to the Image of God 344 The Soul 's Divine origine Immortalitie c. 344 345 The Humane Intellect and its Sciences 345 The Will its Definition 346 Plato his Notions about the Soul from Scripture 346 Physical Aphorismes for the conservation of human health 346 Of Prophylactick Physick 347 1. The Causes of Diseases to be avoided 347 348 2. Nature must be maintained in her due offices and exercises 349 350 1. Excretion 2. Perspiration 3. Activitie of Spirits 4 Respiration c. 349 3. Rules for Aliment 350 Of Therapeutick Physick 350 351 The Character of a good Physitian 351 352 CHAP. 10. A brief Abstract of Plato's Moral and Metaphysical Philosophie PLato's Ethicks 1. Of the chiefest good 354 2. Of Virtue 3. Of Sin Ibid. 4. Of the Affections their Moderation 354 355 5. And particularly of Love 355 6. Of Justice 355 Plato his Oeconomicks and Politicks 355 Plato his Metaphysicks 355 1. Of God his Essence and Attributes 355 356 2. Of the Humane Soul 356 BOOK IV. Of Peripatetick Cynick Stoick Sceptick Epicurean Philosophie CHAP. 1. Of Aristotelick or Peripatetick Philosophie its Traduction from the Jews THe Traduction of Aristotle's Philosophie from the Jews proved 1. By Testimonies of Aristobulus Clearchus Steuch Eugubinus and Selden 358 359 Rational Arguments to prove that Aristotle traduced the choicest parts of his Philosophie from the Jews 360 361 Aristotle his first Mover God 361 The Soul's Spiritualitie c. 361 Aristotle his Metaphysicks 361 362 Why Aristotle rejected the more sublime Judaick Traditions 362 Aristotle his Ethicks and Politicks 363 Aristotle his Life 363 364 Aristotle his Character 364 365 A comparison betwixt Plato and Aristotle as to Rhetorick Logick Metaphysicks 366 Aristotle his Doctrines Acroatick or Exoterick 367.368 Aristotle his Works what genuine 368 369 Aristotle his Books how conveighed to Posteritie 369 370 Aristotle his Successors Theophrâ—stus c. 370 Aristotle his â—ommentat Aphrodiseus c. 371 Arabian Comment Averroes Aviceâ—na 373 A general Idea of Aristotle's Philosophie by Ammonius 374 375 The end of Aristotle's Philosophie to know God 375 Aristotle his mode of Philosophizing 375 The Characters of a genuâ—ne Auditor and good Expositor of Aristotle 376 The distributiâ—n of Aristotle his Philosophie 3â—6 377 Aristotle his Logick 377 383 A Scheme of Logick 378 379 Aristotle of Method 380 381 A Scheme of Ramus his Logick 382 383 Aristotle his Ethicks 383 1. Characters of the chiefest Good 383-386 2. Of Mans formal Beatitude 386 1 Its formal Reason in Operation 386 2 Its proper subject the human Soul 387 3 Virtue the Soul's Qualification 387 4 The state of human Beatitude is a perfect Life Intensively and protensively 387 388 The principles of human Acts. 389 1. Practick knowledge 389 390 2. Volition its end and object 390 391 392 Consultation 1. its Object 1. Things Practick 2. In our Power 3. The Means 4. These Finite 5. Things Parmanent 6. Things Contingent yet in our Power It s main Work to find out means most conducible 393 394 2. The Subject He who hath his Wits about him 395 3. The Act Practick Disquisition Ibid. Election 1. It s Difference from Consult Volition 2. Object the Means 3. Subject Rational Will 4. Act 1 Rational 2. Determined and fixed 396 5. Difficultie 6. Effect as to Virtue 7. Definition 397 Essential Adjunct of Human Acts Voluntarinesse or Libertie Voluntarie defined 398 Coactive Necessitie alone exclusive of Libertie 399 Indifferencie and Contrarietie unessential to Libertie 400 Libertie Essential to the Will. Ibid. God's Necessitating Concurse destroys not Libertie 401 God's Predetermination of the Will makes him not the Author of Sin 402 Touching the Moralitie of Human Acts. Ibid. 1. Of Moral Good or Virtue 403 1. Virtues not Passions 2. Not Powers 404 3. Virtues Habits what an Habit is 405 Formal Nature of Virtue in Mediocritie 406 How Virtue consists in Mediocritie Ib. 407 Mediocritie of Virtue Harmonie Ibid. The Rule or Measure of Mediocritie Right Reason or the Law of Nature 408 409 410 Idea or Definition of Moral Virtue 411 1. Virtue consists in the best End and Work 412 2. All Virtues have the same general Idea Ib. Whâ—t Vice is Ibid. 413 Aristotle his Physicks 413 1. God's General Causalitie as the first Mâ—ver 414 2. That Man's Soul is Incorporeous and Immortal Ibid. Aristotlâ— his Metaphysicks called by him the first Philosophie or Theologie 415 A Character of his Sapience the Object whereof 1. Things most Vniversal 2 Mâ—st Difficult 3. The first Causes Ibid. It Self 1. Most desirable for it self 2. Architectomical and Principal c. Ibid. Aristotle his Sapience applicable only to God and things Divine 416 CHAP. 2. Of the Cynicks Sect and their Philosophie CYnicks Original from Antisthenes his Schole the Cynosarges 417 Cynicks why so called 418 Professors Antisthenes Diogenes Crates Demetrius Ibid. Affinitie 'twixt Cynicks and Stoicks 419 Principles of Cynicisme 1. Virtue our Chiefest Good 2. External Goods not desireable Ibid. A Wise man enjoys all in God 420 Cynicks abhorring Flatterie bearing Reproaches Ibid. Cynicks affected a kind of Impudence great Reprovers of Vice especially Pride 421 Rejected all Philosophie besides Mâ—ral 422 Their Religion without Superstition Ibid. Their Justice and Faithfulnesse 423 Their esteem of Libertie Ibid. Virtue with them teachable Ibid. Cynick Philosophie from the Jews Ibid. CHAP. 3. Of the Stoick Sect and Philosophie its Original ZEno his Original and Instructors 424 His Instituting the Stoick Sect and his Character 425 His Successor Cleanthes his Character 426 Diâ—g Babyl Antipater Sidon Possidonius 427 Roman Stoicks Cato Varro Antoninus Tullie Seneca Ibid. Christian Stoicks Pantaenus Clem. Alexand. Ib. Stoick Philosophie from Jewish Theolâ—gie 428 Stoicisme in general its combination with other Sects 429 Agreement with Cynicks Difference with Peripateticks and Contests with New Academicks Ibid. Particular Dogmes of Stoicisme Ibid. 1. Comprehension 2. Of God and his Nature 3. His Creation and Providence 4. Of Fate 5. God's Providence over Mankind 430 431 Stoicks Physicks 1. Of the Soul 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Their Ethicks 1. Appetition and that firstly of Self-preservation 2. That Passions are Irrational 432 433 Stoick Philosophie its contradiction to Christian Religion a cause of Pelagianisme Ib. 434 CHAP. 4. Of Scepticisme THe Scepticks several Names 435 Pyrrho their Founder his Character Ibid. His chief Dogme that nothing could be known 436 Formal Idea of Scepticisme the Scepticks businesse to overthrow all Dogmes of other Sects Ibid. Sceptick suspension how far it extended 437 It s Original from Heraclitus and Plato his Schole Ibid. Plato and the Old Acad. Dogmatick not Sceptick 437 New Acad. wherein differing from Scepticks 438 Scepticks avoided all Dogmatizing Ibid. Scepticisme a great Enemie to Christian Religion 439 CHAP. 5. Of Epicurisme EPicurus his Original 440 His Institution of his Sect and Character His Pride and Contention 441 Temperance as reported by his friends 442 His Industrie Works and Disciples Ibid. Epicurus's Physicks 1.
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
affirmed of Mythologick Philosophie and its Causes in particular may also be applyed to all the Grecian Philosophie in general which as it is evident had the same Causes namely Ignorance Admiration Imitation Curiositie Pride c. Moreover it i◠evident that all the first Philosophers Thales Pherecides Pythagoras Socrates and Plato did more or lesse exercise themselves in this Mythologick Symbolick mode of philosophizing Aristotle was the first who rejected this fabulous Symbolick manner of philosophizing and clothed Philosophie in a more native and simple dresse the materials of whose Philosophie were notwithstanding taken up from Plato his Master and the more ancient Symbolick Philosophers So that what has been said of Symbolick Philosophie will serve also to demonstrate that Aristotle's more simple Philosophie as to the Matter of it was derived originally from the Jewish Church CHAP. III. Of the Ionick Philosophie by Thales and its Jewish Original Of the first distinction of Philosophers into the Ionick and Italick Sects Both the Ionicks and Italicks derived their Philosophie by Tradition immediately from the Egyptians and Phenicians but originally from the Jews Thales of Phenician extract the first that brought Philosophie into Greece his Philosophie traduced originally from the Jews His Natural Philosophie plain His great Principle that Water is the first Matter of the Vniverse derived immediately from Sanchoniathon his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which descended originally from Gen. 1.2 His other principles of Physiologie viz. touching the Worlds production by God by its Beautie and the precedence of the Night before the Day from Gen. 1.5 Thales's Astronomie his Invention of the Cynosure from the Phenicians his Calculation of the Year from the Egyptians his Geometrie and Arithmetick Thales's Divine Philosophie or Natural Theologie from the Jews His Demons thence also His Scholars and Successors c. Anaximander Anaximenes Anaxagoras Empedocles Heraclitus Democritus Hippocrates § 1. HAving discoursed at large of Philosophie in general especially of Symbolick and its Traduction from the Jewish Church and Scriptures we now proceed to the several Sects of Greek Philosophers and therein to demonstrate that the chief Heads at least of each Sect traduced their philosophick notions and contemplations from some Scriptural or Jewish Tradition As for the several Sects of Grecian Philosophers there were at first but few but in after times they grew very numerous Varro in August de Civit. Dei l. 19. c. 1. tels us that in his time there were found in the Books of Philosophers no lesse than 288. different opinions which made so many different Sects concerning the chiefest Good For that Doctrine was at that time the touch-stone whereby the different Sects of Philosophers were distinguished Themistius acquaints us that there came under his examen near 300 several Sects The first and most Ancient Division of the Greek Philosophers was into the Ionick and Italick Sects as for the Eleaticks which Vossius addes as a third Sect they were but a branch of the Italicks Now touching the chief Heads and first Founders of these two Sects we have this good general Account in Carion's Chronicon l. 2. of the Studies of Learning in Greece The first Doctors saies he in Greece were the Poets Thence other Doctors sprang up who embraced all Arts Arithmetick Geometrie Astronomie Physicks and Medicine Part of these Sciences the ancient Iones as it is likely received from their Parents Japhet and Javan But yet as for Arithmetick Geometrie Astronomie and Medicine the Egyptians and Phenicians were more skilled herein By conversation with whom Thales and Pythagoras being instructed about the time of Craesus Cyrus by the exāple of their Ancestors raised up the Studie of these Sciences in Europe and taught them familiarly in the Scholes of their Disciples From these two then arose two Kinds of Philosophie the Ionick from Thales which was lesse obscure mostly Natural The Italick from Pythagoras which was more obscure and full of Enigmes c. And that these two Founders of the Ionick and Italick Sects received the first Principles of their Philosophie by tradition rather than from any natural improvement or Theories of their own we have a good Demonstrative account in Stillingfleet Orig. Sacrae Book 3. Chap 2. Sect. 2. which is worth our transcribing It is a matter of some inquirie saith he whether the first principles of Philosophie amongst the Greeks were not rather some traditional things conveighed to them from others than any certain Theories which they had formed from their own Experiments and Observations The former is to me far the more probable on many accounts but chiefly on this that the first principles of the two Founders of the two chief Sects of Philosophers viz. the Ionick and Italick did come so near to that which we have the greatest reason to believe to have been the most certain account of the Origine of the World For this opinion of Thales viz. that Water was the first Matter seems to have been part of that universal Tradition which was continued in the World concerning the first Principles This I suppose is evident that those Philosophers of Greece who conversed most abroad in the world did speak far more agreeably to the true account of things than such who only endeavored by their own Wits to improve or correct those principles which were delivered by their other Philosophers Which I impute not so much to their converse with the Mosaick Writings as to that universal Tradition of the first Ages of the World which was preserved far better amongst the Phenicians Egyptians and Chaldeans than among the Greeks For Greece from its beginning shined with a borrowed Light c. Thus Stillingfleet Wherein he fully grants and proves that the first principles of the Ionick and Italick Philosophie were received by Tradition only he seems to dissent from such who derive their Tradition from Moses's Writings or the Jewish Church rather inclining to believe that the Tradition was universal from Noah's Sons c. which if we grant will not overthrow our Hypothesis that the Grecian Philosophie descended by tradition from the Church for Noah's family was the Church of God Yet I conceive with submission that as it hath been already proved the Egyptians and Phenicians if not the Chaldeans received their traditions of the Creation c not from their Ancestors Cham and his Posteritie but from Moses's Writings and the Jewish Church and I think we shall hereafter give most probable if not certain conjectures that the chief principles of Thales and Pythagoras their Philosophie were traduced from the Writings of Moses or the Jewish Church Yea Mr. Stillingfleet himself in what follows in this same Section 3. gives us this ingenuous Concession I will not deny but that Pythagoras might have had converse with the Jews who it is most probable was in Chaldea after the Captivity c. § 2. But to begin with Thales the Head of the Ionick
Moreover saies he Pherecydes who sprang from the Iland Syrus was the first who rejected Verses and attempted to write in words at large loose Discourse and free Oration The like Theopompus Laertius and Suidas affirme that Pherecydes was the first that treated of the Gods and the Natures of things in Prose for the former Philosophers were Ports c. § 5. Notwithstanding Pherecydes rejected the ancient mode of delivering his Philosophie in Poems yet he still retained the old Mythologick and Symbolick mode of the Poets in mixing many Fables with his Philosophie So he himself confesseth in his Epistle to Thales thus Whatsoever the Theologist speaking of himself saith you must understand otherwise for I write in Fables And this is sufficiently evident from the Matter of Theologie which contained the most of his Philosophie and was written in 10 books which saith Dr. Owen in his Theol. l. 1. c. 1. was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 symbolick and cryptick or enigmatick wherein he was followed by the Pythagoreans whence he was stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the darke cloudy Divine as anon § 6. Pherecydes as to Natural Philosophie differed in some things from Thales yet he agreed with him in that great and first principle that Water was the first Matter all things which they both received from the Phenicians as these had it from Genesis 1.2 by some Jewish Tradition Pherecydes was very famous amongst the Ancients for his Astronomical Invention of the Heliotrope whereas yet he was not indeed the first Inventor but only a great Emprover of it as great Bochart in a Conference informed me viz. That this Astronomical Experiment was brought into Syra or Syrus where Pherecydes lived by the Phenicians who had a Colony there of which Homer makes some mention and that Pherecydes only emproved this same invention of the Heliotrope the original patterne as some conceive was taken from the Jews or Asa's Dial. The said Bochart referred me for more information herein unto his Canaan l. 1. c. 14. That Pherecydes was the first of the Grecians that found out the Eclipses and periods of the Moon Tzetzes Chil. 2. Hist 55. gives us to understand as Vossius § 7. But the main of Pherecydes's Philosophie was Theologick So Laertius out of Theopompus acquaints us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was the first amongst the Grecians who writ of Nature and of the Gods Whence he was stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Theologist which Title Pythagoras and Plato also obtained For amongst the Greeks who ever discoursed accurately of God was stiled the Theologist and their Science 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theologie as Arist Metaph 3. Pherecydes is supposed to be the first that handled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theologick Mysteries in Prose This Theologie of his consisted in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a description and exposition of the Generation and Succession of the Gods For the Grecians after the introduction of Hellenism supposed all their Gods to be generated This his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Theologie Pherecydes comprized in 10 books enigmatick and cloudy Discourses full of Fables and Allegories which Isidore cited by Clemens Alexandrinus supposed to have been taken from the Prophecy of Cham but it s much more probable he traduced them from Sanchoniathon's Mythologick Theologie touching the Origine and Succession of the Gods for it is the common opinion of Suidas and others that he derived this his Mystical Theologie from the abstruse and darke books of the Phenicians Pherecydes in the beginning of his book affirmes that Musaeus the son of Eumolpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the first that made Poems of the Generation of the Gods which others ascribe to Orpheus others to Homer § 8. Concerning Pherecydes his Books of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. there passeth an Epistle under his name written to Thales which Montaigne Essais livre 2. c. 12. gives thus Pherecydes one of the Seven Wise men that is a mistake writing to Thales as he expired I have saies he appointed my friends after they have enterred me to bring unto thee my Writings if they content thee and the rest of the Wise men publish them if not suppresse them They containe not any thing certain that gives me satisfaction so that I professe not to know the truth nor to have attained to it I start many things that I cannot discover c. Though it is likely this Epistle is as fabulous as the Matter of his Books yet we may suppose it to be Ancient and so to give us some account how much unacquainted these fabulous Mythologists were with the materials of their own traditions Touching this mystical Theologie of Pherecydes see more in Diogenes Laertius of his Life Ger. Vossius de Hist Graec. lib. 4. cap. 4. pag. 443. Edit 2. Dr. Owen Theol. lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 3 c. § 9. Though Pherecydes's Philosophick Theologie was fabulous and mystical yet as it is generally conceived he did clearly and plainly assert the Soul's Immortality So Cicero lib. 1. Tusc quaest Pherecydes Syâ—us was the first that asserted the Souls of men to be immortal Thus Tullie which Lactantius lib. 7. cap. 8. quotes Also Austin Epist 3. to Volusianus thus writeth What Idiot now what abject woman is there who believeth not the Immortality of the Soul and a future Life after Death which in old times Pherecydes first disputed for amongst the Grecians and Pythagoras the Samian being much moved by the novity of this Dispute was transformed from a Wrestler into a Philosopher so Montaigne Essais livr 2. cap. 12. The opinion of the Immortality of the Soul Cicero saies was first introduced by Pherecydes but others attribute it to Thales Who ever were the first traducer of this opinion into Greece we have sufficient reason to conclude it was originally traduced from some Scripture or Jewish Tradition CHAP. V. Of Pythagoras and the Traduction of his Philosophie from the Jews Of the sundry Sects of Philosophers Testimonies proving that Pythagoras traduced his Philosophie from the Jewish Church The Story of Pythagoras's Life His extract from Phenicia Pythagoras flourished about the 60. Olymp. when the Jewish Garden was laid open to the Grecians Pythagoras his Preceptors in Greece and how he was first converted from a Pugil to a Philosopher His first travels into Phenicia and conferences with the Successors of Mochus Phenician Priests and Jews His travels into Egypt familiar conversation with the Priests as also with the Jews in Egypt and the motives inclining him thereto Pythagoras's travels into Babylon and converse with their Wise men as also with the Jews under Chaldean titles Zabratus c. The advantages he had for converse with the Jews and their Writings from his skill in the Egyptian and Chaldee Tongues c. His Returne to Samos and Voyage to Creâ—e Pythagoras's coming into Italie and restoring many Cities to liberty and
