
If an unrighteous person have some imperfect velleitie of righteousn
•
sse, he does not presently cease to be wicked, and become righteous: as a sick man is not presently healed, so soon as he is wills it,
&c.
5. Hence we may collect w
•
th
Aristotle,
that it is very difficult to make a right Election. So
Arist. Eth. lib.
2.
cap▪
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is very difficult to judge, what is to be chosen before another thing, and what is to be preferred before another: and yet 'tis more difficult to cleave to what we know is best.
6.
Albeit it be very difficult to make a right
Election,
yet when 'tis made, it has a Sovereigne influence on
Virtue:
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It follows, that we pass on to Election, which seems to be most proper to Virtue, and that whereby moral actions are mostly measured,
&c.
7. Hence we come to the
definition
of
Election,
which is thus laid down by
Ari
•
totle, Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
5.
Art.
68.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Election is a consulted, or judicious appetition or things in our power.
And he
•
dde
•
this as the reason,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
for from consulting, judging, we choose according to that Consultation made.
This
Election
is term
•
d by the
Platonic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Heresy,
which
Platon. Definit. fol.
413.
is defined
thus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Election is a right Probation.
Under
Election
is comprised
Consent,
(albeit the
Schools
distinguish them) whence follows
Use,
and
Fruition. Consent,
and
use
of the means, are called by the
Platonics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
alacrity,
which
Platon definite. fol.
413. is defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
A discovery of a practic Election,
&c.
2
Cor.
8.11.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, v. 17.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, v. 19.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 28. Having go
•
e through the principles of
human Acts,
we now proceed to their main
essential Attribute,
or
adjunct,
which is
Voluntarinesse,
or
Liberty
; we make
Voluntarinesse,
and
Liberty
the same; because we find no rational ground either in
Aristotle,
or Nature, to distinguish them; for every
human
Act that is
voluntary,
is also
free
; and every Act that is
free,
is likewise
Voluntarie.
Farther, they both partake of one, and the same Essential
Idea,
or
Definition.
Thence
Aristotle, Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
1.
Art.
•
0.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Those things are said to be Voluntarie, whose principle is in him, that does them, who has a (radical) power of acting, or not acting.
This definition of
voluntary
is the same, which the
Schools
give to
Liberty.
But we have a more
adequate,
and
proper
definition of
Voluntarie,
given by
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Voluntarie seems to be that, which has its principle in him that acteth it, who also understandeth the particulars of what he acts.
This definition of Voluntarie seemeth to connote nothing but a
rational spontaneitie,
which is the same with
human Liberty.
Hence
Ari
•
totle, Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
1. makes
Involuntarie
Acts the same with forced, or not free:
Art.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Involuntarie acts seem to be such, as are done by force▪ or ignorance. A forced act is that whose principle is
Extrinsick,
it being such, whereto he that suffers, or acts, confers nothing.
Here
Aristotle
makes
Involuntarie
the same with
forced,
or
not free
; and
forced
or not
free,
that which has not its principle in its s
•
lf: whence it necessarily follows, 1. That
Voluntarinesse
is the same with
Liberty.
2. That
Voluntarinesse,
and
Liberty
exclude not all kind of
necessity,
but only such as is
coactive.
3. That Voluntarinesse, and Liberty, include no more in their
essent all Idea,
but a
rational spontaneitie.
This is farther evident by
Plato
's Ideas of Voluntarines, and Liberty.
Platon. defin. fol.
415.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c.
Voluntarie is that which moves itself according to judgment,
&c.
which is the same with the following definition of what is
free,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That is free, which acts from itself.
This
rational Spont
•
neitie,
or
Liberty,
is styled by
Plato
sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪
Soul-duction
; sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-service,
as also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-action.
Thus also
Liberty
is defined by the
Stoics, Laert. in Zeno
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Liberty is a power of self-action.
Whence the
Greek Fathers, Basil, &c.
call
free-will
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-power,
and the Scripture useth a word of the like import,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
self-Election,
2
Cor.
8.27. This self-moving power, which is alone
essential
to
Voluntarinesse,
or
Liberty,
is expressed by
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
8. under this notion,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That is in our power which we use, so or so, for which we are said to be voluntary, or free.
This
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which he makes only
Essential
to
Liberty,
and
Voluntarinesse,
is excellently well expressed by
Epictetus,
and
Simplicius,
on him:
Epict. Ench. cap.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The things in our power are the conception,
impetus,
appetition, and extension (of the Soul) and in one word, all our acts.
Simplicius
here speaks forth
Aristotle
's mind, as well as
Epictetus
's fully thus.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
He says those things are in our power, of which we are Masters, and of which we have power. Such are the internal motions of the Soul, proceeding from our own judgment, and Election.
So again,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
When the Soul acts according to its own nature, then it is moved freely, and voluntarily, internally from itself; and from this (spontaneitie)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
what is free,
may be well defined.
Thus
Simplicious,
who makes here all the
natural
acts of the Soul to be
free.
2. This
freedom
to consist in a
rational spontaneitie,
or voluntary
motion
of the soul. Hence he proves at large in what follows (
p
23.24.
Edit. Salmas.
) that all
Necessity
is not contrary to
Liberty,
but only that, which is
Extrinsick, Coactive
and
Compulsive,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Therefore we are to say, that there is a
twofold necessity,
one
contrary
to
Liberty,
another
consistent
therewith. Wherefore
external necessity
destroys
Liberty
(for no one
externally compelled,
is said to do, or not to do anything
freely
) but all
internal necessity,
necessitating to act
according
to their
own nature,
this does the more preserve
Liberty.
For a
self-moved,
according to the
nature
of a self-moved, is
necessarily
moved by it
self:
neither is it for this (said to be) moved by another; for the
necessity
is not
external,
but
complicated
with the nature of the self-moved, yea
preservative
thereof, and conducing to its proper operations.
Thus
Simplicius,
who gives us here an excellent description of
human Liberty,
and its Combination with
internal voluntary necessity,
which, if well understood, and embraced, would put an end to all those Scholastic clamours of the
Pelagians
and
Jesuits,
against God's
necessitating, determining, efficacious
concourse, which puts only an
internal voluntary,
not
external coactive
necessity on the will; and therefore is no way destructive to its
Liberty.
But then
Simplicius
proceeds to demonstrate, that a
Liberty
of
Contrarietie
(as the
Schools
term it) or an
Indifferency to this,
or
that,
is not
essential
to human
Liberty.
Take his own words:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Neither must we needs say, that in all things
free-will
▪ &
Liberty
supposeth a power of acting
contraries:
for Souls, which allwa
•
es adhere to
good,
and choose
good,
have both
Free-will,
and
Election
(for
Election
is not
forced
) of that
good,
without
Ind
•
fferencie
to the
contrary,
&c.
By which he fully proves, that actual
Ind
•
fferencie
is not
Essential
to
Liberty.
Thence he proceeds to prove, that
Liberty
is
essential
to the
will,
and an inseparable
adjunct
of every
vital human
Act. So
pag.
28.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Wherefore they, that destroy Liberty destroy the natural extension and constitution of the Soul,
&c.
So that nothing destroys
Liberty,
but what destroys the natural inclination,
or Voluntarinesse of an human act. This is farther evident by the following
definition
he gives of a
free
act.
Simp. in Epict. cap.
2.
pag.
34.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That is free, which has the self-power, and dominion of its own exercise.
This he farther explains in the same
page
thus:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is manifest, that the things in our power are our proper acts: and things not in our power, but in the power of others, are other men's acts.
Whence it apparently follows; 1. That every human act of the Soul is in the Soul's own power, and so
free,
albeit it be necessarily
predetermin'd,
and act
•
ated by God's
Efficacious
concourse. 2. That this Liberty of human acts implies nothing more as essential thereto, but a
Rational spontaneitie,
or
voluntary self-motion
We have insisted the more largely on these notions of
Simplicius
about
human Liberty
and its identity with
Voluntarinesse
; because he seems, of all
Aristotle
's commentators the best to understand his mind. Farther that
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that which is in our power,
whereby he expresseth
Liberty,
imports no more than voluntariness, or
Rational spontaneitie,
is evident from that excellent determination of
Greg. Ariminensis in Sent. lib.
1.
Dist.
17.
Q.
1.
That an action be in the power of an Agent, it is not necessary, that every principle be the form of the Agent: for then no act of the will, whether good, or evil, would be in its power; because God is the productive principle of every act. Therefore I say, that there is nothing more required to bespeak an action to be in the power of the Agent,
than that the action flow from his own will. So also
Austin
: That is in our power which
willing,
we do.
The contemperation, and consistence of God's
Efficacious necessitating
concourse with human Liberty is excellently set forth by
Plutarch,
in the life of
Coriolanus fol.
193. thus.
But in wondrous,
and extraordinary things, which are done by secret inspirations, and motions.
Homer.
[
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] Doth not make God to take away human Election, and Liberty, but to move it, and then he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. In which God makes not the action involuntarie, but openeth the way to the will, and adds thereto courage, and success. For (adds he) either
we must say, that the God's meddle not with the causes, and beginnings of our actions, or else, that they have no other way to help, and further men by.
Thus
Plutarch.
And whereas 'tis object
•
d that thus to ascribe unto God a predetermining, particular immediate
Influence
upon,
and
Concurse
with the will, to every
•
ct thereof, is to make him the
Author
of
Sin,
&c.
Plato Repub.
10. gives us a good solution to this objection, in saying.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
•
ll blamable Ca
•
salitie belongs to the particular Agen
•
, which ch
••
seth
〈◊〉
God is a blameless cause.
Agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In all Evils, God works what is righteous, and good only.
This is more fully explicated by
Simplicius in Epict. Enchir. cap.
1.24.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
God is no way the cause of sin: for he being in himself good, Acts the Soul in sinning only according to its own nature
(i. e. voluntarily)
out of the riches of his goodness
: but he do
•
s not
concur to its sin otherwise, than as the Soul itself wills it.
His meaning is, that God concurreth to sin, only as the
Universal
cause of
Goodness
; so that God's Concurse thereto does not at all hinder, but that the Soul voluntarily chooseth it. Neither is the quality of the effect to be ascribed to the
Universal
cause, but to the
particular,
which is the alone
Moral,
and therefore
culpable
cause of Sin: whereas God
's Universal causality
thereto is only
Physical,
or
natural,
and therefore not
morally
Evil. That the Souls
Voluntarie agencie
is sufficient to render its act
Morally
good, or Evil (albeit we allow God a
predetermining
Influence, and Concurse thereto) is evident from that of
Aristotle Ethic. lib.
3.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in things voluntario praises, and dispraises have place,
i. e.
in virtues,
and
vices:
so agen
Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is voluntary, and sin nothing less is likewise voluntary.
Whereby 'tis evident, that
Aristotle
requires nothing more on the part of the Soul to render its acts
Morally
good, or Evil, but that they be
voluntary.
§. 29. Having dispatched
Aristotle
's
contemplations
about the Will's
Voluntarinesse,
and
Liberty,
which is the
Essential adjunct
of every
human
act;
we now proceed to his
speculations
about the
Moralitie
of
human
Acts, or their
mora clonstitution
as
good,
or
Evil.
This
morality
of
human acts
in general according to
Aristotle,
has for its foundation, or basis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a voluntary free agent
(as before) but the chief measures thereof are, 1. the
End:
so
Aristotle Ethic. lib.
3.
cap.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
everything is defined or measured by its end,
i. e. the
End
has the same place in
morals
as the
form
in
Naturals,
or as the
first principles
in speculatives. 2. Not only the
End,
but also the
Law
of
Nature,
(which
Aristotle
stiles
Right reason
) has an essential influence on the
morality
of
human
Acts: according to which they are denominated
morally
good, or Evil: for by
conformity
thereto they become
morally
good, and by
difformitie
morally Evil: so
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
8. stiles a Virtuous act,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That which moves according to the disposition, or order of Right reason, &c.
We shall begin with
Aristotle
's notions about
things,
and
Acts morally good,
which he stiles
Virtues,
whereof we have this general account in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is, as it seems, a power conquisitive, and preservative of goods: also a power well-productive of many, and great matters, yea of all things, about all.
But this definition of virtue being
too general,
& that which agrees as well to
Natural,
as
moral
Virtues, we proceed to that, which is more
special.
The great seat of
Aristo
•
e
discourse about
moral virtue
is his
Ethics lib.
2.
cap.
3.4.5.6.
cap.
3. he gives us this general
Idea
of
Ethick
or
moral virtue
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
It is supposed therefore, that virtue is such, as being conversant about pleasures, and griefs, is productive of that which is best.
But sin is the contrary.
Aristotle Eth. l
•
b.
2.
cap.
4. b
•
gins to discourse more distinctly of
moral virtue,
and its
Genus,
whether it be a
Power, Affection,
or
Habit
of the
Soul,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Seeing there are in the Soul these three; Affections, Powers, Habits; which of these must virtue be? so
Plutar de Virtut Mor.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. There are these three in the Soul, a Facultie, an Affection, and an Habit: A Facultie is the Principle, and matter of an Affection; an Affection is the motion of a Facultie; an Habit is the
strength, and conformity of a faculty gained by custom.
Arist·
demonstrates.
1. That Virtue cannot be an
Affection,
or
Passion
;
because
Affections
are good or bad only from good or bad
Habits
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Our passions are well, or ill disposed from those Habits, which possess them: therefore our Passions are in themselves capable neither of virtues, nor of vices: whence it follows, that virtues, and vices, are habits.
2. He demonstrates that
Virtues
are not
Passions
; because they are Elections,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtues are certain Elections; or at least not without Election.
3. He demonstrates the same from the different motions of
Passion,
and
Virtue
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
To these we may add, that we are not said to be moved, but to be disposed according to Virtues, or vices: but we are said to be moved according to passions.
Lambinus
on this text of
Arist. Eth. lib.
2
cap.
4. [
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] Comments thus.
Every thing so far as it is
moved,
so far it is said
(pati) to suffer.
Thence amongst the
Greeks
our
Affections
are called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Passions
; and so are opposed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to practice.
