of philosophizing as hereafter § 10. We proceed now to the matter of Sanchoniathon's Philosophie which will give us a farther demonstration that it was traduced from some Scriptural or Jewish Traditions Touching his Metaphysicks and Theologie Sanchoniathon treats of God his worship c of Angels and of the Soul That Sanchoniathon writ of the Phenician Theologie Theodoret Therapeut Serm. 2. assures us out of Porphyrie in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanchoniathon the Berytian writ the Theologie of the Phenicians And Porphyrie greatly admires Sanchoniathon c. Suidas also tels that besides the Institutes of the Phenicians Sanchoniathon writ also of the Theologie of the Egyptians Now this Theologie of which he treated consisted chiefly in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or origination of the Gods and the Sacrifices or worship they gave unto them As for his account of the original of their Gods 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 Phenician Gods was the Sun called by Sanchoniathon Beelsamen in the Phenician and Hebrew dialect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Lord of Heaven So Philo Byblius out of Sanchoniathon's Theologie of the Sun Euseb praepar lib. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This they say is God whom they repute the only Lord of Heaven calling him Beelsamen which is amongst the Phenicians Lord of Heaven This seems to be but a corrupt Tradition of Gen. 1.16 where 't is said that God made the greater Light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night whence the Phenicians stile 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 Gods in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by these was produced Eliun called the most high Eliun in the Phenician and Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 addes that this God Eliun begat the Heaven and Earth which seems evidently to be taken from Moses's words Gen. 14.19 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the most high God that produced the Heaven For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies also to produce as the LXX renders it Zach. 13.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so it is rendred Gen. 4.1 Then Sanchoniathon proceeds thus The first born of the Sons of Heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Ilos who also was called Kronos or Saturne Ilos is apparently from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 El a name of God which the Phenicians gave to their Idol Saturne So Damascius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Phenicians and Syrians name their Saturne El. Whence the Grecians call the Sun which was the Phenician Saturne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Then it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The companions of Ilos Phaen. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eloah i. e. Saturne are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also some broken fragments of the Trinitie which he here seems to expresse under his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence the Platonists seem to have traduced their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as hereafter It follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The God Vranus i. e. Heaven excogitated or imagined the Baetulia when he framed the living stones That these Baetulia or stones which the Phenicians 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 't is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i e. anointed stones So that the Translaror transporting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anointed read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 living That these Baetulia which the Phenicians worshipped had their rise from Jacob's consecrated stone at Bethel is generally asserted by the Learned Jos Scaligâ—r on Eusebius c. as elsewhere Part 1. B. 2. C. § 11. To these pieces of Sanchoniathon's Theologie translated by Philo Byblius Eusebius addes a place or two out of Porphyrie his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which the same Saturne is by the Phenicians called Israel His words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Saturne whom the Phenicians call Israel c. This Saturne is said also to have an only son by the Nymph Anobret whom he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeud and sacrificed So Sanchoniathon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He sacrificed his only son speaking of Saturne 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehid is the Epithet given to Isaac Gen. 22.2 So Anobret is properly given to Sarah for the Phenician and Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anobret or Annobret signifies one conceiving by grace which is rightly said of Sarah Heb. 11.11 only what Abraham did in intention only Porphyrie and Sanchoniathon make Saturne to do actually which 't was the policie of Sathan to make them believe thereby to induce following Ages to offer their sons to Molech or Saturne which was the great Idol of the Phenicians Porphyrie in his lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tels us that the Phenician Historie composed by Sanchoniathon was full of such kind of sacrifices c. which it is very evident the Phenicians at first traduced from the Jews as the Jâ—ws not long after received the same Idolatrous and inhuman mode of sacrificing their sons to Molech from the Phenicians So much for Sanchoniathon's Theogonie and Theologie which gave foundation to the Grecian Mythologie about their Gods § 12. Sanchoniathon according to Philo Byblius's Version cited by Euseb praep lib. 1. has other pieces of Metaphysicks which seem to be borrowed from Scripture relations He makes mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Bochart interprets of the Creation of the Angels Also the first men are by him said to be made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Colpia which he attributes to the wind is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col-pi-jah
in the beginning of things a spirit of dark Air which he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an evening chaos or darknes And that Thales's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Water was the same with Sanchoniathon's Chaos we have the Testimonie of Plutarch who produceth the Authoritie of Hesiod touching his Chaos addeth that the greater part of ancient Philosophers called water chaos from diffusion a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Phenicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies matter which he interprets by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Vniverse saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of water slime was made Which is a full explication of what Thales understood by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water and the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Earth of slime was made where the Scholiast affirmes that the Chaos whereof all things were made was Water which setling 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. slime or mixture of water and mud together from which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Plato and Pythagoras seems little to differ Now that Sanchâ—niathon and Thales who followed him traduced these their sentiments of the first matter out of Moses's Historie 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 adde farther 1. The Confession of Sanchoniathon who said that he received the materials of his Histâ—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 Porphyrie 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 shews 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 Italick Societies both giving their concurring testimonie with Moses as to the true Origine of the World and not at all differing from each other Thales meant by his Water the same with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 expresse themselves to that purpose which is the same with the Phenician 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some mud or slime which they say was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus we see how Thales with the Phenicians from whom he was derived as Laertius tels 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 saies 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 Phenicians 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 Origine and perfection which seem to be but traditions originally taken from Moses's Historie 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' â—au toutes choses 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 Phaenomena 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Plato who saies that God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. beautified and orderly disposed every part of this Universe with great symetry and proportion answerable to his own eternal Idea or forme 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 refer'd that according to Laertius the same Thales pronounceth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The world is most beautiful because the workmanship of God Doest not thou think that he subscribeth to