Pythagoras Travelling from home turn not back for the Furies go back with you i. e. saith Iamblichus after you have applyed your self to Philosophie turn not back c. Which also was a Proverbial Symbol amongst the Jews to which our Saviour seems to allude when he giveth those cautions against Apostacie viz. Remember Lots Wife and He that puts his hand to the Plow and looketh back c. 16. As the Essenes were severe in their Excommunication of Apostates and Scandalous persons so the Pythagoreans Thus Iamblichus cap. 17. Those who were cast out of Pythagoras's Schole had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a coffin made by his Disciples placed in their room as if they had been dead for all that were about Pythagoras spake of them as dead and when they met them behaved themselves toward them as if they had been some other persons for the men themselves they said were dead c. That Pythagoras traduced this Symbolick Embleme of persons dead in sins from the Jewish Church is well observed and proved by Grotius on Mat. 8.22 Let the dead bury their dead and Hammond out of him on Luke 15.24 of which hereafter 17. As the Pythagorean Novices had their probationarie year or years so the Jewish Essenes Thus Hornius Hist Philos l. 7. c. 15. The Essenes who alone are worthy the name of Philosophers among the Jews did not presently admit their Disciples till after one year or more they had probation of their behavior c. I have in these severals drawn the Parallel betwixt the Jewish Essenes and the Pythagoreans and for the farther conviction that all this was not a meer figment of mine own without foundation or prescript see something of this Parallel in Godwins Jewish Antiquities l. 1. c. 12. of the Essenes whom he makes to symbolize with the Pythagoreans 1. In that both professed a Communion of goods 2. Both shunned pleasures 3. Both wore White garments 4. Both forbad Oathes 5. Both had their Elders in singular respect 6. Both drank Water 7. Both asserted Fate 8. Both enjoyned silence c. Now that the Pythagoreans derived these parts of their Discipline from the Essenes and Jews will be further evident by what follows CHAP. VII Of Pythagoras's Philosophie Natural and Moral c. The Original of Pythagoras's Philosophie from the Jews c. 1. His Mathematicks 1. Arithmetick 2. Musick 3. Astronomie 4. The earths Motion c. 5. Geometry 6. Weights and Measures from the Jews 2. Pythagoras's Physicks 1. Contemplative The world 's origine its first Matter Gen. 1.1 2. It s Form Gen. 1.13 Fire the great active principle in all things from Gen. 1.2 2. Medicine from the Jews 3. Pythagoras's Moral Philosophie 1. Ethicks Dogmatick Preceptive and Characteristick Ethick Characters Jewish Death a Character of a wicked state as Luk. 15.24 Salt of Grace c. The Summe of Pythagoras's Ethicks in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Pythagoras's Politicks from Moses's Politie The Pythagoreans great Politicians Their two great Maximes to preserve 1. Liberty against Tyranny 2. Vnity against Faction § 1. HAving gone thorough the story of Pythagoras's life as also the Discipline of his Schole and College we now proceed to his Philosophie wherein we doubt not but to discover many Jewish Traditions and Foot-steps And to proceed methodically we shall begin with the matter of his Philosophie and thence pass on to his Form or mode of Philosophizing each whereof will afford us very strong Presumptions though not Physical demonstration that he traduced both the one and the other from the Jewish sacred fountaines Some distribute Pythagoras's Philosophie into two parts Theologick and Ethick By Theologie they understand that which we usually call Physicks namely the knowledge of God as the first cause of all things Thus Danaeus in cap. 9. August ad Laurent and Hornius Histor Philos l. 3. c. 11. But we shall follow the usual Distribution thus The matter or body of Pythagoras's Philosophie may be distributed into Natural Moral o◠Supernatural 1. His Natural philosophie conteines 1. His Physicks or Natural philosophie properly so called 2. His Mathematicks His Physicks were either 1. Contemplative which was nothing else but the story of the Creation or 2. Active consisting in Medicine 2. His Moral philosophie consisted 1. in Ethicks or moral precepts 2. in Politicks 3. His Supernatural philosophie was 1. Diabolick or Magick divination 2. Theologick and Divine Pythagoras usually began with the Mathematick Sciences as preparatives to the contemplation of things more sublime So Porphyrie in the life of Pythagoras pag. 31. He is said to be the first that changed the proud title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wisdom into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Love of Wisdome as Austin de civ Dei l. 8. c. 2. They report that the name Philosophie sprung from Pythagoras whereas before they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wise-men c. § 2. Now that Pythagoras traduced the main parts if not the whole of this his Philosophie from the Jewish Church originally may in the general be demonstrated from what we find in Iamblichus and other Historiographers concerning the original of Pythagoras's Philosophie Iamblichus saies that Pythagoras drew his Philosophie and the several parts thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. He saies That Pythagoras drew part of his Philosophie from the Orphicks i. e. Doctrines of Orpheus So elsewhere he tells us That Pythagoras derived much of his Theologick Science from Orpheus That Orpheus's Theologie was symbolick and mystical much the same with that of Pythagoras we have already proved out of Proclus in Theol. Plat. l. 1. c. 4. Also that Orpheus had his Theologie originally from the Jews which is farther evident by that famous fragment of the Orpheick Doctrine in Justin Martyr wherein we find mention of Abraham and the Mosaick tables or Decalogue 2. Iamblichus informes us That Pythagoras received part of his Philosophie from the Egyptian Priests The like he affirmes lib. 1. cap. 5. Pythagoras saies he owes to the Egyptians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. his symbolick mode of learning So Clemens Alexandrinus 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is storied that Pythagoras was instructed by Sonchedes the Egyptian Arch-prophet That the Egyptians had their Philosophie from the Jews we have before proved book 1. chap. 2. Besides we have shewen book 2. chap. 5. § 7.8 That Pythagoras while in Egypt had immediate conversation with the Jews who resorted thither in great numbers by meanes of his skill in the Egyptian tongue which was but a different Dialect of the Hebrew so that he was thereby capacitated to read and enquire into the Sacred Scriptures and Jewish bookes without supposition of their being translated into Greek which was not till after times 3. Iamblichus acquaints us That Pythagoras received part of his Philosophie from the Chaldeans Now that Pythagoras had converse with the Jews whilest in Chaldea by meanes
as some conceive for it was found out 600 years before his time by Palamedes but because he was the first that applied it to this Mystical sense as Hornius Hist Philos l. 7. c. 12. Thus Pythagoras expressed to the Life the condition of a Debauched Profligate Wretch by his Symbol of a Coffin which signified his being dead in sin exactly answerable to the Jewish and Scriptural Phrasiologie whence we need no way doubt but that Pythagoras borrowed this Symbolick Image Thus the Father of the Prodigal speaks Luk. 15.24 This my Son was dead where Hammond out of Grotius observes That this is according to the ordinarie Notion of Pythagoras who for any that had forsaken his Schole i. e. refused to live according to his Rules of Philosophie had a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an emptie Coffin set in his place to signifie him to be morally dead This was a common Symbolick manner of speech amongst the Jews to expresse a wicked state of Spiritual or moral death So Philo defines this Moral death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the soul is dead as to the life of Virtue and lives only the life of sin as elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wicked men are dead in their souls And that this Symbol was by Tradition from the Jews universally received amongst the Oriental Barbarick Philosophers and thence traduced into Greece appears by what follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For in the Barbarick Philosophie which takes in also the Jewish they call men fallen from their Principles dead as such also who subjugate their Minds to their Sensual passions But more of this when we come to discourse of Pythagoras's Symbols 2. Another Ethick Character or Symbol which Pythagoras used to express his Moral Precepts by was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to set down Salt by which he signified that Holy and Intimate Communion and Friendship which ought to be amongst all those of his Society For Salt was used first in the Jewish Church and thence in the Pythagorean College as a Symbol 1. Of Confederation or Covenant 2. Of Communion and Friendship 3. Of Sanctitie as we have proved already and shall give farther proof thereof 3. Another Characteristical Symbol under which Pythagoras couched a reproof against Sloathful or Pratling Scholars was this Receive not a Swallow into your house i. e. saith Iamblichus Admit not a sloathful person unto your Philosophie which requireth great industrie and unwearied patience The Swallow comes but in one season and staies not long but sleeps a good part of the year Others by Pythagoras's Swallow intend a great pratler or babler This Ethick Character against sloath and vain discourse doth Symbolize with many of Solomons Proverbs against sloathful persons 4. Under this Symbolick Character Turn away from thy self every edge Pythagoras exhorted men to the use of prudence rather then passion as Iamblichus 5. By this Symbol Stir not the Fire with a sword Pythagoras advised his Disciples not to provoke the passions of Potent men as Diogenes understands it or not to provoke a man full of Fire and Anger as Iamblichus 6. Pythagoras's Ethick Character or Symbol by which he dehorted men from Covetousnes was this Breed nothing that has crooked Talons i. e. saith Iamblichus be not tenacious 7. Pythagoras taught his Disciples Patience and Fortitude c. by this Symbol Help to lay on a burden but not to take it off This saith Iamblichus teacheth Fortitude c. 8. Pythagoras taught his Scholars to avoid anxious heart-distracting cares by this Symbolick Character Eat not the heart i. e. Consume not thy heart by cares c. answerable to that of Chirst Mat. 6.27.31 32.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9. Pythagoras exhorted men to Justice under that lively Symbol Passe not over the ballance This saith Iamblichus commands to do justice to observe equalitie c. which agrees exactly to that Ethick Character or Proverb used frequently by Solomon as Prov. 11.1 A false ballance is an abomination to the Lord but a just weight c. The like Prov. 16.11 Prov. 20.23.10 And lastly Pythagoras to draw his Scholars to a chearful embracing of Virtue was wont to give it many amiable and lively characters under the Symbolick Images of Bodilie Health Sanitie and Beautie but principally under the Symbol of Musical Harmonie for what ever was excellent he compared to Harmonie which suites very much with the Characters of Grace in Scripture which stiles it the Beautie Health and Harmonie of the Soul But more of these Symbols hereafter § 14. We have now dispatched Pythagoras's Ethicks which may be summed up in these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. forbear moral evils or the evils of action and bear physical natural evils or the evils of passion for all Ethicks or morals are comprehended under active and passive moralitie or under Abstinence and Tollerance i. e. forbearing what is evil in manners and bearing which implies doing also as well as suffering what is evil to nature § 15. Pythagoras taught not only Ethicks but also the two other parts of Moral Philosophie viz. Oeconomicks which regard the Government of Families and Politicks which respect the Government of Cities and Nations This latter Pythagoras and his Followers were greatly versed in for 't is said that Pythagoras had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 book of Politicks which he composed and gave to his Scholars as Laertius relates Iamblichus saies That Pythagoras used to say that amongst Being's nothing was pure but every thing partaked of some other as Earth of Fire c. farther That there was a friendship of all toâ—ards all answerable to that saying man is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on which he grounded his Politicks Iamblicus saies also That men hold Pythagoras was the first Inventor of all Politick Science 'T is true there were Lawgivers more ancient as Minos of Crete and Lycurgus of Sparta whose laws Pythagoras consulted as Iamblichus cap. 5 but yet we read not as I conceive of any publick Professor of the Science of Politicks more ancient than Pythagoras who made it a main design of his Travels Studies to informe himself touching the ancient Laws and the best Maximes of Politie this put him upon a journie to Crete to consult Minos's Laws and upon another to Sparta to informe himself in the Constitutions of Lycurgus But amongst all the Constitutions Laws and Maximes of Politie he met with none afforded him greater light and assistance for the framing his Bodie of Politicks than the Mosaick Laws and Politick Constitutions And that Pythagoras did in truth traduce the best of his Laws and Principles of Politie from Moses's Laws and Politie will be more evident hereafter when we come to treat of the traduction of all Humane Laws from the Divine Mosaical Law At present take only this proof hereof It is well known that Zaleucus the great Founder of the Locrian Laws was Disciple to Pythagoras from whom we