For the very
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Affection,
which
is moved,
is moved by
External
objects: and the
Passive power,
as it is moveable, is called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. But in the
Action
of Virtue▪ albeit
External
objects concur, yet a
good man
is not absolutely
moved
by them, as in the
Affections,
but according to the dictate of
right reason.
Therefore in the
Affections
the principle
moving
is
External
▪ and the principle
moved internal viz
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. But in
Virtues
the object is
External,
which of itself has no efficacy, but as it is admitted by
right reason.
The principle
moved
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the passive power:
but the prinple
Acting,
and
moving,
is some
good habit
or
Virtue.
And for this cause we are said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
not to be moved (for we consider not
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
passive power
in virtues, but by Accident) but we are said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to be disposed
by
Virtues,
i. e. we are in some sort so framed,
that we may with
facility
act
Virtuously.
2. Hence
Aristotle
proceeds to prove, that Virtue is not a
power
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
For the same reasons also virtues may not be said to be powers:
for we are not said to be good, or Evil simply because we have a power of suffering: neither are we praised, or dispraised. Again we are said to have a power by nature, but we cannot be said to be good, or Evil by nature:
Lambinus
on this says, that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
powers
are here called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
affective
or
passive qual
•
ties,
i. e. qualities, wherein there is a certain affective efficacy.
3.
Aristotle
having proved, that
virtue
is neither a
passion,
nor a
power,
he there proceeds to prove, that 'tis an
Habit.
Thus Ethic. lib.
2.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We are to say therefore, that all virtue does perfect, and well habituate the subject, whereof it is a virtue; as also render its work good: as the Virtue of the eyes renders the eye good, as likewise its work.
Hence he concludes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
If so; then human virtue must be an habit by which a man is made good, and by which also he makes his work good.
What an
habit
is,
and what is its difference from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Disposition,
we may learn more fully out of
Aristotle
's Commentators,
Ammonius,
and others.
Ammonius
in his
Comment
on
Aristotle
's
Categories
makes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an habit
to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
more lasting, and more permanent than a disposition
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a disposition becoming by length of time, connatural, or implanted.
Galen
makes an
habit
to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a lasting, and hardly d
•
ssoluble disposition.
So
Philo
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Qu
•
nt
•
lian
terms an
habit
a
firm facility,
i. e. an
habit
is deeply radicated in its subject, whereby 'tis enabled to act with more
facility. Aristotle Eth. lib
4.
cap.
4. says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
An habit is defined by its act, and object.
Agen
Eth lib.
5.
cap.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Oft times a contrary habit is known by its contrary, oft times also habits are known by their Subjects
From which
Aristotelick notions
about
habits
we learn. 1. That an habit in
Morals
has much the same place, and influence as a
form
in
Naturals.
For by how much the more noble▪ and perfect the
habit
is, by so much the more noble, and perfect will the
subject,
and
faculty,
which it informs, be. 2. That every
habit
(as a
natural form
) is ordained for, and perfected by its
proper Act.
3. That the Nature of an
habit
is very congruous to, or agreeable with the nature of its
object
; whence that determination in the Schools:
That Habits are known by their subjects, the mode of their in-being, their objects, and their Acts.
§. 30.
Aristotle
having discoursed of the
generick
nature of
Virtue,
and proved▪ that it is not a
passion,
or
power,
but an
habit
; he thence proceeds to discourse of its
Formal nature,
or
reason,
which he places in
mediocrity
; so
Arist. Eth. l.
2.
c.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is employed about the affections, and actions, wherein the excess is sinful, and the defect also blameable: but the mean is praised, and held Right.
Therefore Virtue is a Mediocritie aiming at the mean, or middle. This
Mediocritie
of Virtue
Aristotle (Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
5.) applies to, and makes the measure of not only the
matter
of our actions, but also every
circumstance.
His words are
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This mediocrity of Virtue directs when we ought, and in what, & with whom, & for whose sake, and how we must act,
&c. Whence he conlcudes, that sin being
multiforme,
and various is very easily committed; but Virtue by reason of its
mediocrity
being
uniform
is very di
•
ficult,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
One may err many ways (for sin has a kind of infinity, whereas good is bounded) but what is right is Simple, or uniform. Wherefore 'tis easy to err, but difficult to hit the right, for 'tis easy to err from the mark, but difficult to hit it.
The like
Aristot. Mag. Moral. lib.
1.
cap.
25.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is uniform, but Vice is multiforme.
That this uniformity, or mediocrity is
Essential
to Virtue, and that which gives its
formal constitution, Aristotle Eth. l
•
b.
2.
cap.
6. demonstrates by comparing it with
A
•
t.
For (saith he) if excess, and defect do corrupt, but Mediocritie conserve the perfection of
Arts,
must not moral
Virtue
which is more excellent than any
Art
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
collime,
or aim at the Mean, as at its mark?
But for the more full Explication of this
mediocrity,
we are told, that Virtue may be considered either
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
in regard of its Essence
; and so 'tis
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a Mean 'twixt defect, and excess, which are the extremes: or else Virtue may be considered in regard of its
perfection
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as
'tis good, and best,
and so it is an
extreme,
which admits of no
Excess:
for Virtue can never be too
good,
or
perfect,
as
Ari
•
t. Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
6. where we have also the
matter,
which this
mediocrity
refers unto, namely
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
Affections,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
our actions
; in all which there is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Excess, defect, and equality.
Now the
mediocrity
of Virtue consists in the latter
viz.
in observing that equality, or proportion, which is due to all our
affections,
and
actions,
to render them
morally
good. Whence this
Equalitie, uniformity,
or
mediocrity
due to our actions, and affections, is styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a symmetrie
; as
Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
3. we find all this excellently explicated to us by
Stob
•
eus Serm.
1.
of Virtue,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is an habit, that keeps a decorum; a decorum is that, which becomes us, and 'tis both an extreme, and a
medium,
or mean: an extreme, as it admits neither of ablation, nor addition, but a
medium
or middle as 'tis betwixt excess, and defect.
Whence he concludes against the Stoics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We may not therefore cut off the affections of the Soul, but harmonize them according to the
decorum,
and measure of reason.
Hence, else where he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that the Mean is be
•
.
This symmetrie, or mediocrity of Virtue is styled by
Pythagoras, Harmonie.
So
Laertius
tells us, that
Pythagoras
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Virtue to be Harmonie
; yea that all things consisted of
harmony.
So
Polus
the
Pythagorean
in his definition of
Justice
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Justice is the Harmonie, and peace of the whole Soul with uniformity
; as
Stob. Serm.
9. which is thus explicated by
Plato, Protag.
3.
fol.
326.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the whole life of man should be composed of Uniformitie, and good harmon
•
e.
Whence
•
e calls Virtue
the Music of the Soul,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
▪ and
Temperance
he stiles
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
harmony of the affections
; and
Justice
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
consent of Virtues:
and he gives this general Idea of Vice, and Virtue
Phaedo
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Vice is a disharmonie, but Virtue an harmony.
This harmony, or mediocrity of
Virtue he makes to be also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a good order,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
Symmetrie:
yea he makes the Virtue, not only of the Soul, but also of the body and of everything else to consist
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in
order,
and
rectitude
; whence he supposeth
Eutax
•
e, symmetrie,
and
harmon
•
e
to be the
form
of the
Universe; Socrates
also expressed this
mediocrity
of Virtue by harmony as
Stobaeus Ser.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The life being like a musical Instrument harmonized, by intension and remission becomes sweet.
So agen
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The harmonized life is most pleasant.
These several
Ideas
of Virtue are all comprehended under, and expressed by
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Mediocritie,
which implies the
Eutaxie, Symmetrie, Uniform
•
tie,
and
harmon
•
e
of
Virtuous affections,
and
acts:
or if we would have all these notions of Virtue resolved into one, we may take that of
Plato
calling it
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
rectitude.
For indeed the
harmon
•
e
or
mediocrity
of Virtue is nothing else, but a rectitude of
principles,
and
acts.
This seems fully expressed by
Aristotle Eth. lib.
4.
cap.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
· all rectitude is from Virtue, and all Virtue implies a Rectitude as 'twill appear by and by.
§. 31. As
Aristotle
placeth the
form,
and
essence
of Virtue in the
mediocrity,
or
Rectitude
of principles, and Acts; so the
formal measure
or
Rule,
by which this
mediocrity,
and
Rectitude
must be regulated, he makes to be
Right Reason,
or the
Law
of
Nature.
For every Act is denominated good, from its conformity to the Law of nature both in
matter, End, measures,
and all
circum
•
tances.
So
Arist. Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
8. speaking of Virtue and its
mediocrity
says;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and so as right reason dictates, or regulates.
So agen
Eth. lib.
4.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is not only consentaneous to right reason, but also an habit measured by, and conjoined with Right reason. So
Stobaeus Serm.
1.
de Virtut.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Virtue is a Syntaxe, or regular disposition according to right Reason.
So agen
Arist. Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Whereby it's evident,
Aristotle
makes
Right Reason
the measure of
Virtue,
and its
mediocrity:
So
Amyraut
in his
Theses Salmuriens
•
s
expounds
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
Right Reason
(says he) is the only (
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
)
Criterion
of Virtue's
mediocrity.
So
Parker Thes.
22.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason (as it is the same with the Law of Nature) gives the form to a moral act.
But now all the difficulty
is to state what
Aristotle
meant by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason.
For the clearing whereof, we are to know, that
Aristotle
took up this notion from his Master
Plato,
who by
Right Reason
understood the
Law of Nature,
as we have proved in
Plato
's
Philosophy, Chap.
7. §. 6. Whence this
Right Reason
is by him styled the
Royal Law.
So
Plato Minos fol.
317.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason is the Royal Law,
i. e. The
Law
of
Nature,
which received a new edition by
Moses,
called the
Moral Law,
(i. e. as 'tis the measure of moral good, and Evil) whereof
Plato
received many notices, and traditions: as else where. This
Right Reason
is styled by the
Stoics
the
common Law.
So
Diog. Laert.
in
Zeno saith,
that the
Stoics
held nothing should be done, but what was agreeable to the
Common Law,
which is
Right Reason:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Common Law, which is Right Reason,
yea
Aristotle
himself seems to Enterpret his
Right Reason
so, as that it can be understood of nothing more properly, than of the
Law
of
Nature
Common to all men: So
Arist. Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
14.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. &c.
There is a twofold Law, one private, another common. The Common Law is that, which is according to Nature, for it is that, whereby all men learn by Nature, what is just, and what is unjust, without any particular consociation, or covenant amongst themselves.
Thus
Aristotle
: wherein he distinguisheth the
private
Laws of particular
Nations,
or
Societies
from the
Common
Law of
Nature,
which he makes the measure of
Moral
good, and Evil. This
Common Law
of Nature
Aristotle
makes the Source of all
private
Laws; and that which gives check unto them when in Excess, or defect: so
Arist. Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
25.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
all private Laws need to be corrected by the Universal Law.
Whence this
Law of Nature
is made the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Law of Equity,
which is to give check to all private constitutions. And that
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason
is the same with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Common Law of Nature,
'tis evident by the definition he gives of
Justice,
or
Righteousness. Arist. Rbet. lib.
1.
cap.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Justice or Righteousness is a Virtue, by which everyone has what is his own, and as the Law dictates to them, who are subject to it.
Whereby he makes the
Law
the
measure
of what is
Righteous.
So in his
Eth. lib.
5.
cap.
2.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a just man is he, that lives by Law, and Equity,
i. e. according to that
Law
of
Equity,
or
Nature,
which is common to all. Whence
Aristotle Rhet. lib.
3.
cap.
17.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the Law is the standard, or measure in all Judicial proceedings,
i. e. all
moral
good, and Evil is measured by some Law of Nature Common to all, as
civil
good▪ and Evil by
civil
private Laws. Thence
Aristotle Ethic. lib.
5.
cap.
2. says,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That is just therefore, which is according to Law, and Equity.
What
Aristotle
attributes to
Justice
is by a parity of reason applicable to all
moral
good, or
virtue.
By all which it's evident, that
Aristotle
's
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason
(which he makes the measure of
moral
good and Evil) is the same with his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Common Law of Nature,
which gives the
form,
and measure to Common Justice, and all other
moral
Virtues. Whence that of
Plato Repub.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
that is greatly distant from Right reason, which is distant from Law, and order.
Hence again
Plato, Gorg.
504. tells us.
That as health, beauty and other Virtues of the body proceed from the regular order or exact temperament thereof; so the health, beauty, and other virtues of the Soul from its regularitie
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
whence the Soul's actions are regular, and beautiful.
Such
is Righteousness, Temperance,
&c. So that we may conclude that 'tis not any
subjective Right Reason,
or
Light of Nature,
which is the
measure
of
moral
good, and Evil; but an
objective Right reason,
or the
Common Law
of
Nature,
which is the same with
God
's
Law
called
Moral,
because it gives
Form
and
measure
to all
moral
good. So that
Aristotle
's
Right reason,
which he makes the measure
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
of the rectitude, and mediocrity
of Virtue, must be resolved into
God
's
moral Law
(which is but a
new promulgation
of the
Law
of
Nature
) as the alone adequate
Rule,
and
measure
of all
moral good and Evil.
Thence the perfection, or defect of all goodness, or Virtue must be measured by its access, and conformity to, or recesse and difformitie from this first moral Rule, or Law: for moral goodness being nothing else, but a relation or conformity to the
Rule of morality,
it necessarily follows, that every
moral being
is so far morally good, or Evil, as it conforms to, or difformes from this
moral Rule, or Law.
And albeit the least
declen
•
ion,
or aberration from this
moral
Law will denominate an
human act
morally
Evil; yet there is required a perfect concurrence of
all causes,
or an
entire conformity
to this
Rule,
to bespeak an act
morally good
: according to that approved maxim in the Schools (founded on the light of nature,
and general consent)
Good requires all its causes, but Evil springs from every defect.
Hence also it follows, that this
moral
Law must necessarily be most perfect: For otherwise it cannot be the first measure or Rule of
moral goodness,
according to that of
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
A defective measure is not a measure: for what is imperfect cannot measure anything.