The Original of this distinction came from the different products and objects of the one and other according to that famous Maxime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Practick philosophie 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 Platonick Philosophie 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 Philosophie Thence saies he Plato by joyning both together is said to have perfected Philosophie 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 falshood which though it be uncessary both for Contemplation and Action yet Contemplation chiefly appropriates to her self the consideration of Truth wherefore this threefold partition of Philosophie is not contrarie to the foregoing whereby it is distinguished into Contemplative and Active thus Austin That this partition of Platonick Philosophie was of Jewish origination is affirmed by Eusebius l. praeparat Evang. where he tells us That this Section of Plato's Philosophie 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 shews how Plato connected all the parts of Philosophie into one bodie which lay before dispersed like Pentheus's Members For Thales and his Disciples addicted themselves wholly to Physicks the Six other Wise men to Ethicks Zeno the Eleatick and all his adherents to Logick Plato collected all these together and brought forth to men a Philosophie not broken but intire and absolute Whereunto accords Aristotle himself lib. philos Laertius in Plato Philosophie in times past was employed only about Physicks Socrates came and added Ethicks Plato added a third part to Philosophie namely Logick whereby he gave a full consummation thereto Apuleius in Dogmate Platonis speaking of Plato saies wherefore he exactly enquired 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 Philosophie shewed that these parts so mutually necessarie 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 Philosophie seems very natural and comprehensive of all parts of Philosophie as it is easie to demonstrate for Natural Philosophie takes in Physicks and Mathematicks or else we may reduce the Mathematicks to Rational Philosophie Moral Philosophie comprehends Ethicks Oeconomicks and Politicks Rational Philosophie according to Plato takes in not only Logick but Metaphysicks 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 Philosophie in general into Organick and Essential or Principal By Organick Philosophie he understands Logick or as he stiles it from the principal part Demonstration which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Diacritick or discretive Organ whereby Truth is severed from Falshood in Contemplatives and Good from Evil in Actives As for the Essential or principal Members of Philosophie he divides it first into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoretick or Contemplative and Practick or Active Theoretick Philosophie he makes to be that which regards Truth and Falshood Practick that which considers Good and Evil. 1. Theoretick Philosophie he subdivides into Physiologick which is the Contemplation of Sensibles not in their Individuals but as they lye in their abstract specifick 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 Philosophie he subdivides it into 1. Ethicks which respects men in their single capacities or personal Morals 2. Oeconomicks which respects mens Morals as in Familie consociation or capacitie 3. Politicks which considers men under Citie or National confederation This Distribution of Philosophie though it seem more Comprehensive and Artificial yet it suits not so well with Plato's Philosophie 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 Philosophie 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 designe 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the supreme Discipline and his Logick 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 Philosophie to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 assimilation to God so far as 't is possible This he makes the Forme Spirit Soul and Measure of his Philosophie which ought to informe and influence all matters parts and things as the Soul the Bodie So Ammonius in Arist Cat. pag. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Matter of Philosophie is things but the end is assimilation to God By which it 's evident that the common distribution of Philosophie into Theoretick and Practick as understood by Aristotle and the Scholes for a division of the whole into opposite parts is no way agreeable to Plato's Philosophie who following Socrates herein makes Contemplative Philosophie 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 studie of Philosophie addes this caution Whereas Philosophie is divided into Contemplative and Active you ought chiefly to studie the latter and the former no farther than it subserves this latter The common Instrument of both is Logick with which you are to begin c. A Golden Rule indeed for young students § 5. Having laid down these Four Distributions of Philosophie we shall take up the Fifth which seems most Platonick and native as the frame of this discourse yet not without some addition from the â—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 Philosophie we shall give it a distinct place of it 's own confining rational
and Moses their Philosophie to which we shall adde 1. that of Ludovicus Vives on August de Civit Dei lib. 8. cap. 9. The Philosophie of the Egyptians saies 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 Mercurie and Hercules Thus Lud. Vives First this old Tradition that the Egyptian Philosophie and thence the Grecian sprang from the Chaldeans is and that not without great probabilitie 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 expresly saies that the Egyptian Philosophie came principally from Abraham for which he has much of Pagan Antiquitie on his side as we mentioned on Abraham Josephus Aâ—tiquit sud lib. 1. cap. 16. judgeth that the Egyptians learned their Arithmetick and Astrologie from the Patriarch Abraham who brought these Sciences from Chaldea But the Egyptians are wont to refer their Philosophie to Isis Osiris Vulcan Mercurie and Hercules as Diodorus Siculus The Doctors of this wisdom are by Clemens Alexandrinus called Prophets by Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Geometrie 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 cals them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Suidas 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 Philosophie originally to Isis Osiris Mercurie 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 custome of that infant Age. Athan. Kircher Oedipi Aegypt Tom. 3. c. 1. makes Hermâ—s Trismegistus the Author of the Egyptians Hieroglyphick Philosophie 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 varietie of things as a Scene distinguisht with most polite Images he rightly supposed that these creature-images were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Symbols of God c. And hence the first rudiments of Hieroglyphick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeded which being adumbrated by the first Patriarchs Adam Enoch Noah Câ—am and perfected by Hermes sprang up unto the forme by the stupendious architecture of Hieroglyphicks That Mercurie called by the Grecians Hermes could be no other than Joseph has been already proved in the Storie of Joseph's Philosophie as also Part 1. Book 2. Chap. 7. § 10. of the Egyptian Theogonie But Serranus that great Philologist in his Preface to Plato speaks more fully and expresly touching the traduction of the Egyptian Philosophie from the Patriarchs and Scripture Revelation His words are these That the Egyptians retained many things from the Traditions of the Patriarchs the ancient Historie 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 Philosophie from the Jewish Church we now shall endeavor to give some Artifiicial Argument or Demonstration from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or cause by shewing 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 Philosophie before the abode of the Patriarchs with them is evident by their own concessions for they confesse they owe all their wisdom to their Gods Isis Osiris but principally to Mercurie 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 Mercurie of whom Iamblichus most skilful in the Egyptian Theologie lib. de Myster Aegipt cap. 1. thus writeth The Egyptians report Mercurie to be the Mâ—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 Gods were younger than the Patriarchs or at least but borrowed names given to them is generally asserted by the Learned especially that Mercurie or Hermes was Joseph or Moses Carion in his Châ—oniâ—on lib. 2. of Abraham tels us that after the great Famine in Egypt Joseph altered the constitution or forme 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 forme 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 Knowledg 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 Mahometans 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 Philosophie 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 setling 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