1. a. in cap. 1. Plato saith he while he was in Egypt Collected as it were some sparks out of the Speeches of the Fathers and Prophets therefore he comes nearer than Aristotle as to the Origine of the Universe c Also Dr. Jackson of the Scriptures fol. 55. speaketh thus That Plato had either read or been instructed by some who had read the books of Moses will easily appear c. The like we find asserted by Cudworth in his Discourse of Union with Christ pag. 22. I cannot saith he consent with Eusebius that Plato had seen Moses his works but that he certainly received by Tradition many things when he was in Egypt or some other of those Oriental parts bordering upon the Jews c. But Sir Walter Raleigh Hist of the World part 1. Book 1. c. 6. § 7. speaks more Categorically thus As for Plato though he dissembled in some things for fear of the Inquisition of the Areopagites yet Saint Augustine hath alreadie answered for him as before Et mirificè iis delectatus est quae de uno Deo tradita fuerant And he was greatly delighted in the Doctrine of one God saith Justin Martyr Now howsoever Lactantius pleased to reprehend Plato because saith he Plato sought knowledge from the Egyptians and the Chaldeans neglecting the Jews and the Books of Moses Eusebius Cyrillus and Origen find reason to believe the contrarie thinking that from thence he took the grounds of all by him written of God or savouring of Divinitie the same opinion had Saint Ambrose of Pythagoras Thus Stillingfleet Orig. Sacr. Book 3. chap. 3. pag. 502. The Platonists of Alexandria saith he stole their choicest Notions out of the Scriptures but would not acknowledge it which was the grand artifice of their Master Plato who doubtles by meanes of his abode and acquaintance in Egypt about the time when the Jews began to flock thither had more certain knowledge of many truths of grand importance concerning the Deitie the nature of the Soul the Origine of the World then many other Greek Philosophers had but yet therein lay his great fault that he wrapped up and disguised his Notions in such a fabulous and ambiguous manner that partly it might be lesse known from whence he had them and that they might find better entertainment amongst the Greeks than they were ever like to do in their plain and Native dresse which Plato himself seems to intimate when he saith that what the Greeks received from the Barbarians they put into a better fashion i. e. they disguised it by a Greek habit that it might never be suspected for a Forreigner c. The Testimonies of Origen and Vossius see § 4. of this next Chapter I shall conclude this Argument with a pregnant Testimonie of Hornius Hist Philos l. 3. c. 14. It was an ancient opinion and now very much inveterated that Plato drew many things out of Moses and inserted them into his Writings For Numenius of greatest Authoritie amongst the Pythagoreans saies that Plato stole out of Moses's Writings whatsoever he has of God and the Vniverse To whom the more sage Fatheâ—s giving heed hence it came to passe that the Platonick Philosophie was of highest Authoritie among them For it was the common vogue that it differed little from Moses Yea Caelius Rhod. l. 16. cap. 65. thinks that Plato differs little from Christ's Placits And Eusebius lib. 13. praep c. 1. writes that the Platonick Philosophie was as it were translated out of the Hebrew tongue into Greek Justin Martyr in Apol. ad Anton. will needs shew that Plato borrowed whatever hath any verisimilitude or shaddow of tâ—uth from the sacred Scriptures The same Eusebius attempts in his book against the Philosophers Thus Hornius As for the manner how Plato transferred his Jewish Traditions from Hebrew into Greek I shall shew in the following Chapter § 4. c. CHAP. III. Of Plato's Life and Travels for Oriental Traditions Plato's Original and Instruction under Socrates his travels into Italy to acquaint himself with the Pythagorean Philosophie which he was instructed in by Archytas the Tarentine Timaeus the Locrian Epicarmus c. Plato's travels into Egypt where he informed himself in the Jewish Wisdome and Mysteries viz. touching the Origine of the Universe the Immortalitie of the Soul the Fall also concerning God his Nature Ideas Providence c. That Plato might receive information from the Jews and Jewish Oracles whilst in Egypt by reason of his skill in the Egyptian tongue or by some Interpreter What emprovement Plato received as to Jewish Traditions from the Phenicians their Theologie and Philosophie c. Plato's Academie his Character and Works § 1. WE have in the foregoing Chapter by inartificial Demonstration or Testimonies proved that Plato traduced the choicest of his Contemplations from the Jewish Church and Scriptures We now proceed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to demonstrate the same from the causes means and wayes by which Plato gained these Jewish traditions For the clearing whereof we shall give some brief historical relation of Plato's Life Praeceptors and Travels whereby it will be manifest what advantages he had to acquaint himself with the Jewish Philosophie and Mysteries Austin de Civit. l. 8. c. 4. gives us this good though short account hereof But amongst the Disciples of Socrates Plato indeed who altogether obscured the rest deservedly shines with most excelling glory Who being an Athenian of a good familie of an admirable ingenie far excelled his Condisciples yet counting his own capacitie endeavours with the emprovâ—ment of Socrates's Instructions insufficient for the perfecting of Philosophie he travelled far and near whereever the fame of gaining any noble Science led him Therefore in Egypt he learned whatever was greatly esteemed and taught there and thence coming into those parts of Italy where the fame of the Pythagoreans was celebrated he learned there the whole of Italick Philosophie which then flourished having heard the most eminent of the Doctors thereof c. Thus Austin wherein he gives us a full relation of Plato's travels though he differs somewhat from Laertius and others as to method c. as hereafter we shall consider this general storie in it's severals § 2. Plato was born at Athens in the 88th Olympiad as Ludov. Vives in August l. 8. cap. 4. Apuleius l. 1. de Dogm Plat. tells us That Plato was so Sirnamed from the large habitude of his bodie which was the common opinion for he was at first called Aristocles though some think he was called Plato from the amplitude of his Speech and Eloquence His Parents were Arist and Perictione his Fathers stock related to Codrus the last King of Athens his Mothers to Solon that famous Athenian Legislator whence Plato as I take it in his Timaeus â—peaking of Solon calls him his Kinsman c. Plato's first Praeceptor was Socrates with whom it 's said he lived Eight years in which time he committed the
cited the Authoritie of Aristobulus for Aristotle's traducing much of his Philosophie from the Jews he addes And certainly there is yet extant an old comment of some Hebrews affirming That Aristotle being about to die instructed his Disciples touching the immortalitie of the Soul also of its punishment and reward according as he had been taught by the peculiar Posteritie of Shem id est by the Jews alâ—o that having been admonished by Simeon the Just High Priest he changed his old Opinions in all points wherein he had formerly held against the Law and Doctrine of the Hebrews and was transformed into another man MSS in the Library at Oxford But albeit there is no ground why we should believe these Figments yet hence it is sufficiently evident that there prevailed an opinion even amongst the Hebrews themselâ—es of a singular communion and commerce 'twixt them and the ancient Greek Philosophers as to the Traduction and Reception of Sciences whereunto the Christian Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus Justin Theodoret Ambrose and others are Consonous Thus Selden who fol. 23. addes more of like import § 2. But to come to some rational conjectures whence we may with great probabilitie conclude that Aristotles Philosophie as to its purer and more Orthodox parts was very much traduced from the Jewish Church and Scriptures If that prove true which was even now mentioned that Aristotle was in Asia yea in Syria and Judea as we may presume with Alexander then we may easily be satisfied how he came to acquaint himself with the Jewish Learning and Records For if Aristotle attended Alexander unto Phenicia and Judea we cannot rationally conceive he would let pass such a people as the Jews were so renowned for ancient Records and Wisdom without acquainting himself with their Principles and Doctrine especially they being those from whom his Master Plato received his choicest contemplations 2. But on supposition that Aristotle was not in Judea with Alexander yet 't is credibly said that Alexander furnished him with all the choicest Books yea whole Libraries that he could meet with in his Eastern Expedition amongst which we may rationally conjecture the Jewish Records and Books were not omitted especially if that be true which Josephus mentions of Alexander's coming to Jerusalem and vouchsafing particular honours and favours to the Jewish Nation c. But 3. This is certain that Aristotle received the more choice parts of his Philosophie from his Master Plato as we could easily demonstrate by multitudes of particulars both in his Physicks Metaphysicks Ethicks and Politicks wherein Aristotle follows Plato in many of his choicer Notions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though he cloaths them in his own Method Now that Plato received his Philosophie both matter and form for the chiefest part from the Jews and sacred Scriptures has been proved in the former Book § 4. But to give a more full Demonstration of the Traduction of Aristotles Philosophie from the Jewish Church and Scriptures originally we shall give some brief touches on some of the more principal materials thereof As 1. whence sprang the choicer parts of Aristotle's Physicks but from some Traditions imparted to him by his Master Plato Thus Aristotle's notions about the first matter of all things and its affections are evidently nothing else but some broken fragments of those Traditions which Plato had received originally from the Jewish Church touching the first Chaos or rude Mass out of which all things were at first created as Gen. 1 2. Hence it was that Aristotle stiles his first matter Informe yet capable of any form indeterminate and indigested a meer passive power c. which are notions exactly conform to the Mosaick description Gen. 1.2 as we have before demonstrated The same may be said for Aristotle's two other principles privation and Forme of which we have before treated in Plato's Physicks Again Aristotle in his Physicks lib. 1. cap. 1 2.3.6.7 as lib. 8. cap. 6.7.10 is very copious in his Philosoâ—hizings on the first Mover proving that he is immoveable one eternal indivisible Being void of all quantity c. wherein he exactly follows Plato and the Scripture Revelation of God as Joh. Grammaticus in Aristot de anima As to the humane Soul which takes up a good part of Physicks Diogenes Laertius in the life of Aristotle assures us that he held with Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the soul was spiritual c. The same is mentioned by Johan Grammaticus in his Preface to Arist de Anima This Plato received originally from the Jewish Church as we have before proved c. Farther Aristotle seems to have had some Notices of the Soul's creation and infusion by God Thus Steuch Eugubinus de Pereu Philosoph lib. 4. cap. 24. As Moses said God breathed into his Nostrils the breath of life Gen. 2.7 So Aristotle in libris de Generat Animal saies that the mind came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from without So Aristot de Anima having proved that it is impâ—ssible that the sensitive Soul should come from without because it is conteined in the seed he concludes of the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It remains that the mind alone be infused from without and that it alone be Divine whose operation communicates not with corporeous action Whence the same Aristotle calls the mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most â—kin to God Yea de Anima lib. 1 text 4. He makes the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be impatible and imâ—â—ixt i. e. simple and incorruptible So text 7. he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the mind is separable from the bodie i e. incorporeous See more Part. 1. B. 3. c. 7. § 6. Yea why may we not safely conjecture that Aristotle received the chief Ideas of his Historie of Animals which is his Master-piece from Solomon's Books which he writ of the Nature of Animals 2. But we pass on to Aristotle's Metaphysicks which indeed seem nothing else but some fragments or miscellaneous collections he had gathered up out of Plato's Philosophie For the chief object of his Metaphysicks he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ens quatenus ens which is the proper notion whereby Plato as Pythagoras before him expressed God traduced originally from Exod. 3.14 as we have fully proved afore in Pythagoras's Metaphysicks chap. 8. § 4. The simple affections of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ens Being Aristotle makes to be Vnity Verity and Bonity which are the Affections which Plato attributes unto God and that in imitation of Jewish and sacred Tradition as before B. 2. C. 8. § 4.5 Farther that Aristotle had much knowledge of God his spiritual Nature and Providence and that from his Master Plato's Philosophizings we are informed by Diogenâ—s Laertius in his Life where he tells us that Aristotle conformable to Plato defined God thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is a spirit He also tells us that Aristotle held Gods
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
all owes its original to the bosom of Divine Wisdom § 5. Hence it follows that the original impulsive cause of all Philosophie was Admiration of the admirable Wisdom Power and Goodnes of God shining in his works of Creation and Providence as Rom. 1.19 20. So Plato in his Theaetetus tels us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The great Pathos or affection of a Philosopher is to admire neither had Philosophie any other original than this The like Aristotle asserts in the Proeme to his Metaphysicks which Stobaeus Serm. 3. cites 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Men now as formerly begin to Philosophize from admiration for men first began to admire things lesse wonderful then proceeding thus by degrees they doubted of greater matters as of the origine of the Vniverse c. whence he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore a Philosopher seems to be in some sense a Philomythist or Mythologist i e a relator of Fables and wonders for a Fable consists of things wonderful The same see Arist Metaph. lib. 2. cap. 2. In which words Aristotle gives us an exact and full account of the original ground and impulsive cause of all Philosophie both Mythologick and Simple For whence was it that the Phenicians Egyptians and their Apes the Grecians so much delighted themselves in their Philosophick contemplations of the origine of the Vniverse c. but from some fabulous narrations or broken traditions which they had traduced to them from the Jewish Church touching the wonders of God which appeared in his works of Creation and Providence especially towards his Church which these purblind Heathens greatly admired though they understood them not and so mixed their own Mythologick or fabulous conjectures with them And that this was the true Origine of all the Pagan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 night Philosophie which is Plato's own phrase will be more evident hereafter when we come to treat of the Grecian Philosophie § 6. As for the created causes of Philosophie they may be reduced to these two common heads 1. Its first Institutors or Authors 2. It s constitutive principles both material and formal or the essential parts thereof We design some discourse on both thence to make good our Demonstration touching the Traduction of all Philosophie from the Scriptures and Jewish Church And to proceed methodically herein We shall begin with the first human Institutors or Authors of Philosophie who were indeed Divine and divinely illuminated so that the wisdom we find scattered up and down amongst the Pagan Philosophers was but borrowed and derived from these Divine â—ights who were inlightned by the Divine Word that life and light of men which shined in the darknes of the Pagan World but the darknes comprehended it not as John 1.4 5. the light c. The first created Divine Institutor of all Philosophie was Adam who without all peraduenture was the greatest amongst meer mortals that ever the world possessed concerning whom the Scripture tels us Gâ—n 2.19 20. That he gave names to every living thing c. which argues his great Sagacitie and philosophick penetration into their natures For look aâ— our conceptions if true so also names if proper should be and as we may presume at first were no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 images of things So both Aristotle and Plato cal names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imitations of things Adam could by his profound Philosophie anatomize and exactly prie into the very natures of things and there contemplate those glorious Ideas and Characters of created Light and Order which the increased Light and Divine Wisdom had impressed thereon and thence he could by the quicknes of his apprehension immediately collect and forme the same into a complete systemâ— or bodie of Philosophie as also most methodically branch forth the same into particular sciences c. whereas all Philosophers since Adam having lost by his fall this Philosophick Sagacitie of prying into the natures of things they can only make some poor conjectures in comparison from some common accidents and the external superficies or effects of things and therefore cannot receive conceptions or give names exactly suited to the natures of things as Adam before them did And that Plato had received some broken tradition touching this Philosophie of Adam is evident from what he laies down in his Politicus and elsewhere touching the golden Age or the state of Innocence wherein saies he our first parent was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest Philosopher that ever was And Balâ—us de Script Brit. cent 10. praesat tels us That from Adam all good Arts and human Wisdom flowed as from their Fountain He was the first that discovered the motions of the celestial bodies the natures of Plants of Living and all other creatures he first published the formes of Ecclesiastick Politick and Oeconomick Government From whose Schole proceeded whatever good Arts and Wisdom were afterward propagated by our Fathers unto mankind So that whatever Astronomie Geometrie and other Arts contain in them he knew the whole thereof· Thus Baleus The like Hornius Hist Philosoph lib 1. cap 2. Adam therefore being constituted in this Theatre of the Universe he was ignorant of nothing that pertained to the Mysterie of Nature He knew exactly and that without error the Natures of all Animals the virtues of Herbes and the causes of things The Light of Reason which we now call Logick altogether unspotted and without cloud overcame the obscuritie of things and dispelled darknes if there were any Now there was the highest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exactnes of Oeconomicks and Politicks for man was never so much as then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sociable creature Which the ancient Mythologists are wont to adumbrate under the Golden Age wherein Sponte sua sine lege fidem rectumque colebant The seat of this most noble Philosophie is in the sacred Scriptures stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Garden of Eden For there is nothing more excellent given by the great God to mankind than that pleasure which ariseth from the contemplation of things The Chaldees cal this Garden of Pleasures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greeks following them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paradise Thus Hornius who cap. 11. repetes the same in these words All Arts as mankind had their beginning from Adam who among the pleasures of Paradise learned Philosophie even from God himself And Kâ—ckerman Tract 2. Praecogn Logic. cap. 2. saies that he doubts not but that our first Parents delivered over to their Posteritie together with other Sciences even Logick also especially seeing they who were nearest the Origine of all things had an intellect so much the more excellent than ours by how much the more they excelled us in length of life firmitude of health and lastly in air food c. § 7. From Adam sprung Seth who according to Josephus lib. 1. Antiq. cap. 3. followed his father in the