This perfection of the natural, or
moral
Law consisteth in two things. 1. In the perfection of its End.
Plat. Legib.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
All Laws must tend to the best End.
2. In its amplitude or Extention to all objects: a
•
l
Lawgiver,
says
Plato,
must regard
all virtue
as
Psal.
119.96.
§. 32. Having gone thorough all the
causes
of
moral virtue
;
which are first its
subject
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
voluntary Agent,
and
Act.
2 its
Genus,
which is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an
habit.
8. Its
Form,
which is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
mediocrity,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Rectitude.
4 the Rule, and measure of this
Form,
which is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Right Reason,
called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Common Law of Nature
; it is easy hence to form a
Definition
of
moral Virtue,
which
Aristotle
has done to our hands.
Arist. Eth. l.
2.
c.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is an Elective habit consisting in mediocrity of things relating to us, defined by reason, and so as a wise man defines.
In which definition are these observables, 1. The
Genus
whis is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an
habit
not
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
power,
not
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
passion.
2. The
specific difference,
which is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Elective
; whereby
moral habits,
or
Virtues
are distinguished from
Intellectual Arts,
and
Sciences,
which are also
habits.
3. Here is the
subject
matter, or
object
of moral virtue expressed by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
what relates to us,
or
is in our power,
which is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
what is voluntary.
4. Here is the
Form
of Virtue, which consists
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in
mediocrity
or
re
••
itude
▪ 5. Here is the
formal
measure of this
mediocrity,
expressed by
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
which is the same with
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
•
ight
•
eason
; (as before) We find the same repeated more particularly though not so exactly, by
Aristotle Eth. lib.
3.
cap.
3.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We have said of Virtues, that they are mediocrities; and that they are habits, and that they are of themselves desirable; and that they are of things in our power and voluntary; and so as right reason prescribes
Wherein we have all the several
ingredients
of Virtue enumerated. We find a definition of Virtue much the same for substance given by
Plato Meno.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Virtue is an habit of the Soul, by the concurrence of the natural power, working that which is best, according to reason, and tending to the best End.
From these
Essential Ideas
of Virtue we may draw these
conclusions.
1. That true
Virtue
requires not only a good
work,
or
matter,
but the best
End,
which must inform this matter, as the Soul the body. 2. Hence also it follows, that all Virtues have one and the same
uniform,
harmonious, simple
Idea; in that they proceed all from the same divine habits, or principles, and tend to the same divine End. Thus
Aristotle Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Good men act simply and uniformelie, but wicked men variously. Whence he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. For sin is infinite, but good is definite, and uniform. So
Plato Protag. fol
379.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Virtue is one, but its parts are Righteousness, temperance, and holiness.
So
Plato Rep.
4.
fol.
445.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to me the face of Virtue seems to be one
; whence virtue is styled by him
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Concent,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
symmetrie,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
harmony.
Whence also the
Stoics
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
all virtues are equal, or alike.
§. 33. Having given a full
Idea
of
Virtue,
and that according to
Aristotle
's mind, we need not spend time in extracting his
Idea
of
Vice
or sin: for he himself acquaints us
Ethic. lib.
5.
cap.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a contrary habit is known by its contrary.
As in
Logic
the
affirmative
being well stated, the
negative
is easily discovered; so in
Morals,
virtue being well explicated, the
Idea
or face of vice is soon unmask'd. Thus as virtue requires an
integrity
of causes, and full
concurrence
of all circumstances: so
Aristotle
tells us, that vice proceeds from any
defect
of either moral
cause,
or
circumstance,
as
Ethic. lib.
3.
cap.
10.
Art.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Vices arise either
when men do what they ought not, or as they ought not, or when they ought not, or the like, i. e. when there is any defect in
matter,
or
form
and manner, or
time,
or such like.
Agen,
Aristot. Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
5. tells us, as
good
is bounded by
mediocrity,
and
Right Reason,
and therefore
uniform
; so
Evil,
is boundless and infinite
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Sin is various; for Evil is infinite.
Agen, wh
••
ease he defines Virtue a
mediocrity
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
according
to
Right Reason
; he tells us
Eth. lib.
1.
cap.
13. that
Vice
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
somewhat besides, or beyond Reason.
So
Stobaeus Ser.
1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sin is a transgression besides right reason.
Farther,
Aristotle
in his
Eth. lib.
5. tells us, that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Just is lawful, and equal, but unjust, illegal, and unequal;
according to the Scriptural definition of sin,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
sin is an Illegalitie,
or
a transgression of the Law.
This
Aristotle Eth. lib.
5.
cap.
2. calls
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
transgression of the Law.
So
Art.
7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an unjust man therefore seems to be a transgressor of the Law.
The like
Art.
13.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
what is unjust is a transgressing of the Law,
and
unequal.
Yea
Ari
••
otle
concludes
Art.
24.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This Transgre
••
ion of the Law comprehends all injustice, and is common to all iniquity.
The like
Aristotle
lays down in his
Rhetor. lib.
1.
cap.
9. where, having defined Righteousness to be a Virtue according to Law, he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Unrighteousnesse is that, whereby we invade other men's rights, against Law.
So
Arist. Rhet. lib.
1.
cap.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to act unjustly is Voluntarilie to hurt again
••
law
And in his
Eth. lib.
2.
cap.
1. he says
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Will of every Lawgiver is such as that they, who act not according to it, sin.
Thus also sin is styled by his master
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Ataxie,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
asymmetrie,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Pleonexie,
or
Exorbitancie,
opposite to the
Eutaxie, symmetrie,
and
mediocrity
of Virtue. So
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Vice is an Exorbitancie,
or
intemperate Excess
: a metaphor taken from the su
••
rabundance of any humor in the body called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thence
defin. Plat. fol.
416.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Sin is a practice against right reason.
So Agen,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
injustice is an habit, overlooking
or
neglecting Laws.
Whence sin also is held by
Plato
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c. But thus much for
Aristotle
's
Ethics
in general.
§. 34. We now proceed to
Aristotle
's
Physicks,
wherein he asserts, and demonstrates 1. God's
universal Concurse
the
first mover
in all motions;
so
Johan. Grammat. in Arist. de Anima proaem fol.
10.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Aristotle
in his
Physicks
about the End, disputing of Motion, & in quiring into its cause, elevated himself to the first cause, and priple of motion. And he said, that the first mover ought to be immobile: for if he also should be moved, the things moved would not continue in motion, as if there were things always mobile, it necessarily follows, that their mobile would be immobile. Thence
Aristotle
extolling the first mover, that he was incorporeous, eternal, and omnipotent says, that on such a principle depends the heaven and world. For it behooveth a perfect
Physiologist,
after he has handled the natural causes, not to rest in these, but to ascend to the separate or supernatural: thus
Aristotle
has done in his book of Generation, and Corruption.
The same is mentioned by
Ammon
•
us
in
Arist. Categ.
as before §. 14. see
Simplicius
in his
comment.
on
Arist. Phys. lib.
8.
large here about. 2.
Aristotle
asserts also in his Physicks the
immortality,
and
immaterialitie
of the
human
Soul. So
Joh. Gramm. in Arist. de anima proaem fol.
7.
Aristotle,
saith he, delivered a
Canon
proving the Soul to be immortal. The Canon is this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
We ought, says he, by the operation to judge of the Essence, because every Essence has an operation suited to it. Agen another Canon is this every Essence, that has an operation separate from the body, must of necessity be separate from the body; For otherwise the effect will be more noble than the cause
Then he proves the
minor,
that the
Soul
has operations
separate
from, and
independent
on the body, as the contemplation of
God,
it
self,
and other
spiritual
objects. And
Diogenes
in
Aristotle
says, that
Aristotle
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that the Soul is incorporeous.
§. 35. As for
Aristotle
's
Metaphysics,
Ammonius
stiles them his
Theologicks.
So
Ammon in Arist. Categ. pag.
11.
Aristotle
's
Theolologicks
are those he writ after his
Physic
Exercitation, which he calls
Metaphysics,
because it is proper to
Theology
to treat of things above Nature.
Hence
Aristotle
's
Metaphysics
pass in the
Schools
under the splendid title of
Natural Theology,
though indeed it contains nothing, but a few fragments, he procured from his master
Plato,
and the more
ancient
Philosophers (who traded much in
Jewish
traditions)
touching
God,
his
Unity, Veritie, Bonity,
&c.
also the
Angels
(which
Aristotle
calls
Intelligen
•
es
) and of the
Soul
in its
separate
state, concerning which
Aristotle
sometimes seems
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to hesitate; saying
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
as before §. 3. But to come to the
generick nature
of
Aristotle
's
Metaphysics,
which he makes to be
Sapience,
whereof he discourseth at large in the
Proëme
to his
Metaphysics
as 'tis well observed by
Stobaeus, Serm.
3.
of Wisdom
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
'Twas
Aristotle
's custom to call the same Science, both Wisdom and the first Philosophy, and Metaphysics, and Theology. Then (
Aristotle
adds)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
&c. First we conceive a wise man knows all things so far as 'tis possible yet so, as that he has not a particular (but only universal) knowledge of them. (2.) Thence we count him a wise man who is able to understand things difficult; not only such as are easy (3) farther we judge him most wise in all Science, who most exactly considers, and understands the first causes. (4.) And of Sciences, that which is eligible for itself, and for its own knowledge is rather Wisdom, than that, which is desirable for its effect. (5.) And that Science which is more principal comes nearer Sapience, than that which is subordinate:
for it becomes not a wise man to take precepts from others, but to give precepts.
(6.) And for the most part things most Universal are most difficult to be known by men; for such things are most remote from sense. (7.) Those also are the most accurate of Sciences,
which are of things mostly first.
Thus
Aristotle
in his
proeme
to his
Metaphysics,
and
Stobaeus
out of him. Wherein we have a full character of
Sapience
or
Metaphysics,
which is here described both in relation to its
Object,
and
Nature.
1. As for the
object
of
Sapience, Aristotle
says it is 1. of things most
Universal,
and
remote from sense.
2. Of things most
difficult,
and excellent or rare. 3. Of the
first
principles, and causes of things, as of
God,
&c. 2. As for the
Nature
of
Sapience, Aristotle
tells us, it is 1. most
desirable
for it
self,
and for its own knowledge, not for any effect, that flows from it. 2. It is the
Architectonick
or
principal Science,
not
ministerial,
or
Subordinate,
&c, Whence also
Aristotle
adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
As we say a man is free, who is
su
•
juris,
for himself, and not for another: so this
Sapience
is the most free, and noble of all Sciences; for it alone is for itself, and not for any other Science, whence also it appears to be divine, and the most excellent of all Sciences.
These Characters, which
Aristotle
gives to his
divine Sapience,
or
Metaphysics,
are applicable to no
Science
but the Contemplation of
God,
and things
Divine.
For God alone is the First, and most excellent being, the first principle, and cause of all things: and therefore the knowledge of him is the only true Sapience, desirable for itself, and most principal, divine, and excellent. This farther appears by the object of
Metaphysics
; Now though
Aristotle
makes the
Adequate
Object of
Metaphysics
to be
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Ens, Being
in its most
Uinversal latitude
; yet the
Principal
Object he makes to be the
Prime Being
and Universal cause of all other Beings, God himself, as did
Plato
his Master before him, calling God sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
very being,
sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
truly Being,
sometimes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
first Being,
and most frequently
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
The Be
•
ng,
clothed with
Unit
•
e, verity, Goodness,
&c. whence perhaps
Aristotle
also made
Unity, Veritie,
and
Goodness Affections
of
his Ens, in Genere.
CHAP. II.
Of the Cynics, their Sect, and Philosophy.
I. Antisthenes
the father of the
Cynics,
and his Schole the
Cynosarges. II.
Whence they were called
Cynics?
viz. from their severity against vice, &c.
III.
The Professors of
Cynicisme, Antisthenes, Diogenes, Crates, Demetrius,
&c.
IIII.
The
Genius
of the
Cynics,
and their affinity which the
Stoics. V.
Their principles.
1.
To Live according to Virtue.
2.
That External goods, as Riches, Pleasures, Honors, are not desirable, because a wise man enjoys all good in God.
3.
They disliked flattery, and bore reproaches with patience.
4.
They affected impudence.
5.
They were great reprovers of Vice, especially of pride, yet guilty of the highest pride.
6.
They rejected all conjectural Science, and Philosophy, Except moral.
7.
They were Religious, but not so superstitious as others.
8.
Their Justice, and Fidelitie.
9.
Their prizing Liberty. The
Cynic
Philosophy originally from the Jews.
§. 1. HAving discoursed at large of the
Platonic,
and
Aristotelick Philosophy,
we now proceed to the
Cynic,
which had its foundation also from
Socrates
's Schole by
Antisthenes
the
Disciple
of
Socrates,
who being greatly pleased with those Discourses of his Master, which treated of
Tolerance,
and
Labor,
instituted this
Sect
; This
Antisthenes
the Head of the
Cynics
(being by
Country
an
Athenian,
but by his
Mothers
side, a
Phrygian
) after the death of his Master
Socrates
made choice of the
Cynosarges,
a
Schole
at
Athens,
just without the Gates; as the fittest place to Philosophize in; so called from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, the
Temple of the White,
or
swift Dog.
The origination of this name is well given us by
Hesychius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
The Cynosarges is a sacred place so called for this cause. They say when
Diomus
sacrificed to
Hercules,
there came a Dog, and Snatching away a leg of the Sacrifice, ran away therewith; others following him; and the place was so called from the whiteness, or Velocitie of
the Dog.
Soudas
has much the same in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
§. 2. From this Schole the
Cynosarges
some conceive
Antisthenes,
and his followers were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Cynics,
and
Antisthenes
himself termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Sincere Dog.
So
Hesych us Illustris.
Others, ill wishers to the
Cynics,
will have them to be so called from their
Doggish impudence. Empiricus
(in
Pyrrh. l.
1.
c.