they who by reason of their own inveterate prejudices and the Worlds enmitie 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 Philosophie Adde hereto that some of them by reading our books drew forth many noâ—ioâ—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 Platonicks nor the Magick Inchantments of the Pythagoreans yet they mixed many sparks of the heavenly Truth with them More of this hereafter Book 3. â— 4. § 5. § 12. There was also in the first planting of the Gospel a famous Church of Christ in this Citie 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 saies 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 Origâ—n Heraclus Dionysius Athenâ—dore Malcion and Didymus who reached to the year 350. The which Doctors gave an admirable advance to the Church The Towne was for this reputed as the universal Schole of the Church The truth is Philosophie 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 simplicitie of the Gospel would fain adorne it with the ornaments of human Eloquence and Philosophie and from a rage to learne would faine mount higher than their Teachers c. Hence the same Morâ—lius lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 87. shews 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 ruine of the said Schole and Church Thus have we gone thorough the whole series of the Egyptian Philosophie 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 Phenician Philosophie its Traduction from the Jews The Phenicians traduced Philosophie themselves and deriv'd it into Greece and other parts from the Jews Of the Phenician Philosophie and its propagation to the Grecians Of Sanchoniathon and the original of his Philosophie from the Jews Porphyrie's Testimonie of Sanchoniathon's traducing his Philosophie from Jerombalus Priest of the God Jao i. e. Gideon or some Jewish Priest Sanchoniathon's Mythologick mode of philosophizing from the Jewish Church The Matter of his Philosophie from the Jews His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theogonie or Genealogie of the Gods Beelsamen from heb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gen. 1.16 Eliun from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ilos from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eloeim from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baetulia from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Israel from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Gen. 1.2 The Greek Philosophers concurrence herein Sanchoniathon's Geographie Sanchoniathon's Natural Historie continued by Mochus the Physiologist who was the first Founder of the Doctrine of Atomes which he makes to be the first principle of all things which he received by some Jewish tradition from the Historie of the Creation Gen. 1. of Addomenus Vossius's account of the Traduction of Phenician Philosophie from the Jews as the Ionick and Italick from the Phenicians § 1. WE now proceed to the Phenicians their Philosophers and Philosophie with its Traduction from the Jewish Church c. And to make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Phenicians from the old Cananites who being expelled Canaan by Joshua came and seated themselves on these Maritime Coasts of Palestine called by them afterwards Phaenicia West of Judaea whence being too populous for this narrow Countrey they transplanted Colonies and with them Human Philosophie 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 adde 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 Phenicians saies he for lucre's sake passed in their Ships thorough the whole world whither they traduced Knowledge and Philosophie from the Jews This great Bochart does more copiously explain and demonstrate in the Preface to the second part of his Geographie stiled Canaan fol. 9. From what we have said it clearly appears that the Grecians were greatly exceeded by the Phenicians as well in the skill of Navigation as of Geographie For the Phenicians began long before the Grecians to view the world And indeed this was almost the only Studie which was innate to this Nation even from their Origine to sail throughout all parts of the world and plant Colonies whereunto they were incited either from the thirst of Glorie or the irksomnes of their own Countrey or the desire of Empire or Curiositie the â—nquisitor of natures secrets or the unsatiable desire of Lucre. Thence they amongst them who first ventured their persons at Sea were so much admired by posteritie that they were for this noble exploit numbred amongst their Gods Such were Saturne and Astarte whom Sanchoniathon describes circuiting the Earth c. The like the same Bochart mentions fol. 6 7. Therefore saies he if these monuments of the Phenicians were now extant there would thence accede great light to sacred and profane Historie we might adde also Philosophie 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 dammage of Learning these Monuments we have nothing remaining of the Historie of the Phenicians but a few fragments scattered here and there in the writings of the Grecians and Romans c. § 2. And more particularly touching the Phenicians skill in Philosophie especially the Mathematicks we have a good account in Bochart part 2. of Canaan cap. 8. fol. 410. thus This was peculiar to the Phenicians to direct their course by the inspection of the Stars So Strabo lib. 16 The Sidonians are reported to be Masters of many and
else where acknowledgeth that they received their Learning from the Barbarians and Ancients who lived near the Gods c so Clemens Alexandr lib. 1. saies that Philosophie 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 Philosophie 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 Phaenicia for his Philosophie Phâ—recydes to Phaenicia for his Pythagoras to Phaenicia Egypt and Chaldea for his Socrates and his Scholar Plato traduced theirs from Egypt and Phaenicia Solon his Laws from Egypt and Zeno his Morals from Phaenicia As Democritus and Epicurus their Atomes from Mochus And Aristotle his Natural Philosophie of the first principles matter forme and privation c. from Sanchoniathon's Historie 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 Philosophie originally from the Scriptures either by personal conversation with the Jews or Traditions from them which they gleaned up in Egypt Phaenicia and Chaldea c. § 2. That the Egyptians Phenicians and Chaldeans received their Philosophie from the Jewish Church and Scriptures we have in the former Book endeavoured to prove both as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Philosophie from these aforementioned Egyptians Phenicians 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 Philosophie 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 tels 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 conceled 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 Vnitie of God as to his Essence and pluralitie of persons and Decrees was from the Ancients who dwelt nearer the Gods 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 Vnitie of God and Pluralitie of persons and Decrees were traduced Whence also Plato acknowledgeth that the best and surest course to prove the immortalitie of the Soul was by some Divine Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in his Phaedo The like he acknowledgeth elsewhere that he received his knowledge of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or providence governing the World from the wise i. e. as 't is conceived the Jews And Serranus in his Preface to Plato does confidently affirme that Plato received his symbolick Philosophie 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 affirmes as Josephus contra Ap. lib. 1. that Pythagoras translated many things out of the Jewish Institutes into his own Philosophie 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 Proeme to the Lives of the Philosophers begins with these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Some affirme that Philosophie had its origine 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 adde 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 affirmes of Plato as Euseb praep Evang. l. 9. c. 6. and Clemens Alexand. Strom. 1. who also Strom. 