and after Our main work will be to treat particularly of the two great Phenician Philosophers Sanchoniathon and Mochus with some inquirie and discoverie how they traduced their Philosophie which was chiefly Mythologick and historick from the Historie of Moses or some Jewish Traditions § 6. The first great Phenician Philosopher from whom the Grecians traduced their chiefest philosophick Traditions we shall mention is Sanchoniathon a person indeed of great Antiquitie who as Bochart conceives writ before the Trojan War Pâ—rphyrie and Suidas make him contemporarie with if not more ancient than the Trâ—jan War Ger. Vossius tels us that Greece had no Writer but who was much younger than Sanchoniathon Theodorâ—t out of Porphyrie explains his name thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanchoniathon who according to the Phenician dialect is Philalethes i. e. a lâ—ver of truth or a Philosopher for so Plato defines his Philosopher to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo cals him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the learned and curious Inquisitor c. The Learned Bochart in his Canaan lib. 2 c. 17. gives his name this Phenician or Hebrew origination viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanchoneatho which word for word signifies the Law his Zele or a Zelot of true Learning For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 San from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curtaild signifies amongst the Phenicians Doctrine Law or Canon Law Hence the same Phenician Citie is sometimes called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Judg. 1.11 12. Josh 15.15 16. Kiriath Sepher i. e. the Citie of Learning and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Citie of Learning or of the Law as Jos 15.49 Kiriath Sannath The Chaldee renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Citie of the Archives where their Learning was lodged answerably whereto the Greeks translate it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Citie of Letters The radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 firstly signifying to whet or sharpen thence in its borrowed notion to teach exquisitely So that Sanchoniathon seems to have received his Name or Sirname rather from the time wherein he began to applie his mind to Learning thereby to signifie that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Candidate of Truth So in like manner Roman 16.15 we read of one called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philâ—logus which as Grotius on the place supposeth was a Sirname given him from that he addicted himself to the Studie of Philologie or human literature § 7. That Sanchoniathon was a person greatly versed in the Philosophie or rather Mythologie of those Ages is generally concluded by the Learned both Ancient and Moderne Philo tels us that Sanchoniathon was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 learned and curious and above all things most greedy to know what were the first Originals and Principles of all things This inquisitive humor has put him upon prying into Moses's Historie whence he traduced the best part of his Historick Narrations of the Originals of things which he clothed with many fabulous formes and shapes according to the custom of those childish Ages thereby to disguise the truth and concele its parentage That Sanchoniathon was Master and Professor of Philosophie as well as Theologie we have assurance from Suidas He writ saies Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Physiologie of Hâ—rmes and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Egyptian Theologie which saies Bochart without doubt he took out of the books of Taautus So Philo assures us that with great diligence he searched into the books of Taautus who is said to be the first that found out the use of Letters Philo oft cites him and in the beginning of his book whatsoever he has of the Creation of the world he saies he found it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Cosmogonie of Taautus This Taautus whom the Greeks call Hermes is said to have written 42 books as Astrologie of Geographie of Medicine of Politicks of Thâ—ologie of Religion c. The Catalogue of which Books is given us by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom lib. 6. The great difficultie will be to discover who this Taautus or Hermes was whence Sanchoniathon received his Physiologie and Theologie That the Egyptian Hermes is originally applicable to none more properly than to Joseph has been already made probable So in like manner we are not without probable conjectures that this Phenician Taautus or Hermes whence Sanchoniathon traduced his Physiologie or Philosophie might be Moses For it is well known that it was very common in those Ages for differing nations to give the same Titles of Honor to differing persons suitable to their own humors and interests Hence it is that we find mention of so many Jupiter's and Hercules's c. So that those blind prejudiced Heathens being unwilllng to be thought so much obliged to Moses that servant of the true God for their Learning ascribe it to I know not what Hermes That de facto the chief matter and parts of Sanchoniathon's Philosophie and Theologie were but corrupt fragments of and derivations from the Historie of Moses will be hereafter manifest by particulars At present that Sanchoniathon had a general Vogue amongst the Ancients for a great Philosopher as well as Historiographer is confirmed by the Learned Isaac Casaubon in his notes on Athenaeus lib. 3. cap. 36. Thus of Sanchoniathon that ancient Historian is mention made in many places by Philo Josephus Porphyrius and others some call him a Berytian as Porphyrius others a Tyrian as Athenaeus Suidas saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanchoniathon the Tyrian Philosopher writ memoirâ—s of the Tyrians in the Phenician dialect Thus much also has been asserted by Porphyrius who was a Tyrian in his second book of Abstinence Josephus lib. 1. contra Apion and amongst the Modern Philologists by Ger. Vossius de Hist Graecis lib. 1. cap. 1. pag. 3. and Learned Bochart Canaan lib. 2. cap. 17. fol. 856. as anon § 8. We now proceed to the main of our demonstration to prove that Sanchoniathon traduced the bodie of his Philosophie which laid the foundations of the Grecian Wisdom from some Scriptural or Jewish Traditions which we shall endeavor to make good 1. From the confessions of his friends and followers 2. From his manner of philosophizing and 3. From the matter of his Philosophie First touching the original of Sanchoniathon's Philosophie Philo tels us that he gathered it out of the hidden Learning or Mysteries of the Ammoneans These Ammoneans Heb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ammanim Aben Ezra on Lev. 26 30. expounds Temples made for the worship of the Sun And so indeed amongst the Hebrews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amma signifies the Sun 'T is possible under this disguise of the Ammoneans were originally intended no others than the Ministers of the true God expressed under these borrowed appellations That Sanchoniathon did indeed derive the best part of his historick Philosophie or Mythologie from some Jewish Priest or Minister of the true God is openly acknowledged by Porphyrie who was his own
the word or breath of Gods mouth according to Gen. 2.7 and breathed into his nostrils and Psal 33.6 by the breath of his mouth As Bochart Can. lib. 2. cap. 2. § 13. But one main piece of Philosophie which Sanchoniathon is most famous for is his Physiologie or Natural Historie of the worlds origine and its first matter whence the Poet Hesiod and his followers received their first Chaos and the Philosophers their Materia prima which all originally descended by some corrupt derivations from the first Chapter of Genesis as it will appear if we consider the particulars of Sanchoniathon's reports In the beginning of his Historie according to the Version of Philo Byblius quoted by Eusebius we find in the beginning of things there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a spirit of dark air which he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. according to the Phenicians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chauth Ereb night or evening darknes which seems to be taken from Moses's words Gen. 1.2 and there was darknes c. The word Ereb is taken from v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it was Ereb i. e. evening Whence Hâ—siod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Varrâ— thus imitates Erebo creata fuscis crinibus nox te invoco That the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sometimes the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evening see Bochart Canaan lib. 2. cap. 2. Or it is possible that Sanchoniathon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be borrowed from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bohu Gen. 1.2 ב being easily turned into ב whence also we may suppose the Greek Philosophers traduced their Physick privation which they make one of their first principles It follows in Sanchoniathon thus From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos there arose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as Bâ—chart conjectures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the Commixtion of the spirit with the Chaos was produced Mot which some call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is matter or slime what Philo Byblius translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Phenicians write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mâ—d it being very common with the Greeks to change the Hebrew ד into Ï„ so in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by them derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 amongst the Hebrews and Phenicians signifies that matter out of which all things were at first made which the Arabians call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence 't is possible the Latin materia came from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Sanchoniathon having called that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slime or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first matter addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of this matter was produced the whole seed of the Creation and the generation of the whole which is as as much as if he had said This Mot was the first Matter of all things For although the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mod be not found in Scripture yet we have the thing fully expressed Gen. 1.2 and 't is possible also the Jewish Philosophers might use the same word and so the Phenicians by Tradition from them though Moses writing for the peoples sake in the plainest termes did purposely abstain from all philosophick termes That Sanchoniathon traduced these his coutemplations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the spirits mixing with them from Gen. 1.2.5 I conceive is sufficiently evident whence Hâ—siod's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Plutarch and Orâ—heus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 slime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also Thales his opinion of water being the first matter And Plato's first matter which he makes to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c as Aristotle's first matter being ingenerable incorruptible indefinite without forme but capable of all formes c. which are but broken fragments of Gen. 1.2 § 14. That Thales Pythagoras and Plato concur with Sanchoniathon and they all with Moses about the first matter of the World will be farther evident if we consider their several expressions with their agreement amongst themselves as also with Moses's words Thales held water to be the first matter of all things whence Pindar's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. mixture of mud and water together which Orpheus also makes to be the Principle of the Universe and it is the same with Sanchoniathon's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Philo Byblius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Mot or Ilus of Sanchoniathon i. e. mud slime or fluid matter which Thales cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 water Pythagoras and Plato call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by â— inversion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is matter all of which agrees with Moses's words Gen. 1.2 And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters i. e. all at first was but mud slime and water or fluid matter So Paulus Fagius from Kimchi renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 matter which fluid matter was agitated or moved by the Spirit of God so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from this mixing of the spirit with the Chaos was begotten Mot which some call slime or watry mistion which was made the seed of all creatures c. This the Stoicks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Chrysostom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vivifick energie according to Psal 33.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence Plato Thales Pythagoras Heraclitus ascribe the Original of Individuals to the various agitations or motions of this fluid matter viz as moved by the spirit of God so the Phenicians called this motion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a dark and blustering wind or spirit see Stillingf Orig Sacr. book 3. cap. 7. § 15. Sanchoniathon also was not a little versed in the Chronologie and Geographie of those times and places wherein likewise he accords with Moses from whom we may presume he received both the one and the other So Eusebius praepar Evang. l. 10. c. 3. out of Porphyrie lib. 4. against the Christians makes Moses and Sanchoniathon to give the same names to Persons and Places as Ger. Vossius de Histor Graec. lib. 1. c. 1. pag. 3. § 16. Sanchoniathon's Natural or Mythologick Historie was continued by others some in the Phenician some in the Greek Tongue Of the Phenicians there were Theodotus Hypsicrates and Mochus whose books Chaetus translated into Greek Tatianus the Assyrian in his Orat. against the Grecians speaks thus The Phenician affairs proceeded thus there were amongst them three persons Theodotus Hypsicrates and Mochus whose books were translated into Greek by Chaetus In Euseb praep Evang. l. 10. where Tatian's place is cited for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodotus's Phenician name as Bochart conjectureth was Elnathan or
Chronicon gives testimonie to and proof of this Assertion The same does learned Vossius in his excellent Treatise of Idolatrie as also in that de Philosophorum sectis l. 2. c. 1 c. as hereafter Heinsius has a Discourse professedly on this Subject But Learned Bochart that rich Antiquarie and Philologist has given an incomparable advance and light to this Notion from whom I thankfully acknowledge I have received great assistance in this undertaking both by personal conference with him and also from his elaborate Works especially his Geographia Sacra Grotius also from whom I received the first hints of this Assertion doth positively affirme the same as on Mat. 24.38 but especially in his book de Veritate Religionis as else where Hornius Hist Philos lib. 3. cap. 1. speaks categorically thus The most famous of the Grecians deliver that Philosophie flow'd from the Barbarians to the Grecians Plato in Epinom Cratylo Philibo Manetho in Josephus against Apion Whence they so frequently and so honorably mention the Phenicians Chaldeans Egyptians who were all instructed by the Hebrews Whence also it was so solemne a thing for the most ancient Grecian Philosophers to travel into the Oriental parts Whence sprang the mutual commerces and common studies betwixt the Grecians and Egyptians Whence he concludes that Philosophie was not borne but educated in Greece for the most ancient wise men of Greece brought Philosophie thither from the East c. We have also the Testimonie of Diodaâ—e Amirault and Daillè c. of whom in their place § 7. To come to the Testimonies of our English Divines and learned men Jackson of the Authoritie of the Scriptures last Edit in Polio pag. 27 34 47 49 54 55 56 57 c. largely proves this our Assertion touching the Traduction of Philosophie from the Scriptures and Jewish Church And withall gives account of the manner how it was traduced of which else where Learned and pious Vsher asserts the same of Pythagoras his Philosophie as it will appear in his Life c. Thus great Richardson in the Exposition on his Divinitie Tables Table 5. MSS. treating of the first Matter saies that Aristotle received it from Plato and he from the Egyptians as these from the Jews Preston makes use of this Principle as a main Argument to prove the Divine Original and Authoritie of the Scriptures as before Sir Walter Ralegh in his Historie of the World Part 1. Book 1. Chap. 6. § 7. affirmes Categorically that the wiser of the ancient Heathens viz. Pythagoras Plato c. had their opinions of God from the Jews and Scripture though they durst not discover so much as in what follows of Platonick Philosophie Owen in his learned Discourse of Gentile Theologie which I must confesse has given me much light and confirmation herein does frequently assert the same Conclusion The same is often and strongly maintain'd by the Learned Stillingfleet in his Origines Sacrae it being indeed one chief medium he much insists on to prove the Autoritie of the Scriptures We have also the Testimonies of Mede Hammond and Cudworth for confirmation hereof as good Essayes and Discourses on this subject by Duport on Homer Bogan's Homerus Hebraïzans and Dickinson's Delphi Phoenicizantes c. But amongst our English learned Men none have given us more ample Testimonies to confirme our assertion than famous Selden in his elaborate book de Jure Nat. Hebrae lib. 1. cap. 2. where saies he Touching the famous custome of the ancient Philosophers before Christ to consult and hear the Hebrews we have many Testimonies both of Jews themselves of Christian Fathers and of Pagan Writers which he cites at large in what follows CHAP. II. Of Mythologick Philosophie its Traduction from the Jews Of Mythologick Philosophie in general and 1. particularly of the Poetick and fabulous How the Greeks disguised Oriental Traditions by Fables Of the use and abuse of Fables and Parables 2. Of Symbolick or Enigmatick Philosophie and its traduction from the Jewish Types Symbols and Enigmes 3. Of the Metaphorick and Allegorick mode of philosophiâ—ing by Plato and its descent originally from the Jews Mat. 13.3 The Matter also of Mythologick Philosophie from Gods sacred Word and Works The Causes of Mythologick Philosophie 1. Ignorance of the Hebrew 2. Of the Matter of their Traditions or Jewish Mysteries 3. Of the Forme of Jewish Doctrines 4. Of the Traditions 2 d Cause was Admiration of the wonders of God brokenly reported to them 3. Imitation another cause concerning which Plato has excellent Discourses touching the Subject Object Effect Uses and Abuses of Imitation in Symbolick Philosophie 4. Curiosity and affectation of Novelty Act. 17.21 5. Pride and self advancement 6. Inclination to Idolatrie 7. Carnal Policie to avoid the peoples hatred A general Conclusion that all Philosophie even Aristotle's it self as to its Matter was traduced from the Jewish Church and Scriptures § 1. THat the Grecian Philosophers received the choisest of their Philosophick Contemplations from the Jewish Church and Divine Revelation we have already endeavored some inartificial demonstration as to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereof we now proceed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to demonstrate the same from the several causes from whence and wales by which the Grecians traduced their Philosophie from the Jewish Church and Scriptures And to make this good we shall first run thorough the sundry kinds and modes of Grecian Philosophie and thence proceed to their several Sects of Philosophers The first great mode or way of the Greeks philosophizing was Mythologick and Symbolick of which we are now to treat with endeavors to demonstrate how that both as to matter and forme they traduced it from the Jewish Church § 2. That the first Grecian Philosophie was Mythologick and Symbolick will be easily granted by any versed in those Antiquities So Diodorus Siculus lib. 4. makes mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ancient Mythologie which he also calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 old fables and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mythick Historie This Aristotle in the Proeme to his Metaphysicks cals Philomythie for saith he a Philosopher is in some sort 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Philomyther or Lover of fabulous Traditions Strabo lib. 11. makes mention of this ancient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which gained little credit in the world Which Proclus on Plato's Theologie l. 1. c. 4. cals Symbolick Philosophie But to speak distinctly and properly we may distinguish Mythologick Philosophie or Philosophick Mythologie into these severals 1. Mythologick strictly taken or Parabolick 2. Hieroglyphick Symbolick or Enigmatick 3. Metaphorick and Allegorick The difference betwixt these several modes of philosophizing is this The Mythologick which the Scripture cals the Parabolick is the couching of Philosophick Principles and Mysteries under some fabulous narration or feigned storie the Symbolick is the wrapping up of Natural Principles or Moral Precepts