14.) supposeth them to be called
Cynics
from their defending good men, but barking at the wicked. This is the most probable conjecture. So
Ammonius in Categor. pag
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The Cynics are so called for their Liberty in reproving Vice, and encourageing Virtue: For they say a dog has somewhat of a Philosophic sagacity, or discretion discovered in his barking at strangers, and shaking his tail in a tawning manner on Domesticks. So these
Cynics
smile on, and salute Virtues, and those, who live according to Virtue; but they avoid, and bark at passions, and those who live according to passion, albeit they be Kings.
Thus
Ammonius:
The like
Diogenes Laertius
; who makes them to be so called, because they were sharp reprovers of
Vice,
not regarding the taunts, and abuses put upon them; as hereafter.
§. 3.
Theopompus
commends
Antisthenes
above all the Disciples of
Socrates,
as one endowed with a great
acumen
of judgment, and sweetness of discourse; by means whereof he could lead any man to what he would. See his
Character
at large in
Diogenes Laertius,
and
Hesychius Illustris.
Next unto
Antisthenes, Diogenes Sinopensis,
his
Auditor,
is of most repute amongst the
Cynics
; who was indeed a person of prodigious Wit, as will appear by his following sayings, and greatly admired by
Alexander
the
Great,
as also by
Basil
in his book
Of reading Gentile books. Diogenes
the
Cynic
had for his Disciples
Monimus Syracusanus, Onesicritus,
and
Crates
the
Theban.
This
Crates
had for his
Auditors,
his wife
Hipparchia,
her brother
Metrocles, Menippus
the
Phoenician,
and
Zeno
the father of the
Stoics,
whence sprang a great
fraternity
and
communion
'twixt the
Cynics,
and
Stoics
(as else where) The
•
e followed also
Demetrius Cynicus,
who flourished in the time of
Domitian
the
Emperor,
at
Corinth
; and drew into one
System
all the
Philosophy
of the
Cynics. Philostratus of the life of Apollonius, lib.
4.
cap.
8. says of him; that for
Learning
's sake he followed
Apollonius,
as
Antisthenes Socrates,
&c.
Seneca
gives this
Demetrius
a very large Character: So
lib.
7.
de Benef. cap.
1.
Demetrius,
says he,
was very great, if compared with the greatest.
Agen
cap.
8.
he was a man of exact Wisdom.
Also
Epist.
62.
He was the best of men: I admire him, why should I not admire him? I have seen nothing wanting in him. Tacitus
likewise
Annal.
16.
cap.
34. gives an honorable mention of him.
§. 4. As for the
Genius
of the
Cynic Sect,
it is greatly extolled by
Arrianus in Epictet. lib.
3.
Dissert. cap.
22.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
; where he sets forth the
Cynic Philosophy
as
masculine,
and
generous.
And indeed there was a very great
Cognation
betwixt the
Cynics,
and
Stoics.
So
Laertius lib.
6. having mentioned the agreement 'twixt the
Cynics,
and
Stoics
as to their sentiments of the
chiefest Good,
he adds
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
There is a certain communion betwixt these two Sects, whence they (the
Stoics
) said
Cynicisme
is a short way to Virtue.
Laertius
here points at
Zeno,
who honored the
Cynic
sect with this
Elogie
: And indeed no wonder, seeing he himself, who was the head of the
Stoics,
sucked in a main part of his
Philosophy
from
Crates
the
Cynic.
Yet the
Stoics
differed from the
Cynics
not only in external habit, but also in
Modestie
; which was the main
motive,
that induced
Zeno
to quit the
Cynic Sect:
for being commanded by
Crates
to do some unbecoming acts, his modesty made him refuse, and quit
Crates
's Schole; as hereafter. The Affinitie betwixt the
Cynics,
and
Stoics
will farther appear by their
Principles,
and
Practices.
§. 5. The first main
principle
of the
Cynics
was,
that our
Chief End
is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
to live according to Virtue
; which was the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
first principle
of the
Stoics
also. And indeed th
•
re were scarce any of the
Wiser
Philosophers, but embraced this
Principle
; for they were all convinced of a vanity, and vexation, that attended
sensible
enjoyments; as also of a more than ordinary beauty and sweetness, which was
appendent
unto
Virtue
; only herein they greatly abused this common
principle
; in that they made Virtue desirable for itself, and so their God.
§. 6.2. Hence also the
Cynics
affected a
mean obscure,
yea inindeed
sordid
kind of life.
Wherefore (says
Laertius
in
Antisthenes
) they lived meanly, contemning Riches, Glory, Nobility: Their Food was herbs, and cold Water, their houses
obvious, and tubs,
&c.
All which
Cyn
•
ck Mortification
was sounded on that Principle of
Diogenes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Its proper to the God's to want nothing, and to those, who are like to the God's, to make use of but few things.
Whence also they asserted, that a
Wise man enjoys all th
•
ngs in God:
so
Diogenes
the
Cynic
(as
Laertius
tells us) affirmed, that
Wise men enjoyed all things; because all things belonged to the
God's
; and the
God's
were
friends
to wise men: now among
friends
all things are
common.
Hence likewise they held, that Riches, Honors, Pleasures, and whatever the world admired should be contemned. Wherefore
Crates Thebanus,
a noble man of great wealth, sold his patrimony, and betook himself to
Cynic Philosophy
upon the persuasion of
Diogenes
; and notwithstanding the importunity of his friends to the contrary, he abode fixed in that opinion of the
Cynics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That Philosophers have need of nothing.
Hence also they delighted much in
frugality,
according to that of
Greg. Nazianzen. Orat.
23. touching
Hero Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
In the Cynic Sect he accused their impiety, but praised their frugality.
Lastly; upon the same account they disliked all public
Games, shows,
or
pass-times.
So
Diogenes
the
Cynic
said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
The Olympic games were but great miracles of fools.
§. 7.3. Hence also the
Cynics
abhorred
flattery,
and bore
reproaches
with much patience, and constancy. Thence
Antisthenes
being commended, said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
what ill have I done
? meaning it was an ill thing to be commended. Again being much applauded by a wicked man, he said,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
I am in an Agony, least I have done ill;
And
Diogenes
being asked, what beast bit most perniciously? replied
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Of wild beasts the Sycophant, and of tame beasts the flatterer bites worst.
He had also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a flattering oration is but an honey snare.
As for
bearing of reproaches,
the
Cynics
were very eminent, as
Diogenes Laertius
acquaints us.
Orates
was wont industriously to rail at
whores,
thereby to exercise
himself for to bear railing: and when others Scoffed at the deformity of his face, holding up his hands he was wont to say
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
Be confident, Crates, for thine eyes, and the rest of thy body, for thou shalt see Scoffers punished, though now they bless themselves.
Diogenes
the
Cynic
being told, that many mocked him, he replied
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
I mock not aga
•
n.
§. 8.4. Hence the
Cynics
affected a
kind of impudence,
and immodestie even in things dishonest. So it's said of
Crates,
that he lay with his wife, and had to do with her in
open place.
So
Diogenes
the
Cynic
did many things very unbeseeming, which rendered him among many very ridiculous, but
Diogenes Laertius
gives this favorable interpretation of this his seeming excess:
Laert. lib.
6.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Diogenes
said, that he imitated the Masters of the
chorus,
who admitted some excess in their tone, that so others might be reduced to a Concent.
So that, according to
Laertius,
these extravagant excesses, and exorbitant impudencies of the
Cynics
were assumed only to shame others out of Vices; but this their design being not understood by the vulgar, hence their
Sect
became contemptible, and exploded. Thence
Cicero de Officiis
1
o
. says, that,
The Nation of the Cynics is wholly to be expelled, for it is an enemy to Modestie, without which nothing can be right, nothing honest.
Whence
Sidomus
tells us, that in his age there scarce remained any of the
Cynic
Sect.
§. 9.5.
The
Cynics
were severe
censors
and reprovers of
Vice
; whence some will have them called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, as before. And
Diogenes
the
Cynic
being sensible of this imputation, that he was esteemed of a
currish
biting
disposition,
said wittily
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
I bite only Evil men.
And as they were great reprovers of vice in general; so in a more special manner of
Pride.
Thus
Antisthenes
seeing a Vessel wherein
Plato
had vomited▪ said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
I see his choler here, but I cannot see his pride:
meaning
Plato
had not vomited that up as yet. And
Diogenes
the
Cynic
coming into
Plato
's Schole, he goes and treads upon his bed, or
Philosoph
•
zing seat,
with this expression
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
I tread here on Plato
's
vain study, or proud Philosophy
; to which
Plato
replies
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
O
Diogenes,
how much of pride dost thou manifest, whilst thou seemest not to be proud?
And indeed
Plato
spake truth: for
Diogenes,
and the rest of the
Cyn
•
cks
under their external, and
seeming
self-denial concealed much of
real
pride, and self-advancement. For the highest self-advancement is that, which ariseth from a pretended self-abasement. Thus the
Cynics
in
words
cry down
pride,
though in
deeds
they cry it up. So
Demetrius
the
Cyn
•
ck
said;
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The height of Pride should be taken away, but the sense of it left.
§. 10.6. The
Cynics
rejected all
conjectural Sciences
; as
Astrology,
and
Divination
by
dreams,
&c. Whence
Diogenes
the
Cynic
blamed the
Mathematicians,
who looked into the
Moon,
and
stars,
but overlookt the things
under
their feet: He said farther to one discoursing about
Meteors
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
when camest thou out of heaven?
Also to some affrighted at their dreams, he said
Those things you do waking, you consider not, but those things you imagine in your dreams you curiously inquire into.
Yea they rejected all Learning and Philosophy, except
moral
; holding that our End is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
to live according to Virtue.
Hence they required in their Disciples pure, and Chast minds. So
Anti
•
henes
to a youth abused unto
Sodomy,
but willing to be instructed by him, and demanding what was needful for him in order thereto, replied
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a new book, a new pen, and a new table
: meaning a new mind is necessary for a Disciple: as
Diogen. Laert. in Antisthenes.
§. 11.7. The
Cynics
were very
religious
towards the God's, yet not so
superstitious,
as the
Pythagoreans
and oath
•
Sects.
Thence
Diogenes
the
Cynic
supping in the
Temple,
the Offalls, that were left, he took away, saying,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Nothing
that is sordid, must enter into the Temple.
Yet were they not superstitiously conceited about ceremonies of Religion: wherefore
Ant
•
sthenes,
after he had initiated himself at the
Orphean Oracle, to study
those
my
•
teries,
a
Prie
•
t
telling him, that those, who were initiated in those
Rites
should partake of many things
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
after death; he replied
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
why then dost thou not die?
intimating that those
ceremonies,
and outward
formalities
were not a good foundation to rely upon.
§. 12.8. The
Cynics
were great admirers of
Justice, Faithfulness,
&c. So
Diogenes
was honored by
Xeniades
his Master, who had found him very
faithful,
with this
Character
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
a good Daemon has entered mine house.
And the same
Diogenes
being upbraided by one for stamping money falsely, replied,
Time was, when I was, as thou now art; but such as I now am, thou wilt never be.
Meaning that he was now quite another man. Whence also he said touching living well
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
why livest thou, if thou hast no care to live well?
§. 13.9. The
Cynics
were great Esteemers of
Liberty,
as all the
Philosophers
generally were; whence that saying touching
Diogenes
the
Cynic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
He preferred nothing more than Liberty.
§. 14.10. The
Cynics
held also with the
Stoics
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that Virtue was teachable
;
wherein they differed from
Socrates.
More concerning the
Cynics,
their
Dogmas,
and
Institutions.
See
Diogen. Laert
•
us
in
Anti
•
henes; Augu
•
t. Civit. Dei. lib.
14.
cap.
20. and
lib.
19.
cap.
1. with
Lud. Vives
thereon.
§. 15. That the
Cynics
traduced the main of their
Dogmas,
and
Institutes
originally from the
Jewish
Church may appear. 1. From what has been demonstrated touching
Socrates,
and his Philosophy being derived from the
Jewish
Church. 2. From the original of some of the
Cynics,
who were of
Phoenician
extract; as
Menippus
the
Phoenician,
&c. 3. From the Cognation 'twixt the
Cynics,
and
Stoics,
who received their Philosophy originally from the
Jews,
as it
will appear in the following Chapter.
§. 8.
CHAP. III. Of the Stoic Sect, and Philosophy, its original, &c.
§. I.
Of
Zeno
his Original, and Praeceptors.
II.
Zeno
's
Schole the Stoa; his institution of the Stoic Sect, his Charactor.
III. Cleanthes
his Character.
IIII. Chrysippus
his repute amongst the
Stoics. V. Diogenes Babylonius, Antipater, Possidonius. VI. Roman Stoics, Cato, Varro, Antoninus, Tully, Seneca. VII.
Christian
Stoics. VIII Stoic
Philosophy was but a corrupt derivation from the
Jewish
Theology.
IX.
Of
Stoicism
in general, and its combination with
Socratick,
and
Cynic
Philosophy, with its difference from the
Peripatetic,
and
New Academic. X.
Particular Dogmas of
Stoicism. 1.
of the
Stoic Comprehension. 2.
The
Stoic Metaphysics;
of God, his Names, Nature, and Attributes, of God
's
works of creation, and Providence, of fate, and God
's
providence over Mankind.
3.
Of the Stoic Physicks, the Soul; the
Stoic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
4.
the
Stoic Ethics. 1.
Appetition, and self-preservation, with tolerance, and abstinence.
2.
That passions are irrational
3.
that the wise are only free.
4.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 6.
Virtue desirable for itself.
§. 15.
The corruptions of Stoicism, and its opposition to Christianity.
§. 1. NExt to the
Cynics
follow the
Stoics,
who received their original from them, by
Zeno
the
founder
of their
Sect,
who was sometimes Scholar to
Crates.
This
Zeno
was borne at
Cittium,
a
Greek
Sea-town in the
Isle
of
Cyprus.
So
Strabo lib.
14.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Cittium
has a port, which may be shut; hence sprang
Zeno
the prince of the Stoic Sect.