5. saies that Aristobulus affirmed the same of the Peripatetick Philosophie viz. that it depended on Moses's Law and other of the Prophets Josephus l. 1 contra Apion saies 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 It s 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 Philosophie 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 Philosophie from the Scriptures and Jewish Church Amongst the Ancients we have Tertullian Apol. c. 17. who of the Poets saies 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 sheweth how Orpheus Pythagoras Plato Homer c. borrowed many things from Moses and he does industriously prove the Noveltie of the Grecian Philosophie out of Polemo Apion Ptolemaeus Mendisius Philocrates and others So Minucius in Octavius The Philosophers saies 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 cals 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 tels 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 Judaick Philosophie some by their Writings seem to approve their manner of life others followed their Theologie so far as they were able Thus again Euseb praepar l. 10. c. 2. praefat in lib. 5. The Grecians like Merchants fetcht their Disciplines from else where So Theodoret l. 2. de Curand Graec. affect saies 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 Augustin and Jerom 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 tels us that Plato in expounding the production of the world by God imitates Moses in many things The like he affirmes de mundi creatione lib. 6. cap. 21. pag. 24◠what Moses saies he said of Man that God made him after his own image Plato translates to all things in the world whence he stiled 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 Philosophie from the Jewish Church and Scriptures Amongst the Papists we might mention Brietius in his Geographie Mariana on Genes 1. also Ludovicus Vives upon August de civ Dei de veritate c. of whom else where we shall at present content our selves with the Testimonie 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 testifie This Science springing partly from the first origine of men has been devolved through all Ages unto Posteritie c. Thence he proceeds to shew the Modus how this Philosophie was derived from hand to hand in all Ages The most true Supputation of Times proves that Methusalem lived and might converse with Adam as Noah with Methusalem Therefore Noah saw and heard all things before the Floud Moreover before Noah died Abraham was fifty years aged Neither may we conceive that this most pious man and his holy Seed would concele 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 Barbarisme c. Thence having explicated how Philosophie was handed down even to Moses's time the same Eugubinus addes Therefore that there has been one and the same Wisdom alwaies 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 glasse a far off So in what follows he saies 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 Theologie and the Traditions of the Fathers whereof he was Heir as it was most equal remained All these things being reteined by Noah and his Sons were seen and heard by Abraham he declared them to his Son Grandchild from Jacob they passed unto posteritie Whence also flowed the Pietie and Sapience of Job who in no regard came short of the Pietie and Sapience of the Hebrews Canst thou conceit that he who was most ancient even in Abraham's daies saw not Noah and heard him not discoursing Hence the same Eugubinus cap. 2 having divided Philosophie 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 Philosophie shone forth scattering by its Brightnes all the darknesses of the former not conteining it self 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word concludes thus Truely 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 Floud and many other things as we learn out of Augustin 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 every where asserts our conclusion as we shall have frequent occasion to shew 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
mean the Hebrews Bochart Phaleg l. 4. c. 34. tells us that Herodotus calls the Jews Phenicians So Xenophon tells us the Jews were called Syrians as before Part 1. Book 1. Chap. ◠Parag. 9. 3. Plato makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ancient Discourse o◠Tradition which he elsewhere calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Divine Word o◠Tradition received from the Ancients who lived near the Gods c. which cannot be understood of any more probably then of some Jewish Traditions as appears by particulars 1. Plato in his Philebus fol. 17. confesseth that The knowledge of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. one infinite Being was from the Gods who communicated this knowledge to us by a certain Prometheus together with a bright Fire and then he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Storie of One and many is a Tradition which the Ancients who were better and dwelt nearer the Gods than we transmitted to us c. This Tradition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and many was Originally traduced from the Jewish Church and the Scripture account of God the Unitie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Ancient Tradition which affirmed God to be the beginning the end and middle of all things c. This Plutarch calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ancient Fame they meant it of Moses The like Plato in his Philebus affirmes that all wise Men grant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Divine mind is to us King both of Heaven and Earth neither does any thing happen fortuitously This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he elsewhere calls the Soul of the World informing and governing all things as the Soul the Bodie 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 immortalitie of the Soul confesseth that the safest and most certain way to prove it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Origine of the Universe laies down this preliminarie Conclusion It is just that both I who discourse and you that judge should remember that we have but humane nature and therefore receiving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the probable Fable or Mythologick Tradition it 's meet that we enquire no farther into them That this probable Fable was some Jewish or Scriptural Tradition of the Origine of the Universe will be sufficiently evident when we come to prove that all Plato's Philosophizings touching the Origine 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 Innocencie under the Symbolick Image of Saturn's Golden Age he tells us the Fruits of the Earth grew of their own accord without labour that Men were naked and had conference with the Beasts And then he concludes But these things we must omit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Storie 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 whereever we find Plato making mention of any Barbarick Egyptian or Phenician 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 conceled as also clothed those Jewish Traditions with a Grecian Mythologick habit thereby to avoid that odium which lay upon the Jewish Nation as also to gratifie the curiositie of the Fabulous Greeks and render himself more esteemed amongst them That this was the reason why Plato disguised his Jewish Traditions and conceled 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 vanitie which possest 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 severitie of the Areopagites and the example of his Master Socrates by them put to death by Poyson 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 Divinitie 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 termes him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
substance of Socrates's discourses to writing but with great mixture and addition of his own which gave much offence to Xenophon his condisciple who in an Epistle to Aeschines Socraticus mentioned by Eusebius Praepar Evang. l. 24. upbraids Plato for corrupting Socrates's Philosophie 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 Apologie for Socrates and their Moral Commentaries Plato in his books of Laws saies that Xenophon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is generally confest and shall be hereafter mentioned After Socrates's death Plato applyed 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 Philosophie 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 Philosophie as that which carried with it most of Divine Mysteries therefore suited best with his luxuriant Phansie he travels into Italie that part which was called Magna Graecia 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 Origine of the Universe its parts c. So Ludov. Vives on Aust in Civ lib. 8. c. 11. Speaking of Plato's Timaeus saies he called this book so because Timaeus the Locrian is induced disputing of the Universe whom he heard in Italie 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 Apologie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also from the Books of Epicarmus alias Cous that famous Pythagorean Philosopher So Lud. Vives in Austin Civ l. 8. c. 11. Alcinus saies 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 excell 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 Philosophie it came to passe 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 Philosophie to the Pythagorean When Socrates had bid farewel to Human affairs Plato deflected from the Socraticks whose affaires were then doubtful to the Pythagoreans seeking what proficience he might gain among them And he went twice into Italie 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 lesse 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 Italie Cicero in Catone writes that Plato came to Tarentum when L. Aemilius and Ap. Claudius were Consuls though according to Livie this account will not hold Now that the Pythagorick Philosophie 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 informe himself in the Jewish wisdom and mysteries was his travels into Egypt which Laertius makes to have been after his departure from Italie though Austin in what was before cited supposeth him to have travelled from Egypt into Italie Others reconcile both by affirming that Plato went first unto Italie thence into Egypt from whence he returned back again into Italie Plato non contentus disciplinis quas praestare poterant Athenae non Pythagoraeorum ad quos in Italiam navigaverat Aegypti quoque Sacerdotes adiit atque 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 Italie had recourse also to the Priests of Egypt and became throughly 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 informe himself in Arithmetick 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 unsatiable thirst after Oriental Traditions and Mysteries for the satisfying whereof he left