their peace and his first mediation in order to the procuring Wisdome was to bridle the Tongue and keep our words within the wall of our teeth for he forbad not speech altogether but loquacitie requiring that they spoke more rarely more submissively more modestly which is a great vertue though very difficult in Scholars according to that of Quintilian Decl. 19. I thinke there is no virtue more difficult than that of Silence This Pythagorean silence answers that of Job ch 6. v. 24. Teach mee and I will hold my tongue Others make the reason of this silence to be that the soule turning inward to her selfe might be diverted from externall objects and all irregular passions Hence his silence was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is saies Aulus Gellius lib. 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as Hesychius and out of him Suidas from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conteining within himselfe his speech This Probationary silence of these Novices Laertius lib. 8. calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a quinquenniall silence Laertius saies that the Pythagorean Novices kept silence 5. years only hearing Pythagoras's discourses but not seeing him till they were fully approved then they became of his Family which he cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 systeme So Servius on Virgil Aen. 10. yet Aulus Gellius l. 1. c. 9. informes us that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5 yeares silence was not required of all but of some more of some lesse but none were enjoyned lesse than two yeares silence as none more then five yeares The like Apuleius in floridis tels us that some were silent for a lesser space especially such as were more grave but those who were more pratling were enjoyned a quinquenniall silence The Pythagoreans for this their silence continued in great honour even to Isocrates's time who in his Busiris saies that men more admired the Pythagoreans who held their peace than others who had obtained the greatest glory by speaking Yea Pythagoras enjoyned his Disciples some kind of perpetuall silence for he taught 1. That we ought to be silent or to speake things better than Silence 2. to comprehend many things in few words not few things in many words whence Zeno blamed such as instead of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lovers of learning were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lovers of words 3. Pythagoras forbad his Scholars declaring his mysteries to others Those who after their five years preparative Discipline and Probation appeared by their moderation commendable conversation and other qualifications fit to participate of Pythagoras's more secret Philosophie and Mysteries were made Intrinsiques being admitted to hear Pythagoras within the screen and to see him and henceforward were accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. perfect which privileges the former Probationers or Novices were not made partakers of But if these Novices after the time of their Probation were not judged worthy to be received to the condition of the perfect or compleat members of Pythagoras's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Covent then were they rejected a Coffin was made by the Disciples of Pythagoras placed in their room as a lively symbolique image of a person morally dead so Iamblichus cap. 17. and Grot. on Mat. 8.2 as Hammond on Luke 25.24 of which hereafter in the Pythagorean Excommunication Par. 9. § 5. That Pythagoras took the Idea and Platform of his probationary examen Discipline and preparative exercises from the Jewish Church the Learned assure us and that upon more than conjecturall grounds So Daillé in his Sermon on Philip. 3.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This term perfect saies he is taken from those viz. the Pythagoreans amongst the Pagans who after many preparations and purifications rendred themselves capable of the view and participation of certaine great Idololatrique mysteries which in those times were had in great veneration c. Now that this mode of initiating Novices by such preparative exercises after which they became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or perfect does originally belong to the Jewish Church the same Daillé affirmes on Phil. 3.15 Parfaits perfect The ancient Greek Pagans had in their Religion certain mysteries sacred ceremonies to the view participation of which they received not their Devoto's till they had been prepared for the same by diverse Disciplines calling them perfect who were admitted thereto and holding the others for Novices or Apprentices only But these words were taken originally from the fashion of the Jewish Church in the Scholes whereof there were divers orders some were more low others more high in which were taught the most sublime mysteries and this last part of their Theologie was called by a word that signifies perfection because they held it for the top of their Discipline and in like manner they who had been instructed in this their sublime Theology were called The perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus likewise the Levites as some observe had their quinquennial or five yeares probation and preparation by preparative Exercises before they entred upon their compleat office whence we see what affinity there is betwixt Pythagoras's Probationers or Novices and those in the Jewish Church and Schole Paul also 1 Tim. 3.6 makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a Novice in the Christian Church which Oecumenius enterprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one newly initiated in the faith a Catechumen and Theophilact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one newly baptized and admitted into the Church answering to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the LXX render Job 14.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as we may presume with allusion to the Novice in the Jewish Church And this very custome of initiating Novices by preparative Discipline the popish Monks such as are Regular universally retain to this very day both name and thing in the admitting persons into their Covents which we need no way doubt they at first took up in imitation of and compliance with the Pagans especially the Pythagoreans and the Jewish Church as also their whole Monastique Life and Institutes of which hereafter Lastly we should be perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and without blemish such were the Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Plato's Priest whom he requires to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect and genuine § 6. We have spoken of Pythagoras's Disciples in common as also of those who belonged to his coenebium or College both his Novices and perfect with their cognation to and derivation from the Jewish Church and Scholes We now proceed to treat of the Discipline Pythagoras exercised amongst his Scholars especially those of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or College wherein we doubt not but to discover many remarkeable and evident footsteps of Jewish discipline and Traditions whence we may suppose it was traduced The first thing considerable in the Discipline of Pythagoras's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or College was the Confoederation League or Covenant betwixt all those who were
when he defines Philosophie a Love to the Knowledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Beings By Beings saith Iamblichus he understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sole and self Agents Immaterials and Eternals other Beings indeed are not Beings but yet are equivocally called such by participation with these Eternals Iamblichus cap. 29. So Plato in his Parmenides who was a Pythagorean treating of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being and Unitie which he makes the First Principle of all things thereby understands God so in his Timaeus Locrus who was also a Pythagorean from whom he received much of his knowledge of God and of the origine of the Universe as hereafter he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being is alwaies neither hath it beginning So again in his Timaeus edit Stephan fol. 37 38. he proves nothing properly is but God the Eternal Essence to which saies he we doe very improperly attribute those distinctions of time Was and Shall be for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is properly and truely only belongs to this Eternal Essence These Contemplations as 't is supposed he received from this Timaeus the Locrian who was a Pythagorean yet we need not doubt but that originally they were traduced from Exod. 3.14 for the Greek participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there used signifies properly the present time only as the Hebrew excluding from God erat and erit was and shall be past and future denoting that God only is according to the description of the Pythagoreans and Platonicks Phutarch saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The true Being is Eternal Ingenerable and Incorruptable unto which no time ever brings mutation Hence in the Delphick Temple among other Rarities which might please the greater wits there was engraven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies Thou art And indeed of God alone it can be truly said He is without mutation That Pythagoras did really traduce these Metaphysick Notions of Gods Essence from Moses see Lud. Vives on Aug. Civit. l. 8. c. 11. where he concludes thus I doubt not but Pythagoras was taught these mysteries in Egypt and that from the sacred Volumnes of which more hereafter § 5. Pythagoras seems to have had some Scriptural or Jewish tradition touching the Vnitie of Divine Essence So Diogenes Laertius informes us that Pythagoras asserted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnitie to be the principle of all things from which proceeded indefinite Dualitie which was as matter subject to Unitie it 's essential cause We have a good explication on this mystical Pythagorean Unitie by Learned Reuehlin in his explication of the Pythagorean Doctrine è Cabala lib. 2. The Divine Essence saies he the preexistent Entitie and Unitie of Existence Substance Essence Nature was by Pythagoras called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it is the Super-Essential Unitie and Being from which and by which and in which and through which and to which all things are and are ordered persist and are comprehended and converted c. Thus also Parmenides who followed Pythagoras herein is brought in by Plato Philosophizing on that old axiome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and many and Determined thus That God as he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. One Divine Essence 1. Was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many 2. That he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One immutable Being 3. That he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One Eternal Being c. This also Plato in his Philebus fol. 17. discourseth of at large shewing how this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and how these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. How this one Divine Essence was many as to the Divine Idea's or Decrees and how the Divine Ideas were one in the Divine Vnitie and Essence This Doctrine saies he seemes strange but yet the Gods as they say have thus delivered it to us to learne and to teach it others though some wise men now perhaps he means his Scholar Aristotle teach otherwise c. By which he seemes to confess that these Contemplations of God's Unitie came originally from the Jews as hereafter § 6. Pythagoras seems also to have had some Jewish if not Scriptural tradition of God's Simplicitie This is apparent from Iamblichus's interpretation of that great Fundamental Symbol of Pythagoras Grave not the Image of God in a Ring i. e. Philosophize and above all things think that the Gods are incorporeal This Symbol is beyond all others the Seminarie of the Pythagorean Doctrines Think not that the Gods use formes that are Corporeal neither that they are received into material substance fettered to the bodie as other animals Thus Iamblichus on Symbol 24. Thus also Plutarch in the Life of Numa Pompilius informes us That the Pythagoreans thought the God's were Invisible Incorruptible and only Intelligible wherefore they forbad the Framing Images or Formes of them And Diogenes Laertius gives us a prettie Romance of Hieroninus who saith he affirmes that Pythagoras descending 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Hell saw there Hesiods soul bound to a Brazen pillar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making a lamentable noise and Homer's Soul hanging upon a tree and Serpents about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for those things they feigned of the Gods which storie though but a Fiction yet it is sufficient for our present purpose to shew that Pythagoras was according to the common Vogue a professed enemie to all those Mythologick Poetick Fictions of the Gods The same dislike we find in Plato against Homer for his monstrous fictions of God So also Parmenides who did much Pythagorize is brought in by Plato discoursing of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or one Divine Being 1. As one that was neither the whole nor had he parts 2. Neither had he beginning nor end therefore was 3. Infinite and without termes 4. Without Figure either round or streight 5. Neither in himself nor in any thing else nor any where 6. Neither like nor dislike neither equal nor inequal because without all termes or composition So Plato Parmenide pag. 136 and 140. Edit Stephan And Plato in his Repub. saies God continues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply in the same Forme c. as hereafter We find the simplicitie of the Divine Essence thus described according to the Pythagorean Doctrine by Reuchlin and Stanly out of him cap. 3. The Pythagoreans saies he assert three worlds the Supreme Intelligible and the Sensible The supreme world being that of the Deitie is one Divine continual constant Essence of Sempiternitie poized as it were with immoveable weight not unfitly termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the all governing Throne It is not confined to genus Place Time or Reason but is the free unlimited President over all these infinitely supreme in place power possession excellence above all Essence Nature Aevum Age c. See Stanly fol. 138. § 7. That Pythagoras received by tradition from the Jews if not immediately from the Scriptures some notices touching the
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