This
Cittium
was planted, and enhabited by a
Colony
of the
Phoenicians,
whence
Zeno
was by some styled the
Phoenician
; Thence
Crates
calls him the
little Phoenician
; as
Soudas
in
Zeno: Zeno
being according to
Laertius
about 17. years of age (or as
Persaeus
22.) took a voyage to
Athens,
whither he was inclined, as well by his particular propension to
Philosophy,
as by his business, which was to sell some purple, which he had
brought out of
Phenicia,
as some will have it. Though
Laertius
seems to make the only ground of his voyage into
Greece
to be for
traffick
; but being robbed by Pirates, or shipwrecked, he thence took occasion of going to
Athens
; where consulting the oracle, how he might live best? answer was made,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
If he should join himself to the dead, &c.
which understanding of study, he betook himself with great diligence to read the books of the
Ancients,
and so came into familiarity with
Crates
the
Cynic,
but being, as
Laertius
tells us,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, too modest for the
Cynic
Impudence, leaving
Crates,
he applied himself to
Stilpo
the
Megarick
Philosopher; From him he betook himself unto
Zenocrates
: He heard also
Polemo
the
Academic
as
Cicero lib.
1.
Quaest. Acad.
§. 2.
Zeno
having been long an
hearer
of others;
endeavored to correct what was amiss in them, and at length thought good to institute a
new Sect
: for which purpose he made choice of the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
the painted Porch,
so named from the
Pictures
of
Polygnatus,
otherwise called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, where in the time of the 30
Tyrants
near 1400.
Citizens
were put to death. So
Laertius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Here
Zeno
walked, and Philosophized, whither resorted many Disciples, who (as
Laertius
adds) were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
from this Stoa called Stoics.
Zeno
was indeed a person of great
Intellectuals,
and
naturals
; as it appears by the opposition made against him by
Carneades,
who was fain in his engagements against
Zeno
to purge his head with
white Hellebore.
And as his
worth
was great, so his
reputation
amongst the
Athenians
was not little: For by the
Philosophy,
which he taught, and by the practice of his
Life
conformable to that
Doctrine, Zeno
gained so high an estimation amongst the
Athenians,
that they deposited the keys of their
City
in his hands, with their
Liberties.
His name was also much honored by his own
Country-men,
as well at
Cyprus,
as at
Sidon.
See
Stanley
of
Stoic.
Philosophy; and
Diogenes Laertius
of
Zeno,
who farther adds, that
Zeno
being sensible, what gain he had by
Philosophy,
was wont to say touching his losses at Sea, which were the occasion thereo,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
I made a prosperous voyage, when I suffered shipwreck, &c.
§. 3.
Zeno
of
Cittium
was
succeeded
by
Cleanthes Assius
his
Auditor,
who by reason of his
unwearied labor
and indefatigable study was termed another
Hercules
; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because he employed himself in drawing water by night that so he might by day employ himself in his studies. Thence that of
Arrianus in Epictetum, lib.
3.
cap.
17.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
;
Where is
Cleanthes,
who together followed his studies, and drew water?
Tully
gives him an
high Character,
calling him the
father of the Stoics,
as
lib.
3.
de Natura Deorum.
And
Simplicius commentar. in Euchirid. Epicteti
tells us,
that he was so far honored by the
Roman Senate,
that they appointed his
Statue
to be erected at
Assum,
a City of
Eolis,
where he was born. And certainly the Fragments of his Works, which yet remain, argue him to have been a person of great worth as to Philosophy.
We find 37.
Heroic
verses with an
Hemistich
of his in
Stobaeus
's
Physic Eclogues
: also 5.
Jambicks
turned into
Latin
in
Senecae Epist.
107. likewise 4.
Heroicks
in
Clemens Alexander. lib.
5.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. besides
Proses
in
Sextus
; and
Jambicks
in
Plutarch,
and
Galen,
with others.
§. 4.
Cleanthes
's Auditor, and successor was
Chrysippus,
who was borne at
Sole,
a Town of
Silicia
(whence came the name
Solaecisme
) and of great repute amongst the
Stoics,
according to that old saying of
Laertius,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
unless there had been a
Chrysippus,
the
Stoa
had not subsisted. So
Tully lib.
1. de
Finibus:
Nothing▪ says he▪ belonging to the
Stoic Philosophy
was pretermitted by
Chrysippus.
He writ an excellent Discourse of
Providence,
out of which
Aulus Gellius (lib.
6.
cap.
2.) has collected some heads, of which yet
Laertius,
who has writ his life, makes no mention.
§. 5.
Chrysippus
was
heard,
and
succeeded
by
Diogenes Babylonius: Diogenes
by
Antipater
: and
Antipater
by
Possidonius.
We find all these mentioned together by
Galen,
or whoever else were the author
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
initio,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
This man was heard by
Zeno
of
Cittium,
who invented the
Philosophy
of the
Stoics,
whose mode of
Philosophizing
was followed by
Cleanthes
; of whom
Chrysippus
was an auditor, who followed the same Institution: of this
man
Diogenes Babylonius
was Auditor, as also Master of
Antipater
; of whom
Possidonius
was
Auditor.
Diogenes Babylonius
was he, who in the Second
Punic
War (P.
Scipio
and
M. Marcellus
being Consuls) was together with
Carneades
the
Academic,
and
Critolaus
the
Peripatetic
sent by the
Athenians
to
Rome
on
Public Embassage,
as
Cicero lib.
4.
Tuscul. Diogenes, Laertius
(in
Diogenes
the
Cynic)
tells us, that he was borne at
Seleucia,
and called
Babybonian
from the vicinitie of Place. The Disciple of this
Diogenes Babylonius
was
Antipater Sidonius,
whom
Cicero de Officiis lib.
3. calls the
most acute person. Seneca Epist.
92. reckons him amongst the famous
Heroes
of the
Stoic Sect.
He was of
Sidon,
and thence termed
Sidonius.
The Disciples of
Antipater,
were
Panaetius,
as also
Possidonius.
This
Possidonius
was Originally of
Syria,
though he chose rather to pass for a
Rhodian,
as
Strabo,
and
Athenaeus. Strabo lib.
16. says he was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the most learned
of his Age. Also
lib.
14. that he had the
Administration
of the
Rhodian Republic.
§. 6. Besides these there are several others amongst the
Romans,
who may justly be reputed of the
Stoic Sect,
as
Tubero, Cato, Varro
; and after them
Thraseus Paetus, Helvidius Priscus, Rubellius,
Plautus,
with
M. Antoninus
the
Emperor,
in whose time no
Sect
flourished so much as the
Stoic,
according to
Sextus Empiricus: Tully
seems mostly in love with this
Sect
; as in
Tuscul.
4. where he seems to make them almost the only
laudable
Sect.
How far
Seneca
was inclined to this Sect is evident enough by his
Epistles: Epistol.
83. he calls it the
the most valiant and holy Sect
; and
de Const. Sap. cap.
1. he says
There was so much difference 'twixt the
Stoics,
and other Professors of Wisdom, as there was 'twixt men, and women.
Seneca
received the Principles of
Stoic Philosophy
from
Sotion,
whom he acknowledgeth to be his
Praeceptors
So
Epist.
49. and 58.
§. 7. Yea not only amongst the
Gentiles,
but even amongst
Christians
many were much drenched in
Stoic Philosophy.
So
Pantaenus Bishop
of
Alexandria,
who as
Jerome
acquaints us, i
•
was sent to
the
Indian Brachmans,
to preach Christ among them, that so, if it might please God, this Christian Philosopher might convert those
Pagan
Philosophers.
Disciple to this
Pantaenus
was
Clemens Alexandrinus,
who oft discovers his affection to the
Stoic Philosophy.
That which made this
Sect
so pleasing to many
Christians,
as well as
Pagans,
was the
gravity
of their conversation, their
contempt
of terrene good, their
moderation
in the use of creature-comforts, and patience in the want of them: Hence
Jerome
on
Esa.
10. says,
the
Stoics
do in many things agree with our
Dogmas.
§. 8. And indeed no wonder, if the
Stoics
agreed very far with the
Chri
•
tian Religion
as to
morals
;
seeing the choicest of their notions were but corrupt derivations and traductions from the
Sacred fountain of Israel
: which will be evident from these particulars. 1. The
Stoics Morals
were but rivulets streaming from the
Socratick Philosophy,
which, as we have before demonstrated, had its original from
Jewish Morals
delivered by
Solomon
and others. 2.
Zeno
the Founder of the
Stoic
Sect was (as we have before shown §. 1.) Native of
Cittium,
a
Phoenician
Town in
Cyprus,
and so of
Phoenician
extract. Now (as we have else where demonstrated at large) the
Phoenicians
had familiar conversation with the
Jews,
& great notices of their
Doctrines,
especially such as were
moral.
That
Zeno
traduced the choicest parts of his
Philosophy
from the
Phoenicians,
and
Jews
is well observed by
Hornius Hist. Philos. lib.
3.
cap.
16.
It is easy for any to understand whence
Zeno
attained to so great
Sapience.
For seeing he had his original from
Cittium,
which received
Phoenician
Colonies, we need no way doubt, but that he drew from their
Monuments,
and
Mysteries,
those his contemplations, which do so much accord with
Divine Veritie
; Especially such things, as de delivered touching
Providence. Cyprus
is near
Palestine
and
Egypt,
yea enhabited by
Colonies
from both; &c.
3. Yea in
Cyprus,
where
Zeno
sucked in his first breath, and institution, there were many
Jews,
as
Grotius
on
Math.
22.23.
In
Cyprus
(says he) whence
Zeno
was, there were ever many
Jews.
4.
Antipater
a great Master of the
Stoic Philosophy
was also of
Sidon,
a
Phoenician
town bordering on
Judea
; and thence had great advantage for the acquainting himself with the
Jewish Institutes,
and
Morals,
as. §. 5. 5. Lastly many of the
Stoic Dogmas
are apparently of
Jewish origination
; as the
Stoic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Spermatick word,
whereby the
Universe
was framed; which is evidently a derivation from
Gen.
1.1. Also the
Stoic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
final conflagration,
and
purification
of all things by
fire
is evidently no other, than some broken tradition of
Enoch
's, or some
Jewish
prophecy of the last conflagration; as else where we may prove. The truth of this position will farther appear from the following
Dogmas
of
Stoicism.
§. 9.
First that
Stoi
•
isme
was but a branch of the
Socratick Philosophy
is sufficiently apparent both from their agreeme
•
t in
matter,
and also from the assistance
Zeno
had from
Socrates
's Disciples. The
Stoics
also held a very good correspondence and accord with those of the
old Academie.
But their chiefest communion was with the
•
ynicks.
For
Zeno
their founder was first instituted in
Cynicisme
under
Crates,
whence there sprang a great
fraternity
'twixt the
Cynics
and
Stoics,
as in the former
Chapter.
§. 4. The
Stoics
stood at a great
di
•
tance
from, and
Contest
with the
Peripatetics
about the
agreement
of
Natural,
and
Moral
good. The
Stoics
held that things
hone
•
t
were disjoined from things
Commodious toto genere,
in
their whole Nature
:
The
Peripatetics
h
•
ld their
difference
to be only
gradual.
Some thought this Controversy 'twixt the
Stoics,
and
Pe
•
ipateticks
to be only
verbal:
So
Antiochu
•
, Varro
's
Praeceptor,
who composed a book of the
Concord
'twixt the
Stoics,
and
Peripatetics.
But
Cicero, lib.
1.
de Nat. Deorum, contradicts
him thus.
I wonder that
Antiochus
a person so greatly acute saw not, that there was an huge distance 'twixt the
Stoics,
who disjoined things
hone
•
from things
commodious,
not only in name, but
toto genere
; and the
Peripatetics,
who compounded thi
•
gs
hone
•
t
w
•
th things
commodious
so as they should differ amongst themselves in
magnitude,
and
degrees
only, not in
kind.
For this is not a small dissension of
words
only, but a very great difference of things.
Yet in some things the
Stoics
and
Peripateti
•
ks
agreed; as that they both made
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
right reason,
the measure of
good,
and
•
vil
•
they both made
Virtue
desirable for itself, &c. The
Stoics
also differed much from those of the
New Academie,
who stiffly asserted an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
incompreh
•
nsion.
For
Zeno
had sharp, and perpetual conflicts with
Arcesilas,
who instituted the
Second Acad
•
mi
•
,
and the
Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Whence also
Ca
•
n
•
ad
•
s,
who was the
In
•
itutor
of the third, or
New Acad
•
mie,
writ sharply aga
•
nst
Zeno
the
Stoic
his
b
•
oks,
as
Aul. Gellius lib.
17.
cap.
15.
§. 10. As for the particular
Dogmas
of
Stoicism,
the
Stoics
held 1. That there are certain, common
principles,
or
Ideas
in men,
which they called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Comprehensions,
in opposition to the
Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
incomprehension,
introduced by
Arcesilas.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
was first used in this sense by
Leno
; and that in a sense
Metaphorical,
and borrowed from things apprehended by the hand, which allusion he expressed by
action
: for showing his hand with the fingers
stretched
forth, this he made the image of
fancy:
then
bending
them a little, this he made a
symbol
of
assent:
then
compressing
them, and closing his fist, this he made to be
comprehension
; which according to the
Stoics
is a firm, and certain knowledge. For, say they, whatsoever is understood, is comprehended by the mind one of these two ways: either 1. by
evident incursion
which
Laertius
stiles a
knowledge by sense,
or 2. by
transition from Ev
•
dence,
termed by
Laertius collection
by
Demonstration,
of which they make 3. kinds. 1.
Assimilation:
So a person is comprehended by his picture. 2.
Composttion
as of a
Goat
and an
Hart
is made
Hirco-cervus.
3.
Analogy,
which is either by
Augmentation,
or
Diminution.
Thus of
Stoic comprehension.
§. 11. 2. As to
Metaphysics
; the
Stoics
held, as
Laertius
tells us, 1.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
That God was but one called by several names viz.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
mind,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Fate,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Jupiter,
&c. 2. They define
God,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, &c.
That God is a Living, Immortal, Rational, Perfect Being, or intellectual in happiness, void of all Evil, providential over the world, not of human form, maker, and, as it were, parent of the Universe. According to
Plutarch. Philos
•
ph. Placit.