Apollonius Tyanaeus that Pythagorean Sorcerer and endeavours 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 Porphyrie was a person of an unsound bodie and minde of a judgment unconstant and of an hatred sharpe and cruel even unto madnes 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Book Cyril cites against Julian and ascribes to Porphyrie Concerning Porphyrie see more largely Lucas Hoâ—stenius and Vossius de Histor Gracis lib. 2. cap. 16. Edit 2. pag. 244. § 8. After Porphyrie 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 Porphyrie Vossius calls him a Platonick Philosopher though Lud. Vives saies according to Jerom he was not so much a Platonick 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 Philosophie also his Historie of Pythagoras's Life wherein he follows his Master Porphyrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 't is likely the same continued even whilst Julian made some profession of the Christian Religion Suidas 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. saies that amongst the Platonists the Grecians Plotinus Iamblichus and Porphyrie were greatly noble c. § 9. Syrianus Alexandrinus Fellow-Citizen and Sectator of Iamblichus follows next in this Sacred succession of Platonick Philosophers He lived about the Year 470. and writ four Books on Plato's Common-wealth also on all Homer with other things as Suidas 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 Suidas out of Damascius § 10. Proclus Lysius Disciple of Syrianus succeeded him in this famous Platonick Schole This Proclus flourished about the Year 500. as 't is evident though some upon a great mistake make him to have lived almost 300 Years before Suidas calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Platonick Philosopher He was usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diadochus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by reason of his succession in the Platonick Schole He writ many things as ten Books of the Agreement betwixt Orpheus Pythagoras and Plato in Oracles also six Books of Platonick Philosophie which are yet extant likewise a Commentarie on Plato's Timaeus and on his Books of Common-wealth yet extant also with other Pieces lost of which Suidas makes mention Proclus's Life was writ by his Scholar and successor Marinus who tells us that he had some taste of Aristotle's Philosophie from Olympiodorus which he cursorily ran thorough in two Years space The same Marinus tells us also that he was accurately skilled in Grammar Historie and Poesie in the Mathematicks perfect and well versed in Platonick Philosophie His Mode in Philosophizing is cloudie and obscure as that of Plotinus and the rest of the New Platonists He endeavours according to the Symbolick mystical manner of Platonists to reduce all things to their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Bonitie Immutabilitie or Unitie and Veritie Whence Aristotle also received his three affections of Eus Bonitie Unitie and Veritie This Proclus was a bitter enemie to the Christians and the first after Porphyrie 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 Platonick Theologie 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 Porphyrie 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 drencht in Platonick Philosophie 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 Porphyrie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Philosophie in endeavouring to prove that Plato borrowed his choicest Notions touching the Origine 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 saies 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 rejoycing therein c. to be taken from Gen. 1.31 This Johannes Grammaticus in his excellent Treatise of the Soul proaem ad Arist de anima endeavours 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 immortalitie c. Proaem fol. 6. c. In his choice Piece of the Creation he proves the World's Origine by God out of Plato c. And whereas Proclus endeavours to reconcile Plato with Aristotle shewing how Plato when he treats of the World's Origine 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 adde Maximus Tyrius who flourished in the
is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 caution according to that of the Stoicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a wise man ought never to fear but always to use caution c. 2. Another part of moral Prudence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dexteritie or sagacitie in judging things which in the Platonick Definitions fol. 413. is thus defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facilitie of judgement is a connate abilitie of reasoning or discerning And Plato de Repub. 4. fol. 428. saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 facilitie of judgement 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 wrapt up in Nature which he elsewhere calls a sagacitie of Nature so in his Epino fol. 976. There remains saies Plato a marvellous facultie whereby we easily and expeditely learne any thing and having learnt it can faithfully commend it to memorie and as occasion serves by an happie celeritie recall it which some call Wisdome others good Nature but others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sagacitie of Nature This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or natural sagacitie Plato makes to be the same with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good nature So Plato Defin fol 412. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sagacitie is a natural generositie of mind whereby a person is enabled happily to conjecture what ought to be done agen 't is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an acumen of Judgement 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 sagacitie even to admiration which discovered it self 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 sagacitie Politicians call King-Craft This Natural sagacitie is elsewhere stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a facilitie of Judgement which in the Platon Definit fol. 414. is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good judgement apprehensive of what is most eligible Agen this Natural sagacitie passeth sometimes under the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is defined Platon Defin. fol. 412. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an habit elective of what is best One great office of this Natural sagacitie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and makes very essential to a true Philosopher So Plato Rep. 9. fol. 582. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The experienced person endowed with Prudence is the only true Philosopher then he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence in the same Book Rep. 9. he joyns Prudence and Experience together with reason which he makes the best Judges of humane Affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We rightly judge by Experience joyned with Prudence and Reason And Plato in his Gorgias gives us the reason why Experience is so essential to Prudence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Experience makes our life to passe away according to rules of Art whereas inexperience makes us live casually Then again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 subtiltie of sense or good sensation of the Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Experience is indeed the main Seminarie of humane 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a good sensation 4. Experience does much greaten and adde to the quantitie of our knowledge by furnishing the mind with fresh Observations whence Plato brings in Solon speaking thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The longer I live the more I know and teach 5. Experience addes not only to the quantitie but also to the qualitie of our knowledge by rendring 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which connotes Moral Prudence we now proceed to the subject thereof expressed in the Platonick Definition by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Judgement which Divines terme 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 justifie or condemne This Vicarious Divine office of Conscience Plato seems to have had some Traditional Notices of whence he termes Conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fame and makes it to be a kind of Daemon or Pettie God in Men. So Plato de Leg. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Law of Fame partakes of a marvellous facultie seeing no one durst to breath otherwise than according to the Dictates of her Law Serranus here acquaints us that Plato calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 saies is unwritten yet notwithstanding there is in all Mens minds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sacred Law whose force and efficacie tames ev'ry Soul and compels it by few to obey positive Laws From the authoritie of this Law it is as the Philosopher teacheth that Men come to understand the difference of good and evil Again Serranus addes Our Philosopher calls this Divine Law of Conscience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law of Fame and saies 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Praecursor of that most excellent Chorus of Virtues whose admirable faculties and actions slow from no other Fountain then the sparks of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. This Law or Light of Conscience is twofold 1. Habitual which is called in the Scholes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