is very great ground to think that Plato had skill in the Phenician Tongue by those many Fables and Traditions he quotes thence Now the Phenician Tongue was evidently the same for substance with the Hebrew as before That Plato drew much of his Philosophie from the Phenicians is the Opinion of Scaliger Exer. 61. sect 3. and of Serranus according to the Citation of Hornius Hist Philos l. 3. c. 14. Joh. Serranus will have it that Plato spake many things which he understood not drawn out of the Theologie and Commentaries of the Phenicians which seems most probable to me For as to the Phenicians they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given to Mercature familiar to the Greeks also they sent several Colonies into various parts of the World Nothing hinders therefore but that Plato might attain to a more intimate Knowledge of their Theologie Now the Phenicians had many things common with the Hebrews c. see more of this Book 1. Chap. 3 § 19. That Pythagoras was rendred capable of understanding the sacred Scriptures by reason of his skill in the Egyptian Language see Book 2. Chap. 5. § 8. which is also applicable to Plato or else if this may seem to bold because a novel Assertion 4. We may with Austin and other Learned both Ancient and Modern groundedly conclude that Plato whilst he was in Egypt amongst those many Jews who had recourse thither learned by an Interpreter or by personal Converse with the Jews many of their Divine Doctrines and Mysteries though he understood not the genuine import thereof as in the fore-going Chap. § 3. This is the Opinion of Learned Serranus in his Preface to Plato Truly saies he Plato while he was in Egypt might have conference with the Jews who were there in great numbers after their dissipation and transmigration c. Though he conceives that Plato could not read the Scriptures in his own Greek Idiome into which they were not Translated till after Alexander's time of which more hereafter § 5. Though we find no express mention of Plato's Travelling to Phaeniciae yet that he visited that Countrey also either in his Travels to or from Egypt seems very probable For the Phenicians being every way well furnished with Jewish Traditions and Mysteries we cannot conceive that Plato who was so great an Admirer thereof would let passe such an opportunitie for satisfying his Curiositie therein At least that he had some view of Traditions from the Phenician Philosophie and Theologie seems more then probable from Plato's own Confessions for he oft makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Syrian and Phenician Fable or Tradition which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ineffable because he neither understood nor could express the mind thereof These Syrian or Phenician Fables which Plato gathered out of the Phenician Theologie I have before prov'd to be of Jewish extract and therefore unintelligible by the wisest Heathens and thence 't is no wonder that Plato calls them ineffable Fables Indeed the most of his Jewish Traditions which he gleaned up in those Oriental parts especially such as referred to the Jewish Mysteries and Divine Worship were to him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ineffable and unintelligible and therefore he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fables for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to its Philosophick notion signifies some Philosophick Mysterie traduced from the Ancients the reasons whereof were conceled or hidden and because the first Philosophers especially Pythagoras and Plato were great admirers of these Oriental 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fables they are called by Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philomythists Lovers of Fables or Mystical Traditions which Aristotle rejected because his Reason could not comprehend them These Phenician Fables Plato much studied and recreated his curious humour withall which gives us some ground to conjecture that he was not without skill in the Phenician Tongue and so by consequence in the Hebrew which differs only in some Dialect therefrom That Plato took many things out of the Phenician Theologie which he himself understood not is an assertion of the learned Julius Scaliger Exercit. 61. I suppose he means out of the Theologie of Sanchoniathon and Mochus the Physiologist wherein he follows the steps of Pythagoras as before Book 2. Some tell us that Plato had designed a journey to visit the Persian Magi and Chaldeans as Pythagoras before him did but was prevented by the War which happened betwixt the Grecians and Persians By all which it is most evident what an infinite thirst Plato had after Oriental Wisdom and Traditions originally Jewish also what an huge advantage he had for the gratifying his Curiositie herein first by his Travels into Italie and conversation with Pythagoreans there and thence into Egypt and as we may presume into Phaenicia also where he met with many Jews and Jewish Records or Traditions touching Divine Mysteries which he greedily embraced without any real understanding of their genuine import and sense whence he turned the glorie of God into a Fable as he calls his Traditions or as the Scripture termes them a lye Rom. 1.25 who changed the truth of God into a lye We have a brief Synopsis of Plato's Travels and peregrinations given us by Hornius Hist. Philos l. 3. c. 14. out of Madaurensis thus Plato went to Theodorus Cyrenes to learne Geometrie and he went so far as Egypt to fetch Astrologie as also to learne the Rites of the Prophets He came again into Italie and followed Euritus and Archytas the Pythagoreans He had also bent his mind towards the Indians and Magi had not the Asiatick Wars hindered him He also went some time into Sicilie to understand the cause of Aetna's Fire and to learne their Laws § 6. Plato having collected what stock he could of Oriental Wisdom and Jewish Traditions he returnes home laden as a Bee with thyme to Greece where he institutes his Schole in a Village near Athens called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Academie which was as Laertius tells us a woody and marshy place and so very unhealthie in former times possessed by one Ecademus an Heroe who after his death became a Daemon for Eupolis Comicus calls him a God Plutarch in his Chesew tells us that this Ecademus was the first who made discoverie of Castor and Pollux of Helena stolen away by Theseus whence the Lacedemonians had him alwaies in great honour From him this Place was called first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Laertius Hesychius and Stephanus in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence afterward by the change of a Letter it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Academie though Hornius derives it from Cadmus Here Plato sounded his Schole which after the new Academie was raised received the stile of the old Academie as hereafter Laertius writes that Plato was honorably Buried in this Academie and that Mithridates King of Pontus when Athens came under his Jurisdiction dedicated Plato's Image
Repub. 10. fol. 598 c. he acquaints us that this his â—ymbolick imitation did only represent the Image or Shadow of the thing which is far remote from the truth as a Limner gives the Picture of a man and therefore he that would get the true knowledge of the thing must not acquiesce in the Symbolick Image but search after the thing it self The same he inculcates often as in his de Legib. 2. fol. 669. where he laies down and insists much upon this general Principle that in such Symbolick Imitations Truth not pleasure or delight must be the measure of our disquisitions c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All Imitation must be judged not by pleasure or opinion but by Truth So in his de Legib. 5. as elsewhere c. § 2. That Plato as Pythagoras before him traduced this Symbolick mode of Philosophizing from the Jewish Church originally is a general presumpion of the Learned So Serranus in his Preface to Plato's Images addes All which Plato uttered not from himself or his own humane reason but from the more happie doctrine of Moses and of the Prophets c. And more particularly he concludes thus That Plato drew these Symbols from the doctrine of the Jews i. e. from Moses and the Prophets all Antiquitie of Christian Doctors hath judged But that he absteined industriously from nameing the Jews because their name was odious among other Nations Although he sometimes makes mention 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Syrian and Phenician fable or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of an ineffectual Mysterie to shew that he designed not the Egyptians only but also their neighbours the Jews Truely Plato might when he was in Egypt have conversation with the Jews of whom there were great numbers in Egypt after their dissipation and transmigration Lastly whereas in those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ineffable Mysteries he recites there lies some footsteps of truth mixt with many trifles who would not judge he derived them immediately from the Egyptians rather than from the Jewish Monuments But that the Egyptians retained many things received by tradition from the Patriarchs Moses's most ancient Historie demonstrates Neither is it to be doubted but that they drew many things also from the clear fountains of the Sacred Bible which yet they Contaminated with their own muddie mixtures Hence Plato acquired the name of the Allegorick Philosopher because he used that peculiar way of teaching by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Symbols or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idols and from their more abstruse doctrine asserts many Paradoxes Thus Serranus wherein he fully grants that Plato's Symbolick mode of Philosophizing came originally from the Jews though immediately from the Egyptians And the reason he gives why Plato could not derive them immediately from the Jews is because the Scriptures were not translated into Greek 'till after Alexander's time But this being granted which Lud. Vives denies why might not Plato by reason of his skill in the Egyptian and Phenician tongues understand the Scriptures as well as the Egyptians or else might he not understand them by an Interpreter as Austin seems to grant as before chap. 3. § 4. That Plato as Pythagoras received this Symbolick mode of Philosophizing from the Oriental parts is well observed by Cudworth Union of Christ pag. 28. The Oriental Nations were wont to couch their greatest Mysteries and pieces of Wisdom which they conveighed by tradition one to the other in the covert of some Fables thence Pythagoras Plato afterward brought that manner of Philosophizing into Europe c. And the same Cudworth elsewhere gives some particular Fables which Plato traduced from the Jews as that of his Androgynon or Conjunction of man and woman as one flesh which he makes to be but an imitation of Eve's being taken out of Adam's side and joyned to him in Marriage c. Yea Serranus is enclined to think that Plato's whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love Dialogue was but an imitation of Solomons's Song So Serranus on Plato's Symposium fol. 176. Hence saies he as the holie Writer had his Epithalamium namely his Canticles so Plato his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love Dialogue not that I would seem willing to compare Plato's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Love Songs with Sacred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love Songs but I am only willing to shew that this manner of Teaching things otherwise true and certain by Symbols and Mysteries was not unusual c. See more of this Symbolick mode of Philosophizing and it's traduction from the Jewish Church Book 2. chap. 9. § 2. touching Pythagoras's Symbolick Philosophie c. Only there lay this difference betwixt Pythagoras and Plato as to their use of Symbols Pythagoras's Symbols were for the most part Enigmatical answerable to the Egyptian Hierogliphicks and the Jewish Enigmes or Riddles But Plato's Symbols are not so Enigmatick and obscure as those of Pythagoras but only Metaphorick and Allegorick answerable to the Jewish Types and Parables See more of this difference Book 2. chap. 2. § 6 7. § 3. Plato abounds also much yea mostly in the Socratick mode of Philosophizing So August de Civit. l. 8. c. 4. And because Plato loved his Master Socrates with such a singular affection he brings him in speaking almost in all his Discourses yea those very things which he had learnt from others or had acquired by his own intelligence he tempers with or wraps up under his Master Socrates's Ironick mode c. Thus Austin and more particularly some few lines after he addes And seeing he affects an observation of his Master Socrates's known mode of dissembling his own knowledge and opinion because this manner pleased him so much hence it comes to passe that it is very difficult to perceive Plato's opinion even concerning the most Weightie matters Touching Socrates's Dissimulation in conceleing his own sentiments without positive affirmation or Negation under pretence of knowing nothing thereby to draw forth in an inductive way and to confute the opinions of his oponents see what precedeth touching the Socratick Philosophie chap. 1. § 6. This Mode of Discourse Plato very much affected as it appears in his Dialogues where he brings in Socrates discoursing after his oâ—n forme yet not without a considerable difference from or superaddition to his Masters Method For first Socrates in his own Schole very seldome or never asserts any thing Dogmatically but under a modest pretension of ignorance he conceles his own judgment with endeavours to evince and confirme the Hypotheses he designes to prove from the concessions of his Opponents which he draws forth by a powerful Induction Hence Arcesilas the founder of the New Academie defends his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Authoritie of Socrates as before chap. 4. § 2. But now Plato though he allowed in many natural and abstruse Questions an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspension and thence
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a probationarie mode of disputing pro con yet he greatly asserted some things and strongly proved others as necessarily true whence the New Academicks and the Scepticks ever reputed Plato and his Successors of the old Academie as Dogmatists as before chap. 4. § 1 2. Yea Ammonius on Aristot. Categor tells us that Plato himself confuted this Sceptick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which was most irrational and absurd of which else where Secondly Socrates's mode of Philosophizing was more plain and familiar 'T is true it had much of Ironie mixed with it especially as to moral conversation yet it did not render it cloudie and obscure But now Plato though he imitates his Master in Dialogizing yet he mixeth therewith so many dark Symbols and Poetick Metaphors as that he seems to act the part of a Poet or Orator rather than of a Philosopher 'T is confest such Poetick and Metaphorick flourishes wherewith Plato's Dialogues so much abound are extream useful to illustrate and brighten Truth yet it cannot be denyed but that Aristotle's Syllogistick naked and closer mode of Disputing more conduceth to the Conviction and Demonstration of Truth Whence that old saying Plato Teacheth and Aristotle Proves Hence also the Greeks usually stiled Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divine and Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Daemon And they say if Jupiter had been minded to discourse in Greek he would have used Plato's tongue so eloquently and floridly is he conceived to have Philosophized Yet learned Vossius de philos sect cap. 12. § 15. gives him this dash Mean while saies he the discourse of Plato is lesse proper for Philosophie For he fails in this some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must pardon me that he much delights in Metaphors and those not beseeming but presumptuous and altogether Poetical whereas a discourse more proper or Metaphors more received and common agree better with Philosophie c. But to give a just Character of Plato's mode of Philosophizing It 's evident he had a most prodigious and luxuriant Phansie which could not confine it self to the severe Rules of artificial Logick and method neither indeed was it the mode or fashion of those times to dispute in Mode and Figure for this Forme of Syllogizing owes it's original to his Scholar Aristotle that great artificial Methodist Before Aristotle the great Logicians were those of the Eleatick Schole Zeno the Eleatick and his successors whose mode of Disputing was by Dialogues or Interrogations and Answers as it is evident by the Dialogues which Zeno the Eleatick writ This mode of Disputing was followed by Plato who derived much of his Logick from the Eleatick Schole only to render his Philosophie more Beautiful and grateful he clotheth her after the Oriental fashion with many Metaphorick Images and Symbolick shaddows For that this Symbolick way of Philosophizing was most in fashion amongst all the Oriental Philosophers especially the Jews Egyptians and Phenicians has been before proved This garbe Plato as Pythagoras most affected as that which suited best with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pregnant Mimetick Phancie which greatly recreated it self in those Jewish Mysteries he had gleaned up in his Oriental travels but not throughly understanding the same he wraps them up under Symbolick and Metaphorick shadows thereby to render them more intelligible and delightful That which made Aristotle reject this Symbolick mode of Philosophizing was the humour of rejecting all Oriental Jewish Traditions which his discursive reason could not comprehend To conclude we have a full though but brief Character of Plato's Philosophick mode given us by Jerom. lib. 1. advers Jovin where he stiles Plato's works Divine Profound yet not easily to be understood by Raw young wits c. Though Plato's Mythologick Symbolick and Allegorick Images render his Notions to such as do not understand them more cloudie and dark yet when they are understood they give a very beautiful glosse or amiable face unto Truth answerable to Christ's Parables which to the unbelieving Jews were but Riddles yet as he explained them to his own Disciples they were very lively and significant § 4. That this Socratick Platonick mode of Philosophizing by Dialogues or Interrogations and Answers was exactly the same with and as we may presume originally from the Jewish mode of Ratiocination is evident by what footsteps we find hereof in the sacred Scriptures where we find the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 frequently used to express the Jewish mode of Disputation so Luke 5. 21. Luke who was exactly skilled in the Greek Dialect expresseth the Scribes and Pharisees their disputings against Christ by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Dialogize or to reason by Interrogations and Answers So agen v. 22. 'T is said that Jesus knowing their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reasonings by Dialogues he said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why doe you Dialogize or reason by Dialogues c. The like we find Luke 6.8 He knew that thoughts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their reasonings or conferences c. We might produce Multitudes of Scriptures of the same import which clearly discover that the Jewish mode of Disputing was by Dialogues or by Interrogations and Answers This is farther confirmed not only from the import of words but also from the thing it self For we find those Disputes which were betwixt Christ and the Jewish Doctors to be carryed on by way of Dialogue or conference by questions and replies So in that famous Disputation betwixt Christ and the Pharisees Luke 11.53 't is said the Scribes and Pharisees began to urge him vehemently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to urge him vehemently for an extemporarie replie to their interrogations Thence it follows and to provoke him to speak 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This word saies Grotius is one of those wherein Luke discovers his intimate skill in the Greek for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a word evidently taken from the Scholes where the Masters mere wont to place their riper Disciples over the younger that so the former might pose the latter by Interrogations which was stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore Luke does Learnedly use this word to shew that the Pharisees used all endeavours to draw from Christ's Mouth many replies The Syriack does rightly express the sense by a word that signifies to Ensnare and the Arabick by a word that imports to make one Dispute What they designed thereby is evident by what follows verse 54. Laying wait for him and seeking to catch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 something out of his mouth By which it 's apparent this their dispute was managed by Interrogations So agen Luke 22.68 saies Christ If I ask you c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Grotius renders If I propose any argument For addes he the Hebrews as well as the Greeks were wont to dispute by Interrogations But more of this when we come to Plato's Logick CHAP.