1.6. The
Stoics
define God, A spirit full of intelligence, of a fiery nature, having no proper form, but transforming himself into whatsoever he pleaseth. So
Laertius
acquaints us, that they held
God
to be the first, most pure being, whose essence was comprehensive of, and diffused through all beings. 3. The
Stoics
asserted likewise, that
God was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
ingenerable,
and
incorruptible.
We understand by
God,
saith
Antipater,
a living Nature, or substance, happy, incorruptible, doing good to mankind, &c.
§. 12.
Touching
God
•
s Works of
Creation,
and
Providence, Laertius
informs us, that the
Stoics
held
God
to be the
first Cause
of
all things,
and as the
faetus
is contained in the
Seed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. So also
God
was the
Spermatick Word
of the
Universe,
according to
Joh.
1.12. They affirm also (adds
Laertius
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
That the Universe was framed according to infinite Wisdom, prevision, or
Providence:
according to
Gen.
1.31.
God saw.
Touching God's
Providence
over the World,
the
Stoics
assert (as
Plutarch. Placit. Philos.
)
That God is an operative artificial fire,
Methodically
ordering, and effecting the generation of things, comprehending in himself all that
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Prolifick Virtue,
whereby everything is produced according to
fate.
This seems the same with the
Platonic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Universal spirit
traduced from
Gen.
1.2. which is farther evident from their notions of
Fate,
which
Zeno
makes not to differ much from
Nature,
and
Providence.
Chrysippus
defines
Fate,
a
spiritual power
governing the world orderly, or an eternal indeclinable
series
of things commixing, and implicating itself by eternal orders of consequence, of which it is composed, and connected: or the reason of the world, or the law of all things in the world governed by Providence.
Panaetius
the
Stoic
expressly asserts
Fate
to be
God.
Though many of the
Fathers,
as
Ju
•
tin Martyr. Apol.
1.
Irenaeus, Epiphanius
with others dispute vehemently against this
Stoic Fate,
&c. The
Stoics
held also, that the God's had a more
particular
providence over
mankind,
which is manifested by this, that all things in the world were made for the use of
Man.
Hence also they held with
Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato
and the rest, certain
Daemons,
which had inspection over, and compassion for
men
: So
Laertius
in
Zeno
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. That these
Daemons
were but
Satanick
Apes of the
Jewish Messias,
we have else where demonstrated.
§. 13. Touching
Natural Philosophy,
the
Stoics
held. 1. The
Soul
to be a
spirit connatural,
and
immortal
: So
Laertius
in
Zeno,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 2. They asserted also the
final conflagration
of the World by fire, which they called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, and traduced
originally
from the
Jews,
though
immediately
from the
Phoenicians,
as
Grotius
affirms. This (says he)
Zens
received from the
Phoenicians,
&c.
§. 14.
But the
Stoics
chief excellence consists in
Moral Philosophy
; the first part whereof they place in
Appetition,
and their
first
appetition
(according to
Laertius
) is
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to
preserve self,
for, say they, it is not lawful for any to be so proper to any, as to himself, and because nothing conduceth so much to self-preservation, as
tolerance,
and
abstinence
: thence some comprehend the whole of their
Morals
in these two
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
bear,
and
abstain.
2.
The
Stoics
held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that
Passions were irrational:
whence they defined
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Passion is the irrational,
and
preternatural motion of the Soul:
again
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
an
inordinate impulse
: and thence they concluded all wise men were austere, not indulging themselves, or others, in pleasures, grief, or other passions.
They held also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that Will was contrary to concupiscence.
Whence they assert also, that there were 3
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
good affections
in wise men: namely
Will, Joy,
and
Caution
: but 4
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or perturbations in
fools, Cupiditie, Gladness, Fear,
and
Sorrow
: as
Lud: Vives in Aug. Civ. lib.
14.
cap.
8.
§. 14.3. The
Stoics
held also (as
Diogen. Laert.
)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that the wise man was only free, but wicked men slaves.
This Liberty they defined thus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Liberty is a power of self-motion.
4. They affirmed likewise, that there was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
right reason
not only
Objective,
but also
Subjective,
and
innate
in
human
nature, which being improved might bring men to a state of happiness. So
Laertius
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. 5. Hence also they held, that there was
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
good nature,
or
seeds of Virtue
in nature, and
Free-will
to good. Whence likewise, contrary to
Socrates,
they asserted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that
Virtue was teachable.
So
Zeno,
in an
Epistle
to
Antigonus,
saith,
that a generous nature with indifferent exercise, &
the assistance of a
Praeceptor
might easily attain to perect Virtue. 6. Some of them held, that
Virtue
might be lost; others that it could not,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, by
reason of those firm principles. Cleanthes
said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That a righteous man was such by Nature, not by institution.
7. They held also, that Virtue was desirable for
itself,
and that our
Objective
happiness lay in
Virtue,
&c. 8. They thence affirmed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
That friendship was to be found only amongst virtuous persons, by reason of their likeness. 9. They held likewise, that
holy
persons only could
Worship
God aright,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that devout, and just persons only were skillful in such Rites, as belonged to the God's.
10. Lastly they affirmed that a virtuous man affects not
monastick life,
but
active.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
a Virtuous person is communicative by nature, and active.
See these
Dogmas
of
Stoicism
more largely in
Laertius
on
Zeno,
where he gives us a brief account of the whole body of
Stoic Philosophy.
The same, as to
morals,
is laid down more fully by
Epictetus
in his
Enchiridion,
as also by
Simplicius
in his annotations thereon, & yet more amply by
Arrianus,
who collected
Epictetus
his
Stoic Discourses
delivered at home, or abroad, & digested them into a
system.
But none has given us a more perfect
Idea
of
Stoic Philosophy,
than amongst the ancients
Lucius Seneca,
and Amongst the
moderne Lipsius
in his Manuduct. to
Stoic Philosophy.
§. 15. Albeit the
Stoics,
as to
Morals,
came the nearest of any to
Christians,
yet were they of all
Sects
of
Philosophers
the greatest Enemies to the
Christian Religion:
and indeed no wonder; seeing their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
whole design
was to attain unto
Happiness
by their
Virtuous Works,
and so to make that of their own
Carnal Wisdom,
and
Free-will
to all good, which we do of
Christ.
Hence they asserted
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, a
right reason,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Free-will
to all good, with
seeds of Virtue
in human nature. Whence
Austin
affirms, that the
Stoics
as well, as the
Epicureans,
come under that condemnation of the
Apostle Rom.
8.5.
&c.
They that are after the flesh,
&c. For indeed to make our own
Wisdom,
and
Free-will,
our God, as the
Stoics
did, is the most cursed piece of our
Carnal-mindedness,
and
Idolatry.
Now that the
Stoics
made their own
Wisdom,
and
Virtues
their God, is very evident from that of
Grotius in Act.
17.18.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] who there
says, that the
Stoics
were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, Vessels filled with vain presumption, and most averse from the
Christian
Religion; they denied, that their
Wise man
came short in anything of
Jupiter
; that he owed nothing to
God
for his Wisdom; That
Jupiter
could not do more than a good man; that
Jupiter
was for a longer time good, but that a wise man esteemed never the worse of himself, because his Virtues were shut up within a narrower compass of time: which you find in
Seneca Epi
•
t.
73. that a man should kill himself, rather than endure servitude, contumelies,
or great diseases.
Thus
Grotius.
And indeed
Stoic Philosophy,
albeit it give us an excellent
Idea
of
Moralitie,
yet falling upon our nature as
degenerate, and corrupt,
it has hitherto been of little use, save to feed
spiritual pride,
and turn off men from the
Covenant of Grace
to live upon the old
Covenant
of
Works.
This is sufficiently evident from that poisonous influence which
Stoic Philosophy
has had on
Pelagianism
: For the chiefest of the
Pelagian
infusions received their first ferment from the
Stoa
; Whence sprang the
Pelagian Right Reason; Free-will; Seeds of Virtue; Impeccancie,
or
perfect state,
but from the
Stoic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
? as we shall else where, God willing, demonstrate fully. That
Stoic Philosophy
is very apt to puff up, and swell proud corrupt nature,
Plutarch
himself seems to confess in
Cleomene,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The
Stoic Philosophy,
if it fall upon great, and acute natures, proves lubricous, inordinate, or doubtful; but if it be tempered with a grave, and meek, or humble mind, it confers much to true, or proper good.
This
great,
or
proud nature,
which receives so much damage by
Stoic Philosophy,
is common to all men
naturally
: and the truly
humble,
and
Meek
spirit (which
Plutarch
makes the only sit subject for
Stoic Philosophy
) is nowhere to be found, but in the Schole of
Christ,
namely among such, who being stripped of their own
Wisdom, Free-will
to all Good, and other
legal sufficiencies,
know how to improve those
Stoic Principles
of
Moralitie
on
Gospel motives
or
grounds,
with Gospel dependence on
Christ,
and unto Gospel Ends,
viz.
the exaltation of
Christ
his free Grace, and the Glory of it. This is the true
Christian Stoicism.
CHAP. IIII. Of Skepticism.
I.
Of the
Skeptics,
their several names.
II. Pyrr
•
o
his Character and chief Dogme, that nothing was knowable.
III.
The formal Idea of Skepticism.
IIII.
The main design of
Skeptics
to overthrow the Dogmas of other Sects.
V. Skeptics
denied anything to be just, or unjust.
VI.
The original of this
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, from
Heraclitus
's,
and Plato
's Schole.
VII. Plato,
and the old
Academics
not
Sceptic,
but Dogmatick.
VIII.
Wherein the
New Academics
differed from the
Skeptics. IX.
The
Skeptics
avoided all manner of Dogmatizing.
X. Skepticism
a great enemy to the
Christian
Religion.
XI.
How far 'tis commendable, and useful.
§. 1. NExt to the
Stoics
we shall mention the
Skeptics,
who were also styled
Pyrrhonians
from
Pyrrho
their chief
Coryphaeus. Laertius in Pyrrho
informs us, that they were called
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Skeptics,
because they always
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
consider a matter, but never determine anything:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Aporeticks,
because they always
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
doubt.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Ephecticks,
because, after all their long, and tedious inquisitions, there follows no assent, but
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, an
hesitation,
and suspension of judgment, or retention of assent. Lastly they were styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
Zeteticks,
because they were ever seeking, but never sound the truth.
§. 2.
The Head of this
Sect
was
Pyrrho,
who flourished in the time of
Theophrastus,
and
Epicurus,
about the 109.
Olympiad
;
for he heard
Dryso
the Son of
Stilp
•
,
and
Anaxarchus
the
Abderite
; whom also he accompanied into
India,
in the Expedition of
Alexander
the
Great,
yea was present, when the
Indian
upbraided
Anaxarchus,
that he followed the Court of Kings, but taught no one Virtue: As
Laertius
in
Anaxarchus
: who also brings in
Ascanius
affirming of
Pyrrho,
that he seemed to have sound out a noble way of
Philosophizing
by introducing
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
incomprehension,
and
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
suspension
:
for he asserted nothing: and truly (adds
Laertius) Pyrrho
's life was agreeable to his opinions; for he shunned nothing, nor took any heed to his ways.
We find the like mention of
Pyrrho,
and his
incomprehension
in
Ammonius (Comment. in Arist. Categ. pag.
9.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
saith he)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Pyrrho
the chieftain of this
Sect
said, that Beings had an incomprehension, &c.
§. 3. Hence the
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
chief Dogme
of the
Skeptics
is,
that nothing could be known, and therefore nothing might be affirmed, or denied.
So
Anaxarchus Pyrrho
's master held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
neither did he know this, that he knew nothing. So
Zenophanes
said that, no one certainly knew anything:
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
for truth lieth in an abyss.
Whence
Sextus Empiricus cap.
4. dens
Skepticism
a faculty opposing
Phenomena
's or apparences, and intelligibles all manner of ways, whereby we proceed through the equivalence of contrary things, and speeches, first to
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
suspension,
then to
indisturbance.
Thence those expressions of the same
Sextus Empiricus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
not more this, than that:
agen
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Every reason has a reason equal opposed thereto; also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
I define nothing
:
Lastly
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
I persevere
a
Sceptic,
or
considering,
&c.
§. 4. Whence the
Skeptics
made it their main business, to overthrow all the
Dogmas
of the other
Dogmatick Sects,
not by
affirming,
or
defining
anything; but by producing the opinions of all other
Sects,
and showing their invaliditie or weakness.
They instanced (saith
Laertius
) in ten ways, by which things became doubtful to us:
as from the difference 1. of
Animals,
2. of
men
3. of
Senses
4. of
Affections,
and their
vicissitudes
5. of
Educations, Institutions, Laws,
and
Customs,
&c. Thence they denied, that there were any
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
common principles
known of themselves, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
comprehensions
; and so all
Demonstration
was by them taken away; concluding
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
that the whole is indemonstrable.
They also denied, that there were any
infallible signs,
&c. This their
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
they termed also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because their opinion held in
bivio,
without encl
•
ning to this, or that part: They named it also
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, because there was nothing
affirmed,
or
denied:
for they durst not affirm that they were borne, or so much as that they were men.
§. 5. Yea the
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension
reached so far,
as that they asserted nothing to be
Good,
or
Evil; just,
or
unjust
; but that men passed their judgment according to the
institution
of
Laws,
and
Custom
; not that one thing was in it
self
more
just,
or
unjust
than another. Yea at last they came to affect an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, that the very
senses
were not to be credited. So
Anaxarchus
being carried against his will to
Cyprus,
where he was thrown into an hollow rock, and command given, that he should be beaten with iron hammers; he seeming not to regard his pain said
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
beat
Anaxarchus
's Vessel, but
Anaxarchus
himself thou canst not break.
Lastly we find the whole mystery of this
Sceptic Hesitation
well expressed by
Aristocles
in
Eusebius Praepar. Evang. lib.
14.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Things are equally indifferent, and uncertain, and undeterminable; wherefore neither can our senses, or opinions speak truth, or falsehood; wherefore neither ought we to believe them, but leave them void of opination, and without inclination, or motion; declaring concerning everything, that it neither is, nor is not; also that it is, that it is not, neither is it not.