also sometimes under the Notion of his Universal spirit or Soul to comprehend that Universal Symmetrie Harmonie Order Beautie and Form◠which appears in the Universe So in his Timaeus fol. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The bodie of the Vniverse is framed by proportion and friendship of the Four Elements c. where he makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 analogie or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 symmetrie the bond of Union Universal spirit or forme by which all the parts of the Vniverse in themselves opposite contrarie by a friendly kind of discord are conjoyned and agree together This piece of Plato's Vniversal Spirit is but the result of the former For the Spirit of God having at first framed and still ordering the Vniverse and all its parts according to Eternal Wisdome Law and Contrivement hence flows the most exact Order Beautie and Harmonie of all parts though never so contrarie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orderer Collector and Conjoyner of all these parts in the Vniverse But of this more when we come to Plato's Forme of the Vniverse 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 ev'ry part of the Universe for the fomenting and nourishing thereof This say they Plato cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 prolifick fire or ignifick spirit diffused through the Vniverse 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 endeavoured to explicate Plato's Universal Spirit or the Spirit of the Universe we are now to proceed to its bodie and material Principle The proper bodie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or principle universally granted by all the Ancient Philosophers before Aristotle that the Universe had an origine and that this Origine was from God So that the great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Atomes Diodorus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Impartibles or Indivisibles Asclepias 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unnameable Thus Vossius de Philos part 1. cap. 5. § 13. Although this relation needs some emendation yet 't is the best I have met with in this kind and therefore it must passe Only as to Plato we must know that though he made the Four Elements before named the compleat bodie yet he made them not the first original matter of the Universe For Plato in his Timaeus describes his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first matter thus It is saies he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Genus or Species out of which ev'ry thing is composed and he expresly saies 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Watrie Firie and receptive of the formes of Air and Earth And indeed this Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first matter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 forme and void Thus Richardson in the Exposition on his Divinitie 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 endeavour 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First of all the Chaos was made That Peripatetick 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without forme which P. Fagius renders out of Kimchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same word which Plato useth to expresse his First Matter by and little different in sound but lesse or nothing at all in sense from Sanchoniathon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slime which Philo Byblius stiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Great Bochart conceives from the Phenician and Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mod which signifies Matter as before Book 1. chap. 3. § 13 14. Aquila on Deut. 32.10 renders this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confused or without order and Plato describes his first matter by the same word calling it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confused 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 namely because it was without any substantial forme order or perfection yea Plato expresly stiles his first matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without forme as Moses Hence those Peripatetick descriptions of this first matter that it is nec quid nec quale nec quantum indefinite and informe yet capable of any forme which have caused so much dispute in the Scholes 3. Moses makes his First Matter to be Gen. 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and void whence some conceive that Plato with the rest of the Greeks traduced their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for by an usual change of ב into ב 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Bochart makes the original of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Immutabilitie So in his Parmenides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one first Being is immobile and the same Again he saies that God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4. Plato also demonstrates the Eternitie of God So Timaeo fol. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is alwayes 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 immensitie 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 saies 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truth it self and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Truth 8. He greatly defends the puritie of God Rep. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. God can do no Evil neither is he the Author of Evil. 9. He makes mention of the Benignitie of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 12. He makes God's will to be the Original Vniversal Soveraign and first cause of all things as also of their futurition Repub. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 13. Farther Plato treats largely and accurately of the providence of God of Religion of the puritie and simplicitie of divine Worship c. Lastly Plato philosophizeth very sublimely of the Human Soul its divine origination immaterialitie infinite capacitie immortalitie perfection and Activity These with many other Metaphysick contemplations Plato philosophizeth much of which greatly demonstrate his acquaintance with and derivations from Judaick Traditions as it may hereafter farther appear BOOK IV. Of Peripatetick Cynick Stoick Sceptick and Epicurean Philosophie CHAP. I. Of Aristotelick or Peripatetick Philosophie it 's Traduction from the Jews The traduction of Aristotle's Philosophie 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 Gods being the first mover the souls spirituality 2. His Metaphysicks object Adequate ens Principal God Gods providence and the Souls separate state why Aristotle rejected some Traditions of Plato His Ethicks 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 Scholemen The general idea of Aristotle's Philosophie and particularly 1. Of Aristotle's Logick 2. His Ethicks 1. of mans happiness both objective and formal 2. of the principles of humane Acts. 1. of the practick Judgment or Prudence 2. of Volition 3. of Consultation 4. Of Election 3. Of Voluntariness and Liberty their identitie and combination with voluntarie intrinsick necessitie c. 4. Of Moral Good or Virtue its genus habit its form mediocritie its rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Law of Nature its definition c. Of Sin its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anomie c. 3. His Physicks 4. His Metaphysicks § 1. NExt to the Platonick we shall mention the Peripatetick or Aristotelick Philosophie 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 Aristâ—bulus a sectator of Aristotle's Philosophie mentioned by Clemens Alexandr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. who brings in Aristobulus affirming that Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 depended much upon Moses's Law and the other Prophets So again Clemens Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. and Eusebius Praep. Evang. lib 9. Make mention of one Clearchus Solensâ—s a Disciple of Aristotle's who testifieth that he saw a certain Jew with whom Aristotle had conversation Eusebius's words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Clearchus a Peripatetick Philosopher in his first Book of Sleep c. In what follows Eusebius quoting Clearchus's own words shews us That whilst Aristotle lived in the maritime Regions of Asia amongst other Students of Philosophie there associated himself to him a certain studious Inquisitive Jew who conversing familiarly with Aristotle and his Disciples 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which according to Clearchus's relation are Aristotle's words he communicated more than he received Then Eusebius addes Honored Clemens makes mention also hereof in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. concerning