VI. The several Distributions of Platonick Philosophie Platonick Philosophie as to it's Matter distributed into 1. Pythagorick 2. Heraclitick 3. Socratick 2. Into Contemplative and Active 3. Into Moral Natural and Rational 4. Into Theoretick and Practick This distribution suits not with Plato's Philosophie 5. The Adequate division of Platonick Philosophie 1. Into Organical which is Logick and 2. Essential which is 1. Natural wherein is comprized 1. Physicks both Contemplative and Active and 2. Mathematicks 2. Moral which is either Ethick Oeconomick or 3. Politick 3. Supernatural or Theologick § 1. HAving discoursed of Plato's Forme or Mode of Philosophizing we now proceed to the Matter of his Philosophie with it's traduction from the Jewish Church and sacred Scriptures Plato's Philosophie as to it's Matter in general admits of sundrie distributions 1. As to it 's Original it was reduced by the Ancients unto the Pythagorick Heraclitick and Socratick So Laertius in the Life of Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He mixed the Discourses or Reasons of the Heracliticks Pythagoricks and Socraticks For in sensibles he follows Heraclitus in Intelligibles Pythagoras in Politicks Socrates 1. That Plato collected the choicest materials of his Philosophie especially of his Theologie out of the Pythagorean has been before demonstrated chap. 3. sect 3. where we have shewn how he was instructed by Archytas the Tarentine Timaeus the Locrian Epicarmus and other Pythagoreans whilst he had his â—boâ—e in Italie besides the Instructions he gain'd from Pythagorean Books Aristotle in his Metaph. lib. 1. cap. 6. stiles the Platonick Philosophie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many things conformable to the Pythagoreans And Lud. Vives tells us that the Platonists as to Theologicks doe generally Pythagorize More particularly Plato Symbolizeth with and therefore seems to have derived from Pythagoras these following Notions namely 1. That God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. according to his description Gen. 3.14 2. That God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnitie c. 3. That God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 One and many One in Divine Essence and many as to his Divine Ideas or Decrees 4. That all things are made Governed and Ordered by God 5. Plato follow 's Pythagoras exactly as to the constitution of Divine Worship and its Regulation by the Divine Will and Rites against all Images Superstition or Will-worship 6. Plato Symbolizeth with Pythagoras in Daemons and Daemon-worship 7. Plato held also with Pythagoras the Soul's Immortalitie Metempsychosis with other opinions of which see Book 2. chap. 8. Now that all these Pythagorick Principles were of Jewish origination has been sufficiently proved 2. As to Sensibles Plato is said to follow Heraclitus whose Philosophie as we may presume he suckt in from Cratylus Heraclitus's Disciple whom Plato after Socrates's death heard The maine Principles that Plato imbibed from the Heraclitick Philosophie referred to the first Principles of the Universe especially touching Fire which Heraclitus made to be the first great principle of all things wherein Plato very far Symbolized with him asserting that the Heavens were Fire of which hereafter Now that Heraclitus was according to Aristotle's Character of those Ancient Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one that greatly affected and admired Oriental Jewish Traditions touching the first Origine of the Universe is evident by what Plutarch in the Life of Coriolanus reports of him where having discoursed of Gods Omnipotencie and man 's Incredulitie thereof he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many of the Divine operations or traditions according to Heraclitus flie from our notice by reason of unbelief By which it seems evident that Heraclitus had some notices of and great reverence for the Oriental Jewish Traditions which I suppose he received if not immediately from these Oriental parts or persons from the Pythagoreans for he was but a branch of the Italick Sect with whom he Symbolized in many principles especially in that of Fire to be the great principle of all things as before chap. 7. sect 10.3 Laertius tells us that as to Politicks Plato followed his Master Socrates Apuleius de dogm Plat. addes that Plato received not only Moral but also Rational Philosophie from Socrates's fountain Yea Plato himself in his Dialogues attributes unto Socrates some of his Natural Philosophie By which it 's evident that this Distribution of Plato's Philosophie is not to be taken strictly but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it 's evident that he received also from the Pythagoreans not only Theologick but also some Politick and Natural Principles as his Communitie from the Pythagorean Schole his Notions about the Origine of the Universe from Timaeus Locrus of which more hereafter Yea in all these both Sensibles Intelligibles and Morals Plato received much emprovement from Egypt c. as before § 2. A Second Distribution of Platonick Philosophie is into Contemplative and Active so Austin de Civit. Dei lib. 8. cap. 4. Therefore saies he seeing the studie of Wisdom consists in Action and Contemplation hence one part thereof may be said to be Active the other Contemplative whereof the Active appertains to the government of Life i. e. the institution of Manners but the Contemplative to the inspection of Natures causes and the most sincere Truth Socrates is reported to have excelled in the Active but Pythagoras to have insisted so far as his Intelligence would reach on the Contemplative Thence Plato joyning both together is commended for having perfected Philosophie thus Austin Indeed this Division of Philosophie into Contemplative and Active seems to have had it's foundation in the Jewish Scholes under their Babylonian transmigration especially amongst the Essenes who seeme to bave been the first that addicted themselves to Monastick life occasioned from their persecution which drew on this distribution of their life into Active and Contemplative whence Pythagoras traduced the same as before Book 2. chap. 6. § 7.8 Though we must confesse that none of the Ancients treat so fully and distinctly of Contemplative and Active Philosophie as Plato So in his de Repub. 2. he distributes Discipline into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gymnastick or Active and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Musick whereby he expresseth Contemplative Sciences Under the Gymnastick or Active Discipline he rangeth such virtues as conduce to practice or moralitie as Temperance Fortitude Justice c. Unto Musick or Contemplative Discipline he reduceth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Musical Theoretick virtues which consist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Contemplation and the Queen of all he makes to be Religion whence he calls the Contemplation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Idea of the chiefest good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the highest Discipline c. Philo Judaus that great Platonist discourseth at large partly on Jewish partly on Platonick principles touching Contemplative and Active Philosophie Aristotle also seems to approve of the same distribution though under different termes of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Practick and Theoretick Philosophie
great French Divine Mestrezat in his excellent Treatise de la vertu de la foy on Heb. 11.3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were made observes thus Those extravagancies of the Philosophers even of the principal of them Aristotle and the Stoicks concerning an eternal first matter give us sufficiently to understand that they who have spoken more Orthodoxly of the Creation as Plato did took what they knew thereof from those raies which Divine Revelation had scattered in the world by the Children of Noah or by Abraham and his posteritie amongst the Syrians and Egyptians Thus Mestrezat where he also gives us some artificial Demâ—â—stration of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or manner how Plato received these his traditions of the Worlds Origine from Sacred Revelation to which we may adde those Notices Plato received hereof from the Pythagoreans especially Timaeus the Locrian who writ of the Origine of the Vniverse from whom we need no way doubt Plato received many of his Philosophick traditions delivered in his Timaeus as before chap. 3. § 3. Now the Pythagoreans were generally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affecters of Oriental Jewish traditions The same may be said for such Physiologick traditions as Plato derived from Heraclitus who was also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before chap. 6. § 1. Yea 't is not without probabilitie that Plato might have a sight of Moses's own Historie and read the same by vertue of his skill in the Egyptian or Phenician tongue or at least that he might understand the same by an Enterpreter as before chap. 3. § 4. That Plato's Physiologick discourses touching the Vniverse it's Principles Affections and Parts were really deductions from and imitations of Moses's Historie of the Creation will more evidently appear from the following enumeration and explication of particulars and the parallel 'twixt the one and the other resulting thence § 3. First that Plato followed Moses Gen. 1.1 In the Beginning in asserting the beginning of the World c. is most evident to any that reads his Timaeus fol. 28. c. where he according to the Socratick mode of disputing by Interrogations puts this question whether the World had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a beginning of Genesis or creation yea or no To which he reply's that the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made and he gives the reason thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is Visible tangible and Corporeal And he afterwards saies more Categorically that the World was made by God c. And that this was Plato's mind is evident by Aristotle who knew well his masters sense in this particular his warme disputes against him for the Eternitie of matter I am not ignorant that many of the New Platonists namely Plotinus Porphyrie Iamblichus Apuleius Alcinous and more particularly Taurus and Proclus in their Commentaries on Plato's Timaeus did all endeavour to prove with Aristotle an Eternitie of Matter thereby to disprove the Christians Historie of the Creation And being urged with these and such like expresse quotations out of Plato for the Origine of the Universe they replie that when Plato discourseth of the Worlds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Genesis or beginning he meant it not of a Principle of Duration but of causalitie So that the world though eternal might be said to be from God by Emanation as light from the Sun Thus they endeavour to reconcile Plato with Aristotle for the defence of the worlds Eternitie wherein they are learnedly refuted by Johannes Grammaticus in his defence for the Christians against Proclus as also in his Book of the Worlds Creation And whereas Vossius de Philosoph sect c. 12. § 7. blames Plato for asserting that the World was made by God out of a coeternal matter it seems evident that Plato by his Eternal Matter or World understands only that eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exemplar Idea or Platforme in the Divine Decrees which he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the intelligible world which he opposeth to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sensible So in his Timaeus fol. 97. Plato tells us that this Sensible Universe was created according to the patterne of the Intelligible as time according to the exemplar of Eternitie By which it 's evident that he calls the world eternal only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to some proportion or relation to the Divine exemplar or Decrees not absolutely and simply as hereafter Yea it seems evident by Aristotle's own confession that all the Philosophers before him held the world to have had a beginning his words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they all say that it was made Johannes Grammaticus of the Creation peremptorily asserts that all the Philosophers before Aristotle held the beginning and framing of all things to be from God Mr. Bochart asserted the same in a Sermon at Caen March 2. 1664. That which made Aristotle oppose this generally received tradition was his Philosophick humour of opposing everie thing that would not lye level with his Reason § 4. Hence Plato asserted God to be the first Effector Composer or Creator of the Vniverse according to Moses's description Gen. 1 1. God Created So in his Timaeus fol. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We say that whatever is made must necessarily have some cause but here lies the difficultie to find out who this Creator and Father of the Universe is and having found him out to discover him to vulgar capacities is altogether impossible So in his Sophista fol. 215. he saies that natural things could not spring up of themselves but that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The products of Gods efficiencie whence he makes God to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most Sovereign cause and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cause of causes But to treat somewhat more distinctly of this Divine Efficiencie which according to Plato's mind may be distributed into Ideal or immanent and executive 〈◊〉 â—â—aâ—sient As for 1. Gods Ideal efficiencie it 's well known that none treats more professedly and fully thereof then Plato I shall not enter into a discourse of Platonick Idea's in general because they properly appertain to Metaphysicks and are therefore more amplie treated or by Plato in his Parmenides which is the seat of his Metaphysick Philosophizings I shall at present discourse of these Idea's only as they relate unto Divine Efficiencie exerting it self in the worlds Creation according to what I find of them in Plato's Timaeus where he discourseth more particularly of these Idea's as they are the great exemplar according to which God framed the Universe So Plato in his Timaeus fol. 49. Having discoursed of the Universe he distributes it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There are two sorts of Worlds one that has the forme of a Paradeigme or Exemplar which is an intelligible subject and alwaies the same in Being But the second which is the imitate of the exemplar had a Genesis or beginning and is visible where it
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
Providence to reach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even to Celestials 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that he was immoveable bâ—t ordered earthly affairs according to that sympathie or congrâ—ence they had to Celestials Another piece of Metaphysicks regards the Soul in its separate State whereof some think Aristotle had some notices So Sir Kenelm Digby in his discourse of the Soul fol. 431. first Edit Eng. If we saith he had Aristotle's Book which he wrote of the Soul upon the Death of his Friend Eudemus it 's very likely we should there see his evident assertion of her immortalitie c. This some gather also from that passage which is said to drop from him whilst he lay a dying viz. O Being of Beings have mercy on me But to speak what seems to be the truth in this matter Though Aristotle was ready to entertain such notions of God and his Providence as were agreeable to the model of his Reason yet such as depended purely on Tradition he rejected as not agreeable to a Philosopher Hence whereas Plato as Pythagoras and all the Philosophers before Aristotle held the production of the first matter by God he asserted an Eternitie of Matter and whereas Plato asserted that all things were made conformable to the exemplar of Divine Ideas or Decrees Aristotle not fully comprehending what Plato imperfectly received and imparted touching those Divine Ideas utterly expungeth them out of his Philosophie This therefore seemeth to be the genuine reason why Aristotle embraced not more readily those greater and more Divine mysteries of Jewish Wisdom as well as his Master Plato and Pythagoras because they were matters of pure belief above the reach of his natural Reason Plato as Pythagoras conversing much in the Oriental parts and as we have endeavoured to prove with many Jews in Aegypt c. They much recreated themselves with any ancient Records Traditions or Reports of Divine matters though never so mysterious and above their capacities But Aristotle giving himself up wholly to the government of his Reason he confined himself to such Traditâ—ons as would suit therewith rejecting all other which his corrupt Reason could not comprehend or reduce to demonstration And he himself seems to give this as a reason why he discoursed no more of things future and Divine because saith he Eth. lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is future is to us uncertain He so much idolized his own Reason which was indeed very Masculine and Nervous as that he slighted all Traditions which carried not with them evidence and Notices of their Truth This made him either wholly to reject or else miserably to adulterate the more sublime and Divine of Plato's Traditions But 3. As to Aristotle's Ethicks there seems to be more evident Characters of their Traduction from the sacred Jewish fountain originally if not immediately for all the Characters he gives Ethic. lib. 1. cap. 1.2 c. of the chiefest good are the same which Plato laies down so also his Character of Friendship Justice Temperance and other Virtues are for the main though not in the same method derived from Plato and we need not doubt but originally from some sacred Author Solomon or some other 4. As for Aristotle's Politicks great part of them seem to have much cognatâ—on with the Jewish Institutes and we may rationally conjecture had their derivation thence So Cunaeus de Repub. Hebr. p. 21. tells us That Aristotle in his Books of Politicks recites certain Edicts composed by the most ancient Legislators which are very like to the Mosaick Inâ—titutes For Oxylus King of the Elâ—ans forbids his Subjects to Morgage their Fields for mony And the Locrenses were forbid to sell the possessions of their Ancestors c. And in our former discourse of Philologiâ— touching the Original of Pagan Laws we have proved their Traduction from the Institutes of Moses c. § 4. But to proceed to somewhat a more general account of Aristotle his Life and Philosophie which peradventure may add some strength to our particular Hypothesis Aristotle was born at Stagira belonging sometimes to Thracia but at Aristotle's birth under the Macedonian Empire his Parents were Nicomachus and Phaestis according to that Greek Hexameter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Nicomachus was Physician to King Amyntas who was Father to Philip and Grandfather to Alexander the Great Aristotle in memory of his Father called his Son Nicomachus to whom he writes his Ethicks which were thence called his Nicomachia to difference them from his Eudemia and Magna Moralia For Aristotle left three sorts of Ethicks as Vossius Albeit Cicero doubts whether these Ethicks were not writ by Nicomachus himself that this Nicomachus writ Books of Ethickâ— is the affirmation of Suidas Aristotle in the seventâ—enth year of his age went to Plato whom he heard twenty years After Plato's death which was in the first year of 108 Olympiad Speusippus his Nephew succeeding in the Academy Aristotle went to Hermias the Eunuch King of Artana of Mysia with whom he lived three years After the death of Hermias upon the request of Philip Aristotle came to Macedon where having lived eight years with Alexander he returned to Athens And the Academic being praepossessed by Xenocrates Aristotle made choice of the Lycëum a place in the Suburbs of Athens built by Pericles for the exercising of Souldiers where he taught Philosophie walking constantly every day 'till the hour of Anointing whence his Sect was called Peripatetick Thus Laertius So also Hesychius in Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Peripatetick Philosophie was so termed from Aristotle who began it in the Peripatum or Ambulatorie So Cicero Academ 1. Those who were with Aristotle were called Peripateticks because they dispated walking in the Lycëum Aristotle taught Philosophie in the Lycëum twelve years But after the death of Alexander who upheld him some of his Emplators conspiring against his Life he left Athens and went to Chalcis He lived after the death of Plato 26 years and died 63 years aged Whereof see more in Laertius of his life c. § 5. As for Aristotle's Character we find him greatly applauded by the Ancients for his Vniversal skill in Sciences Plato himself who is sometimes invective against Aristotle stiles him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Intellect of his Schole as also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Philosopher of Truth Laertius lib. 5. saies That he was a person of great Study and incredible Invention It is said also That he was the first that collected the dispersed members of Philosophie into one bodie and Systeme he prescribed in his Logick a certain form of Argumentation he perfected Ethicks begun by Socrates of Physicks he discoursed so accurately as that he left all even Plato himself behind him he bestowed most profitable indeavours in searching into the Historie of Animals of which he writ almost 50 Volumns as Pliny lib. 8. cap. 16. Quintil. lib. 12. cap. 11. Hornius Hist