§. 6.
As for the
Original
of this
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incomprehension,
it seems to be more ancient than
Pyrrho,
or
Anaxarchus
; for
Heraclitus
laid a great foundation for it, by asserting
all things to be in m
•
tion, and nothing certain:
So
Ammonius (in Ari
•
t. Categ. fol.
9 reckons
Heraclitus
among these
Pyrrhonians
because
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Heraclitus
said, that all things were in motion and flux, wherefore they are called
Ephecticks
from
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, suspending their judgment of things.
Yea this
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
suspension
had a considerable room, and foundation in
Plato
's Schole, the
old Academie,
wherein there was allowed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
a
Problematick kind of disputation
pro, and con, for, and against the question, with an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or liberty of
suspending
their judgments as to conclusions, about things dubious. For the
old Academics
held two sorts of things some
certain,
and
unquestionable,
others
doubtful,
which might be affirmed, or denied: As for things certain they held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
some
things are always the same, without generation, whence they concluded, such things were
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
truly knowable
and
certain
:
in which rank of things they placed our notions of
God
; of the
Soul
; of
happiness
; of the
other life,
&c. concerning these things
Plato
(and the
old Academics
) allowed not any
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
problematick disputation,
or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
suspension
; but he lays them down as certain, and indubitable, or proves them to be such
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
from indubitable principles indubitably.
But
Plato
lays down some
sensibles,
which are only
Probable,
or dubious; and of these he discourseth more freely, allowing an
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Suspension
of
judgment
concerning them; whence his difference
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, of a
Probable and demonstrative character.
From this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
in
Plato
's
Old Academie
sprang the
New Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension
of
judgment,
which differs little from the
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
suspension.
§. 7. Albeit
Plato,
by his
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Probationarie disputes pro,
and
con,
about
sensibles,
laid a considerable foundation for the
Sceptic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, yet he seems professedly to dispute against this
Sceptic Incomprehension,
or
suspension
; discovering himself to be rather
Dogmatick,
than
Sceptic. Laertius
tells us, that it was much controverted whether
Plato
doth
Dogmatize,
or not? and he seems to conclude the question in the
affirmative,
that
Plato
did
Dogmatize
; because he
expounds
those things, which he conceived
true,
and
confuted
those things which were
false
; though he
suspended
his
judgment
in things
doubtful.
So
Sextus Empiricus c.
31.
Some (saith he) hold
Plato
to be
Dogmatick,
others
Sceptic,
others, that he was in some things
Sceptic,
in some things
Dogmatick
: for in his
Gymna
•
tick Discourses,
where
Socrates
is brought in disputing with the
Sophists,
they say, he hath a
Gymna
•
tick,
or
Sceptic Character:
but when he declareth his own opinion, he is
Dogmatick.
But
Ammonius (in Arist. Categ. pag.
9.) gives us a more full account of
Plato
's judgment against this
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
incomprehension.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Plato
in many discourses confuting this opinion (about
incomprehension
) after many things adds this also to them. When, Sirs,
ye say there is an incomprehension, ye comprehend there is an incomprehension, or not? if ye comprehend it, there is then a comprehension: if ye comprehend it not, we have no reason to believe you, because you comprehend not, that there is an incomprehension.
By which argument
Plato
efficaciously overthrew the
Sceptic incomprehension.
§. 8. But the
•
e seems to be a greater affinity betwixt the
New Academics,
and the
Skeptics
in so much,
that they are often taken for one and the same
Sect.
So
Seneca Epist.
88.
The
Pyrrhonians,
and
Megaricks,
and
Eretriacks,
and
Academics,
who introduced a new Science, namely
that nothing could be known,
are verst almost in the same things.
So
Soudas
in
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. But
Sextus Empiricus cap.
31. gives this difference 'twixt the
Sceptic,
and
New Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, or
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
Those (saith he) of the
New Academie,
though they say all things are
incomprehensible,
differ from the
Skeptics
perhaps in saying all things are
incomprehensible
: for they assert this; but the
Sceptic
admits it
possible
that they may be comprehended, &c. Again (adds
Sextus
) we differ also from the
New Academie,
as to what belongs to the End: for they use in the course of life what is
credible
; we following
Laws, Customs,
and
natural
affections, live without engaging our opinion. Lastly
Sextus
seems to observe this difference, that the
New Academics, Arcesilas
with others, affirmed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
suspension
to be Good, but
Assent
to be Evil, and that according to Nature: But
Pyrrho
judged these things to be so,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, not according to nature, but apparence.
By all which it appears, that the
Academics
held this common first principle, that all things are incomprehensible, might be comprehended: wherefore they accordingly determined, that nothing could be determined. But the
Skeptics
durst not affirm, or deny anything, not so much as their own first Principle,
viz.
that all things were
incomprehensible.
§. 9. By which it appears,
that the
Skeptics
avoided all manner of
Dogmatizing,
as well that of the
New,
as that of the
old Academie,
and of all other
Sects.
So
Sextus Empiricus Chap.
6.
We say the
Sceptic
doth not
Dogmatize
: not understanding
Dogme,
as some do, in the general acceptation, for an assent to anything; for the
Sceptic
assents to those affections, or impressions which are necessarily induced by
fancy,
or
sense
; but we say he doth
not
Dogmatize
in their sense, who takes a
Dogme
for an assent to any of those inevident things, which are inquired into by Sciences. For a
Sceptic Philosopher
assents to nothing, that is not Evident; neither doth he
Dogmatize,
when he pronounceth the
Sceptic
Phrases concerning things not manifest;
as I assert nothing,
&c. Thus
Sextus Empiricus,
who treats more fully of
Skepticism
in his books against the
Mathematicians,
&c.
§. 10.
This
Sect
of
Skeptics
is very contradictory to the
Christian
Religion as it appears by the confession of
Nicetas In Epitom. Clement. Roman.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
we have accurately inquired into those things, which are delivered by the
Philosophers
; Especially those things, which are greatly repugnant to
Piety
towards
God
: namely the
Dogmas
of
Epicurus,
and
Pyrrho,
that so we might be the better able to refute them. And indeed
Skepticism
is but a door to
Atheism
: for by questioning everything men at last come to believe nothing, though most certain, even the Being of a God.
§. 11. Albeit
Skepticism
be a thing of dangerous Consequence, yet is it not wholly to be condemned in things
naturals
and as it was used, in its first original: for although there are many things
certain,
which ought not to be called into question, yet there are, especially in
naturals,
many more uncertain things, in such things, if we will not precipitately err, we must not precipitately Judge. but in things of this kind it is most agreeable
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, to
suspend
our assent; which was the practice of
Plato,
and his successors in the
old Academie,
whence sprang the
Academic
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Thence
Tully in Lucullo
brings in the
Academics
speaking thus:
We are not those, to whom nothing seems true; but we say that there are some falsehoods mixed with Truths, and that under so great similitude, as that there remains in them no certain note of discretion, or difference. Agen says
Cicero
: what can there be more rash, and unworthy the gravity, and constance of a Wise man, than to yield a false assent; or to defend without hesitation that, which is not sufficiently perceived, or understood.
This modest
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or
suspension
was greatly affected by
Socrates,
who in things uncertain, or dubious gave himself, and
Scholars
a liberty of
suspending
; though in things necessary, certain, and
Moral
he was very tenacious, and
Dogmatizing.
CHAP. V. Of Epicureanism.
Epicurus
his original, His Institution, Sect, and Character. His Pride, and contention. His temperance according to the Character of his friends. His Industrie, and Disciples. His Philosophy.
1.
Physicks, of Atoms, &c.
2.
His contempt of Logic, and Rhetoric.
3.
His Ethics: of Pleasure, and Passion. That Pleasure is the chiefest Good. That this Pleasure consists in Virtue:
Epicurus
's Atheistic Conceptions of God's Providence, &c. His denying the Immortality of the Soul, what opposition
Christianity
found from the
Epicureans.
§. 1. HAving taken some View of all other
Sects,
we shall conclude with the
Epicurean,
which was but a branch of the
Eleatick Sect
; and received its
Institution
from
Epicurus,
who was born in the third year of the 109
Olympiad,
seven years after
Plato
's death, and 341 before the birth of
Christ.
He was borne at
Gargettus
a Town belonging to the
Egean
Tribe; and was bred up at
Samus
till the 18 year of his age; at which time he went to
Athens, Xenocrates
living in the
Academie,
and
Aristotle
at
Chalcis.
About the 23 year of his age, he went to
Colophon
to his Father; and from the 32 year of his age, to the 37 he lived partly at
Mitylene,
partly at
Lampsacum,
where he instituted a Schole, as
Soudas
observes, and
Gassendi
after him (
Chap.
5. of
Epicurus) Epicurus
returning to
Athens
about the 37 year of his age, he a while discoursed of
Philosophy
in public with others, but after instituted a
Sect
in Private denominated from himself
Epicureans.
At first indeed admiring the
Doctrine
of
Democritus
he professed himself a
Democritian,
or of the
Eleatick Sect,
unto which
Democritus
appertained. So
Cicero de Nat. Deorum.
Democritus
was a very great Person, from whose fountains
Epicurus
watered his Garden:
meaning his
Schole,
which was in a Garden. Yet afterwards, out of a spirit of Pride, and contention
Epicurus
rejects
Democritus,
and changeth many things in his
Dogmas
; Thence (saith
Cicero
)
he was very ungrateful towards
Democritus,
whom he followed.
Clemens Alexandrinus
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
lib.
1. and others report
Nausiphanes
the
Pythagorean,
Disciple of
Pyrrho,
to have been master to
Epicurus. Laertius
affirms, he was chiefly addicted to
Anaxagoras.
He also admired the Conversation of
Pyrrho,
as
Gassendi
in his
Life cap.
4. By which it appears, that
Epicurus
first embraced
Skepticism,
whence he fell into
Atheism,
and
Epicureanism
; and indeed no wonder, for the
Sceptic
is the fittest matter to form an
Atheist,
and
sensualist
out of, as hereafter.
§. 2.
Epicurus
having imbibed what he thought agreeable to his design, both from the
Eleatick
and
Sceptic Schools,
he forms and shapes his own
Ideas
into a peculiar
Sect
of his own, called from him
Epicureans
; and
Pleasure
being his main End, he purchaseth at
Athens
a very Pleasant Garden, where he lived with his friends, and discoursed of
Philosophy. Apollodorus
in
Laertius
tells us, that this
Garden
cost him 80.
Pounds.
We find this Encomium, of him in
Petronius Arbiter,
who followed this
Epicurean Sect.
Ipse Pater veri doctis Epicurus in hortis
Jussit, & hanc vitam dixit habere Deos.
Epicurus the Father of truth dictated in the learned Garden, and he said the God's led this life. Lucretius
the
Epicurean l.
3. gives him the like
Character.
Tu pater, & rerum inventor, tu patria nobis
Suppeditas praecepta, tuisque ex, inclyte, Chartis,
&c.
Agen speaking of
Epicurus.
Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit, & omnes
Restinxit Stellas, Exortus uti aethereus Sol.
Lactantius lib.
3.
Instit.
producing the
•
e verses, subjoins;
Truly I can never read these verses without smiling: for he spake not this of
Socrates,
and
Plato,
who were as
Princes
among the
Philosophers
: but of a man, than whom no
sick
man ever dreamed, or talked more foolishly.
Indeed the Disciples of
Epicurus
extolled him (as some nowadays) to the Skies, as if he only of all the
Philosophers
had found out the
Truth,
and all others had embraced
Shadows
: Yea his adherents were so ravished with the admiration of him, as that every month they Sacrificed to his birth day, and that on the 20. day; whence they called those holy days
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. And they burned with so great love to their Master, as that they carried his
Picture
engraven on a Ring as a lucky fortune wherever they went.
§. 3. But notwithstanding the great esteem
Epicurus
's Disciples had concerning him; others were not a little offended at him; especially for his Pride, Vanity, and Contentious spirit.
As for
Epicurus
's
Pride,
and Vanity,
Plutarch
in his book against
Epicurus
acquaints us, that
he had so proud, and swelling an opinion of himself, as that he would call no one learned, but himself, and those, who proceeded from his Schole. And touching his contention,
Cicero.
1.
De Nat. Deor.
relates, that
Epicurus
did most contumeliously vex
Aristotle
: he did most shamefully rail against
Phaedo
the
Socratick
: he did by several volumnes oppose
Timocrates
the brother of
Metrodorus,
his companion; because he in some small matters differed from him in
Philosophy
: he was very ungrateful
even to
Democritus
himself, whom yet he followed: he never styled
Chrysippus
by any other name than
Chesippus,
&c.
As for
Epicurus
's Conversation; those, who differed from him suppose him to have been immersed in all manner of sensual, and brutish pleasures.
But those, that conversed with him, and adhered to his
Sect,
make him to be very pious towards the
God's,
his
Parents,
and
Country
: also very bountiful towards his Brethren, friends, and servants: grave, and temperate, contenting himself with most simple, and mean diet; likewise sparing in
Wine,
yea living on
bread
and
water
only; So that he accounted it a great feast, if he had a little
cheese.
They make him also to be very studious, and industrious; which they argue from the multitude of volumnes he writ, beyond any other of the
Philosophers,
to the number of 300. All which books are perished, excepting three
Epistles
given us by
Laertius
in his 10. book, who has also given us a
compende
of his
Philosophy. Epicurus
lived 72. years; and died (as
Laertius
) of the stone stopping his urine, in the second year of the 127.
Olympiad.
§. 4. Among the Disciples of
Epicurus,
the first rank is given to
Mus
his servant, who
Philosophized
together with his master, and after him became the head of the
Epicurean Sect,
as
Diogen. Laertius lib.
10. Also among the Sectators of
Epicurus
is reckoned
Hermannus
mentioned by
Porphyry lib.
1.
de Abstinentia.
Also
Lucian
was an
Epicurean,
and friend of
Celsus
the
Epicurean,
who writ against the Christians, and is answered by
Origen.
This
Lucian
is by some styled the
Atheist,
because of his blasphemy against
Christ,
so
Soudas
: but herein he is vindicated by
Vossius) de Philos. Sect. cap.