which he thus speaks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clearchus the Peripatetick saies 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 Philosophie were derived originally from the Mosaick Theologie 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 Theologie 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 marvellously accorded with Moses herein For Aristotle in Oeconomicis de Conjugio shewing how necessarie Marriage is saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was thus provided by the Divinitie itselâ— 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 Divinitie 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 Theologie which is in Moses touching the creation of man c. Thus Eugubinus who lib. 9. cap. 7. thoroughout Demonstrates more fully That Aristotle marvellously accorded with the Mosaick Theologie touching mans creation by God the formation of the bodie 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 immortalitie 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Horn. Hiâ—t Philos lib 7. cap. 9. Lucian in his Dialogue inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 divides Aristotle's Writings into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exotericks Esotericks whereof the latter are the same with his Acroaticks which Ammâ—nius in Aristotelis Categ saies were so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he therein discoursed with his genuine and proper Disciples These Acroaticks he farther acquaints us were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delivered in his own person namely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which he teacheth in his own proper person his own Phaenomena the which he endeavours to prove by the most exquisite arguments beyond vulgar Capacities Plutarch in the life of Alexander tells us that the Peripateticks called these more Mystick and weightie Doctrines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acroamatick and Epoptick namely in allusion unto the Eleusinian Sacreds wherein those who were initiated were for the first four years called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Myâ—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 stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contemplators So in like manner the Secrets of Philosophie which Aristotle delivered to his genuine Disciples were termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epopticks As for Aristotle's Exotericks we have them thus explicated by Clemens Alexandr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 mention'd 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 fiâ—d none written in a Dialogick Style though it be generally confest he writ many Dialogues so Cicero to Lentulus saies 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Historie of Animals his book of the World and his Rhetorick to Alexander For there are many other pieces of Aristotle which carry with them evident notices of his spirit as his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both the one and the other his books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and those of the Soul c. Yet 't is very probable that the book of the Vniverse 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 Rhetorick 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 Ptolomie bought the books of this Philosopher from Neleus or his posteritie c. Thus Casaubon we have the words of Strabo lib. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ptolemie's buying Aristotele's books of Neleus some understand of his Library onely For those books which Aristotle writ himself 't is reported that Neleus retained them for himself and transmitted them to his posteritie who being not learned kept them under keys without use Hence Strabo calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 books lockt up Yea 't is said that they fearing least the Kings of Pergamus 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 buyes them who being as Atheneas characterizeth him more bookish then learned causeth these worm-eaten books of Aristotle to be transcribed and made publick but without judgement 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 Bookselleâ—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 Andâ—onicus Rhodâ—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 scarcitie of Aristotle's choicest pieces they were wont to dispute onely 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophrastus was first called Tyrtamus for Aristotle first called him Theophrastus both to avoid the asperity of his former name as also to signifie 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 Suidas Theophrastus being a person greatly esteemed for
it ought incorporated into the bodie 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 subtilties 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 Philosophie according to that reduction and account we find thereof in Ammonius Jo. Grammaticus and others Ammonius in Arisiot Categor pag. 6. treating of Aristotle saie◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Ammonius which we may English thus This Aristotle was in his Morals exact even to an hyberbole In Philosophie he exceeded humane Measures leaving no part thereof untouched but adding much thereto from his own sagacitie he reformed the whole of Philosophie for he added unto Logick 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 shooes yet can use them when made To Physicks he added the fifth Essence As for Theologie 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 Physick Acroaticks where he saies that the first Cause is not moveable either by it self or by Accident whence he demonstrates that the Divine Being is neither a bodie nor passible 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 supream end of Aristotle's Philosophie to lead men to the knowledge of the first cause God c. so Ammon in Arist Categor pag. 11. treating of Aristotle's Philosophie he demands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the supream end of Aristotle's Philosophie To which he replies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we say that the end of his philosophie is to know the principle of all things the productive cause of all things which is alwaies the same for he demonstrates that the principle of all things is incorporeal by which all things are produced Thence Ammonius demands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what are the means that conduce us to this end to which he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Mathematicks we lead our selves 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The forme of Aristotle's writings is every way exact as to phrase For the Philosopher ever avoids Rhetorical flourishes and wholly endeavours to set forth the nature of things only Aristotle being resolved to reduce Philosophie to rules of Art and reason utterly rejects that Mythologick Symbolick mode of Philosophizing which his Predecessors Thales Pherâ—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 Ethicks lib. 2. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought in matters doubtfull to use clear testimonies whereby he cuts off all those obscure and broken Traditions which his predecessors admired and together with their traditions their Symbolick 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 capacitie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Sceptick 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 judgement concerning the same § 18. But to come to the Distribution of Aristotle's Philosophie which Ammonius in Arist. Categ pag. 11. gives us thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philosophie is divided into two parts Theoretick and Practick As for Theoretick that is such wherein he inquires concerniâ—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 Syllogisme For as the Carpenter useth his Rule as an Instrument whereby to discerne what timber is crooked and what streight and as a Builder useth his Square to discover what wals are right what not so Philosophers make use of Demonstration as a Rule whereby to discerne things Ammonius having thus distributed Philosophie into its general parts Theoretick and Practick and laid down the Vniversal Instrument of both which is Logical Demonstration he thence proceeds to distribute these Generals into their Severals thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They distribute Theoreticks into Physiologicks Mathematicks and Theologicks As for his Theologicks they are such as he writ after his Physick Exercitations which he undertook after his Physicks because it is proper to Theologie to teach things above Nature whence his Theologicks are termed Metaphysicks and these Natural Sciences are accordingly called Physicks Mathematicks are of a middle nature being in some regard separate from matter and in some regard inseparate As for Practicks they are distributed into Ethicks Oeconomicks and Politicks Thus of the Parts of Philosophie § 19. Having gone through the general Distribution of Aristotle's Philosophie it may not be amisse to touch a little on the Severals and such observables therein as may