Philos lib. 3. cap. 15. Quintilian lib. 10. cap. 1. makes this honourable mention of him Why should I mention Aristotle whom I doubt whether I should account more famous for his knowledge of things or for his copiousness of writing or for his sâ—avitie of speech or for his Acumen of Invention or for his variety of Works Plinie stiles him the Coâ—yphaeus in all Sciences Arnobius lib. 3. advers Gent. tells us That Aristotle was a person of an excellent ingenie and surpassing in Doctrine Nay is bold to stile him One of an Vniversal knowledge yea the measure or end of humane understanding Hieronymus in Reg. Monach cap. 11. saies Aristotle was the Prince of the Wise men a Prodigie and the grand Miracle in all Nature who seems to have had infused into him whatever the humane ingenie was naturally capable of And in cap. 3. Ionae he attests that there wâ—re certain honorarie pieces of brass mony stampt on the one side with Aristotle's Image and on the other with this Inscription Naturae Miraculum the Miracle of Nature as Hornius Hist Philos lib. 3 cap. 15. See a more ample Character of Aristotle's glorie that he was too invective and invidious against such as differed from him and not so candid in relating their opinion as he ought to have been This is evident from his smister treating Democritus Parmemdes yea and his own Master Plato who felt the strokes of his censorious Rod whence Laertius brings in Plato complaining against Aristotle that he was like a young Colt that kicked against its Dam c. Indeed we have a just and exact Character of Aristotle in Casâ— speculo Moral Quaest lib. 1. cap. 6. I conceive saies he Aristotle to be in refuting others a Camel in Philosophizing the Prince of all I call him a Camel in refuting because he strikes them with the heels of Envy from whose dugs he sucked the Nectar of Philosophie In Philosophizing I call him a Prince because he discourseth so of the secrets of Nature as none more acutely he demonstrates so as none more accurately he defends so as none more stoutly Wherefore as in refâ—ting others he is scarcely to be saluted so in his demonstrating of things I would have him to be embraced with both arms If he refels if I mistake not he doth either change the word or invert the sense or feign a new one and as Hercules with the Pygmeys so Aristotle with a shadow contends de lana caprina § 6. If we consider Aristotle comparatively with Plato we shall find the learned very differing in their comparisons 'twixt the one and the other Some there are who place Aristotle in many degrees of Preeminence above Plato as the Scholemen universally do Others there are who give the Precedence to Plato as some Fathers did But if any degree of comparison be lawful I think that of Ludovicus Vives is most agreeable who gives them each though in different regards a preeminence over the other So Lud. Vives in August Civ lib. 8. cap. 12. The Greeks stile Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Daemon or Intelligent Aristotle I had almost said excels Plato in the Science of Rhetorick albeit Plato without peradventure surpasseth Aristotle in the exercitation and use thereof For Aristotle alwaies loved brevity both of things and sentences therefore his great care was to admit of no supervacaneous word Plato said that Xenocrates wanted spurs but Aristotle his condisciple a bridle c. As for Plato's Eloquence it is thus characterized by Quintilian lib. 10. cap 1. Plato was invested with a kind of Divine and Homerick facultie of Orating He swells much beyond Prose and that which the Greeks call Pedester Oration so that he seems to me to be inspired not with the ingenie of a man but with a certain Delphick Oracle Aristotle used an elegant Oration but accâ—rate nervous strict and next to an obscure mode of speech as Horn. Hiâ—t Phil. lib 7. cap. 14 If we compare Aristotle and Plato in point of Logick and method of Philosophizing it is evident that Plato's Logick or meâ—hod of Ratâ—â—cination was more plain and familiar mixed with many elegant illustrations and examples whereas Aristotle's method was more artificial and accurate consisting of more exact definitions divisions and demonstrations Whence that Famous saying Plato teacheth Aristotle proves Thus Keck Tract 2. praecogn Logic. cap. 2. God has honoured the Peripatetick Sect only with this glory that what Plato and others handled and delivered confusedly and imperfectly without Method and order under the shadows of Metaphors and Fables the same things Aristotle first delivered unto mankind under the form of a dext'rous Method well regulated and whose parts are full and complete But if we compare them in regard of Metaphysicks and divine contemplations its evident yea confest that Aristotle was far inferiour to Plato herein And the reason is as apparent for Plato delighting himself much in Jewish Traditions which he had imbibed partly from the Pythagorean Philosophie and partly by means of his own personal conversation in the Oriental parts he thereby obtained great notices of Divine Mysteries especially of such as related to the origine of the Vniverse the spiritual nature and perfection of God the Immortality of the Soul c. But Aristotle as Simplicius observes of him confining himself to the sphere of his own Reason would needs examine Divine matters by Nature and admit nothing but what was grounded on Natures Light or rather on his own corrupt Reason Whence he rejected all such Oriental Traditions as would not stoop to his proud Ratiocination as before § 7. Aristotle's Philosophizings were as 't is presumed by himself distributed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acroaticks or Acroamaticks and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exotericks his Acroatick Doctrines he taught in the morning waâ—king in the Lycëum whereunto he admitted none but the choicer wits or genuine Disciples whence 't was termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Exotericks he taught in the evening whence it was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were more common His Acroaticks contain his more subtile Philosophie namely his Physicks and Logick Disceptations his Exotericks comprehend his more vulgar Philosophizings and other Discourses as his Politicks Ethicks Rhetorick and such like Thus Gellius lib. 20. cap. 4. Aristotle ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were those his Comments which conduced to Rhetorick meditatations the Facultie of wrangling and the knowledge of Politicks His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were those in which more remote and subtile Philosophie was agitated and which appertained to Physick Contemplations and Dialectick Disceptations His Acroamaticks he read in the morning to hâ—s more ripe and choice Wits but Exotericks promiscuously without choice whence the former were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just is lawfull and equal but unjust illegal and unequal according to the Scriptural definition of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin is an Illegalitie or a transgression of the Law This Aristotle Eth. lib. 5. cap. 2. cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a transgression of the Law So Art 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unjust man therefore seems to be a transgressor of the Law The like Art 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is unjust is a transgressing of the Law and unequal Yea Ariâ—â—otle concludes Art 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Transgreâ—â—ion of the Law comprehends all injustice and is common to all iniquitie The like Aristotle layes down in his Rhetor. lib. 1. cap. 9. where having defined Righteousnesse to be a Virtue according to Law he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Unrighteousnesse is that whereby we invade other mens rights against Law So Arist Rhet. lib. 1. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to act unjustly is Voluntarilie to hurt againâ—â— law And in his Eth. lib. 2. cap. 1. he saies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Will of every Lawgiver is such as that they who act not according to it sin Thus also sin is stiled by his master Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ataxie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asymmetrie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pleonexie or Exorbitancie opposite to the Eutaxie symmetrie and mediocritie of Virtue So Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vice is an Exorbitancie or intemperate Excesse a metaphor taken from the suâ—â—rabundance of any humour in the bodie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thence defin Plat. fol. 416. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sin is a practice against right reason So Agen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 injustice is an habit overlooking or neglecting Laws Whence sin also is held by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But thus much for Aristotle's Ethicks in general § 34. We now proceed to Aristotle's Physicks wherein he asserts and demonstrates 1. God's universal Concurse the first mover in all motions so Johan Grammat in Arist. de Anima proaem fol. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotle in his Physicks about the End disputing of Motion in quiring into its cause elevated himself to the first cause and priple of motion And he said that the first mover ought to be immobile for if he also should be moved the things moved would not continue in motion as if there were things alwayes mobile it necessarily follows that their mobile would be immobile Thence Aristotle extolling the first mover that he was incorporeous eternal and omnipotent saies that on such a principle depends the heaven and world For it behoveth a perfect Physiologist after he has handled the natural causes not to rest in these but to ascend to the separate or supernatural thus Aristotle has done in his book of Generation and Corruption The same is mentioned by Ammonâ—us in Arist Categ as before § 14. see Simplicius in his comment on Arist Phys lib. 8. large here about 2. Aristotle asserts also in his Physicks the immortalitie and immaterialitie of the humane Soul So Joh. Gramm in Arist de anima proaem fol. 7. Aristotle saith he delivered a Canon proving the Soul to be immortal The Canon is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We ought saies he by the operation to judge of the Essence because everie Essence has an operation suited to it Agen another Canon is this every Essence that has an operation separate from the bodie must of necessitie be separate from the bodie For otherwise the effect will be more noble than the cause Then he proves the minor that the Soul has operations separate from and independent on the bodie as the contemplation of God it self and other spiritual objects And Diogenes in Aristotle saies that Aristotle held 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the Soul is incorporeous § 35. As for Aristotle's Metaphysicks Ammonius stiles them his Theologicks So Ammon in Arist. Categ pag. 11. Aristotle's Theolologicks are those he writ after his Physick Exercitation which he calls Metaphysicks because it is proper to Theologie to treat of things above Nature Hence Aristotle's Metaphysicks passe in the Scholes under the splendid title of Natural Theologie though indeed it contains nothing but a few fragments he procured from his master Plato and the more ancient Philosophers who traded much in Jewish traditions touching God his Vnitie Veritie Bonitie c. also the Angels which Aristotle cals Intelligenâ—es and of the Soul in its separate state concerning which Aristotle sometimes seems 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hesitate saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as before § 3. But to come to the generick nature of Aristotle's Metaphysicks which he makes to be Sapience whereof he discourseth at large in the Proëme to his Metaphysicks as 't is well observed by Stobaeus Serm. 3. of Wisdome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'T was Aristotle's custome to call the same Science both Wisdome and the first Philosophie and Metaphysicks and Theologie Then Aristotle addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. First we conceive a wise man knows all things so far as 't is possible yet so as that he has not a particular but only universal knowledge of them 2. Thence we count him a wise man who is able to understand things difficult not only such as are easie 3 farther we judge him most wise in all Science who most exactly considers and understands the first causes 4. And of Sciences that which is eligible for it self and for its own knowledge is rather Wisdome than that which is desireable for its effect 5. And that Science which is more principal comes nearer Sapience than that which is subordinate for it becomes not a wise man to take precepts from others but to give precepts 6. And for the most part things most Universal are most difficult to be known by men for such things are most remote from sense 7. Those also are the most accurate of Sciences which are of things mostly first Thus Aristotle in his proeme to his Metaphysicks and Stobaeus out of him Wherein we have a full character of Sapience or Metaphysicks which is here described both in relation to its Object and Nature 1. As for the object of Sapience Aristotle saies it is 1. of things most Vniversal and remote from sense 2. Of things most difficult and excellent or rare 3. Of the first principles and causes of things as of God c. 2. As for the Nature of Sapience Aristotle tels us it is 1. most desireable for it self and for its own knowledge not for any effect that flows from it 2. It is the Architectonick or principal Science not ministerial or Subordinate c Whence also Aristotle addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As we say a man is free who is suâ—juris for himself and not for another so this Sapience is the most free and noble of all Sciences for it alone is for
1.5 Of the Lower World Wind. Air. Water Of Meteors Of Active Physiologie touching Plants and Animals Of Man's Original Formation according to the Image of God The Souls perfection The understanding The will Plato's notions about the Soul from Scripture Physical Aphorisms for the conservation of mans body in health The advantages of a good habitude of body 1. The causes of diseases to be avoided 1. Disproportion of first qualities 2. Alterations 3. Ataxie of humours Cruditie the Mother of diseases Nature is to be maintained in her due offices and motions Natura est morborum medicatrix medicus naturae minister eamque recte agentem imitari debet Sennert med 1 Excretion 2 Perspiration 3 Spirits Bene vivere est bene aspirare respirare perspirare Rules for Aliment Bene vivere est bene ingerere digerere egerere Therapeutick Physick The character of a good Physician Plato's Moral and Metaphysick Philosophie 1 Plato's Ethicks 1. Of the chiefest good 2. Of Virtue 8. Of Sin 4. Of the Affections their Temperance Moderation Particularly of Love Of Justice Plato's Oeconomicks Plato's Politicks Plato's Metaphysicks 1. Of God his Essence and 2. Attributes 1. Vnitie Of God's Simplicitie Gods Immutabilitie God's Eternitie God's Omnipresence God's Justice Of God's Veracitie God's Puritie God's Benignitie God's Omniscience God's incomprehensibilitie God's Will the cause of all things 2. Of the Human Soul The Traduction of Aristotle's Philosophie from the Jews proved 1. By Testimonies of Aristobulus Of Clearchus Aug. Steuch Eugubinus Rational Arguments 1. From Aristotle's converse with Jews 2. Alexander's procuring him all Oriental Books 3. Aristotle's Philosophie from Plato 1. Aristotle's Physicks from Plato and both from Gen. 1.2 c. Aristotle's first matter Aristotle's first mover from Plato's description of God Of the Soul its spirituality Aristoteles mirifice consentit cum Theologia Mosaica hominem à Deo conditum formatumque corpus datamque sexus varietatem animam autem exterius inspiratam Steuch Eugubin de Peren. Philos l. 9. c. 7 2. Aristotles Metaphysicks from Plato Principal object of Metaphysicks from Exod. 3.14 The Affections of Ens Vnity Veritie and Bonitie Aristotle's knowledge of God Touching Aristotle's Notions of God and their conformitie to Moses See Steuch Eugubinus de Peren. Philos l. 4. c. 1.7.8.9 c. The Soul separated A rational account why Aristotle rejected some of the more sublime and Mystick Traditions of Plato 3. Aristotle'â— Ethicks 4. His Politicks from the Jews Aristotle's Life Peripatetici a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nominati sectae suae conditorem caput agnoscunt Aristotelem qui in Xysto seu horto ambulationi accommodato docebat Laert. lib. 5. Hornius Hist Phil. l. 3. c. 15 Aristotle's Character A comparison 'twixt Plato Aristotle 1. As to Rhetorick Plato omnium Philosophorum praecipuus ubereÌ„ amplam uno verbo Ulysâ—eam orationeÌ„ affectabat Horn. Hist Phil. l. 7. c. 14. 2 As to Logick 3. As to Metaphysicks Aristotle 's Doctrines either Acroatick or Exoterick Aristoteles horis matutinis legebat ea quae subtilioris erant indaginis sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 à meridie Exotericis dabat operam Gell. l. 20. c. 4. Hornius hist Phil. l. 7. c. 4. Illud non est praetermittendum circa Aristotelis tempora Grammaticam quae vocatur Methodica Philosophâ—ae adjunctam esse Horn. Hist Phil. l. 3. c. 15. Aristotle's works what genuine what not Aristotele's books how conveighed to posteritie Hornius Histor Phil. l. 3. c. 15. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plutarch in Sylla Aristotle 's Successors Theophrastus c. Apud Theophrastum graviter elaborata est Philosophia Pic. Mirandul in Apol. 90. Thes. Alexander Aphrodiseus the chief commentator on Aristotle Greek Commentators Themistius Olympiodorus Proclus Philoponus Ammonius Simplicius Arabians Averroes c. Which are followed by the Schole-men Est Arabica gens uti patrii soli ita linguae suae amans Igitur cum incidissent in scripta Aristotelis Graeca jam pene apud ipsos Graecos ignota caeperunt inde quâ—dam mox pleraque vertere in Patriam linguam Hornius Hist Philos l. 5. c. 10. A general Idea of Aristotle 's Philosophie The end of Aristotle 's Philosophie the knowledge of God Aristotle 's mode of Philosophizing simple The Character of a genuine Auditor The Character of a good Expositor The Distribution of Aristotle 's Philosophie Aristotle 's Logick and it 's distribution by Ammonius A Scheme of Logick The parts of Logick We may not expect the like exactnesse in all matters The parts of Dialectick 1. Invention Ram. Logic. lib. 1. 2. Judgment Ram. Logic. lib. 2. cap. 1. 1. Axiomatick Judgment Cap. 2. 2. Dianoetick or discursive judgment which is 1. Syllogisme therein is 1. The Antecedent wherein is 1. A proposition 2. An Assumtion 2. The consequent or Conclusion Cap. 9. Cap. 10. Method c. 17. Cap. 18. Aristotle's Ethicks 1. of human Happinesse 1. Objective Characters of the chiefest good which must be 1. The first principle 2. The last End 3. desireablâ— for it self 4. Simply good 5. The measure of all good 6. Most proper connatural 7. Most communicative 8. Most rare 9. Possible 10. Real 11. Most permanent 12. Most effective of Good 13. Which admits no excess 14. Self-sufficient and perfect Of Man's formal happiness 1. It s original from God 2. It s formal Idea or definition 1. The formal reason of formal happiness in operation 2. The proper subject the whole Soul 3. The qualification of the Soul and its act Virtue 4. The state of humane happinesse is a perfect life which connotes perfection 1. Extensive or of parts 2. Intensive or of degrees 3. Protensive or of duration The principles of humane Acts. 1. Practick knowledge Of Volition or the will strictly taken The end the proper object of Volition 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consultation Quod inconsul to fecimus consulto revocamus The Object of Consultation 2. The Subject of Consultation 3. The Act of Consultation 4 Of Election first its difference from Consultation and Volition 2. It s object the means 3. The Subject of Election the rational Will 4. The Act of Election 1. 'T is rational 2. Fixed and determined 5. It s difficultie 6. It s effect as to Virtue 7. It s dâ—finition Approbation Of Voluntarinesse and Libertie The definition of Voluntarie Coactive necessitie alone excludes Libertie Libertie of contrarietie or Indifferencie not Essential to Free-will Libertie essential to the will Est in potestate naturali quod cum volumus sacimus August God's necessitating concurse destroyes not Libertie God's predetermining concurse to the wil 's 〈◊〉 makes hâ— not the Author of sin Touching the moralitie of human acts 1. Of Moral good or virtue 1. Virtues are not Passions 2. Virtue not a power 3. Virtue an habit What an habit is The formal nature of Virtue in Mediocritie How Virtue consists in Mediocritie The mediocritie of Virtue harmonie The measure or rule