8. §. 24.) who shows, that
Lucian
nowhere speaks Evil of
Christ,
save in the person of a stranger, where he calls
Christ
a
Sophist,
a title of no ill import amongst the
Philosophers,
only he speaks unworthily of
God,
on which account I suppose he was termed
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
the
Atheist.
There were also many of the
Romans,
who adhered to this
Epicurean Sect,
as
Lucretius, Cassius
: also
Maro,
who dedicated the latter part of his life to the
Epicurean Philosophy
; as in like manner,
Petronius Arbiter
; with others. And indeed there was no
Sect
continued so long, as the Schole of
Epicurus,
which when all other
Sects
failed, persisted in continual succession, as
Laertius
boasts of it; and
Lactantius lib.
3.
Institut.
easily grants; giving this reason thereof.
The Discipline of
Epicurus
was always more famous than that of other
Philosophers
; not that it brought anything of reason with it, but because the popular name of
Pleasure
invites many: for all are prone to V
•
ce.
Nazianzen Orat.
23.
on the praise of Hero Alexandrinus
joins these 3. in
Epicurus
as containing the chief of his
Philosophy
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
Epicurus
's
Automatum
together with his
Atoms,
&
Pleasure.
§. 5. As for
Epicurus
's
Philosophy,
the best thereof consisted in
Physicks,
wherein he chiefly embraced the
Dogmas
of
Anaxagoras,
yet he differed from him in many things. Touching the
Origin
of the
Universe. Epicurus
held, that all things were composed of
Atoms.
Thence that of
Au
•
tin de Civit. Dei. lib.
11.
cap.
9.
Epicurus
held, that there were innumerable worlds produced by the fortuitous confluxe of
Atoms.
See
Lud. Vives on the text. Epicurus
's
Hypothesis
is supposed to have been this:
viz.
that before the world was brought into that form, and order it is now in,
there was an infinite empty space, in which were an innumerable company of solid particles, or
Atoms
of different sizes, and shapes, which by their weight were in continual motion, and that by the various occursions of these, all the bodies of the Universe were framed in that order, they now are in.
These his sentiments of
Atoms Epicurus
is said to have traduced from
Leucippus,
and
Democritus
; especially from the latter, as before; though indeed the first great assertor of
Atoms
was
Mochus,
that famous
Phoenician Physiologist,
who traduced them from the
Jews,
as has been proved in the
Phoenician Philosophy.
The whole of the
Epicurean Physicks
is comprehended by
Lucretius
the
Epicurean
in 6. books.
§. 6.
Epicurus
contemned
Logic, Rhetoric,
and the
Mathematics.
His contempt of
Logic
is mentioned by
Laertius
in
Epicurus,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
They rejected
Logic,
as that, which perverts men's minds: for they say, that simple words suffice for
Physicks.
Yea
Cicero lib.
1.
de Nat. Deorum,
brings in
Epicurus
denying, that either part of
Contradictorie Propositions
were
true.
In the room of
Logic Epicurus
introduced his
Canonic Ratiocination
:
whence he composed a book styled
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which was (as
Laertius
tells us)
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
concerning the Rule of judgment, and Principle; also a Work, that delivered the first Elements.
This
Canon,
or
Criterion
of judgment
Epicurus
made to be not
Reason,
but
sense.
So
Cicero de Nat. Deor. lib.
1.
Epicurus said, that the senses were the messengers,
or judges of truth.
As for
Epicurus
's contempt of
Rhetoric Laertius
gives this account thereof
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
he used a proper kind of speech, such as was accommodated to things, which because it was simple or plain, Aristophanes the Grammarian reprehended.
So
Cicero de Finibus lib.
1. acquaints us, that
Epicurus
neglected letters, and ornaments of Speech.
Epicurus
's
contempt of the
Mathematics
is mentioned by
Plutarch
in his book against
Epicurus.
§. 7.
In
Epicurus
's
Philosophy
nothing was more pleasing to corrupt nature, than his
Ethics
especially touching the
chiefest good,
which he placed in
Pleasure
: so that he made the first, and last cause of all
human
actions to be
Pleasure,
or
Delight
arising from that good, which the mind enjoys. His
Canons
of
Pleasure,
and
Passion
(according to
Gassendi de Epicuri Philos. Morali, cap.
3.) are these: 1.
All Pleasure, which hath no pain joined with it, is to be embraced. 2. All pain, which hath no Pleasure joined with it, is to be shunned. 3. All Pleasure, which either hindereth a greater Pleasure, or procureth a greater pain, is to be shunned. 4. All pain, which putteth away a greater pain, or procureth a greater Pleasure, is to be embraced, &c.
Epicurus
's
Canons
touching
Pleasure,
as the
first
and
last
good, were (according to
Gassendi cap.
3.4.5.) these. 1.
That pleasure, without which,
there is no notion of Felicitie, is in its own nature good. 2. That
Felicitie
consists in
Pleasure,
because it is the first
Connatural
Good, or the first thing
agreeable
to nature, as also the last of expetibles, or End of good things. 3. That
Pleasure,
wherein consists
Felicitie,
is
Indolence
of body, &
Tranquillitie
of mind: for herein the absolute good of man is contained. The Indolence of the body is preserved by the use of temperance.
The health of the mind is preserved by Virtues provided, and applied by
Philosophy.
Diogenes Laertius
gives the like favorable interpretation of
Epicurus
's Pleasures, in his Vindication of him against the imputations of
Diotymus
the
Stoic. Epicurus
(saith
Laertius
) held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
That the chiefest happiness was in God.
2. Hence he placed happiness in the
Pleasures
of the
mind,
and reflection on former enjoyments. 3.
Laertius
also tells us, that he held there was an inseparable connection 'twixt
Virtue,
and
true Pleasure
: whence he said,
that Virtues were naturally conjoined with a pleasant life: agen, live thou as God in immortal Virtues, and thou shalt have nothing common with mortal.
Ammonius
in
Aristot. Categ. pag.
9. gives the like account of the
Epicurean Pleasure
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The
Epicureans
are called
Hedonici,
because they make Pleasure the last End; Pleasure; not that of the
body,
but the tranquille, and indisturbed constitution of the
Soul,
following a Virtuous life, but they mistake saying 'tis the Carkasse of Virtue, or the shadow, seeing they
make it the last End.
Seneca
affirms, that
Epicurus
complained, men were very ungrateful towards past enjoyments, because what ever good they enjoy, they reflect not again upon it, neither do they reckon it among pleasures: where as there is no pleasure so certain as that which is
past,
because it cannot be taken from us.
Present
goods have not yet a complete solid being: and what is
future
yet hangs in suspense, and is uncertain, but what is
past
is most s
•
t
•
. Yea
Epicurus
himself in his
Epistle
to
Idomeneus,
speaking of the torments, he was then under, being ready to die, says, that the joy, which he had in his mind upon the remembrance of the reasonings, which he had in his life time, stood in battle of array against all those torments (as great as could be imagined) of the strangurie he labored under.
According to these accounts,
Epicurus
's Pleasures were not so gross, as is generally conceived, yet sufficiently blame-worthy; in that he placeth man's
objective,
and
formal
happiness in
Pleasure,
which is but a consequent thereof.
§. 8. But whatever
Epicurus
's opinion was about
Pleasure
; certain it is, he was foully mistaken in his
Metaphysical Philosophizings
about
God,
his
Providence,
&c. Its true;
Epicurus
(according to
Laert
•
us
) denied not the Being, and spiritual nature, of
God
: for he held
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
,
that God was incorruptible, and most blessed,
&c. Yet he denied the Providence of God wherein he discovered the absurdnesse of his reason: for take away the belief of
Divine
Providence, and the notions of a Deity, though never so excellent, will have no awe upon the spirits, and lives of men; and therefore soon be rooted out of men's minds. Wherefore some
Ancient Philosophers
supposed, that
Epicurus
's design in acknowledging a
Dei
•
ie
which he really believed not) was only to avoid the censure of downright
Atheism
: assuring himself, that albeit he asserted one most excellent Being, which he called
God,
yet so long as he denied his
Providence,
he sufficiently served his own
Interest
; which was to root out all common foundations of
Religion,
and so to establish a
practical Atheism.
Thence
Tully de Nat. Deor.
1
o
. tells us, that
Epicurus
extracted Religion by the roots out of men's minds, seeing he took from the immortal
God's
both
assistance,
and
Grace.
For albeit he affirmed the Nature of
God
to be most excellent, and best, yet he denied
Grace
in
God
; and so took away that, which is most proper to the best, and most excellent Nature. For what is better, or more excellent, than
bonity
and beneficence?
which if you take from God, you make no one dear to God,
and no one beloved of him, &c.
Epicurus
's great
Canon,
whereby he destroyed the
Providence
of God, was (according to
Laertius lib.
10.) this,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
.
The blessed, and
immortal being neither hath any affairs of his own, neither doth he h
•
ed other men's.
His great argument to defend this his
Hypothesis
was, that it was beneath the
Majesty
of the
Divine
Being, to condescend so far, as to regard and mingle with the affairs of this lower world.
Whence he placed all Religion in the adoration of the Divine Being, abstractly for its own excellence, without any regard to his
Providence
; which is indeed to destroy all
Religion.
This
Atheistical
persuasion makes
Tully, Plutarch,
and the other
Great Moralists
degrade him from the
title
of a
Philosopher.
§. 9.
Epicurus
also denied the
Immortality
of the
Soul,
which indeed was but the consequent of his foregoing
Atheistical
persuasion; and both, as I presume, imbibed together with his
Sceptic
Infusions from the
Sceptic
Schole: for
Skepticism
naturally degenerates into
Atheism,
and this into
Sensuality.
Likewise
Epicurus
's
Dogmas
touching
Atoms
gave a great foundation to his
Atheism
: For his
Hypothesis
being granted, that the first production of the
Universe,
and all successive generations proceed from a
Casual
combination of
Atoms,
it is easy to salve all the
Phaenomenas
of Nature without a
Providence.
§. 10. What opposition the
Christian Religion
found from this
Epicurean Sect
is evident from
Act.
17.18.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
] He mentions (saith
Grotius
) two
Sects
of
Philosophers
most opposite to the
Christian
Religion. For the
Epicureans
believed that the world was not created by God; and that God regarded not human affairs; that there were no Rewards or punishments after death; that there was no Good, but what was sensible:
§. 11.
Campanella
in his
Politicks
seems to make the
Skepticism, Atheism,
and sensuality of the
Epicureans
the occasion of their Ruin.
The
Philosophers
(says he) passed not from opinion to opinion, beyond
Epicurus
;
under whom denying God, and
Providence,
their
Sects
were destroyed. He makes this the curse of all that kind of
Philosophy,
which degenerating first into
Skepticism,
and from thence into
Atheism,
was then rooted out of the World. And no wonder,
God
blasted
Philosophy,
when
Philosophy
dared so highly to blaspheme
God
: No wonder
God
should
root
that
Philosophy
out of the World, which in
Epicurus,
and his
Sectators
(the
Swine
of that
Stie
) became so debauched, and vain, as
to attempt the eradicating of the
Notion
of a
God,
or at least his due
Fear,
and
Reverence
out of the World. But the
Mischief
of all such
Vain Philosophy,
to, and the
Usefulnes
of
sincere
sound Philosophy in the
Christian
Religion, may be the matter of another Undertakement; if this
Historical
Account now finished (and mainly designed in Order thereunto) find any such Reception, and Entertainment, as may give Encouragement to such a
Work.
Page 13. Line 5. Read
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 16. l. 30. for
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, p. 33. l. 21. for
pretty
r.
petty
l. 29. dele by p. 37. l. 11. for
we
r.
he
p. 38. l. 32. for
Barbarians Barbarism
p. 48. l. 33. dele
has
p. 61. Title for,
from,
r.
vouchsafed to
p. 66. l. 35. r.
Esprits
p. 81. l. 10. r.
Sacrifice
p. 86. l. 16. r.
c.
47. p. 94. l. 32. r.
Tables
of
Philostratus.
p. 93. l. 15. After Homer a
period
p. 99. l. 24. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 101. l. 16. after
Ages
add,
and
p. 101. l. 19. r. Theaetetus l. 28.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 106. Contents l. 10. dele
by
p. 113. l. 6. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
l. 14. after
Hypothesis
a comma p. 136. l. 15. for
Justin
r. Apuleius p. 142. l. 11. for,
we should,
r.
The Jewish Priests were to
p. 165. l. 36. for
Third
r.
Threefold
p. 166. l. 13. After
likewise
inserr
that
p. 167. l. 13. After Philostra
•
us, for Fables r.
Tables
p. 172. l. 36. for the first
Principles
r.
Principle
p. 173. l. 3. r
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 174. l. 35. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 175. l. 24. before
that
insert
he
p. 179. l. 6. for
C
•
rine
r. doctrine p. 211. l. 8.
Contents,
for
Introduction
r.
Induction
p. 215. l. 28. for
when
r. whence p. 254. l. 21. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 265. l. 33.
for Book
read
Part
p. 266. l. 6. by
Papal Hierarchy,
understand the whole
Series
of the Ruling Clergy under the Pope p. 268. l. 32. for
ineffectual
r.
ineffable
p. 272. l. 35. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 283. in the lowest note dele the 3 first words p. 285. l. 17. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 312. l. 26. before
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
r.
Medicine
p. 338. l. 23. before
see
add (and dele (l. 24. l. 20 r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 343. l. 17. after
form,
add
and
p. 344. l 31.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
and for
Col-ri-jah,
r.
Col-pi-jah
p. 351. l. 32. for
Myron
r.
Maherne
p. 356. l. 2. for 1, r. 5, p. 365. l. 28. After 15, insert
where
l. 29. after
Glory
a period l. 31. after
been,
a comma and dele this p. 380. l. ult. For
Hypothesis
r▪
Hypot
•
posis
p 384. line 4. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 385. l. 10. after &c add 12. p. 431. l. 10. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
p. 433. l. 19. r.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. In the Style of the last paper of Verses r. the second word
both.