deserve a more particular remark We shall begin with Aristotle's Logick which he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Discretive or differencing Organ to all the parts of Philosophie so Ammonius in Arist Categ pag. 8. The Stoicks saies he make Logick a part of Philosophie whereas all those of the Peripate make it an Organ c. Aristotle in stiling his Logick an Organ means nothing else but that it is a method or a key to all Sciences so Ammonius in Arist Categ pag. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialectick as Aristotle defines it is a Syllogistick way of Procedure about whatever Problem proposed from probable Topicks What Ammonius here appropriates to Dialectick which the Peripateticks make but a Part of Logick is equally applicable to the whole thereof But we have a more full though concise account of Aristotle's Logick 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 labour to give them his own words which are as follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Syllogisme But it is impossible to treat hereof unlesse we first declare what a Syllogisme is neither can we understand what a Syllogisme is unlesse we learne what a proposition is For Propositions are certain words and of these words a Syllogisme is but a collection So that it is impossible to know what a Syllogisme 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 't is said it treats of simple voices signifying simple things by means of simple notions intervening Thus Ammonius of Aristotle's Logick § 20. We may reduce the whole to this Scheme Logick may be considered eithâ—r in regard of its object or formal parts As for the object of Logick 't is either material or formal The material object of Logick is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every Intelligible which is either simple or complexe The simple object of Logick are all those Notions both first and second treated of by Aristotle in his Praedicaments and by Porphyrie in his Praedicabiles The Complexe object of Logick is composed either of simple notions and terms as a Proposition or of Propositions as a Syllogisme As for the formal object of Logick 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 Logick which may be reduced to these four general Organs 1. Definition which takes away the obscuritie of our simple apprehension by directing the understanding to penetrate into the essences and natures of things 2. Division which removes that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or confusion which our compound understanding labours under by reducing all things to their proper Genus species and formal differences c. 3. Syllogisme which clears the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or discursâ—ve Intellect from those errours and hesitations which remain thereon 4. Method which directs and facilitates the understanding in all the foregoing parts and therefore 't is made by some of the Ancients to comprehend all Logick c. So Aristotle 't is not our work to discourse accuratelie on these parts of Logick It may suffice to give some glances and that not from Aristotle's Organ where he discourseth professedly of these Logick Instruments but from other of his Works especially his Rhetorick 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is not defined is fallacious and in his Ethicks lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that will exactly understand the nature of the whole must exactly examine it's parts by division c. As for Syllogisme Aphrodâ—seus tells us that Aristotle was the first that reduced Syllogismes 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A discourse has two parts first it is necessarie to declare the matter of which we discourse and then we must demonstrate the same Thus Explication and Demonâ—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 Ethicks lib. 1. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We must begin with Principles most known which are two-fold 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
Schole of Epicurus which when all other Sects failed persisted in continual succession as Laertius boasts of it and Lactantius lib. 3. Institut easilie grants giving this reason thereof The Discipline of Epicurus was alwaies more famous than that of other Philosophers not that it brought any thing of reason with it but because the popular name of Pleasure invites many for all are prone to Vâ—ce Nazianzen Orat. 23. on the praise of Hero Alexandrinus joyns these 3. in Epicurus as containing the chief of his Philosophie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epicurus's Automatum together with his Atomes Pleasure § 5. As for Epicurus's Philosophie the best thereof consisted in Physicks wherein he chiefly embraced the Dogmes of Anaxagoras yet he differed from him in many things Touching the Origine of the Vniverse Epicurus held that all things were composed of Atomes Thence that of Auâ—tin de Civit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 9. Epicurus held that there were innumerable worlds produced by the fortuitous confluxe of Atomes See Lud. Vives on the text Epicurus's Hypothesis is supposed to have been this viz. that before the world was brought into that forme and order it is now in there was an infinite emptie space in which were an innumerable companie of solid particles or Atomes 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 Atomes Epicurus is said to have traduced from Leucippus and Democritus especially from the latter as before though indeed the first great assertor of Atomes was Mochus that famous Phenician Physiologist who traduced them from the Jews as has been proved in the Phenician Philosophie The whole of the Epicurean Physicks is comprehended by Lucretius the Epicurean in 6. books § 6. Epicurus contemned Logick Rhetorick and the Mathematicks His contempt of Logick is mention'd by Laertius in Epicurus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They rejected Logick as that which perverts mens 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 Logick Epicurus introduced his Canonick Ratiocination whence he composed a book styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was as Laertius tels us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning the Rule of judgement and Principle also a Work that delivered the first Elements This Canon or Criterion of judgement 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 Rhetorick Laertius gives this account thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Mathematicks is mentioned by Plutarch in his book against Epicurus § 7. In Epicurus's Philosophie nothing was more pleasing to corrupt nature than his Ethicks 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 minde enjoys His Canons of Pleasure and Passion according to Gassendus de Epicuri Philos Morali cap. 3. are these 1. All Pleasure which hath no pain joyned with it is to be embraced 2. All pain which hath no Pleasure joyned 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 imbraced c. Epicurus's Canons touching Pleasure as the first and last good were according to Gassendus 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 bodie Tranquillitie of mind for herein the absolute good of man is contained The Indolence of the bodie is preserved by the use of temperance The health of the mind is preserved by Virtues provided and applied by Philosophie Diogenes Laertius gives the like favorable interpretation of Epicurus's Pleasures in his Vindication of him against the imputations of Diotymus the Stoick Epicurus saith Laertius held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the chiefest happinesse was in God 2. Hence he placed happinesse in the Pleasures of the mind and reflexion on former enjoyments 3. Laertius also tels us that he held there was an unseparable connexion 'twixt Virtue and true Pleasure whence he said that Virtues were naturally conjoyned 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Epicureans are called Hedonici because they make Pleasure the last End Pleasure not that of the bodie but the tranquille and indisturbed constitution of the Soul following a Virtuous life but they mistake saying 't is the Carkasse of Virtue or the shadow seeing they make it the last End Seneca affirmes 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 compleat solid being and what is future yet hangs in suspence and is uncertain but what is past is most sâ—tâ— Yea Epicurus himself in his Epistle to Idomeneus speaking of the torments he was then under being ready to dye saies that the joy which he had in his mind upon the remembrance of the reasonings which he had in his life time stood in battail of array against all those torments as great as could be imagined of the strangurie he laboured under According to these accounts Epicurus's Pleasures were not so grosse as is generally conceived yet sufficiently blame-worthy in that he placeth mans objective and formal happinesse in Pleasure which is but a consequent thereof § 8. But whatever Epicurus's opinion was about Pleasure certain it is he was fouly mistaken in his Metaphysical Philosophizings about God his Providence c. It s true Epicurus according to Laertâ—us denyed not the Being and spiritual nature of God for he held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God was incorruptible and most blessed c. Yet he denyed the Providence of